backtop


Print 126 comment(s) - last by SiN.. on Nov 23 at 12:10 PM


Wealthy British politician, Lord Peter Mandelson once described his hardnosed political career, stating, "I had to be the hard man – and sometimes the hit man." Now he's looking to perform a hit on filesharers taking them offline and levying massive fines against them. He's marching ahead with the proposal despite massive opposition from the public, tech community, ISPs, and law enforcement.  (Source: The Sun)
The music and film industry look to score major victory over public, law enforcement and ISPs

Do you like to download music?  Or perhaps you have a neighbor who's skilled at hacking and likes to download music?  If so, hopefully you don't live in Britain, because starting in April 2010, such offense may earn you expulsion from the internet and harsh fines.

The UK's government has recently been viewed as a strong supporter of the entertainment industry's campaign of "copyright enforcement".  They've cast a blind eye while citizens were subjected to legal threats concerning public singing and while independent artists found major labels stealing their work.  According to one UK artist, in their experience music labels steal more music (from small copyright-holders) than filesharers.

Yet it is the filesharers that Britain's government is looking to punish.  Like France's currently stalled effort, Britain's majority Labour Party is opting for a 3 strike policy that will involve two warnings sent to offenders, followed by ISPs being forced to disconnect their customers.

The proposal is enormously unpopular among the public, tech professionals, law enforcement, and internet service providers.  ISPs are bemoaning the government shouldering the extra costs of expensive technologies such as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology to scan each data packet traveling their networks for illegal content.  They also aren't pleased with having to terminate paying customers.

Likewise, law enforcement officials are opposed to the plan.  The Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, as well as two British intelligence agencies -- MI-5 and MI-6 -- all voice formal or informal opposition to the plan.  States one police official, "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."

And the proposal is unpopular among members of the tech community.  TalkTalk, a British telecom, has launched a campaign attacking the plan, highlighting a recent demonstration where security experts showed that secured home Wi-Fi networks could be cracked with ease and used to download infringed content, setting your neighbors up for some harsh punishment.

Despite this seemingly overwhelming opposition Lord President of the Council Peter Mandelson, a prominent British politician will be pushing for the plan to become law in April 2010, to the joy of the movie and recording industry.  Lord Mandelson insists the enforcement will be flawless and accurate, stating, "We will put in place a fair, thorough process, involving clear warnings to people suspected of unlawful file-sharing, with technical measures such as account suspension only used as a very last resort.  Only persistent rule breakers would be affected — and there would be an independent, clear and easy appeals process to ensure that the correct infringer is penalised."

The opposition's last hope is to fight the bill when it goes to parliament in November.  The bill stands a good chance of passing with the majority of the Labour Party backing Lord Mandelson.  However, the Conservative party and Liberal Democrat parties have both voiced objections to the bill.


Comments     Threshold


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

Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 3:15:17 PM , Rating: 5
The odious Mr Mendleson (He should not be a lord in my opinion - hence I will never give him his title) is living on borrowed time. There is little chance his Labour party will be voted into government again come the election next year.




RE: Borrowed Time.
By Bateluer on 10/28/2009 3:15:15 PM , Rating: 5
Hopefully, British voters are more intelligent than us Americans who keep voting Pelosi, Reid, Grayson, Wilson, etc into office again and again and again.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By DarkElfa on 10/28/2009 3:19:02 PM , Rating: 5
Ah the Labour party, all about living off the labor of the common man.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By RW on 10/28/2009 8:25:42 PM , Rating: 4
Those that think people would buy more music and movies if they wouldn't have the ability to download them for free should think about this:

How much money did music and movies companies earned before the existence of the internet and how much money they earn now with the existence of the internet ???
How many movies and music did those that have internet now did buy before having no internet ???

And people would just use their money in a better way than buying movies and music, they will better go traveling go in a strip club pay a whore buy more beer a better car a bigger house healthier food making their own investments, really there are tons of better ways spending your money than just buying movies and music WTF just think about it


RE: Borrowed Time.
By RW on 10/28/2009 8:29:17 PM , Rating: 5
And keep in mind that those that will get banned from the internet for downloading a music or movie will not buy any of these for the rest of their lives as a result of being banned.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By bjacobson on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By RW on 10/28/2009 9:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
As I've said before there are tons of better ways for spending your money than just buying movies and music.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By StevoLincolnite on 10/28/2009 10:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
And not to mention you can get banned for merely an accusation, if for instance you have a wireless network, and someone manages to access it and downloads a Movie/TV show illegally, you could effectively get banned from using the Internet, despite you not breaking the law.

That's a current issue here as Media company's take on our ISP's (Westnet/iiNet), the Media company's believe that ISP's should disconnect users on accusations.

Personally the Media company's should take advantage of the situation and try to profit from it, instead of taking everyone to court, Hulu and Netflix are great and are a step in the right direction, but unfortunately they are not available to the majority of the planet who are practically left with no options.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By RW on 10/29/2009 1:20:04 AM , Rating: 5
What if I hear a melody on TV or radio memorize it in my brain then keep playing it in my mind, it's that copyright infringement ?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By RW on 10/29/2009 1:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
And btw if music and movies companies are so concern about the fact that their creations could easily be duplicated over the internet they should not release any more music or movie and keep their creations for themselves, after all why release something that u know it will get copied and listened illegally by many others when u can easily not release it, basically it's their own fault for releasing the music and movies and they should not blame others for their own damn fault of releasing them in the wild in the first place.

So keep your creations for yourself cause if u leave them out anyone else could hear them and that in your opinion means one single thing COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and you don't want this to happen.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Aloonatic on 10/29/2009 6:50:09 AM , Rating: 3
Yep. It's like the warning shown before you watch a movie at the cinema regarding people using recording devices ans what-not being an arrestable offence, and that you'll be fined, put in stocks and weed on by millionaire movie stars who need all that money, and can't possible share any with the cameramen that they are worried enough about to make a 2 minute long ad/presentation about piracy but other than that, wouldn't been seen dead with them or give them the time of day, let alone take a pay cut....

