backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Jul 8 at 9:32 AM

Music industry and ISP at odds over what to do with known P2P users

UK ISP Virgin Media, in a joint partnership with the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), has thus far sent out 800 letters to file sharers to inform them of the consequences should they continue. Packaged in envelopes that said, “Important: If you don’t read this, your broadband could be disconnected,” the letters seeks to dissuade users from file-sharing under the threat of losing their internet accounts.

Luckily for them, however, Virgin doesn’t seem to want to follow through.

The wording of the letter is a mistake, says Virgin, and it plans to review the letters sometime in August. Speaking with BBC Radio’s Newsbeat, a Virgin representative said that there was “absolutely no possibility” they would disconnect accounts that the BPI has linked to filesharing.

“It is important to let our customers know that their accounts have been used in a certain way but we are happy to accept it may not be the account holder that's involved,” said Virgin representative Asam Ahmad.

“It could be someone else in the family or someone living in a shared house. It could even be someone stealing WiFi. We are not making any form of accusation.”

Customers’ responses have been far from warm -- many have accused the BPI’s investigations of being inaccurate, and others have indicated that they are not happy with being ratted out.

“I suppose it is possible that someone accessed our wireless network from outside the flat but, beyond that, it definitely wasn't one of us,” said one of the recipients. “The campaign is doomed to fail. Virgin will lose a lot of customers over this because people don't like to be accused of stealing music.”

The BPI says it is serious enough to take the matter to court, and the UK government has set a deadline of next spring for ISPs and music companies to reach an accord before it steps in.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 8:09:09 AM , Rating: 4
... that this is being discussed openly and the BPI and other record company lobby groups get their chance to show what they want and how they behave to the whole entire country/world.

Before I go further, theft is theft, copyright or otherwise.

But punishments should be proportionate.

There needs to be a big debate out in the open about how to best deal with this problem.

There is a culture of "casual" piracy that has grown and will be hard to eradicate but I think that it can be if handled correctly.

So how should it be handled?

Banning everyone at that access point from entering the internet full stop, I think, is going too far.

Should certain known web sites be filtered by ISPs? Or would this be a unforgivable breach of our freedoms to travel anywhere on the internet? I don't think many people would complain about known child pornography sites being filtered for example though?

The time has come for countries and politicians to decide where this is going, not just the highest paid lawyers in high court cases of little Jonny "blue beard" Smith Vs Sony BMG as this will only go one way.




RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mrteddyears on 7/4/2008 8:28:58 AM , Rating: 1
I think the limped wristed governments in the EU will just roll over and give in. Who do you think pays for Brown and the idiots he has around him in the UK.

Also how do the BPI actually monitor this when companies like BBC and SKY now use P2P to transfer material around.

Theft is theft unless a lawyer rights it up and makes it law then it okay


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 8:40:45 AM , Rating: 1
Nor really sure why I got rated down, I was just asking a few questions and trying to start a debate about how else to deal with piracy???

I'm not sure that all the governments are as bad as they UK's.

The EU will probably wade in soon too, especially as someone utters the magic words "human rights" of course.

Is there a way that corps like the BBC, ITV, SKY etc could modify their on-line media players to identify that their traffic is "legitimate"?

Linux distros are usually shared via p2p too, not sure how these could be identified as "legal" too?

To clarify.

Downloading a copy of an album from a file share is theft.

Ripping from your legitimately purchased CD to share over a media server or iPod however is not, in my opinion, ut in the UK it is illegal, I believe?

Then when you get into the stories of mechanic garages being sued for not having a public broadcast licence when they have a radio on, things just get silly.

These laws need to be clarified and updated to make them reasonable to the modern day.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By nosfe on 7/4/2008 8:50:42 AM , Rating: 5
You got rated down by Jingjing and Chacha because of your dissident actions so next time please "advance harmony" and play along nicely with your beloved government.

Have a nice day.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By audiomaniaca on 7/4/2008 2:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
guys, please advance harmony!


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By AndreasM on 7/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 10:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
I see, fair enough.

I regretted the copyright thing as soon as I pressed "post comment" really, as you'll see in a later post that I mention about "copying" onto an iPod/home server.

It does seem to be an odd law however, as most music playing devices that I have had or seen (mobile phone, iPods etc) come with software specifically to rip music from CD onto the device, even though this is illegal in the UK* which seems a little crazy to me.

The software that SonyEricsson provide with their phones was very simple to use.

* I'm not 100% sure that this is the case, please let me know if I'm wrong.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Foxorroxors on 7/5/2008 4:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your legaly allowed to have a backup of any media be it Music cd, DVD, or computer game (pc/ps3/xbox ect) as long as you own the original. This does apply to the UK mate.

Foxor


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By sxr7171 on 7/5/2008 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
Here's the thing. Let's set this in the US where the RIAA is around.

If the RIAA "catches" you downloading music they send your ISP a letter and sometimes they file a lawsuit against you and threaten you with something like $3000 a song.

Sometimes I actually own the CD but I don't have it on my phone or my laptop (my desktop has all my ripped music). So I download it knowing that I own the CD.

As aside say if the RIAA charged you with downloading 100 songs and threatens you with: $3000 x 100 = $300,000, you could go to a used CD store and buy up everything you downloaded and then claim that you own(ed) everything you downloaded.

