The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8219652.stm) reports that:
QuoteThe UK government is to announce that people who consistently download films and music illegally will be cut off from the net.
The announcement will come in the form of an amendment to the Digital Britain report, launched in June.
It is believed that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has intervened personally to beef up the report.
The amendment will make it easier for internet service providers to act against pirates.
ISPs have said it is not their job to police the web.
It is likely there will be widespread anger from ISPs over the u-turn.
You can't help but wonder who he met on holiday this year, can you?
http://torrentfreak.com/britain-mulls-turning-7-million-into-download-criminals-090816/
QuoteAccording to a report today, the Business Secretary's intervention comes after he and David Geffen – the billionaire producer who co-founded the DreamWorks studio with Steven Spielberg – had dinner with members of the Rothschild banking dynasty at the family's holiday villa on the Greek island of Corfu.
he will fail, and waste a lot of taxpayers money in the process.
Just remembered there's a general election next year so bye bye to mr mandelson anyway.
Whoever it was or wherever he met them I bet he claims for the meeting on expenses. Not to mention the extra "help and support" he will get from the entertainment industry. :mad:
It seems my cynicism was justified, So. :(
QuoteIt seems my cynicism was justified, So.
You've been spending to much time around me. Or is it the other way round? ;D
Probably. ;)
The completely opposite direction to which the EU parliament seems to be going. Only a few months ago Internet access was proposed as a EU citizen's human right, now its been watered down to a "right to a judgement by an independent and impartial tribunal." I imagine ISPs are uneasy about who will be left footing the bill.
Ultimately, it will be us, of course. :(
Quote from: Rik on Aug 25, 2009, 09:44:59
people who consistently download films and music illegally
That's okay, I only do it inconsistently. :evil:
AS far as I am concerned its not the ISP's job, but they get what they deserve, the problem is this is is illegal file sharers wont take notice, so you have to get tough, they should be thankful they do not get fines like in America, also it will free up bandwidth, so its a win win situation :evil:
All this from an unelected Minister who accepts entertainment from rich people...
Quote from: Rik on Aug 25, 2009, 12:31:05
All this from an unelected Minister who accepts entertainment from rich people...
I dont like Darth Mandleson but there is an issue that needs to be addressed, Rik. Mandy is pure evil and I bet he got a nice wallet lining gift for this, but when you have people downloading hours upon hours of material illegally, its theft as much as steeling a CD or film from a store, yes it could be better implemented, yes its ironic coming from the dark lord himself, just saying something had to be done at some point. I bet though they cut the wrong people off ::)
Oh, I agree on the principles involved, Gary, though with some reciprocity from the record labels and studios on equitable pricing. I just object to power being wielded in this way by a man who is unelected and who seems to have a personal agenda.
I just hate him :mad:
Quotealso it will free up bandwidth, so its a win win situation
Have to say I disagree with this bit mate. In the long term it will probably have the opposite effect. p2p users will be forced to use encrytion i.e. usenet or seedbox's in remote locations/country's. This will mean that they will download at much faster speeds, and therefore end up using more bandwidth. The dpi will not be able to inspect the data. This will also mean cables connecting continents will end up having more load.... It also means that things like utorrents local peer discovery will be on no longer be used, (uk wide) and therefore this will end up costing isp's more financially.
Regardless of all the technical aspects, whatever happens legally will be slow, and once implemented, workarounds will appear quickly. They are fighting a losing battle. The media compaine's need to accept things have changed.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 25, 2009, 12:38:31
Oh, I agree on the principles involved, Gary, though with some reciprocity from the record labels and studios on equitable pricing. I just object to power being wielded in this way by a man who is unelected and who seems to have a personal agenda.
I agree with you totally on Mandy, that man is trouble and he is gaining power from the backseat *ahem* far to fast which worries me, but you can buy music cheap enough these days on download anyway, yes the record companies make a mint but who doesn't, when I had to buy plastic 68mm guttering it cost enough, far more than it takes to make it, but I didn't steal it because of that fact. So down with the Dark Lord, Mandy. And if you steal you your comeuppance.
The pricing differential in the UK market does need to be addressed though, Gary, especially for CDs where there are no differences (those in DVDs are artificial and at the behest of the producers).
Quote from: somanyholes on Aug 25, 2009, 12:42:22
Have to say I disagree with this bit mate. In the long term it will probably have the opposite effect. p2p users will be forced to use encrytion i.e. usenet or seedbox's in remote locations/country's. This will mean that they will download at much faster speeds, and therefore end up using more bandwidth. The dpi will not be able to inspect the data. This will also mean cables connecting continents will end up having more load.... It also means that things like utorrents local peer discovery will be on no longer be used, (uk wide) and therefore this will end up costing isp's more financially.
Regardless of all the technical aspects, whatever happens legally will be slow, and once implemented, workarounds will appear quickly. They are fighting a losing battle. The media compaine's need to accept things have changed.
I see your point of view So, but I am also sure that the ones downloading illegal music can afford the hardware, but have the gall to use cracked software on it, and then steal music to listen to, its odd they spend the money on gadgets which themselves are over priced but won't spend it on an album or some software, duplicity is an odd thing. Times have changed but should I be able to get free tyres because everyone has a car and they are over priced? No, so why should people get free music because everyone listens to it. Times have changed in a lot of industries but that does not mean you get freebies because of it
Quote from: Rik on Aug 25, 2009, 12:48:02
The pricing differential in the UK market does need to be addressed though, Gary, especially for CDs where there are no differences (those in DVDs are artificial and at the behest of the producers).