Your brain is a recording device, so unless your memory is impaired, you're breaking the law. That's why I always take a bottle of Jack Daniels with me to the cinema. It also helps as most films these days are utter garbage and not worth remembering anyway, often only improved by a slight shift in your brain chemistry and mild intoxication :-D


RE: Borrowed Time.
By disorder1984 on 10/29/2009 10:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
telescreen indicates doubleplusungood facecrime suggests ownlife stop speedwise upsub thinkpol bring subject miniluv


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Adonlude on 10/29/2009 4:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of others people's money." - Margret Thatcher


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Kaleid on 11/1/2009 3:24:20 PM , Rating: 3
You don't need socialism to run into red numbers. Reagan and Bush, both fiscally conservative proved that. Obama has continued that but in many ways he has to.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By marvdmartian on 10/29/2009 10:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention such noteables as Feinstein (who was mayor in San Francisco in the 80's, I believe, then failed upward to become a senator of California!), Barbara Boxer, and, of course, ex-senator Clinton. (eyeroll)

Personally, if I lived there, I believe I'd go out with a digital video camera, record a couple hours of something really innocent/stupid, slap a file name on the video close to that of a hit movie, then put it up on the file sharing networks, just to see if I got a warning from the jackboots. That'd make for some interesting news!

Oh, and with the use of the word terminating in the article title, why not include a picture of the governator, instead of Darth Vader??


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Kaleid on 11/1/2009 3:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, electing Bush was a stroke of genius.
Both countries are largely controlled by corporations.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By donjuancarlos on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By amanojaku on 10/28/2009 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
something has to be done to let people know that sharing copyrighted songs, games etc., is wrong and harmful
It's called copyright law, and the usual fines and potential jail time are more than adequate considering how the punishment is usually disproportionate to the crime. Like Internet bans. Banning someone from the Internet is akin to banning someone from using a phone: in this day and age you NEED the Internet.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By donjuancarlos on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 5
May I point out that you share the same fallacy as the media industry in that a pirated copy equates to a lost sale.

It appears that both you and the media organisations are living in cuckoo land. You do know the differences between elastic and in-elastic demand don't you? Let me know if you believe the demand for a DVD/CD is the same for that as a loaf of bread.

I borrow DVDs/CDs of my friends. If they didn't borrow them to me I wouldn't go out and buy them. What makes you think someone downloading from the Internet would be any different? Yet the media companies class this as a lost sale. That means my friends lending my their DVD/CD is a lost sale. Do you believe that after I get caught three times borrowing a DVD/CD of my friends this gives them the right to cut my electricity off?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By donjuancarlos on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 5
The X-Factor?

Ok, seriously.

1. Apple. They seriously lowered the price of music with their iTunes. The industry tried to resist but by then it was too late.

2. iTunes. In 2000 you HAD to buy the album to get the songs you wanted. Now you can just cherry pick the ones you like.

3. The music output in 2009 is the same rehashed stuff from 2000. How many times do you want us to buy the same song?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ClownPuncher on 10/28/2009 5:48:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
2. iTunes. In 2000 you HAD to buy the album to get the songs you wanted. Now you can just cherry pick the ones you like.


I would say that this is only partially true. I still have dozens of MP3's I downloaded from 1996 onwards. iTunes did, however, bring it to the mainstream more, changing the revenue stream of the music world.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Pneumothorax on 10/28/2009 4:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because the the latest content SUCKS! The execs have ruined the industry by pushing rehash after rehash of musician clones.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Laitainion on 10/28/2009 4:49:19 PM , Rating: 4
Change in social trends? Teenagers have computer games now. Things change, correlation isn't the same thing as causation after all.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By HotFoot on 10/28/2009 5:07:31 PM , Rating: 3
The poster above had a good point about lower prices now and not having to buy the whole album to get the song or two songs you want, but I also think you've really hit on something.

Culturally, maybe we're just changing. I used to spend between a couple and a few hundred dollars a year on music. Now, I might buy an album a year if that. I also don't download music. I'm just less interested in spending what free money I have on the music that's out there.

Of course, that could just be me - given that my musical tastes are now kind of dated and there's not much new material coming out that really gets my interest.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 5:22:15 PM , Rating: 5
You are quite correct, I was merely offering suggestions inside the music industry.

There is much more to do today then there was 9 years ago.

The Internet may have killed the record industries profits, but not because of piracy but because of online gaming, ebay, not to mention facebook. I'm surprised people have time to even work the amount of Farmville requests I get, let alone buy music!

Plus there is a shift away from mainstream music. A considerable amount of my friends recommend live bands playing locally yet no-one has recommended in their status updates that I rush out and buy the latest Lady GaGa album. Music is going underground and back to its roots if anything.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Gio6518 on 10/28/2009 4:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
poor music
poor movies
etc. etc. etc.
i cant imagine paying $50 to take the family out to see the A-Team movie.
but seriously good movies did well in theatre attendance and DVD/BluRay sales as well as good music sells also.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By walk2k on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 5:33:05 PM , Rating: 5
Possibly due to intrinsic value. They may be worth getting for free but they are not worth what is demanded of them most of the time.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By rcc on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By walk2k on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 7:38:59 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe if you bothered to read my posts and actually spent a little more time comprehending what I was writing you would not be so quick to tar me with the same brush as downloaders.

I have never illegally downloaded from the Internet. I have enough friends to make it not worthwhile. The point I was making that DVD's/CD's are non essential items. If my friends didn't lend me theirs I can quite easily do without. My life will not be any less complete of fulfilled without them. I will not starve or go hungry. I will not be cast out of society.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that just because you can get something for free you would automatically buy it if you had to. We are not talking about food, shelter, love, and warmth here. We are talking about a non-essential nice to have but no biggie if you don't item.

People pirate because it is free. And who doesn't like free stuff. Doesn't follow on that if they had to pay they would. Therefore the fallacy you are perpuating is that every pirated copy is somehow a lost sale.

There is nothing wafer thin about that. Hence the reason you get tried in a civil court rather than a criminal court, because in a criminal court you would have to prove without doubt that a person downloading a CD/DVD from the internet would have gone out and bought that item.

And neither you, or the industry has any chance of doing so. Because you damn well know its bullshit.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 7:29:56 PM , Rating: 5
Neither you, nor the labels can guarantee that every pirated copy is a lost sale yet you and they automatically assume it is.

As I said earlier I borrow DVD/CDs from my friends. I can guarantee you that if they did not loan them to me I would have no intention of buying them. I have something called a budget you see and living expenses. Trust me when I tell you that a roof over my head, food in my belly and a pint down the local takes priority over any DVD/CD. I assume this must be the same for the downloaders also.

Given that peoples budgets are usually predetermined on a monthly basis, where do you suggest this money is coming from to buy these products that they were previously getting for free?

Just like the industry you seem to be under the illusion that DVD's/CD's are somehow ESSENTIAL items. I imagine if it were not possible to download them for free then most people would, you know, do without rather than divert money from more useful things, such as running their car, insuring their house, paying the mortgate, buying their food.

