The internet service providers' letter-writing campaign is going to inconvenience everyone, not just illegal filesharers...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/25/illegal.filesharing
I think the writer is a little out of touch, "Viruses and spam aren't so prominent on the radar any more", but agree with his general premise.
That's just one of the reasons why it's all gonna prove so unworkable.
The ISPs (and ultimately the BPI) are leaving themselves wide open to legal proceedings galore with this nonsense. At the end of the day, if the BPI could prove beyond doubt in a court of law that Mr.X has been ilegally downloading copyright material, they would be taking all file sharers to court - they are not because they can't. They are simply hiding behind everyone else, and the peeps who allow this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense should hang their heads in shame :rant2:
And this still isn't tackling the underlying problem. I still believe that if they price music in such a way that makes it attractive, users won't download illegally.
Quote from: Sebby on Jul 26, 2008, 12:45:45
And this still isn't tackling the underlying problem. I still believe that if they price music in such a way that makes it attractive, users won't download illegally.
That,
and do away with all the DRM rubbish.
I absolutely agree with you there.
If the BPI has a mess in its back yard, it's up to them to clean it up. By all means get the identities from the ISPs, but it's a matter for the BPI to settle in the courts, and should have nothing to do with ISPs. The Police don't ask ISPs to write to people downloading child pornography after all...
i wonder how long it will be before letters come out advising that people have been using to much bandwidth over here in the uk (watching to much iptv for example)
Quote from: Rik on Jul 26, 2008, 12:47:23
If the BPI has a mess in its back yard, it's up to them to clean it up. By all means get the identities from the ISPs, but it's a matter for the BPI to settle in the courts, and should have nothing to do with ISPs. The Police don't ask ISPs to write to people downloading child pornography after all...
Exactly - but the BPI don't want to take everyone to court for two reasons:
1.It would cost a lot of money
2.They don't have the proof to carry out a successful prosecution.
They just prefer to sit back and let others do the work for them.
Which is why this is fundamentally wrong, it's trial without judge or jury. :(
Quote from: madasahatter on Jul 26, 2008, 12:46:51
That, and do away with all the DRM rubbish.
They are staring to get away with a lot of DRM, mad. Then replacing it with ideas like a yearly to fee too play it :mad:
Quote from: Killhippie on Jul 26, 2008, 15:49:36
They are staring to get away with a lot of DRM, mad. Then replacing it with ideas like a yearly to fee too play it :mad:
That's the problem though isn't it? If you buy a CD you can do what the hell you want with it, yet digital downloads (which are what most peeps want and are supposed to be so convenient) they are making as awkward as possible. Instead of embracing the new technology and getting peeps on board, all they are managing to do is alienate even
more. :shake:
i may be wrong but don't copy rights have a "lifetime" ,patents i think are twenty years ??
so if i want to download say ,some 1940's glen millar music, am i downloading something who's legal life has expired, and therefore am within my rights.
IF this is true , then how will they be able to differentiate, between unexpired and expired.????????????
They won't, Bob. It comes down to the BPI saying whether it's legal or not, and to do that they need to know what you have downloaded. Copyright and IP rights are a minefield though, so you have to consider the rights of the performers, the songwriters and the owner of the recording, each of which have different longevity.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 26, 2008, 18:25:27
It comes down to the BPI saying whether it's legal or not, and to do that they need to know what you have downloaded.
Also known as spying on you, which the last time I looked was pretty much illegal in itself without going through the courts to get the appropriate order. After all, they couldn't just walk into your home without one, so why should your data be any different?
It shouldn't, and how are they intercepting it - no-one seems to have asked or answered that question. Anyone want to put money on RIPA having been extended to the BPI? :(
Probably so Rik, though it definitely shouldn't have been.