Thats why I buy from the states, Rik. I get what I want at a fraction of the cost even with postage. But we could say that about fuel to name but one more over priced product in the UK, there is a lot to be addressed price wise in this country when compared to other countries
Not to mention taxation, of course... :(
If all those who download music and films illegally were to stop I doubt whether the record companies/studios would see much improvement in their profits, in fact they might actually see a further reduction. They assume that for every track that is downloaded that whoever did it would go out and buy it instead.
I get the impression that the media companies think all these measures are like a bucket to catch people when it's really more like a collander.
I read recently that many teenagers do not really care about downloading and keeping the music, they're happy just to stream it instead. Also for every person who is paid to develop restrictive media there are a hundreds or even thousands of others who are happy to work on circumventing it for free.
Whilst I agree that artistes and producers should get adequate recompense for their efforts I can't see how they can hold back the tidal wave of downloaders etc with the methods they're currently employing.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 25, 2009, 12:54:10
Not to mention taxation, of course... :(
:sigh: very true, Rik.
as far as hardware's concerned they have no choice for the moment mate. Until 3d printing piracy arrives at least. Granted this still has a long way to go.
If the media companies hadn't been so greedy in th first place, they may not be in such a bad position now.
Quote from: john on Aug 25, 2009, 12:55:34
If all those who download music and films illegally were to stop I doubt whether the record companies/studios would see much improvement in their profits, in fact they might actually see a further reduction. They assume that for every track that is downloaded that whoever did it would go out and buy it instead.
I get the impression that the media companies think all these measures are like a bucket to catch people when it's really more like a collander.
I read recently that many teenagers do not really care about downloading and keeping the music, they're happy just to stream it instead. Also for every person who is paid to develop restrictive media there are a hundreds or even thousands of others who are happy to work on circumventing it for free.
Whilst I agree that artistes and producers should get adequate recompense for their efforts I can't see how they can hold back the tidal wave of downloaders etc with the methods they're currently employing.
Banning most from using the internet in any way would work, but I am sure there is some human rights bill about that, after all I noticed that in the back to school adverts along with pencils and paper and all the usual, one company included webcams in the advert, because children really need them to do their school work :eyebrow:
Quote from: somanyholes on Aug 25, 2009, 12:58:20
as far as hardware's concerned they have no choice for the moment mate. Until 3d printing piracy arrives at least. Granted this still has a long way to go.
If the media companies hadn't been so greedy in th first place, they may not be in such a bad position now.
Yes but So, some of these people spend a fortune on machines to run cracked games etc, if you spend a mint on a games rig, just to cram it fill of illegal software you can purchase the software too.
QuoteYes but So, some of these people spend a fortune on machines to run cracked games etc, if you spend a mint on a games rig, just to cram it fill of illegal software you can purchase the software too.
Very true, I see exactly what your saying here. Also running cracked code on your box isn't the best of things to be doing. I think games manufacturers are really going in the right direction with this though tbh. Which is making the games need or use online services, which helps fight piracy. (when done correctly) It's the music and video industry that has the problem here.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 25, 2009, 13:01:19
Banning most from using the internet in any way would work
If you ban people from getting music from the internet then they will also not be able to purchase it legitimately from the legal download sites and CD's etc from places like Amazon, Play.com and others. I suspect they will still not purchase it from a high street shop but will find other methods to copy it or simply do without.
Quote from: somanyholes on Aug 25, 2009, 13:06:36
Very true, I see exactly what your saying here. Also running cracked code on your box isn't the best of things to be doing. I think games manufacturers are really going in the right direction with this though tbh. Which is making the games need or use online services, which helps fight piracy. (when done correctly) It's the music and video industry that has the problem here.
Maybe if they had followed the games industrys lead.....saying that there is now a sharp decline in that sector as well :shake: you just cannot win, So.
the only way they can really sort it out is to make games need some form of online functionailty, which isn't ideal. From what i have read producing games is very expensive. Again games are dammed expensive in some cases, i presume the cc hasn't helped.
QuoteIf you ban people from getting music from the internet then they will also not be able to purchase it legitimately from the legal download sites and CD's etc from places like Amazon, Play.com and others. I suspect they will still not purchase it from a high street shop but will find other methods to copy it or simply do without.
back to the carboot sale, or radio/stream. There's always a way.
Now where did that dammed carrier pigeon go.
Quote from: somanyholes on Aug 25, 2009, 13:17:25
back to the carboot sale, or radio/stream. There's always a way.
Now where did that dammed carrier pigeon go.
:lol:
There's always morse code of course but the download speed is a bit slow ;D
None of this will stop piracy, the kids wil simply do the same we did at school with tapes, club together put money into a pot and buy an album, then everybody converts it into MP3 copying it at the same time, how exactly could they stop that.
Quote from: talos on Aug 25, 2009, 13:24:14
None of this will stop piracy, the kids wil simply do the same we did at school with tapes, club together put money into a pot and buy an album, then everybody converts it into MP3 copying it at the same time, how exactly could they stop that.
Thats not so bad compared with the people downloading films and music and then burning to disc and flogging it down carboot sales though. I once knew a guy that shall we say had a small second business until he was raided, he had spallets that were full of spindles with blank discs on, and he had machines that could make multiple copies at once, stopping the likes of them is a good thing.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 25, 2009, 13:30:06
Thats not so bad compared with the people downloading films and music and then burning to disc and flogging it down carboot sales though. I once knew a guy that shall we say had a small second business until he was raided, he had spallets that were full of spindles with blank discs on, and he had machines that could make multiple copies at once, stopping the likes of them is a good thing.
:iagree:
Those are the ones doing the damage, IMHO the book should be thown at them
Most people "infringe on copyright" because of the ease of access combined with little chance of being caught, the aim won't be to stop all piracy but to prevent it from becoming a mainstream habit.