Must come as a shock to you that a DVD/CD are not essential items. You really need a crash course in basic economics. Maybe you get the industry to go along with you, hell knows they need to.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By rcc on 10/30/2009 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you got all that drivel out of my simple statement??? You are frickin' awesome

All my post said was that you couldn't guarantee that no one would buy a copy if they couldn't pirate it. That's it. You are just too busy regurgitating the same response to every post that you're not paying attention, or actually reeeeeeeeeaaaaading them.

As for the rest of your suppositions, crap. I don't think DVDs and CDs are essential, I've bought one DVD in the last 7 years. I don't even think the the Internet is essential, although its lack would be inconvenient as he....

The point is, if you can't afford it, do without. Since the are "non-essentials", do without.

Personally I think you need a crash course in economics, humanity, morality, and common sense. But that's up to you.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 11/2/2009 11:55:40 AM , Rating: 2
Answer the question.

Should I be cut off from my electricity for borrowing my friends my DVD's / CD's?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By rcc on 11/2/2009 5:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is what we call a false dilemma.

However, from my personal perspective, I see no problem with borrowing a CD or DVD. As long has it hasn't been, or isn't, copied at either end.

It's still just one disc being used by one person/group at a time. Kind of like a no fee rental outfit. : )


RE: Borrowed Time.
By TSS on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By stlrenegade on 10/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By SiN on 10/29/2009 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
your a d*ck then arent you

no one said "its easy, so it's ok"

copyright reform is needed, now what part of that doesn't settle with you?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By rcc on 10/30/2009 11:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely correct. Copyright reform is needed. So?

Get off your pirate ass and change it. Then it'll be legal and we'll all live happily ever after.

Until you are willing to work to change the system, work with it.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By SiN on 11/23/2009 12:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
i never suggested i downloaded pirated material.

i am a member of the pirate party seeking reform and actively discussing reforms.

i guess you could say i am already working on changing it.

what did you do lately? except troll, of course.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 10/29/2009 12:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, everything is worth getting if it's free.

But, if you can not afford a piece of software, it is not ok for you to download it and use it for free.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Gio6518 on 10/29/2009 7:43:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If they're so poor why is everyone lining up in droves to steal them? That argument makes no sense. But then it's not supposed to is it? It's just a (rather poor) excuse for piracy


in what way is my comment promoting piracy ?
i wouldnt even watch it for free (they probabally would have to pay me) !
its the music and movie industry putting out awful movies and music, again since you have obvious reading comprehension issues, i said.
quote:
good movies did well in theatre attendance and DVD/BluRay sales as well as good music sells also.

its the CEO's and heads of the music and movie industry trying to redirect the blame of their failures to people downloading.............


RE: Borrowed Time.
By maverick85wd on 10/28/2009 4:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
As dark matter just pointed out (twice, actually), iTunes allowing consumers to cherry-pick the songs they like was a HUGE hit to album sales. And who's to say that's wrong? Consumers have grown weary of purchasing an album full of filler and two or three good songs (or no good songs in the worst cases).

I have no doubt that some legitimate sales are lost to downloading, however I can also attest from personal experience that downloading encourages sales from artists that are worthy of the consumer's money.

The bottom line here is that the record industry has become bloated from years of $15/album sales (when $15 was more money than it is now). Many people are no longer willing to pay that much for an album when they can get the one or two songs they want on iTunes (or downloaded if they want higher quality and up until recently, DRM-free).

Is that explanation enough?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By reader1 on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:49:26 PM , Rating: 3
I'm shocked that a modern commercial artist has that kind of pulling power for a million people to download their work.

They must do well at concerts then, where they make the majority of the money. A massive difference from that get from the record label you friendless fool.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By DominionSeraph on 10/28/2009 7:46:38 PM , Rating: 1
A million copies? Dude, do you know how hard it is just getting people to seed to a ratio of 1.0?

I doubt even aXXo has a ratio that good.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By AEvangel on 10/28/2009 4:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure I have the answer, but something has to be done to let people know that sharing copyrighted songs, games etc., is wrong and harmful--especially to those who are just starting out.


I will tell you what when you stop the record industry from ripping off artist then we will too fair?? This law is absolutely ridiculous, what if i'm using my laptop at a coffee bar, McDonalds or at my friends house? There is no possible way they can effectively track this.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By donjuancarlos on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Stealing is permanently depriving someone of something. Theft is a criminal offense. You would need to prove without any doubt that person would have bought that CD/DVD if they could not obtain it for free. Until you do so, it is not stealing.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By JHBoricua on 10/28/2009 7:45:48 PM , Rating: 5
No its not, no matter how much you repeat it.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 7:48:18 PM , Rating: 3
Actually it is called copyright infringement and it falls under civil law rather than criminal law unless you make a profit from the infringement.

I know you don't download DVD's because its obvious you have been brainwashed by the "piracy if theft" shite you cannot skip past at the start of almost every DVD.

Don't you think it ironic that only people who see that are those who have legitimately purchased the said DVD?

Of course if you care to show me a court case where someone has been prosecuted for "theft" by "stealing a film by downloading off the Internet" I will retract my statement that you, sir, are a moron.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Jakeisbest on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By twjr on 10/28/2009 9:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not to sure what your definition of "wrong" is exactly but I personally think that walking into a store and physically stealing something is "more wrong". It is also a criminal act which means that lawmakers deem it to be "more wrong" than copyright infringement. However, what I find rather perverse and significantly more "wrong" is that the punishment for infringing a copyright (a civil case) is significantly higher than the criminal act of theft. Seems that big content is more concerned with protecting their failing business model from where I see it.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Jakeisbest on 10/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By nuarbnellaffej on 10/29/2009 12:51:01 AM , Rating: 1
I pirate every thing under the sun all the time, and I have absolutely no problem with it what so ever. BTW, I go to concerts on a regular basis.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Tom mc3s on 10/29/2009 2:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
I recently downloaded an album from the band The Jobz without paying anything for it. They released it for free. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that artists always deserve to be compensated from everyone that gets enjoyment from their creative works, I'm sure some would like to be though.

The point being we now have the greatest distribution model known to man and it may just change the way art is consumed. Should I choose to use a song by said band in a commercial sense I would expect to compensate them. If I want to enjoy their creative works I don't always feel that should come with a payment.

A problem arises when its debatable when these works should even be considered art as opposed to strictly being defined as entertainment. It becomes even more of a problem when trying to determine an acceptable price and what, if any, legislation needs to be involved. Certainly not the black and white issue you proclaim it to be.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By JHBoricua on 10/28/2009 10:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correct terminology does not make the act less wrong.
I'm pretty sure the Brits felt the same way when all that tea got dumped in the harbor a few years ago, but look what was the result.