The defendant in a situation like this would still be required to hire a lawyer and inventory all their CDs and then produce proof that you own all that music. That is a cost in itself. After all that you never know if the slick RIAA lawyers will still manage to win against you. There is a cost to downloading music even if you are doing it legally. That's why these ways they use to detect file downloading are bunk. It should be the RIAA's burden to prove you are illegally downloading that music. Simply saying that "you downloaded this file" is not enough.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mindless1 on 7/5/2008 11:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite so clear cut, with the chance they might make a token gesture at protecting the disc and thus be able to claim circumvention, or that their license of what you can do with the content may be restrictive to the point that you may or may not have the right to do some particular thing even with the original, let alone a copy.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By cmdrdredd on 7/5/2008 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that the recording industry and others involved in media through traditional means, (television and radio to name a couple) are thoroughly afraid of the changing digital technology of our time. They probably don't have any real idea how things like iPods, media servers, digital homes using DVRs for everything work in everyday life. I believe the company heads just hear "ripping a CD" or "downloading a show online" and think "they can't do that...it's our copyright" and they go after everyone involved. Instead of embracing the technology of P2P and other sharing outlets for monetary gain, they attempt to threaten everyone with fat lawsuits and/or removal of service.

Recently I heard an interview with Kid Rock who flat out refuses to allow any of his music to be downloaded via iTunes or Zune etc. Now, he then further says that people are stealing his music online. I don't like Kid Rock and could care less, but the point is the artists are refusing to work with the technology. I and MANY others in the world today would rather hop online and purchase a song or 2 that I like and drop it on my iPod or Zune instead of driving to the music store and searching high and low for the CDs that have the songs I want. I only want 2 songs, not the other 10 which suck. What if I have to buy multiple CDs to get the tracks I want? I don't even care about the booklet and artwork which was another one of Kid Rock's points. He designed the artwork or someone else spent time and has to get paid too. Well, too bad. The digital environment that today's kids are living in isn't the same as it was 30 years ago when you wanted to have the latest tape or LP of your favorite band. These days you want to have the top tracks you may have heard on the radio or were introduced to by a friend. I don't personally care to ever buy another CD.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mrteddyears on 7/7/2008 4:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you on this point !!!!


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By porkpie on 7/4/2008 2:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you probably got modded down because you equated copyright infringement with theft. To do so is an insult to everyone whose real property has been stolen.
I've had plenty of property stolen and I consider it a fact, not an insult.

Theft is depriving someone of control over their property. When you steal albums, you're doing just that.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By sxr7171 on 7/5/2008 4:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. However, if people didn't download music this slow changing of attitudes in record labels everywhere wouldn't be happening. They would still be gypping you for $18.99 for about 10-14 songs. I like seeing CDs at $8.99 and $9.99 more often these days. Record labels are starting to slowly allow download sales of their music. Some are even doing it without DRM like Rhapsody (who I signed up with after they announced a DRM-free music store).

Sometimes the biggest beneficial changes have to happen in a way that isn't "100% legit" for the standards of the day. Take for example Gandhi and Civil Disobedience.

This change in the record business should have happened yesterday and it would not have happened at all without easy downloads. They need to realize that providing music to people for money is still profitable but it will never be like the glory days of being able to drop $36,000 at the strip club every Saturday night on the expense account. Getting music from creator to listener doesn't "need" a middleman any more. But as consumers, we like convenience, so if you can help us find and acquire music we like, we'll pay you for that convenience. That's the level we're at. So music industry executive need to understand that they might not be able to take the corporate jet out to San Francisco to eat at French Laundry, but they might have to settle for first class on United instead. So basically run it like you are Ticketmaster but selling music. You want to hype up useless artists with millions of dollars of advertising and hope you found the next big star - go ahead, but not on my dime as a music consumer. This sort of high risk expenditure is not needed. Just find the artists who are already talented, they are promoting themselves on the internet these days! How much easier than that can it be to find talent now?

All I'm saying is streamline the business and offer us a fair deal. In other words: get with the times.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mindless1 on 7/5/2008 11:29:42 PM , Rating: 3
I love how you deliberately twisted the definition of theft to suit your argument. Unfortunately it still fails, since the (music industry for example) still has control over what they do with their property, even if someone else also has control they are not depriving the music industry of doing what the industry set out to do - offer that for sale on a CD or digital download.

I know that you want an overly simple world where we only use a handful of words and try to paint everything as good or evil. That's why you like the word steal, because you feel everyone is MORE emotionally charged by that word than the accurate description of what these illegal acts are.

Read the following very slowy a few times till it sinks in: There are more illegal acts relating to property than just "stealing" or "theft". Using the wrong word might be overlooked if you were simply ignorant of the vocabulary but instead you try to twist terms deliberately which won't bolster your argument unless only talking to a child.

If you agree with the law, great. If you think people should be prosecuted, also an opinion you're entitled to have. Neither of these justify attempts we might best classify as propagandic.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By onelittleindian on 7/5/2008 11:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately it still fails, since the (music industry for example) still has control over what they do with their property
Nope, sorry. Control = being able to tell others what they can and can't do with it. If millions of people make free and download your song, you don't control it any more.

Stealing an album is like breaking into a vacant hotel room and spending the night without paying. You might not have cost the hotel any money, but you still stole their services.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By AndreasM on 7/6/2008 1:12:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stealing an album is like breaking into a vacant hotel room and spending the night without paying. You might not have cost the hotel any money, but you still stole their services.


Except you did cost the hotel money in form of electricity, water and cleaning costs. There really is nothing comparable to copyright infringement in the real world, as it's akin to using a magic device to produce an identical copy of someone's property. Would you call such an act stealing also?