My main concern is we'll see 'bad law' hurried through parliament before the General Election. I'm guessing most MPs aren't particularly IT savvy, so there won't be much scrutiny.
This Govt doesn't have a good record for drafting legislation, does it. :(
Setting aside the issue of illegal file sharing for a minute, I view my internet connection in the same way that I view the mail that comes through my letter box. My ISP is a conduit for data just as the Royal Mail is the delivery system for my mail. If the Royal Mail was to open up people's mail to check for illegal activity there would be uproar. The data I send over the Internet is mine and no one has the right to intercept or examine it including my ISP.
Good analogy, Zap. Mail can only be intercepted with a court order. It's yet another example of this Govt sacrificing civil liberties as fast as they can.
Quote from: somanyholes on Aug 25, 2009, 12:42:22
Have to say I disagree with this bit mate. In the long term it will probably have the opposite effect. p2p users will be forced to use encrytion i.e. usenet or seedbox's in remote locations/country's. This will mean that they will download at much faster speeds, and therefore end up using more bandwidth. The dpi will not be able to inspect the data. This will also mean cables connecting continents will end up having more load.... It also means that things like utorrents local peer discovery will be on no longer be used, (uk wide) and therefore this will end up costing isp's more financially.
When I use bit-torrent I
always use encryption - some seeders esp. USA/Canada will only accept encrypted connections - so I get more connections. :)
Additionally, Plusnet (my ISP) put extensive effort into DPI - but, to some extent, encryption does appear to fool the inspector.
The DPI doesn't have to inspect the data in a packet - provided it can use quantity, source, target ip addresses and port numbers etc to analyse the "style" of the data stream.
It means more big boxes of electronics in data centres throughout this green and pleasant land.
Can we have some more CCTV cameras as well please. :mad: :mad:
Very expensive!!!
is there, or should there be a time limit, on how long copyrights can be on a tune, as an example say frank sinatra, now i am fairly sure HE will not recieve any benifit from the sale of his music (as he has moved on to greener pastures )
so perhaps a limit of say 5 years, and then its free, might be more realistic.
bear in mind the UK has been very badly ripped off by the record companies for years , they,ve had their share already.
It seems they want us to keep paying forever, Bob. Wish I'd had a job like that...
if the isp,s cut off everyone who had EVER made a so called illegal download, would they (isp,s)still have any customers, ??
i think all of us either with or without knowing, has at some stage, made such a download.
i think this will all "blow over again " as it has for many years, its just lord meddlesome, trying to get front page publicity again.
general rambling here, had a couple of ales which is probably obvious.
p2p via usenet in an encrypted form can use https/tls, this isn't really filtered by isps. Only a few connections are created not many as bittorrent does. The only clue a dpi box has is the destination ip address, and the amount of data being transfered. so some filtering may kick in when so much data has been transfered, but then there won't be the constant reset packets sent by the dpi box as there is with bitttorrent, all they can do is reduce the connection speed. p2p users I know, sometimes have their connection speed halved at peak times but thats about it, they still get very fast speeds and have practically no risk of being caught as the media companies can't sniff the connection in anyway or form.
seedbox's do the bittorrent transfer at a remote site. once the file is down on the remote box, once again you use https to bring the file back, so once again, the dpi box knows very little.
Then we have other resources such as rapidshare, megaupload, etc. These sites host all sorts of content legal and not so legal. Whilst dpi box's can look at filenames and unpack files to inspect the content, they fail when filenames are changed and packed files password protected etc. These files are linked to from scene release websites. Not posting links for obvious reasons, Simon will be standing at the forum entrance with some soap and water :)
Of course there are many other secure resources such as sftp servers etc.
All the resources above cause major issues for dpi and the media companies. They can't inspect the traffic and see if files are legit or not. All the dpi box could do is block access to certain destinations, or slow it down a bit, of course they could end up slowing down access to legit files in the process. As far as blocking ip's again this can be circumvented with a bit of thought, also are they going to block the likes of google and utube?
Bittorrent on the other hand is easy game for them, as axis said there are certain signs, i.e loads of connections to multiple locations that give it away, at least to the likes of sandvine. Then we come to the obvious but not all torrent traffic is illegal, i presume dpi box's know of legal torrent resources, by some form of ip/known port database.
The other area that p2p torrents users suffer from is privacy. You generally get none on torrents, though at some point this may start to change. The encryption provides no privacy at all, its only there to try to bypass dpi devices. The media companies just connect to a swarm find someone with 100% of the file send them a bit of data and you get a nice letter through the post.
To put it bluntly Mr Moron will fail.
As one of the rapidshare lot, I feel completely safe. All downloads are sent as several .rar files which you then extract using the password provided on the forum you get it from. Scan, Extract, Isolate and Run. Good luck fuzz.
And no I don't feel guilty. I still go to the cinema and see all the new releases (minus romcoms). The industry gets their fair share from my pocket.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 25, 2009, 12:53:28
Thats why I buy from the states, Rik. I get what I want at a fraction of the cost even with postage. But we could say that about fuel to name but one more over priced product in the UK, there is a lot to be addressed price wise in this country when compared to other countries
Do you still find them cheaper, Gary? Certainly for Blu-ray and most DVDs, with the current rates of exchange, I've found that the US market has become prohibitively expensive, and I've been buying most of mine in the UK recently.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 25, 2009, 22:42:30
Do you still find them cheaper, Gary? Certainly for Blu-ray and most DVDs, with the current rates of exchange, I've found that the US market has become prohibitively expensive, and I've been buying most of mine in the UK recently.
Depends what it is Simon, if its new material I get it in the UK or on iTunes but still find older material which is deleted in the UK is cheaper from the US than English sellers, I just bought a CD (I like to own some music rather than have just a download) Its Rum & Coke by the Dub Pistols and that was cheaper online in the UK for example.