IMHO, it does make it less wrong when the current system is flawed and completely stacked against the consumer by the RIAA/MPAA lobbying machine that essentially are writing the laws that are getting passed so they can protect their failing business model.

Copyright longevity is a joke right now, and stiffling creativity. These goons want to have their cake and eat it.

As long as they feel it is within their right to screw the consumer, the consumer will be within their right to screw them too. You can call it excuses or whatever you want. Just because there's a law in the books doesn't mean it is right.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 10/29/2009 12:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can call it excuses or whatever you want. Just because there's a law in the books doesn't mean it is right.


Ok please explain to me the difference in these two situations:

1) I take a loaf of break from a bakery with out paying for it.

2) I download the the Foo Fighters album with out paying for it.

Which is worse and why?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Helbore on 10/29/2009 2:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
1) is worse than 2), simply because one is removing and the other is copying.

If you steal a loaf of bread, the original is gone and cannot be sold to a paying customer - the vendor is out-of-pocket.

If you download an album,the original still exists, is still owned by the distributor and can still be sold to a paying customer.

I'm not saying that internet piracy is right, but it is cearly "less wrong" than physically stealing something that cannot be replaced.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By William Gaatjes on 10/28/2009 5:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
Stealing ? You know what is stealing ?

That when i buy a box of empty cd's that there is a compensation for the music industry fee on that box of empty cd's that i have to pay extra on top of the price because i might use them to copy a cd i purchased already or make a collection cd copy of the cd albums i already purchased. A copy that i make to protect my cd collection.

The same goes for empty dvd's . I have to pay a premium because of this "oh we are so poor" fee for the music industry or hollywood. And with music industry i mean the big labels and not the artist. Because it is proven over and over again that the artist only receives money when :

a. on tour.

b. they start there own record label.

Look at all the major players in the music industry.
They all have their own record label.

I pay to the music industry and hollywood when i buy a cd or dvd. I pay to the music industry and hollywood when i buy a empty cd or dvd. I pay for the music industry when i buy a cassette (yeah , they are still out there).


RE: Borrowed Time.
By StoveMeister on 10/28/2009 10:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree,
And do you note that all the BIGGEST names in music nowadays are making all their money off touring? Man it's a real shame when you have to work for your money :)
The only way "copyright infringement" as defined by RIAA etc could really be classed as theft is if you could steal the music label's ability to print more copies, AND the artist's ability to create more music.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 3:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
Plainly you do not understand who this man is. Twice he has been thrown out of government. The first time for obtaining an interest free loan from a fellow Labour member but did not declare this to parliament. The second time he abused his position to get a passport for an Indian businessman who was under investigation for corruption in India.

He now plans to impose deep packest inspection and allow the media companies to bully the ISPs into acting as their police dogs threatening to cut off customers from the Internet on the flimsiest of evidence at the request of a personal friend David Geffen whilst being dined at an exclusive greek island. He claims it had no bearing on his decision despite him making it not two days after his return from the get away. He also has business links with Russian oligarchs, doubtless the same seedy setup happens there too. There is a whole lot more dubious nature regarding this man.

He also claimed the BBC lied about the 'dodgy dossier' regarding the reasons why the UK was convinced (and the US, by all accounts) to join the Iraq war. The famous 45 minutes from destruction slogan that Blair used. It was later found the dossier was indeed "sexed up" at the request of the Labour party, and was almost entirely based on an out of date thesis from a university student.

Given all of that I have little doubt that the plight of the suffering artist and content creator was foremost in his decision to bring this law in. Do you?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By donjuancarlos on 10/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:26:21 PM , Rating: 3
See my other reply to you.

You seem to be misguided in you seem to believe that people would instantly buy these products if they could not get them free.

My metro on the way to work is free. If it were not I wouldn't buy it. Would I be a thief now if I read someone elses copy of it?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 10/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 8:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you need a crash course in file sharing.

When you have download a complete file, then you begin to seed. This is where you offer small parts of the full file to lots people.

Then you have what are known as leechers. These are people who as soon as they have the complete file disconnect.

Then you have what is known as a ratio. A ratio is the amount of data you have uploaded compared to downloaded. A ratio of 1 means you have uploaded 1 full copy and downloaded 1 full copy.

Say your file was 1 megabyte. Now most peoples connections are asynchronous, especially on cable. Meaning you get more thruput downloading then you do uploaded. By quite a high margin on most domestic broadband, usually a factor of 10 or more.

So say my 1 meg file took me approx 1 hour to download. It would take me 10 hours or more to upload 1 full file as a seeder on a normal domestic broadband connection.

To get to a ratio of 10 would take me a 100 hours. To a ratio of a 100 would take me a 1000 hours (or 41 days running 24/7 at maximum upload speed). By which point I imagine demand for this item would have waned considerably.

Most leechers would probably only share 10% of the full file. Most seeders would probably have a ratio of 1-3

As you can see the misconception is that a filesharer has made thousands of copies to give to other people. This blatantly not the case. What has happened in reality is that 1 copy they have uploaded has been packaged up and divided between thousands of people. They have only actually made 1 copy.

An analogy would be if my friend loaned me a DVD/CD, and then I loaned it on to someone else, who then in turn loaned it on again, and again, and again.

As for the claim it has hurt music sales, perhaps. However not nearly as much as the labels give it credit for. It is a convenience for them if anything. Sales down? Blame the pirates. Nothing to do with the garbage they release these days. American Idol? Leonna Lewis. Good grief. Sales are down because of this kind of rubbish and the fact people have more to do with their lives then listen to some auto-tuned manufactured band then they did previously. Where is the originality? The labels are formulaic and their music is dull and boring. It doesn't need to be that way, but the guys at the top are so far away from the purchasers how other can it be?

Did you know due to my friends sharing albums with me I have found artists that I may not have bothered with previously and have gone on to buy other works of theirs. That would not have happened if my friends didn't loan my their CD's.

Maybe without piracy sales would have fallen even further, ever stopped to consider that?



RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 10/29/2009 12:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you need a crash course in a 'straw man' fallacy:

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

The details of seeding and leeching are irrelevant to the argument.
quote:
As for the claim it has hurt music sales, perhaps. However not nearly as much as the labels give it credit for. It is a convenience for them if anything. Sales down?

I totally agree! Piracy has been blown out of proportion by the RIAA. The verdicts awarded to them in trial are ridiculous. The shake down letters they send based on IP addresses should be criminal.

quote:
Did you know due to my friends sharing albums with me I have found artists that I may not have bothered with previously and have gone on to buy other works of theirs. That would not have happened if my friends didn't loan my their CD's. Maybe without piracy sales would have fallen even further, ever stopped to consider that?


Music has been discovered and rediscovered since the dawn of man. It is very easy to discover new music with out infringing on the rights of the creator.

I don't doubt piracy has allowed people to find new artists, and purchase their music. But, that does not justify a person downloading and enjoying an artists music with out paying.

Personally, I think the best model for music going forward is for artists to allow people to download their music for free. The artist then would make money through live performance of that music. But, that is not for us to decide that is for each artist or content owner to decide.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/29/2009 3:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
I was pointing out to you that someone who fileshares an album usually only shares 1 copy.

Whereas I may loan out one of my DVD's usually up to 20 or more different friends.

By that account the labels should be going after me more than the filesharer. I have lost them 20 times the number of sales than the filesharer. You have not answered my questions, would you think it fair for the media industry to come round and cut off my electricity if they catch me more than 3 times lending or borrowing DVD/CDs to my friends? Please answer this question.

My comments were entirely relevant. After all, this article is about filesharing is it not? And the points I raised were about, dum - dum - dum, filesharing on peer 2 peer via bitorrent. No idea where you got the straw man argument from given that my points were entirely relevant. Is that something that you accuse someone of when you cannot come up with a decent reply?

Fine, let them send out letters stating consumers have committed a criminal offense. The burden of proof is much greater in that case and there isn't a single case in existance that would result in a guilty verdict. Obviously you know nothing about how the Internet works and when given the opportunity to learn you chose to ignore.

And quit bleating on about the artist when really you mean the label doesn't get paid. The artist gets a nominal amount from the sale of a CD. Honestly they could make more money selling home made lemonade on the their front lawn then they get from the sale of a CD.

And you're wrong about who gets to decide on the price of things. Ultimately it is the consumer who gets to decide. If they don't agree with the value of something they will not buy it, end of story. You can blame "piracy" all day long, but that is the true "straw man" fallacy.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 10/29/2009 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My comments were entirely relevant. After all, this article is about filesharing is it not? And the points I raised were about, dum - dum - dum, filesharing on peer 2 peer via bitorrent. No idea where you got the straw man argument from given that my points were entirely relevant. Is that something that you accuse someone of when you cannot come up with a decent reply?


My claim was that at some point sales are lost because people can get duplicated copies of music for free on the internet. The method of delivery online has nothing to do with that claim. Hence, you created a 'straw man' to knock down.

quote:
You have not answered my questions, would you think it fair for the media industry to come round and cut off my electricity if they catch me more than 3 times lending or borrowing DVD/CDs to my friends? Please answer this question.


Electricity is a great example. If you are allowing other people to use electricity from your home and then don't pay the electric company guess what happens? The electric company will shut off your electricity!

If you are using your internet connection to give away duplicates of copyrighted works, then you should be punished.

Loaning a DVD to your friend is ok. Giving him a duplicate copy of that DVD is not ok.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 11/2/2009 11:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
What if I borrowed my friend the DVD everytime he asked for it?


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 11/2/2009 4:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Already answered.
quote:
Loaning a DVD to your friend is ok. Giving him a duplicate copy of that DVD is not ok.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 11/2/2009 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My claim was that at some point sales are lost because people can get duplicated copies of music for free on the internet. The method of delivery online has nothing to do with that claim. Hence, you created a 'straw man' to knock down.


You do realise banding about "straw man" argument does not make any of the tosh you are saying any more valid. The phrase is not a panacea to winning all arguments.

With regards to the "some sales are lost", I ask you to prove it. Of course, you are totally unable to. You assume, incorrectly, that because overall sales are down then it MUST be down to piracy. Nothing to do with the quality of the product itself, nothing to do with the fact that actual retail value of the product has dropped and nothing to do with the fact that people cherry pick tracks rather than purchase full albums.

No, none of that matters to you.

quote:
Electricity is a great example. If you are allowing other people to use electricity from your home and then don't pay the electric company guess what happens? The electric company will shut off your electricity!


I never said I was allowing other people to use electricity from my home. The question was should I be cut off from my electricity for borrowing CD's/DVD's to my friends given this has also created a lost sale. Come on, I thought you were an expert on what a straw man was.

Oh, and by the way, you may want to read this...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/p2...


RE: Borrowed Time.
By ChickenMcTest on 11/2/2009 4:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With regards to the "some sales are lost", I ask you to prove it. Of course, you are totally unable to. You assume, incorrectly, that because overall sales are down then it MUST be down to piracy. Nothing to do with the quality of the product itself, nothing to do with the fact that actual retail value of the product has dropped and nothing to do with the fact that people cherry pick tracks rather than purchase full albums.


You still don't get it.

These are basic property rights and the foundation of a free market economy. All you lefties think you can can get things for free.

If you have not paid for it, you don't get to have a copy of it.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Alexstarfire on 10/28/2009 4:00:56 PM , Rating: 1
This is totally true, but you know that 1 song is going to equal one strike. So you'll likely get screwed if they ever catch you anyway. That's the only real problem I see. If you can essentially get screwed on 1 offense then it's just not right. This is just something else that can screw over legitimate people and let's the true bad people just keep doing what they do with no punishment.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
They recently tried to sue a woman in a shop who stacked shelves for a living for singing pop songs whilst she worked, claiming it was a "unauthorised public performance". It was only in the face of adverse negative publicity that they backed down.

These are the kind of people you are dealing with.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By donjuancarlos on 10/28/2009 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give you that. That move was completely idiotic.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 5:03:34 PM , Rating: 4
So was refusing to offer the market what they demand. They resisted digital distribution for so long that this need was fulfilled by napster.

Even now the amount of material available to download digitally is minimal. The back catalogs of the labels are brimming with fantastic pieces of work that are just sitting there gathering dust.

I cannot buy them legitimately online or even via a bricks and mortar outlet. However they are available freely on the Internet if you know how to use google.

What is worse is that the record labels cling on to the copyright like vampires cling to the night. Instead they concentrate all their might into suing people for downloading the formulaic trash they pump out year after year by manufactured bands.

Here's an idea. Why don't they offer their complete copyright material online at a nominal cost. It would certainly help their bottom line and their shareholders would rejoice. But hey, these are the same people that ignored the Internet as a method of delivery.

You are aware how the music industry came to be? From the unionised radio. Bands used to get paid money for appearing live on the radio. Then the unions moved in and it become prohibitive and instead they just played records.