Yes, it does vary.
If I had a lengthy contract with an ISP that I wanted to get out of, but couldn't afford to;
would it possible to download a lot of copyrighted material so that they could cut me off.
If they wanted to charge me for going elsewhere, I could then sue for breach of contract etc?
:bartmoon:
In theory, yes to the first and probably no to the second. :)
Quoteis there, or should there be a time limit, on how long copyrights can be on a tune, as an example say frank sinatra, now i am fairly sure HE will not recieve any benifit from the sale of his music (as he has moved on to greener pastures )
I believe in the UK, copyright law protects music and TV broadcasts for 50 years from when first released and film for 70 years from when the creator (or last remaining creator) dies.
The main problem is that the law has nothing to cover digital 'theft' that's not for financial gain.
But if it's not for financial gain, how can it be theft?
Interesting question. I suppose that an illegal filesharer deprives the parties involved of income, so the theft is at that point. If I go and shoplift, but give the goods to the poor, it's still theft.
Sheriff of Nottingham thought so
And who are we to argue? :)
The definition of theft in English law is:
Quote"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
I would guess the "appropriation" and "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" sections of the law need to be updated to cover the digital age, along with a reasonable punishment for when it's purely for personal use.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 26, 2009, 18:05:29
Interesting question. I suppose that an illegal filesharer deprives the parties involved of income, so the theft is at that point. If I go and shoplift, but give the goods to the poor, it's still theft.
It doesn't hold as an analogy though. One of the great lies in the "intellectual property" debate is that theft of data is just like theft of property - but it's not.
If you steal my car,
I can't drive it. If you steal my MP3s, I can still listen to them, share them with others, and receive the kudos for producing them.
The mainstream film and music industry is only interested in one thing - profit. If anyone was interested in it as
art, they would embrace whatever means they could to put their art into the hands of as many people as they could. But they aren't - they just want to get rich.
People see this and - not surprisingly - feel no ethical dilemma about 'stealing' from those they perceive as both powerful and greedy.
Plus, I think there is a moral issue which has always affected my thinking. Whatever work I've done in my life, much of it creative, I was paid for at the time, and that was that. The fact that record labels, artists and studios want to be paid for 50+ years after doing the work, despite being extremely well rewarded along the way, seems to me to be greedy. Factor in the way we are over-charged in the UK and I find it hard to feel great sympathy for the arguments they put forward.
Which is probably why we haven't seen any legal reform, instead the various companies have been left to pursue it as a civil matter.
Legal reform needs a clearer understanding of the issues. I can't help but feel that any legislation brought forward will be a minefield, needing to be settled, ultimately, in the European Courts.
As usual.
Quote from: gizmo71 on Aug 26, 2009, 19:00:03
It doesn't hold as an analogy though. One of the great lies in the "intellectual property" debate is that theft of data is just like theft of property - but it's not.
I agree but it could be argued that you are depriving the person who creates it a reward for their efforts. However this is only true if whoever copied it would otherwise have purchased it.
If somebody bought a copyrighted print by an artist and publically displayed it and then somebody else photographed it would they be prosecuted for breach of copyright and would the original purchaser be liable to prosecution for making it available to be copied ?
Quote from: john on Aug 26, 2009, 23:32:21
If somebody bought a copyrighted print by an artist and publically displayed it and then somebody else photographed it would they be prosecuted for breach of copyright
Unlikely unless somebody was attempted to sell the photos, although wasn't there a case recently (probably ongoing) where a painting in a publicly-owned British gallery was photographed, and the photos put on the web, and the gallery was attempting to sue the photographer or web site owner (in the USA) for breach of copyright? It was all a bit odd and more than a little childish IIRC.
Quote from: john on Aug 26, 2009, 23:32:21
and would the original purchaser be liable to prosecution for making it available to be copied ?
Hmm devious. I like it. :evil:
This whole area is a legal minefield and will, in due course, be settled by the courts. The ethics of the copyright issue, though, deserve a public debate, imo.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 27, 2009, 10:02:22
This whole area is a legal minefield and will, in due course, be settled by the courts. The ethics of the copyright issue, though, deserve a public debate, imo.
More chance of a :pig: I think, Rik. A public debate/referendum on any policy we would have thout the nation would have been asked about as never happened since the one for joining the EU :( I can't see the stranglehold on opinion being let lose on the masses
Me neither, but it's needed all the same. :)
QuoteThe ethics of the copyright issue, though, deserve a public debate, imo.
Unfortunately not likely though Rick, you would be in effect asking the public if they want to pay or have it free, no betting on the result
I take you point, Bob, but it would be nice to debate how long people should be paid for work. Fifty years is a very long time to continue to receive money for something you've already earned a fortune from, imo.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 27, 2009, 10:31:03
I take you point, Bob, but it would be nice to debate how long people should be paid for work. Fifty years is a very long time to continue to receive money for something you've already earned a fortune from, imo.
Not if your one your one of those people ;)
True, and it's those people who are, effectively, forming policy.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 27, 2009, 10:35:42
True, and it's those people who are, effectively, forming policy.
Exactly , Rik. So what chance d we have of open debate :sigh: its an unfair world
sometimes mostly
Got it in one, Gary.
It's the ultimate dream though, to make something once and sell it a thousand+ times. :thumb:
For some, the dream is a reality. ;)
QuoteThe mainstream film and music industry is only interested in one thing - profit. If anyone was interested in it as art, they would embrace whatever means they could to put their art into the hands of as many people as they could. But they aren't - they just want to get rich.
And this is wrong? I imagine the vast majority of people on this planet want to better themselves by increasing their wealth. Creativity has a value because it can be sold and traded (when protected by copyright laws). Publishers pay upfront, gambling potentially millions of pounds for a longer term gain via royalties.
Quote from: dujas on Aug 27, 2009, 11:59:13
And this is wrong? I imagine the vast majority of people on this planet want to better themselves by increasing their wealth. Creativity has a value because it can be sold and traded (when protected by copyright laws).
Creativity had value long before copyright.
Can we honestly say that the vast majority mainstream media has any real artistic value?
Artistic value is largely irrelevant as that is in the "eye of the beholder". In the modern age consumerism is the most important factor, what people will deem worthy of parting with their hard earned cash to obtain. Internet piracy undermines that process but at the same time opens up a debate on a whole load of intangibles.
Copyright creates a legal framework in order to guarantee the potential financial return (thereby encouraging investment), because as the rights holder I know I'm protected from anyone using any part of my 'creative output' without first paying for it.
There's a lot of things I'd try free of charge - but wouldn't like to feel short-changed if I have to pay for it.
I used to go to the cinema quite a lot.
But present day prices make the whole thing a gamble.
When I see all the hype surrounding most films, it makes you wonder why a film can't manage to sell itself on it's merits.
Just a money making exercise.
I wait until they appear on TV.
Can't tell the difference between the "spin-off" game and the film in some cases - there's so much bad CGI around.
Nothing wrong then in downloading and burning to DVD, then watching on TV is there?
I would never have paid for it anyway.
Some of these people would have a tough time justifying the claim that their product was "creative".
Derivative more like.
I hear there's going to be a remake of the "Wizard of Oz".
I rest my case. ;D
I know what you mean about bad CGI, I spend most of my time in some films just watching the mistakes and don't really take the film in at all.
Can't help wondering about the site 'The Box' where you can d/l ancient tv series and more up to date too. No software and no films there ... just the content of bbc and itv thro. the years. Is this really pirating?? I'm fully aware that millions of people copy current bbc/itv progs to vhs,dvd etc so, will this count as illegal d/loading too according to the great Mandleson? If so 90% of the great british population will have their internet removed in due course thus forcing the majority of ISP's to the wall.
A final question, I can't remember electing Mandleson to UK premier ... otoh .. can't remember voting for Brown either. (I digress of course, one shouldn't question what's good for us).
I believe the rule, though it's never applied, Niall, is that you should delete material recorded for personal use after 28 days. It's one of those things which could never be enforced, so no-one's ever tried to.
As to Mandy, he left Parliament in disgrace, he's appointed via the backdoor by Brown, meets a studio head while accepting hospitality from the Rothschilds, and then wants to change policy. Why do I smell a rat?
Ignoring the fact that's it's almost impossible to implement successfully, if and when pirates are cut off, what will the music and film industry do when they look at their year's end accounts and discover that it has made virtually no difference to their sales volume?
Most people download only because the stuff is available free, just as I would gorge on chocolate if Thorntons gave it away free. I don't because they don't, and I don't buy an alternative. I just go without. Every illegal download is not a lost sale. It's virtual activity that won't transfer to the real world if the virtual source is cut off.
:iagree:
I think the record companies are in denial that even if it wasn't available for free there are many more things now that people want to spend their money on and they can't expect people to pay as much for their product as people used to do. Since the 60's the singles chart has lost a lot of its attraction for instance.
Quote from: Dopamine on Aug 27, 2009, 20:16:33
Ignoring the fact that's it's almost impossible to implement successfully, if and when pirates are cut off, what will the music and film industry do when they look at their year's end accounts and discover that it has made virtually no difference to their sales volume?
Most people download only because the stuff is available free, just as I would gorge on chocolate if Thorntons gave it away free. I don't because they don't, and I don't buy an alternative. I just go without. Every illegal download is not a lost sale. It's virtual activity that won't transfer to the real world if the virtual source is cut off.
(http://pc-pals.com/pics/smileys/goodpost.gif)
I actually wonder if music sales might fall? I do download stuff occasionally, but then, if I like it, I buy it, as I prefer a complete product, with all the packaging, and best possible sound quality. I have lots, and lots of CDs that I have purchased, after hearing downloaded tracks, and I probably wouldn't have bought those CDs, had I not heard the material first. It's a bit like Dopamine's chocolate analogy. If it's not there, and I don't taste it, I simply go without.
Anyone remember when record shops had little booths where you cold ask to listen to a couple of the latest tracks?
If you liked the single or LP you probably bought it.
Same thing on the internet - you might hear last years music and buy the forthcoming album on the strength of it.
Quote from: axisofevil on Aug 27, 2009, 21:39:13
Anyone remember when record shops had little booths where you cold ask to listen to a couple of the latest tracks?
If you liked the single or LP you probably bought it.
Yup, I remember hearing Queen Live Killers in a little booth (at about aged 14), and was blown away by the fast version of We Will Rock You! Dashed home, raided the piggy bank, and went back to buy it. :thumb:
I did'nt think singles were still produced, I never seem to hear about them these days, what happened to the top 20 charts list?
I still remember waiting for Pick of the pops with fluff Freeman on a Sunday to hear, who had made the No 1 spot, but I guess I'm showing my age :blush:
File-sharers' TV tastes revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8224869.stm).
It takes all sorts. :)
I find it interesting that one of my gay friends has a particular hatred of Peter Mandelson. He considers Mandy deeply unpleasant, manipulative and dishonest (he's actually met him) and that he gives nice, honest gay people a bad name!