At this time it was expensive to produce and distribute records unless you had economies of scale. So the labels vertically scaled the market. Owning the distribution, production, marketing and even the outlets. The barrier to entry for an artist was prohibitively high.

Naturally the Internet has made the majority of those costs redundant. However the labels had a vested interest in preserving the status quo due to their vertical markets, so they ignored the Internet hoping it would go away.

The rest, my dear, is history.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 5:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
So was refusing to offer the market what they demand. They resisted digital distribution for so long that this need was fulfilled by napster.

Even now the amount of material available to download digitally is minimal. The back catalogs of the labels are brimming with fantastic pieces of work that are just sitting there gathering dust.

I cannot buy them legitimately online or even via a bricks and mortar outlet. However they are available freely on the Internet if you know how to use google.

What is worse is that the record labels cling on to the copyright like vampires cling to the night. Instead they concentrate all their might into suing people for downloading the formulaic trash they pump out year after year by manufactured bands.

Here's an idea. Why don't they offer their complete copyright material online at a nominal cost. It would certainly help their bottom line and their shareholders would rejoice. But hey, these are the same people that ignored the Internet as a method of delivery.

You are aware how the music industry came to be? From the unionised radio. Bands used to get paid money for appearing live on the radio. Then the unions moved in and it become prohibitive and instead they just played records.

At this time it was expensive to produce and distribute records unless you had economies of scale. So the labels vertically scaled the market. Owning the distribution, production, marketing and even the outlets. The barrier to entry for an artist was prohibitively high.

Naturally the Internet has made the majority of those costs redundant. However the labels had a vested interest in preserving the status quo due to their vertical markets, so they ignored the Internet hoping it would go away.

The rest, my dear, is history.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Aloonatic on 10/29/2009 7:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to defend piracy. You should go out and buy something if you can afford it, and if you can't, well that's life.

However. The music industry really pees me off.

I'm not sure how things work in the states, but it's hardly a free market over here, and the reasons why the industry is so uppity about al this has far less to do with "fairness" and the damage that is being done to new acts etc, as they claim, but has a lot to do with them being less and less relevant, and being sidelined by the internet and far more savy musicians realising that they don't actually need all the big suits half as much as they do.

It's not all the Internet's fault too. It's got a lot to do with greed and the mass production/control over "new" music where "artists" are not really the free sprites that we might like to think, but sole-less empty corporate shills, and while it's been going on and growing for ages, it's just all too obvious now.

No one really cares about the charts any more, so why not let there be a free market in music? If Lady ga-ga or whoever wants to get to number one by releasing a single at 1p a download, then why not let her? The true "free market" price of music is still far from being found and established. When the industry realises that a lot of the ill feeling, and reason why many people don't give a damn and are happy to "steal" music is because they feel like they've been abused for years and years.

They've become too greedy and believed their own hype. For some reason they've become convinced that they are soooo important. That people cannot live without hearing music for more than half an hour, else their brain will melt down, sop you need an iPod, need to hear music in lifts, near to hear it being played in shopping malls, in the streets, in the car, in the home, in the bedroom, in the space station, on mars, just in case anyone is there....

When people are not being bullied and threatened all the time, then allowed to purchase what they want in a free market, come back to me on taking my internet connection away because my house mate is downloading stuff that he shouldn't be. I'll have no sympathy for him then. As it is now, screw you music "industry".

I don't give a damn, you are a shame and no where near as worthy or relevant as you think. The internet has made you largely redundant. I haven't bought or downloaded an album in years. I'm over 30, so have heard it all before it seems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehHOqx7JXg

That video always makes me laugh. :-D Funny, yet sad, because it's true though. :-(


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/28/2009 3:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sheesh the guy even looks pompous and angry. Everything I imagined a British Lord to be.


RE: Borrowed Time.
By Aloonatic on 10/29/2009 5:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention a raging homo.....r Simpson is one of my favourite cartoon characters you know?! Quite the gay (happy, he's always smiling, it's the proper use of the word you know?) lord!*

No, Mandy's really one of the people though. As all New Labour politicians are. All about democracy and fairness. It's why this twice disgrace and unelectable creature is de-facto PM as the (also) unelected Brown (yes, we don't elect PMs, but we elect parties who should follow the rules they state, and Brown was not voted in as Labour leader properly) is making such a terrible hash of things and making more u-turns than my old sat nav used to ask me to make, being constantly wrong too, just like my old sat nav. Oh I'm so glad to be rid of it.

Nu Labour are not like the "evil" right wing "Tories" who just want to bully people and lord over them, making decision on high. They would probably make a decision like this after meeting with highly paid music execs and what-not, bobbing about on a yacht in the Med, miles away from constituents and living a lifestyle that very few do.

Oh wait, that's what Mandy did.

Sadly though OP. The "Tory" victory is still less than ensured. Don't underestimate the power of the family tax (bribe) credit system and other (bribes) benefits that many rely on ij nthi s country. That will be more relevant as we are still in recession. 6 months after France and Germany have come out of it, in-spite of us being "best placed" etc, and Gordon ending boom and bust. Then don't forget the liberal left (BBC) media supporting them to the hilt. Liberal/middle class guilt is a powerful thing.

* I have nothing against homosexuals of course. I just liked the "stereotypical" British lord comment that I replied to and thought that fact might add something to it.


Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By Yawgm0th on 10/28/2009 3:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thank goodness we don't have this problem in America.

*glances nervously*




RE: Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 4:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Be very wary of the left. I believe you have a lefty for a president. Give him enough time and he will do the same as what Blair has done to this country.

You guys made communism illegal for a very good reason in my opinion.

People claim the UK is like 1984. I dispute that, it is more like Animal Farm.


RE: Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By Yawgm0th on 10/28/2009 5:41:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Be very wary of the left. I believe you have a lefty for a president. Give him enough time and he will do the same as what Blair has done to this country.
I was being completely sarcastic. Corporate interests dominate Congress. It wasn't done by Obama or Bush -- it was the Republican and Democratic parties over the last few decades. It has very little to do with political ideology.

quote:
Be very wary of the left. I believe you have a lefty for a president. Give him enough time and he will do the same as what Blair has done to this country.

There is no good reason to make an idea illegal. And we did no such thing. If there is ever a need to ban political parties it is a sign democracy has failed.

quote:
People claim the UK is like 1984. I dispute that, it is more like Animal Farm.
There weren't cameras at every semaphor in Animal Farm. I see the 1984 comparison as apt.


RE: Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 8:26:02 PM , Rating: 3
I kind of guessed you were being sarcastic you know.

You have corporate interests on the right, sure. But the totalitarianism of the left is far more insidious.

Communism is illegal in America, no?

With regards to Animal Farm, the point was about communism and totalitarianism. Where everyone is equal, just some more than others. So you have governments basically saying do I as say, not as I do. Take a look the Labour party in the UK and how the run the country, it isn't 1984, its Animal Farm.


By Yawgm0th on 10/29/2009 1:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the totalitarianism of the left is far more insidious.
No, not really. The last eight years under a conservative president were some of the worst we've seen for civil liberties in a long, long time. Yes, communism is bad. So is fascism. If one is worse, it's fascism.

quote:
Communism is illegal in America, no?
No. It never has been, and it never will be. The last time it was seriously discussed was the GOP Primary of 1948. The more conservative Dewey, who won and later lost to Truman in the election, argued against it. His logic: "You can't shoot an idea with a gun."

quote:


With regards to Animal Farm, the point was about communism and totalitarianism. Where everyone is equal, just some more than others. So you have governments basically saying do I as say, not as I do. Take a look the Labour party in the UK and how the run the country, it isn't 1984, its Animal Farm.
I see. By that comparison, most countries are like Animal Farm.


By Tom mc3s on 10/29/2009 2:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
"Communism is illegal in America, no?"

No. Nor should it be. Nor does that have anything to do with this discussion.


By ChickenMcTest on 10/29/2009 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think Brave New World is a better comparison.


By ChickenMcTest on 10/29/2009 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Dark do you know what double think is?
the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

quote:
Be very wary of the left. I believe you have a lefty for a president. Give him enough time and he will do the same as what Blair has done to this country. You guys made communism illegal for a very good reason in my opinion.

and
quote:
Whereas I loan out one of my DVD's usually up to 20 or more different friends.

lol!


RE: Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By AshT on 10/28/2009 4:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
If this happens for real then my view is that we (UK) are the testbed for what will no doubt end up over in the US.

Our politicians listen hard to what the US wants and fully obey, much like obedient dogs.


By Ananke on 10/28/2009 4:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
This guy reminds me about senator McKain and his role in the FCC...so, strange the Lord is part of a Labor party, since so obviously he conveys corporate interests.

Hopefully Britain will not become something like in the V for Vendetta movie :)


RE: Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By jimbojimbo on 10/28/2009 4:49:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Our politicians listen hard to what the US wants and fully obey, much like obedient dogs
Correction: Our politicians listen hard to what the US Corporations want and fully obey...


RE: Corporate Interests Trump Public Interests
By nuarbnellaffej on 10/29/09, Rating: 0
By chagrinnin on 10/30/2009 1:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
Corporations, unions, lobbyists, whatever...politicians sell out to the highest bidder. Like Blagojevich said,...
quote:
“It’s a bleeping valuable thing! You just don’t give it away for nothing…you gotta pay to play. It’s bleeping mahogany.”


By Kaleid on 11/1/2009 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Unions don't have much power, at least not in USA.


By Yawgm0th on 10/28/2009 5:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this happens for real then my view is that we (UK) are the testbed for what will no doubt end up over in the US.
This happens in virtually every other industry imaginable over here. Frankly the problem is worse here. The difference is our ISPs have more political power than the RIAA does here. It's just a different entity in charge -- it doesn't matter what that entity is beyond the fact that it isn't the people.


By MatthiasF on 10/28/2009 8:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
The Wild West mentality on the Internet is going to end eventually. Don't fear it, just make sure it doesn't end with a thud.


Encryption
By vailr on 10/29/2009 12:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe if everyone that was on bittorrent were using good encryption, the "onlookers"/ISP's wouldn't be able to reliably determine the content (or the legal status) of any files being shared. If they can't decrypt the content, they can't establish any legal evidence. It's all just electrons, anyway.
Whatever happened to The Pirate Bay's grandiose plans for a more secure "BitTorrent 2" protocol, from a year or so ago?




RE: Encryption
By MindParadox on 10/29/2009 4:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
if you think that there is honestly any commercially available encryption that cant be cracked by a governmental entity within hours(possibly minutes or seconds) you are seriously deluded

it takes an average of 5-10 years(depending on the tech) for technology currently being used by the military to make it into the private industrial sector, let alone the commercial or home sector


RE: Encryption
By dark matter on 10/29/2009 6:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
Erm yeah, why else would they pass a law that makes it a criminal offence to refuse to give up a password for an encrypted file.


RE: Encryption
By Aloonatic on 10/29/2009 7:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
TEEEERRRRROOOORRRRR!!!!!!!!

At least, that was the excuse here given by New Labour.

Just like it was the excuse used to make it so that some local council office-junior can go trough my phone/internet/bank records, follow me and film me going about my day to day life and they wanted to be able to lock me up for 42 days without charge...

I'm sure they've find a way of trying to get the message over that "if you pirate a song, you are letting the terrorists win" too...


RE: Encryption
By AnnihilatorX on 10/30/2009 8:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you think that there is honestly any commercially available encryption that cant be cracked by a governmental entity within hours(possibly minutes or seconds) you are seriously deluded


You got to be kidding me. A combination of AES-TwoFish-Serpent encryption on a suitable key, would take the world's best supercomputer years to crack. Copyright infringement would not be worth the effort and money to be pursued this way.


RE: Encryption
By Staples on 10/29/2009 9:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
Or, people can just follow the law and stop stealing music and video. It really simple guys.


Ridiculous...
By Xavi3n on 10/28/2009 5:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
The Internet is no longer a small tool to be used in addition to other communication technologies, it has evolved to the point where it IS the communication tool. Recently a poll stated that 70% of the UK population opposed the bans that Mandleson is pushing through (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/18/p... ).

There is simply massive opposition to this plan and could even influence voters decisions coming the next election.

Finally, Mandleson shouldn't be in parliament anyway, let alone a bloody lord, he represents everything that is wrong with UK politics and he makes me sick.




RE: Ridiculous...
By Xavi3n on 10/28/2009 5:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh i forgot, if you live in the UK and are opposed to this Ridiculous Ban and feel that the copyright system needs to change, I'd advise you join or support the Pirate Party UK.

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/


RE: Ridiculous...
By dark matter on 10/28/2009 5:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine that Labour has tried to cover up it allowed mass immigration into the UK will be more of vote killer than this. The fact they removed from their immigration report that crime will go up in certain areas, begging, prostitution, violence, people smuggling due to increased immigration. The fact they wanted immigrants in the country as they knew that 95% of them vote Labour and that whenever anyone criticized the government on immigration they were labeled a racist. Not to mention the fact they promised us a referendum on the Lisbon treaty that in effect makes us a state of the European union and then told us we cannot have one after all, oh and by the way, Blair is going to be president. You know, the one is who is facing charges for taking the UK into an illegal war with Iraq. Thats the fella.