The problem with this new proposal is bigger than it first appears IMHO. It gives Peter Mandelson the right to specify and change the measures ISPs must take against the accused (note "accused" and not "convicted via due process" - That would be far too expensive) without the matter being referred to Parliament. He must receive advice from OfCom on what the best thing is to do but he does not have to listen to it. Presumedly it also confers this right to whoever holds his job in the future too. Not that this really matters as the Tories have signalled their desire to stop unlawful copying of media too so if this is passed we will be stuck with it forever.
If this does kick in everyone who likes doing this kind of thing will just switch over to encrypted VPNs. How long before Mandy's measures include compulsory bans on VPNs or encrypted protocols? When all these people establish encrypted VPN systems the perfect infrastructure for kiddie fiddlers, criminals and terrorists will also be created and the resulting increase in the use of encryption will make it harder for the security services to detect crime.
Cheers,
Paul.
Commerce beats common sense, eh Paul? :(
Quote from: Dangerjunkie on Aug 29, 2009, 11:31:34
If this does kick in everyone who likes doing this kind of thing will just switch over to encrypted VPNs. How long before Mandy's measures include compulsory bans on VPNs or encrypted protocols? When all these people establish encrypted VPN systems the perfect infrastructure for kiddie fiddlers, criminals and terrorists will also be created and the resulting increase in the use of encryption will make it harder for the security services to detect crime.
:iagree:
Another example of this inept Government not looking far enough ahead and being unable to understand the implications of their decisions. But never mind they can always blame everyone else for the consequences.
Can? CAN?? They always do, John. ;D
As I understand it, the government can order the VPN to reveal your ip-address and the encryption used.
Probably, the only secure - but slower route - is via something like TOR which uses several connection paths,
all encrypted and all continually changing.
Quote from: Dangerjunkie on Aug 29, 2009, 11:31:34
.......The problem with this new proposal is bigger than it first appears IMHO. It gives Peter Mandelson the right to specify and change the measures ISPs must take against the accused......
This sort of thing is nothing new. The idea of enabling legislation, with the details to be filled in by Ministerial Order has been around for years - certainly since the 1960s, when it was the exception rather than the rule.
Since the 1980s an awful lot of legislation is in that form; a very broad, vague even, enabling Act, which allows a Minister to make an Order (after due consultation of course), to do pretty much anything within the terms of the Act, that he, or the ruling Party of the day wishes.
Frankly, in almost all cases it's wrong and, an insult to democracy. But then we don't really have democracy in this Country do we....
We don't, after all, we have an unelected First Secretary.
I think that the Movie industry simply need to move with the times and come up with a workable business model. As someone has already stated, going to the cinema these days is expensive and you take a gamble on the film. It may be the best thing ever, it could also be terrible. It's just to expensive.
Now if they offered a lower cost "at home" alternative, I personally would make use of that and ultimately end up giving them MORE of my money.
It's the same with DVD's. I tend to only buy around 10 DVD's per year. For what they are (2 hours or so entertainment) they're expensive. Now if there was a legal download alterative. i.e you get the film to burn to a disk / keep on your computer, all of the covers etc. Then surely they can offer it at a lower cost. There's no manufacturing / distibution and associated costs.
I realise that there are potential copyright problems with this model, but I feel this is a direction that maybe they should explore.
I appreciate your arguments, Vit, and agree with most of them, but the actual production costs of a CD or DVD are tiny compared to retail prices, and the production cost is clearly not a factor in the pricing decisions, just look at the disparity between countries. What I'd suggest is a legal, but not cheap - say £5, download cost. If you like the film and go on to buy it, that charge is refunded. That way, if a film is no good, or something to only watch once, you've paid a reasonable price, but if you want to revisit, then the higher price becomes acceptable.
I think that's what I was getting at Rik, it just didn't come out as I expected.
;D
To me a movie is like music, if it's something I like I want to have it in a quality format that I can watch again and again. I have no problem paying a tenner of a well produced DVD. Unfortunately in recent years I've found the the majority of movies I've seen provide very poor entertainment and with a couple of notable exceptions I regret buying virtually all the DVDs I've recently purchased. Because of this I've taken to watching movies on the internet and if it's something that looks enjoyable I stop watching and buy it on DVD. It is a form of theft I guess but then so is having to pay for something that is substandard like the majority of movies that are released these days. What goes around comes around.
I think that's how a lot of us feel, Zap. I suspect we all have a shelf full of 'watched once' DVDs.
I have a shelf full of 'waiting to watch' DVD's
;D
Those too...
I have both! ;D
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Aug 30, 2009, 07:50:41
I've taken to watching movies on the internet and if it's something that looks enjoyable I stop watching and buy it on DVD.
I used to do that with CDs, until they started putting copy protection on them and I stopped being able to play them on PCs and PlayStations, or rip them onto my portable player. So I stopped - if they're going to treat me like a criminal anyway I might as well act like one. :shake:
I still buy the odd CD but only for stuff I consider exception, or for stuff I really want to hear but can't find as a download.
I think DVD's are different than music. Whilst I can enjoy listening to a piece of music many times once I know the plot of a film there are few I want to watch more than once. For this reason I seldom buy DVD's now and I'd prefer to rent one althouh the cost of renting one is sometimes more than half the cost of buying it outright.
I would prefer to watch a streamed version if the quality was the same but to do this too often would take me over my download allowance so much so that It would be cheaper to rent or buy it in the first place as there would still be the charge to stream it. And that's with Standard definition, the cost of High definition would be higher still.
I tend to agree, John. I see the future model for DVD/Bluray as being rental rather than outright purchase.
I disagree, as I think the cost of buying Bluray will come down, and you can buy DVDs for next to nothing these days. It saves all the hassle of going back and forward to the rental shop, and risking getting one damaged by another user. I know there are online rental options, but I've never tried one.
It's true that DVDs are often cheaper than CDs, Simon, but most of my collection has been played once. If the rental price was right, then that would be a better option in my mind.
I see that point, but I see my DVDs, and now Blurays, as a collection, so I wouldn't want to not keep them. :)
I've collected too many things, and I don't just mean DR meat. I'm getting to a point where I want to de-clutter a bit.
Quote from: gizmo71 on Aug 30, 2009, 12:46:17
I used to do that with CDs, until they started putting copy protection on them and I stopped being able to play them on PCs and PlayStations, or rip them onto my portable player.
Do they really put copy protection on CD's?
I've never come across one. :angel:
Same with DVD's - I can still watch/rip etc on my PC.
whether you buy or rent one you've still got to make an effort to go to the shop to buy it (and with rental to return it too). I would only decide to do this if I wanted to watch a particular movie, I no longer just buy one for something to watch in the evening if there's nothing on the TV, in fact I don't even watch the TV much either.
I think I've already watched most films that I've wanted to and many new films seem seem very light on the plot and rely too much on CGI effects (and contain too much unecessary violence, sex and swearing). To me they seem to be made more for 18-30 year olds.
Like many TV programmes, John. :(
Quote from: Rik on Aug 30, 2009, 13:05:30
I've collected too many things, and I don't just mean DR meat. I'm getting to a point where I want to de-clutter a bit.
I have to agree, I'm a hoarder too, but it's too much like hard work to declutter!
Quote from: axisofevil on Aug 30, 2009, 13:06:17
Do they really put copy protection on CD's?
I've never come across one. :angel:
Same with DVD's - I can still watch/rip etc on my PC.
Given the software to override the copy protection, yes you can. As for CDs, didn't Sony bring something in, which caused a big hoo har about it being trojan software? I think they've binned it now.
Quote from: john on Aug 30, 2009, 13:06:50
whether you buy or rent one you've still got to make an effort to go to the shop to buy it (and with rental to return it too). I would only decide to do this if I wanted to watch a particular movie, I no longer just buy one for something to watch in the evening if there's nothing on the TV, in fact I don't even watch the TV much either.
I think I've already watched most films that I've wanted to and many new films seem seem very light on the plot and rely too much on CGI effects (and contain too much unecessary violence, sex and swearing). To me they seem to be made more for 18-30 year olds.
I agree in part, John, although, you don't have to go to a shop to buy a DVD. ;) Have to admit, there are less and less films I want to see these days, which is one reason I'm pleased I have a collection to choose from.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 30, 2009, 13:11:10
I have to agree, I'm a hoarder too, but it's too much like hard work to declutter!
Tell me about it, we've been here almost 23 years and I dread trying to clear the loft!
Quote from: Simon on Aug 30, 2009, 13:11:10
Sony bring something in, which caused a big hoo har about it being trojan software? I think they've binned it now.
I agree in part, John, although, you don't have to go to a shop to buy a DVD. ;)
Yes that's true and also true for renting I suppose, I really meant when you wanted to watch something the same day. The few DVD's I do buy these days I order online.
There's always Love Film to avoid the walk, John.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 30, 2009, 13:14:02
Tell me about it, we've been here almost 23 years and I dread trying to clear the loft!
We've been here 29 years and I can hardly get into the loft, then there's also the garage too :(
Quote from: Rik on Aug 30, 2009, 13:16:02
There's always Love Film to avoid the walk, John.
I've never used them Rik but I did have a look once on their website but couldn't find of anything I wanted to watch.
(you do have to walk to the postbox to return it though, not that I'm lazy you understand ;D)
I know just what you mean, John. It always seems such a good idea to store stuff, 'just in case', at the time. :shake:
Quote from: john on Aug 30, 2009, 13:18:52
I've never used them Rik but I did have a look once on their website but couldn't find of anything I wanted to watch.
(you do have to walk to the postbox to return it though, not that I'm lazy you understand ;D)
I found the same, and I would send Sue. ;D
Quote from: Rik on Aug 30, 2009, 13:19:06
I know just what you mean, John. It always seems such a good idea to store stuff, 'just in case', at the time. :shake:
We did have a sort out in the garage a few months ago and I still regret taking some stuff to the tip and as is often said, you only find you need it once you've no longer got it.
Oh yes, I know that feeling. ;D
Finally he admits to having no clue as to what he is talking about.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6814187.ece
The comments are good though. ;D
Thats good coming from a politician :mad:
It's amazing, coming from a politician. ;)
Fairly balanced piece, still all talk and no details to mull over though. Quite disappointed he said "I was shocked to hear that as much as half of all internet traffic in the UK is for the carriage of unlawful content", when really there hasn't been anywhere near enough research into online piracy to throw out statistics like that.
He has to justify his righteous indignation somehow. :eyebrow:
I think they tried a "play once" dvd some time ago. Or a once use paper dvd (guess we will be moved onto blue ray now).
That could be a better model for rental, as you do not have the hassle of retuning it, and the retal company do not have to worry about you replaying it either.
But I doubt it will happen.
The scariest one I've seen is on my psp. I see I can now purchase games online to download. Great! And games I love/loved from my childhood. However I get 1 download. My memory card cannot take more than 1 game. So if I loose it, or want to play on another game I cannot redownload. :/ I know in the past, if you lost a CD you lost it for good. But ever since the pc/cd copying came out it's been a good idea to protect (by backing up) your collections. I'm not taking that risk when a ps3/psp game costs up to and over £50!
So I have not bought any PSP games, not getting a ps3, and sold my Xbox360. :( I'm keeping Steam on the pc though, as it seems the best method. Might even try Itunes one day as they seem reasonable too.
Check Amazon as well, Ben, they often undercut iTunes.
Quoting Mandleson's column
QuoteProvide customers with a good quality, cheap, safe and efficient experience, and they will ditch illegal downloading
HA!
That about sums up our reaction. ;)
Quote from: Rik on Sep 04, 2009, 09:49:49
Check Amazon as well, Ben, they often undercut iTunes.
They don't often undercut "nearly new" from Amazon Marketplace though - and you end up with an actual CD from that! :D
Pedant. ;D
Quote from: Rik on Sep 08, 2009, 18:46:43
Pedant. ;D
That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day! ;D
I must be slipping then. :evil:
Here's (http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/09/02/237526/doubt-over-isps-ability-to-detect-illegal-file-sharing.htm) an interesting article relevent to this thread.
Thanks, interesting article, John, there was something along similar lines in the latest copy of Computer Shopper as well. Further proof of what I've thought for a long time, most if not all Politicians haven't got a clue what they're talking about most of the time ;D :whistle:
Makes sense. Detecting illegal traffic is next to impossible, whatever Mandy thinks.
It does indeed, Rik. :)
and who needs to download music when i can just listen to it for free on youtube :whistle:
Quote from: Colin Burns on Sep 16, 2009, 21:38:14
and who needs to download music when i can just listen to it for free on youtube :whistle:
Download a program called vdownloader, and you can rip the music directly off youtube vids ;D
That would be illegal though, wouldn't it?
Quote from: Simon on Sep 16, 2009, 23:57:43
That would be illegal though, wouldn't it?
Probably, but in the same way that uploading copyright material to YouTube probably is.
:dunno:
Quote from: Simon on Sep 16, 2009, 23:57:43
That would be illegal though, wouldn't it?
I would imagine it's just as illigal as uploading it in the first place, but as it appears to youtube like any other browser buffering the data they can't track you down and the only person that gets hurt is the massive, soulless, 500% profit margine, artist exploiting record company.
Broadband tax 'to be made law' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8270772.stm)
Totally unjustifiable. People will be made to fund BT's network, whether they use broadband or not, in order that BT can carry out an upgrade it should be doing for commercial reasons. :mad:
What's the betting that it will start at 50p a month but it will also be regularly increased in the budgets :mad:
It had crossed my mind, John. :(
UK Anti-Piracy Plans [could] Cost More Than Music Industry 'Losses' (http://torrentfreak.com/uk-anti-piracy-plans-cost-more-than-music-industry-losses-090922/)
It's like everything else in the UK, it stinks, it's ill thought out and it's money grubbing. :mad:
Shouldn't BT be paying this out of their profits?
Quote from: john on Sep 23, 2009, 17:51:51
What's the betting that it will start at 50p a month but it will also be regularly increased in the budgets :mad:
Well you know what, don't pay it then , and if everyone doesn't pay it they'll have to scrap it. What they going to do put everyone in prison ?
Why not have a graduated payment which is inversely proportional to the length of copper/aluminium used by your phone line.
That way, people far from the exchange would pay virtually nothing. :eek4:
Nice idea. :thumb:
Just another tax, like road tax this will go to the government not to upgrade the phone lines. How about a window tax, haven't had one of those for a few years :eyebrow:
I thought that went to Microsoft, Bob. ;D
:clever: :hehe:
Quote from: glen on Sep 23, 2009, 23:56:30
Well you know what, don't pay it then , and if everyone doesn't pay it they'll have to scrap it. What they going to do put everyone in prison ?
Because the majority won't want to risk being cut off for non-payment (deducting the 50p tax would probably still constitute non-payment).
I think the best we can hope for is to express our disapproval at the next election.
It's the only thing we can hope for, John. As it's not separately billed, withholding it would be a gigantic mess.
The BPI respond: BPI slams "shameful" BT (http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news/bpi-slams-shameful-bt-938.html)
QuoteAfter BT made the claim that getting tough on Internet piracy would cost around £1 million per day, the body representing the music industry has launched a counter-offensive. BPI boss Geoff Taylor says broadband companies have seen their revenues rising while those of the record business have gone the opposite way because of piracy – and that the ISP's stance is "just about protecting profits."
Newspaper The Mirror has emerged as an unlikely battleground in a war of words between senior BT and BPI figures – with the latter now having launched a counter-attack. "It's shameful for a company like BT to know that a high percentage of the traffic it carries is illegal material but do nothing," Taylor told the paper. "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business."
QuoteA BT Spokesperson told ISPreview (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/09/28/bpi-claims-uk-isp-bt-failed-to-tackle-100000-illegal-broadband-downloaders.html):
"BT and other ISPs agreed to send 1,000 notifications alleging copyright infringement a week for a 12-week trial period, with BT picking up the bill for this activity for our own customers as an act of goodwill. However, it was understood that at the end of this period, we would need to take stock and have further discussions with the rights holders about costs etc.
During this period, the BPI sent us around 21,000 alleged cases, but less than two-thirds proved to be properly matched to an IP address of a BT customer and not a duplicate, so this could indicate that the true extent of this activity is much lower than the 100,000 number the BPI claim since February. In addition since none of the customers we wrote to during the trial were subsequently taken to court by the BPI, we don't know whether they were actually guilty of infringement.
We definitely do not know the extent of illegal file sharing on our network. Many peer to peer applications are perfectly legal, such as World of Warcraft, BBC iPlayer and Skype. To investigate the exact nature of each peer to peer packet would involve an intrusive level of inspection of people's traffic and customers would rightly complain about BT infringing their privacy where we to do it."
And the BPI knows that a high percentage of the traffic is illegal how, exactly?
Seems to me it would sent every niche ISP out of business.
It might well...
You have to laugh at the fear mongering again.
Or is it greed?
Both.