Will a representative government work?
By MadMan007 on 10/28/2009 4:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like a true test of whether a representative government can work given the wide opposition. Come on UK folk, show us it can work.




By ChickenMcTest on 10/28/2009 7:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think it is working. A representative government needs to be able to make decisions which are against the popular opinion of the time. Otherwise we just have mob rule.


m5 and m6
By massec on 10/28/2009 4:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
"as well as two British intelligence agencies -- M5 and M6"

hahahahaha, the M5 is following me !!!! help!!! help!!!




RE: m5 and m6
By massec on 10/28/2009 5:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
see, now you changed it, that's no fun


It will create jobs
By Beenthere on 10/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: It will create jobs
By twjr on 10/28/2009 10:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is beyond me how many people talk about pirates and prison. Pirating only becomes criminal if it is done "for profit" or on the high seas taking ships hostage in the Gulf of Aden.


RE: It will create jobs
By tfk11 on 10/29/2009 2:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're a fool. Keep your opinions to yourself.


I love how
By Staples on 10/29/2009 9:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
I find these threads ridiculous, same thing with Global Warming threads. DT does not have a very smart audience.

Anyway, I love how enforcing the law (yes prosecuting thiefs) is somehow all due to the RIAA's influence. It's the fuc***g law morons. Follow it.




RE: I love how
By messyunkempt on 10/29/2009 11:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

It's the fuc***g law morons. Follow it


Yeah, because we wouldn't want to promote healthy debate on a highly unpopular government proposal now would we?

Prosecuting thieves is all well and good, but when, in the eyes of the law, file sharing doesnt technically fall under the definition of theft as no one is being deprived of anything, I think its at least worthy of a chin wag in a relevant forum (ie this one..) without being lambastardised by a person who feels the need to insult an entire sites audience without even putting a valid opinion across...

Unpopular laws and policies would never get changed if people followed them blindly just because 'It's the fuc***g law', and I think the world would be a pretty sucky place if everyone did.

The whole file sharing debate is generally pretty polarised with people who do and people that dont and from a personal point of view I can see valid points on both sides and I think it's going to be pretty interesting to see how this pans out when its introduced..


By greylica on 10/28/2009 7:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, copyrights will be used to force innovation on the Creative Coomons side, because people will be angry with all of this ''tired '' internet.
The ISPs can't grow fast as people are needing, and then used their DPI to delay some protocols. Then....
Looking to solve their problems (Gaining money from the industry, in a silly way), politicians start to use the wrong Idea of the Isps to benefit themselves. Well, Internet in certain countries are ''tired'', but will be more ''tired'' and in most situations, delayed and ''out of service'' as always.
But now, stupid politicians, founded in gold by some ''Big Bossess'', will be the culprit.

Ohhhh, Always stupid politicians....

May creative commons grow more, and then their stupidity will have a right consequence for the industry. I can't believe they are trying to push again CD production, whereas microchips hold more data than DVD, and with SDHCs, more than a BR Disc...

I guess next time I will try to find an old IBM superball typer machine to send mails again...





By jconan on 10/28/2009 9:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
What a waste of taxpayers money, too bad the Brits can do anything about it. Has this guy been bribed by the media and recording industry? There is much more than just movies and records and plus when was the last time the record labels paid indies for the use of the music and also unauthorized use of music in political campaigns e.g. John McCain...




By flexy on 10/29/2009 8:30:41 AM , Rating: 2
It will certainly cost millions of $$$ as well as many man hours for every ISP to implement such "deep packet scan" technology for a "real time scan" of internet content.

Who is paying for this? THE RECORD INDUSTRY? Oh wait..no. The tax payer :)

(Aside from the the fact that this just sounds utterly absurd....filesharing tech could change in very little time..just a little protocol change and all that effort would be wasted.)

Besides....for me this sounds very "1984ish"...a "real time scan" of ziggabytes of daily data transferred in regards to content, under the hood of a government monopoly? Where is the end for this? Today its the record industry having an agenda...and tomorrow? Who knows what they want to filter and scan for tomorrow because someone doesnt like it?

Technical absurd...waste of tax payers money..stupid.




Sigh
By stlrenegade on 10/29/2009 9:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Remind me not to visit Airstrip One anytime soon.




By messyunkempt on 10/29/2009 11:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
that this policy was introduced a couple of days after a meeting with david geffen?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206901/Ma...




This is one of three ways...
By TheEinstein on 10/30/2009 11:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
As a self made security expert this was one of three ways I identified to stop this sort of theft.

It is theft, do not get me wrong. If you hate their prices, then go make your own music label with all others who hate their prices, and hire the talent yourselves!!!

Free market does not mean free products, it means freedom to compete with those who have lousy business models and to completely out do them in profits, sales, love of the masses and otherwise!

Btw one of the other two methods was a built in PIN to each computer, you can guess from there..




GREED
By Kyanzes on 11/2/2009 6:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
If people won't pay for something then the stuff doesn't worth the money. Perhaps you can't deliver something along with the product that would justify the purchase at that price.

Here's what I think: artists and publishers have become so greedy that they only think about selling more and more CD/DVD/etc than ever. But there's a problem. When you perform in live, that's a real effort. When you sell a copy of that effort it's not the same thing anymore. When you make studio recordings and try to sell several millions of copies the value of said effort suddenly drops significantly. You aren't performing live, it's not the real thing. At one point they basically ask more than it really does worth. That's the problem. They're perhaps too lazy to perform in live *OR* perhaps the money they get for their live performances is not enough to feed their families. They actually want more than they freaking deserve. It's called GREED.

Live and quality performance should be rewarded generously.

All right, that covered music but one could say "But what about movies? They can't perform live, now can they?"

Well, perhaps the actors are overpaid! By a HUGE margin!!! You actually pay 5-10-30-50 MILLION DOLLARS for a few months of work? Then you are LUNATIC my friend!!! That's where the money sinks. Sure, pay them well. But come on... They want YOU to pay for the ridiculous salaries actors receive! I'm obviously not talking about John Smith IX. who sat at a table in XY movie to make the bar appear crowded. I'm talking about overpaid star actors! Work for your money my friend! Like everyone else!!! It's not the actors' fault though. It's freaking GREED all the way down the line!




DENIAL doesn't change reality
By Beenthere on 10/29/2009 9:06:27 AM , Rating: 1
Ask the Pirate Bay Boys how that $3 million fine and prison time is going.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki