View Full Version : Virgin Media and BPI join forces to attack illegal filesharing
mainlime
06-06-2008, 11:46
From the Reg :
"Virgin Media will launch a campaign against illegal downloading next week, when it'll begin firing off warning letters to to subscribers that the BPI believes are sharing copyright music files."
Full story : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06/virgin_media_bpi_deal/
ISP's have no option in this, either try to help-out voluntarily or get legislated. It's the better of the two evils.
hokkers999
06-06-2008, 12:35
There is an article over at The Register talking about dear old VM teaming up with the BPI to send out threatening letters to supposedly illegal music sharers. That's to people who the BPI *believe* are file sharing...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06/virgin_media_bpi_deal/
By the look of it it's not VM who's doing the Ip gathering but the BPI (probably posing as file sharers and checking out the IP's via the RIPE database) They then ask VM to warn the user.
So nothing being passed onto the BPI and the only thing being passed onto VM I presume is IP/Date/Time...
In the end more a case of if you are gonna share stuff like that then choose an anonymous method otherwise start expecting consequences to your actions
Kymmy
xspeedyx
06-06-2008, 13:14
I dont like this but heck its illegal and if you was to rob a car then you have to think I might get caught and if you are you cnt do anything about it apart from dont or find a way to do it where you cant get caught IRC,Newsgroup here we come
So what are VM going constitute as illegal and will force warnings.
Take this for instance could this be deemed also a target despite you legally purchase the program.
http://audials.com/en/music_download_videos/index.html
There is a big gaping hole on what could be seen by the ISP and BPI as "illegal".
I mean, all they can really see is how much your downloading in one go.
So, one MP3 is 4Mb, an Album is about 80Mb. So what difference does it make if you use a torrent, Limewire or on a site?
I think they could only really monitor it if your downloading from sites.
So, one MP3 is 4Mb, an Album is about 80Mb. So what difference does it make if you use a torrent, Limewire or on a site?
You mean more like 25Mb+ for a track, and 250Mb+ for an album.
Unless you don't have quality speakers/headphones ;)
There is a big gaping hole on what could be seen by the ISP and BPI as "illegal".
I mean, all they can really see is how much your downloading in one go.
So, one MP3 is 4Mb, an Album is about 80Mb. So what difference does it make if you use a torrent, Limewire or on a site?
I think they could only really monitor it if your downloading from sites.
thats very true the link I showed this is a program which takes the streams from internet radio and you copy them in the same way you used a tape deck few years back to record stations.
They also have a vast libary of mp3 songs at your disposal and yes they download like p2p service.
The radio do give permision I believe to be part of the service and its a very popular highly recommended in music mags.
The do video and podcast service for ipods.
Also there is many sites out there which provide free legal music from artists. One provides the best every month and you download a zip file its great to hear new bands material called obscure sound its an indie music website. Another like using is 3hive. They legal free music sites.
Its seems an unworkable practice how can they tell what is legal / illegal.
The thing is is that at this stage they're purely asking ISP's to send through a letter reminding people that copyrighted file sharing is illegal, hence they're calling it an "educational campaign" No action apart is being taken, and probably no action would be taken via the ISP unless the BPI find some way of holding the ISP's responsible.
It's purely the ISP's trying to keep the BPI semi happy and off thier backs..
Kymmy
xspeedyx
06-06-2008, 15:00
I have just remembered dont ISP's do this anyways I know BE send letters or emails and BT do aswell
I have just remembered dont ISP's do this anyways I know BE send letters or emails and BT do aswell
Yes, someone on here posted a Be* filesharing letter thing a while back.
PeteTheMusicGuy
06-06-2008, 16:37
I have just remembered dont ISP's do this anyways I know BE send letters or emails and BT do aswell
Yes they both do so from the sounds of it VM is just doing the same thing
:rant:
You can bet the bloody cloned modem users don't get a sodding letter. Yet again those that pay for there service will be hit and the cloners who will be using multiple cloned modems and chipped settops will get away with it.:rant:
xspeedyx
06-06-2008, 17:28
:rant:
You can bet the bloody cloned modem users don't get a sodding letter. Yet again those that pay for there service will be hit and the cloners who will be using multiple cloned modems and chipped settops will get away with it.:rant:
Its the way the world works Sirus people who pay there taxs and work for a living get nothing the people who sit on there butts doing nothing get everything and still complain.
Sorry for the off topic post
This is awesome. We can now frame people en-masse: http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
I really hope someone gets taken to court. Then the BPI's "evidence" can be thoroughly refuted in a court of law.
MovedGoalPosts
06-06-2008, 19:22
threads merged ;)
surely Virgin can just send out letters to everyone, and tell the BPI they've doen their bit. It seems a bit like Sony moanig about ppl copying films, yet they still sell blank DVDs and DVD writers.
surely Virgin can just send out letters to everyone, and tell the BPI they've doen their bit. It seems a bit like Sony moanig about ppl copying films, yet they still sell blank DVDs and DVD writers.
Yeah because the only reason for blank media and writers is for piracy!
Dear Mr ******* we've recently reviewed your actions and have determined that you've illegally downloaded some hard core pornography from a torrent site!
Okay - and the illegal action! the content of the download? the point of origin? or the mechanism used?
Another example - EZTV. this torrent site is where it is possible to download those TV episodes like - Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate Atlantis etc, You know all of those programmes that VM (in their infinite wisdom) decided to withdraw from their customers when they severed ties with SKY1 - what do you expect your customers to do? if you take away the ball then we'll play cricket somewhere else!
What next a surveillance camera in every home?
Gimme a break!
Sending letters to everyone pointing out what is already the law (and thus should be known to everyone) is pointless, and not VM's problem at all. The BPI should pony up for national advertising if they think it's important.
I seriously doubt this will go beyond a simple letter. Anything more would be inviting legal action. The three strikes thing is nonsense, because people will just say "prove it" and the BPI won't be able to.
It's easy to frame anyone for downloading copyrighted material, since you can just report any IP address you like to the tracker. Use someone else's and they are framed. As the paper I linked to pointed out, the BPI et al don't actually download anything from you, they just "your" address in the swarm.
Worse, imagine your IP address changes due to DHCP, which of course it regularly does. Because BT trackers are not updated more than once every 15 minutes, usually longer, any info the BPI gets from them is out of date and could be referring to the previous lease holder on your IP address.
Oh, and BTW, the EU considers an IP address to be private information so the BPI better have a court order if they want VM to tell them who the address was leased to at the time. Otherwise, VM are in deep for giving away your private data (protected by the Data Protection Act among other laws).
Sending letters to everyone pointing out what is already the law (and thus should be known to everyone) is pointless, and not VM's problem at all. The BPI should pony up for national advertising if they think it's important.
It's not pointless. Adverts are easily ignored, the whole "I'll never get caught, no one ever does" mentality. A direct mailshot saying "Hi! We know you downloaded this, on this date, you do realise that's illegal right?" would actually scare the **** out of an massive amount of people, far more than any advertising campaign will ever do.
Plus there's alot of kids that download things and their parents don't know, their parents suddenly getting a letter saying little jimmy is breaking the law will soon see little jimmy losing his internet connection.
I seriously doubt this will go beyond a simple letter. Anything more would be inviting legal action. The three strikes thing is nonsense, because people will just say "prove it" and the BPI won't be able to.
It's easy to frame anyone for downloading copyrighted material, since you can just report any IP address you like to the tracker. Use someone else's and they are framed. As the paper I linked to pointed out, the BPI et al don't actually download anything from you, they just "your" address in the swarm.
3 strikes definitely wont happen, it's far too difficult to enforce. However don't be fooled into thinking that all the likes of the BPI do is join a swarm and monitor it. That's just all they do if they are just collecting IP's for ISP's to send letters to. If they are going to take someone to court they do gain actual evidence of sharing by downloading the files from you.
Worse, imagine your IP address changes due to DHCP, which of course it regularly does. Because BT trackers are not updated more than once every 15 minutes, usually longer, any info the BPI gets from them is out of date and could be referring to the previous lease holder on your IP address.
IP's from expired DHCP leases are often locked out for far longer than 15minutes for precisely this reason.
Oh, and BTW, the EU considers an IP address to be private information so the BPI better have a court order if they want VM to tell them who the address was leased to at the time. Otherwise, VM are in deep for giving away your private data (protected by the Data Protection Act among other laws).
They wont, the BPI will just get VM to send the letters. They aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot with something like this, they have expensive legal teams to stop that from happening.
As for all the "how do they know what's legal or illegal?" people, it's easy. They monitor torrents of the work they own the rights over, anyone sharing it is breaking the law. It's not just a letter if you're torrenting, it's a response to a direct report of your IP being part of a swarm for a piece of work that they own the rights to.
Dear Mr ******* we've recently reviewed your actions and have determined that you've illegally downloaded some hard core pornography from a torrent site!
Okay - and the illegal action! the content of the download? the point of origin? or the mechanism used?
The letters they will be sending include the time, the name of the infringing work, your ip address at the time, and what protocol it was being downloaded through.
3 strikes definitely wont happen, it's far too difficult to enforce. However don't be fooled into thinking that all the likes of the BPI do is join a swarm and monitor it. That's just all they do if they are just collecting IP's for ISP's to send letters to. If they are going to take someone to court they do gain actual evidence of sharing by downloading the files from you.
I know this, you know this, both Virgin and the BPI know this.
However some supposedly tech people don't know this
http://www.trustedreviews.com/networking/news/2008/06/06/Virgin-Introduces-Three-Strikes-P2P-Policy/p1
Even though it isn't in any of the press releases!!
I would point it out to them but they got a bit shirty when I mentioned they read it wrong over the 20Mb - 50Mb non-upgrade ;)
TheBlueRaja
07-06-2008, 00:25
Looks like all those folk that "dont miss Sky" will have to get their illegal shows elsewhere.
Good work Virgin push them all to Sky, its better anyway. :tu:
I would point it out to them but they got a bit shirty when I mentioned they read it wrong over the 20Mb - 50Mb non-upgrade ;)
So I bit, and I emailed them, and guess what, I got a nice shirty reply back asking if I wanted to rephrase my statements with a "I happen to believe...". This is the problem with the digital age, any idiot can start up a new site, and most of them are run by people with no clue of what real journalism is about. I miss the days when articles were properly sourced.
Wow... I guess I'll be getting a letter within a few days? I'm always using sites which have TV shows on.
If i get a letter i will file it in the same place my usage letter went. I wonder how they are going to find out what i was doing with my giganews account, Unless of course they are going to be using those free gifted DPI servers that PHORM are going to be useing to give you more relevant adverts.
If VM are going to be doing this in the next month or so then i wonder if they already have the PHORM DPI servers in place ready to do this.
I think though people are getting the wrong end of the stick here...
I don't think that BPI are currently targetting those downloading mp3's, mainly as the only way for them to get the IP's is to act like an illegal file share and see who connects and downloads (entrapment??)
What they are doing is trawling the file sharing sites for people sharing the material and then they're connecting/downloading whilst logging the IP.
So those who will get the letters are the ones offering copyrighted material to download and not the downloaders themselves. In other words why go for the end user when you can have the dealer.
The excessive bandwidth usage letters sent out by VM are something totally different.
Kymmy
I think though people are getting the wrong end of the stick here...
I don't think that BPI are currently targetting those downloading mp3's, mainly as the only way for them to get the IP's is to act like an illegal file share and see who connects and downloads (entrapment??)
What they are doing is trawling the file sharing sites for people sharing the material and then they're connecting/downloading whilst logging the IP.
So those who will get the letters are the ones offering copyrighted material to download and not the downloaders themselves. In other words why go for the end user when you can have the dealer.
The excessive bandwidth usage letters sent out by VM are something totally different.
Kymmy
If they send letters to those using newsgroups and note I said IF
Then they will have done one of 2 things
1. They will be deep packet inspecting, Something that the PHORM servers (if they have them installed) will allow them to do.
2. They are watching what you download from there own Newsgroup servers.
I fully understand how torrents work and i fully agree with what you said. Its one of the reason i now will never use torrents again. they are just too insecure.
My fear is if they target newsgroups as well because to do that they will have to admit they Deep packet inspect our data.
As for the usage letters I expect to receive one every couple of weeks as i have been told the trigger level that is required to send you one, Its similar to the 3 strikes rule so that's me on there list permanently :LOL:.
Yep, but this thread is about the BPI and VM together.....
BUT!!! I do agree about the newsgroups and it does seem that SSL enabled servers will probably be the last bastion of the downloaders especially if the BPI gets thier way in the law courts...
Trigger level????...oh do share :)
Do they though really need to search within the packets, surely just the simple fact that you;re downloading 10+gb a day (or however amount) from giganews.com will probably trigger any paranoid ISP into action, or at least to take a closer look :(
Kymmy
If they send letters to those using newsgroups and note I said IF
Then they will have done one of 2 things
1. They will be deep packet inspecting, Something that the PHORM servers (if they have them installed) will allow them to do.
2. They are watching what you download from there own Newsgroup servers.
I fully understand how torrents work and i fully agree with what you said. Its one of the reason i now will never use torrents again. they are just too insecure.
My fear is if they target newsgroups as well because to do that they will have to admit they Deep packet inspect our data.
As for the usage letters I expect to receive one every couple of weeks as i have been told the trigger level that is required to send you one, Its similar to the 3 strikes rule so that's me on there list permanently :LOL:.
Curious as to how this will effect newgroup servers outside of Virgin's own ones for example www.easynews.com?
Curious as to how this will effect newgroup servers outside of Virgin's own ones for example www.easynews.com?
If they deep packet inspect then they will know every little thing you do. This is something that the PHORM system will allow them to do unfortunately as that works on Deep Packet Inspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection)..
Copyright enforcement
ISPs are sometimes requested by copyright owners or required by courts or official policy to help enforce copyrights. In 2006, one of Denmark's largest ISPs, Tele2, was given a court injunction and told it must block its customers from accessing The Pirate Bay, a launching point for Bit Torrent.[12] Instead of prosecuting file sharers one at a time,[13] the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the big four record labels EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music and Warner Music have begun suing ISPs like Eircom for not doing enough about protecting their copyrights.[14] The IFPI wants ISPs to filter traffic to remove illicitly uploaded and downloaded copyrighted material from their network, despite European directive 2000/31/EC clearly stating that ISPs may not be put under a general obligation to monitor the information they transmit and directive 2002/58/EC granting European citizens a right to privacy of communications. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) which enforces movie copyrights, on the other hand has taken the position with the FCC that network neutrality could hurt anti-piracy technology such as deep packet inspection and other forms of filtering.[15] To protect themselves against lawsuits, court injunctions, and government policies and regulations, ISPs are employing DPI to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted materials by their subscribers.
Now anyone know how secure is SSL in relation to DPI???
ISPs are employing DPI to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted materials by their subscribers.
Also the wording there is at least in peoples favour as the word distribution again denotes those sharing and not those downloading.
I know it's bye-the-bye as once they start checking for uploaders they'll start checking for downloaders ;) :D
Kymmy
I think though people are getting the wrong end of the stick here...
I don't think that BPI are currently targetting those downloading mp3's, mainly as the only way for them to get the IP's is to act like an illegal file share and see who connects and downloads (entrapment??)
Nope not entrapment. Entrapment is when you cooerce someone into doing something they otherwise would have had no intention of doing.
If they came to your door and said "want to download these mp3s? Go on, there's no risk, it'll be fun, come on just give it a try" and you then downloaded them, that would be entrapment. If you just go looking for mp3s and happen to find them on an BPI honeypot, that's just bad luck. Your prior intent was to find and download the mp3s so you haven't been entraped into anything.
It's why with drugs stings the police never initiate the transaction. If you initiate it then there's no proof of prior intent, so you step into the areas of entrapment. They always make sure the other person clearly states what they want before they offer anything.
What they are doing is trawling the file sharing sites for people sharing the material and then they're connecting/downloading whilst logging the IP.
So those who will get the letters are the ones offering copyrighted material to download and not the downloaders themselves. In other words why go for the end user when you can have the dealer.
Problem is with torrents and most other p2p programs the ones downloading it are also the ones offering it. You can't seperate the two, thus they go after everyone listed on the tracker.
Now anyone know how secure is SSL in relation to DPI???
Very. It can work our what type of traffic it probably is by monitoring traffic patterns, but it can't work out exactly what it is.
You have to remember though that just using SSL for the download isn't good enough if you don't want your ISP knowing what you're downloading. You need the entire download process encrypted from start to finish. I know so many people that use SSL for newsgroup downloads yet download the NZB for a file from an unsecure source. The ISP being able to see an NZB download for a copyrighted work, and then an SSL'd connection to a newsgroup server is more than enough for probable cause.
The BPI only care about illegal music traffic, right?
Barton71
07-06-2008, 14:05
The BPI only care about illegal music traffic, right?
Not at all. Their members also care about using illegal drugs, sexuallising young girls, binge drinking, and singing about killing police officers, but of course its the file sharers who are the bad guys really.
Why is everyone getting worked up about it. This is something thats gone on for a long time.
http://torrentfreak.com/youre-caught-downloading-dream-pinball-settle-now-or-go-broke/
The only difference now is that instead of the BPI getting a court order to get hold of your account detials. The BPI just hand the information over to VM and they send the letters out themselfs without giving the BPI any of your information. I know which I'd prefer
Well I will continue to download Xbox 360 ISO's both from VM and Astraweb newsservers.
It's not pointless. Adverts are easily ignored, the whole "I'll never get caught, no one ever does" mentality. A direct mailshot saying "Hi! We know you downloaded this, on this date, you do realise that's illegal right?" would actually scare the **** out of an massive amount of people, far more than any advertising campaign will ever do.
Except that it will be more like "Um... We think maybe the ip address we assigned to you at such-and-such a time might possibly have contacted such-and-such tracker at some point in the hours leading up to that time. Someone might have done something illegal, possibly, we don't actually have any evidence but we thought we'd ask if you'd like to admit anything?"
Plus there's alot of kids that download things and their parents don't know, their parents suddenly getting a letter saying little jimmy is breaking the law will soon see little jimmy losing his internet connection.
Parent: Jimmy, did you illegally download anything off the internet?
Jimmy: No!
(Parent dials VM complaints line)
Parent: How dare you accuse my son of committing a crime! Where is your evidence? I'm calling Watchdog and Ofcom!
3 strikes definitely wont happen, it's far too difficult to enforce. However don't be fooled into thinking that all the likes of the BPI do is join a swarm and monitor it. That's just all they do if they are just collecting IP's for ISP's to send letters to. If they are going to take someone to court they do gain actual evidence of sharing by downloading the files from you.
Where is your proof of that? So far neither the BPI nor their counterparts the RIAA have done any actual downloading.
Even if they do, so what? Can they prove it was your PC that did it? Keep in mind it's not a criminal investigation, so they can't examine your PC. Maybe your PC had a virus. Maybe it was hacked. Maybe someone hacked your WiFi (even WPA2 can be broken: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30278/98/). Maybe someone cloned your modem and VM gave out your details instead of theirs.
IP's from expired DHCP leases are often locked out for far longer than 15minutes for precisely this reason.
Again, what are you basing this on? I can cite tests (like the one in the paper) showing that this is not the case.
They wont, the BPI will just get VM to send the letters. They aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot with something like this, they have expensive legal teams to stop that from happening.
The news article said that the BPI would be sending letters too. Also, how will they start legal action if they don't know who you are? Note that just alleging that someone committed a civil offence it not enough to get around data protection laws.
---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------
BUT!!! I do agree about the newsgroups and it does seem that SSL enabled servers will probably be the last bastion of the downloaders especially if the BPI gets thier way in the law courts...
Encryption is the way of the future. Already you can use a low cost VPN service like Relakks to make it impossible for the BPI to identify you. Already totally anonymous P2P systems are very popular in parts of the world (see Winny or Share for example), and as broadband speeds start to get reasonable here I expect they will become popular here too.
Instead of wasting time and money accelerating the move to more secure downloads, the BPI might just as well put their efforts in to fixing their business model for the 21st century. We are now just at the start of the revolution. Even if the BPI thinks the law is on it's side (which is debatable) that will be irrelevant thanks to technology.
The news article said that the BPI would be sending letters too. Also, how will they start legal action if they don't know who you are? Note that just alleging that someone committed a civil offence it not enough to get around data protection laws.
The BPI gives Virgin the details of the IP address, and then Virgin sends the customer two letters. One from Virgin and one from the BPI.
At no point do Virgin give the BPI any names or addresses etc.
Cobbydaler
07-06-2008, 18:03
This paragraph from the BPI letter made me smile:
We’re exceptionally lucky in Britain to have a world-beating music-making community, with a strong
and sophisticated fan base. But we can only keep it that way if we all work together to ensure that the
musicians who create this great music are rewarded for doing so.
Put that in the context of this (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html) impassioned speech made by Courtney Love a few years ago...
(IMO it's worth reading all 6 pages)
rogerdraig
07-06-2008, 18:56
looks like eu may stop them banning people from internet any way
music industry should try selling things at a reasonable price
even on some of the cheapest site buying an albums worth of songs is more expensive than the cd which we were told were so expensive because of production costs
mp3's seem to me have very little cost else they wouldnt be available for free on those so called pirate sites
I think though people are getting the wrong end of the stick here...
I don't think that BPI are currently targetting those downloading mp3's, mainly as the only way for them to get the IP's is to act like an illegal file share and see who connects and downloads (entrapment??)
What they are doing is trawling the file sharing sites for people sharing the material and then they're connecting/downloading whilst logging the IP.
So those who will get the letters are the ones offering copyrighted material to download and not the downloaders themselves. In other words why go for the end user when you can have the dealer.
The excessive bandwidth usage letters sent out by VM are something totally different.
Kymmy
i was reading on a show that they connect share fake files to put people off wanting to download from p2p so they think damn its fake i dont wanna dl anymore.. my friend used a p2p program imesh and the court sent him a letter, that was in the ntl days also
This paragraph from the BPI letter made me smile:
We’re exceptionally lucky in Britain to have a world-beating music-making community, with a strong and sophisticated fan base. But we can only keep it that way if we all work together to ensure that the musicians who create this great music are rewarded for doing so.
"Sophisticated"! Actually their primary "fan base" is children who buy all the mass produced crap. That's one reason why CD single sales have plummeted (why shell out £3.00 for a CD when the download is 50p or free). Also, often the ringtone sells more copies than the CD single now. It's not just piracy, it's the fact that their products are rubbish and largely consist of a five second hook people just want as a ringtone.
Recording equipment is also a lot cheaper now, and you don't need a record company for promotion any more thanks to MySpace et al. Basically they are obsolete and can't see any way to fix their business model, so they are just trying to scare everyone into propping it up.
Hopefully in the next decade or so they will just die off and we can enter a golden age of music, based on real talent and live performance, undamaged by the loudness war.
rogerdraig
07-06-2008, 20:49
"Sophisticated"! Actually their primary "fan base" is children who buy all the mass produced crap. That's one reason why CD single sales have plummeted (why shell out £3.00 for a CD when the download is 50p or free). Also, often the ringtone sells more copies than the CD single now. It's not just piracy, it's the fact that their products are rubbish and largely consist of a five second hook people just want as a ringtone.
Recording equipment is also a lot cheaper now, and you don't need a record company for promotion any more thanks to MySpace et al. Basically they are obsolete and can't see any way to fix their business model, so they are just trying to scare everyone into propping it up.
Hopefully in the next decade or so they will just die off and we can enter a golden age of music, based on real talent and live performance, undamaged by the loudness war.
tend to agree there they are defending their business model which has no chance of surviving
Except that it will be more like "Um... We think maybe the ip address we assigned to you at such-and-such a time might possibly have contacted such-and-such tracker at some point in the hours leading up to that time. Someone might have done something illegal, possibly, we don't actually have any evidence but we thought we'd ask if you'd like to admit anything?"
Have you read the letters they are sending? I suggest you do, they are located here for the one from virgin (http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/06/vm_filesharing_letter.pdf) and here for the bpi one (http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/06/bpi_letter.pdf).
It is not just an "errrr we think maybe" it's a "we know, here is the filename, here is the time and date, here is the protocol you used to download it".
It's not asking anyone to admit anything, it's just educating.
Parent: Jimmy, did you illegally download anything off the internet?
Jimmy: No!
(Parent dials VM complaints line)
Parent: How dare you accuse my son of committing a crime! Where is your evidence? I'm calling Watchdog and Ofcom!
And when the parent can then check to see if the file listed on the letter is on Jimmy's PC?
Where is your proof of that? So far neither the BPI nor their counterparts the RIAA have done any actual downloading.
Yes, they have. Hence the existance of programs such as peer guardian. Funnily the paper you linked to actually covers it in a bit of detail. It's called direct detection in it, and you can see that they had a fair amount of instances of it being detected, some of those blocked by peer guardian, others not.
I suggest you go read up on Mediasentry, one of the main companies employed by the riaa to carry this out (just to help you, here's a quick quote from a report on their involvement in a case "...as well as a list of the 20 to 30 songs downloaded by MediaSentry in their entirety." (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080203-mediasentry-role-in-riaa-lawsuit-comes-under-scrutiny.html)
Even if they do, so what? Can they prove it was your PC that did it? Keep in mind it's not a criminal investigation, so they can't examine your PC. Maybe your PC had a virus. Maybe it was hacked. Maybe someone hacked your WiFi (even WPA2 can be broken: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30278/98/). Maybe someone cloned your modem and VM gave out your details instead of theirs.
Firstly, this depends on the scale. If your distribution of the work is said to be on a scale that has a measurable impact on the copyright owner's business then it's criminal law.
They also can examine your PC in a civil case. You just need a court order to do so. Having your IP being shown to be sharing a copyright work is more than enough probable cause to get a court order to enter your property and seize your computers. Court orders are not limited to criminal cases.
I suggest you go and read the Civil Procedure Act 1997 which under section 7 clearly states the power of courts to make orders for the seizure of evidence for use in civil cases.
Again, what are you basing this on? I can cite tests (like the one in the paper) showing that this is not the case.
The tests in that paper are carried out with all the equipment under their control. I'm basing it on having worked for an ADSL ISP and that being how we setup the system because it is the only way that makes sense. You don't want new DHCP leases assigned to IP's that may still have people attempting to send them traffic from the prior owner of it. Any ISP set up differently is crazy.
The news article said that the BPI would be sending letters too. Also, how will they start legal action if they don't know who you are? Note that just alleging that someone committed a civil offence it not enough to get around data protection laws.
BPI wrote the letter, it's sent alongside the one from VM by VM. At no point do the BPI get your name and address, that would be in breach of so many laws it'd get both companies sued into non-existance.
This is not about starting legal action. People need to get that idea out of their heads. It's about educating users that the connection that they are responsible for has been downloading copyright material, and informing them of the implications that could have if they carried on doing so.
@ TheDon: Thanks for your informative (and, dare I say it, authoritative) post.
Have you read the letters they are sending? I suggest you do, they are located here for the one from virgin (http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/06/vm_filesharing_letter.pdf) and here for the bpi one (http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/06/bpi_letter.pdf).
It is not just an "errrr we think maybe" it's a "we know, here is the filename, here is the time and date, here is the protocol you used to download it".
It's not asking anyone to admit anything, it's just educating.
Actually, it is. It's showing you the pretty thin evidence they have. It would be interesting to see what their response would be if you wrote back and told them it was a mistake.
It's similar to the "notice of intended prosecution" they send when a car is caught on a speed camera. They list the time, place and number plate of the car in the hope that you will then admit it was you and that you were speeding. The burden of proof is still on them though, and if you tell them it was a mistake or you don't know who was driving at the time it's up them to prove otherwise.
I have personally had this before. I was with Zen at the time, got a letter saying I was sharing some application which I wasn't. Wrote back telling them that and asking for any other evidence they had, and Zen said the people who complained were just carpet bombing ISPs and could never produce anything when challenged.
In the end I got a written apology from Borland.
And when the parent can then check to see if the file listed on the letter is on Jimmy's PC?
You think Jimmy isn't savvy enough to hide his stuff? You think most parents are clued up enough to check anything not in My Documents?
Yes, they have. Hence the existance of programs such as peer guardian. Funnily the paper you linked to actually covers it in a bit of detail. It's called direct detection in it, and you can see that they had a fair amount of instances of it being detected, some of those blocked by peer guardian, others not.
Actually, the paper points out that most of the legal threats were automatically generated by simply checking the tracker or seeing a file in search results on Limewire, and that it would be impractical to download enough data to check in every instance. Chances are they only bother if they intend to take legal action, because simply making songs available is probably not copyright infringement (similar to a library having a photocopier).
Besides which, even downloading from an IP address doesn't prove a specific person is guilty of copyright infringement.
Firstly, this depends on the scale. If your distribution of the work is said to be on a scale that has a measurable impact on the copyright owner's business then it's criminal law.
Actually, no. The requirement for making the infringement a criminal matter is not scale, it's commercial gain, e.g. selling pirate DVDs. Since P2P does not generate the user any income, it's not a criminal matter.
For this reason the current investigation of Oink is collapsing. Since the site owner was not making money (only accepting charitable donations to cover running costs) he has not been charged. Those who have been charged were charged on conspiracy, because they somehow obtained and released pre-release music against the wishes of the music industry. The actual copyright infringement does not come in to it, only the fact that they (by what the police assume were possibly illegal means) obtained pre-release music.
Also, how would the prove anyone but themselves download the file? Typically a file is available from either thousands of people so might never have come from you, or there are only a few people in the swarm in which case the scale is tiny. In any event, even if you are a good user and seed to 100%, you only distributed 1 copy of the file, hardly large scale.
They also can examine your PC in a civil case. You just need a court order to do so. Having your IP being shown to be sharing a copyright work is more than enough probable cause to get a court order to enter your property and seize your computers. Court orders are not limited to criminal cases.
Again, you are wrong. They can get a court order for you to turn over specific evidence, but they can't seize your computers. The order requires you to turn over the evidence or face the possibility of it harming your defence. The order would almost certainly not cover your computer either, just the contents of the HDD - i.e. an image file. Of course, by then the music could have been securely erased, or you could just claim you own the CD legally if they didn't actually download it (just a file name).
You have to remember, it's not like a criminal investigation. In fact, you could just buy the CD and claim you had it all along, and present it as evidence since they couldn't search your house for receipts or have you detained or anything.
Just getting the order would be very hard. An IP address and file name is pretty flimsy evidence, not really enough to justify such a massive invasion of privacy. After all, most people have sensitive files on their PC like photos, documents, financial records etc. Most people have emails from other people stored on their PCs too, so it would violate their privacy too. Especially if there is more than one PC connected to the system, or you suggest the possibility of your wifi being hacked, it's unlikely a court would grant such an order considering that the BPI could not prove that anyone but themselves actually downloaded from you when several people's privacy would be on the line.
Court orders normally just deal with specific documents or objects, not "give us your pc".
Note also that so far, such an order has never been granted in the UK for a P2P related copyright infringement case.
I suggest you go and read the Civil Procedure Act 1997 which under section 7 clearly states the power of courts to make orders for the seizure of evidence for use in civil cases.
Yes, and if you bothered to research the subject you would see that typically this can only be used for documents or items specifically related to the case. The court would not generally issue an order for the seizure of a car in order to search it for further evidence, for example.
Seizure implies them actually forcefully taking the item too, but typically that is only done in exceptional circumstances where very large fraud has taken place. Since that isn't the case with P2P infringement (1 song = a 65p download) they would just require any documents from you, and hold it against your case if you didn't provide them.
The tests in that paper are carried out with all the equipment under their control. I'm basing it on having worked for an ADSL ISP and that being how we setup the system because it is the only way that makes sense. You don't want new DHCP leases assigned to IP's that may still have people attempting to send them traffic from the prior owner of it. Any ISP set up differently is crazy.
In that case VM are crazy. When I force my IP address to change, my firewall logs hits from people still trying to connect to P2P clients they saw hours ago on that address.
Most P2P software that uses servers (e.g. eMule, BitTorrent) tries to keep the flow of data between the server and the client as low as possible, to conserve bandwidth. As such, they usually only communicate once an hour or less, since it's not such a big deal if you give out IP addresses where the machine is no longer connected to clients. 15 minutes is nowhere near enough.
BPI wrote the letter, it's sent alongside the one from VM by VM. At no point do the BPI get your name and address, that would be in breach of so many laws it'd get both companies sued into non-existance.
This is not about starting legal action. People need to get that idea out of their heads. It's about educating users that the connection that they are responsible for has been downloading copyright material, and informing them of the implications that could have if they carried on doing so.
So, they are just send out letters and not going to pursue any legal action. It has been established that some times they will get the wrong person. Why then pay any attention to the letters? Might as well just ignore them.
And actually, it is about legal action. The BPI letter even threatens it: "We don’t want you to face legal action or risk losing your internet service". So they had better be in a position to take legal action or have your connection cut off, or face the consequences of making unfounded threats to people.
Actually, it is. It's showing you the pretty thin evidence they have. It would be interesting to see what their response would be if you wrote back and told them it was a mistake.
It's similar to the "notice of intended prosecution" they send when a car is caught on a speed camera. They list the time, place and number plate of the car in the hope that you will then admit it was you and that you were speeding. The burden of proof is still on them though, and if you tell them it was a mistake or you don't know who was driving at the time it's up them to prove otherwise.
The countless people that contest speeding tickets and fail would like to disagree with you there.
You think Jimmy isn't savvy enough to hide his stuff? You think most parents are clued up enough to check anything not in My Documents?
I know he's not. Why would Jimmy want to hold his folder of mp3's? It's not like he's hacked the gibson. Most people who download files aren't tech savvy enough to even know how to hide files. It's an everyday mans thing these days. Even the least computer savvy people I know know how to download mp3s.
Actually, the paper points out that most of the legal threats were automatically generated by simply checking the tracker or seeing a file in search results on Limewire, and that it would be impractical to download enough data to check in every instance. Chances are they only bother if they intend to take legal action, because simply making songs available is probably not copyright infringement (similar to a library having a photocopier).
I'm not denying that, however you said, and I quote, "So far neither the BPI nor their counterparts the RIAA have done any actual downloading." I've shown evidence that they have. Even if it's on the small scale. I even stated in the post you replied to that they likely only do it for intended prosections, so thank you for agreeing with me now.
Actually, no. The requirement for making the infringement a criminal matter is not scale, it's commercial gain, e.g. selling pirate DVDs. Since P2P does not generate the user any income, it's not a criminal matter.
107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c
(1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—
(a) makes for sale or hire, or
(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or
(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or
(d) in the course of a business —
(i) sells or lets for hire, or
(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
(iii) exhibits in public, or
(iv) distributes, or
(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
Note (e). That is a criminal offense, based on scale, not commercial gain.
For this reason the current investigation of Oink is collapsing. Since the site owner was not making money (only accepting charitable donations to cover running costs) he has not been charged. Those who have been charged were charged on conspiracy, because they somehow obtained and released pre-release music against the wishes of the music industry. The actual copyright infringement does not come in to it, only the fact that they (by what the police assume were possibly illegal means) obtained pre-release music.
Nothing to do with the torrent sites not actually hosting or distributing the copyright works then? Every case against a torrent site has fell apart. The owners don't get charged because they merely index content. The litigation is usually always enough to force them offline though.
Also, how would the prove anyone but themselves download the file? Typically a file is available from either thousands of people so might never have come from you, or there are only a few people in the swarm in which case the scale is tiny. In any event, even if you are a good user and seed to 100%, you only distributed 1 copy of the file, hardly large scale.
No one has to download it at all. You just have to make it available to infringe on copyright.
You do realise that you can write a torrent client to specifically download off certain clients don't you? They can and do target specific people.
Again, you are wrong. They can get a court order for you to turn over specific evidence, but they can't seize your computers. The order requires you to turn over the evidence or face the possibility of it harming your defence. The order would almost certainly not cover your computer either, just the contents of the HDD - i.e. an image file. Of course, by then the music could have been securely erased, or you could just claim you own the CD legally if they didn't actually download it (just a file name).
I'm wrong and yet you agree that they could issue an order for the contents of the HDD, which seems to go against your initial statement that I disagreed with "so they can't examine your PC". Make up your mind?
Note also that so far, such an order has never been granted in the UK for a P2P related copyright infringement case.
Also note that one hasn't been needed. The BPI has been pretty successful in court. This (http://www.slyck.com/story1070_UK_Court_Finds_Two_File_Providers_Liable ) shows that even the "no direct evidence" defense doesn't cut it. It's not like they haven't successfully sued people before with exactly the same sort of evidence. You're trying to claim evidence isn't good enough yet they've got verdicts in their favour with it in the past, so clearly it is.
And actually, it is about legal action. The BPI letter even threatens it: "We don’t want you to face legal action or risk losing your internet service". So they had better be in a position to take legal action or have your connection cut off, or face the consequences of making unfounded threats to people.
That's hardly threatening it, it's just telling them what could happen. They also are in a position to follow through with it if they wished. However they likely realise that law suits aren't winning them any fans and just bring bad publicity, so want to try to scare the "It'll never happen to me" people into realising it can.
The Independent are covering this now:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/virgin-warns-illegal-downloaders-stop-or-face-prosecution-842086.html
The countless people that contest speeding tickets and fail would like to disagree with you there.
Man, you have an amazing knack of missing the point.
The point is that the burden of proof is on the BPI. Like the police sending out letters when a speed camera goes off, they don't actually have enough evidence to win their case, and they have to rely on you admitting it to win.
In the case of speed cameras there are some extra legal requirements on the accused, but those are specific to speed cameras.
Try to make some kind of reasoned argument in the future, or just admit you are wrong. After all, if I just wrote "The countless people that contest speeding tickets and WIN would like to disagree with you there" it wouldn't be much of an argument, would it?
I'm not denying that, however you said, and I quote, "So far neither the BPI nor their counterparts the RIAA have done any actual downloading." I've shown evidence that they have. Even if it's on the small scale. I even stated in the post you replied to that they likely only do it for intended prosections, so thank you for agreeing with me now.
Again, you missed the point. These letters are not notices of intended "prosecution" (actually, they can't persecute you because it is not a criminal offence, they can only start civil legal action to recover any monetary damages they can prove).
Note (e). That is a criminal offense, based on scale, not commercial gain.
Fair enough, but you have to interpret what it means by scale. The BPI can only prove that they downloaded the file at best, and unless your ratio is public and is very high (say, 100,000% or 1000 copies distributed) or they can prove you were the original uploader (again, almost impossible on a public tracker, especially one located overseas) then they can't prove scale.
Bottom line is, the BPI will never be able to claim criminal copyright infringement against an individual downloading via P2P.
Nothing to do with the torrent sites not actually hosting or distributing the copyright works then? Every case against a torrent site has fell apart. The owners don't get charged because they merely index content. The litigation is usually always enough to force them offline though.
You seem to have been mislead by the BPI, as the police were. No copyrighted material is hosted on torrent sites, only file hashes. The torrent sites do not distribute any copyrighted material, only links to it in the same way that Google does. In fact, the owners do get charged merely for indexing content, the argument being that they are "facilitating" copyright infringement. So far, that argument has largely failed, and as you point out the few victories the music industry has had were down mostly to the cost of defence, intimidation or the trackers host refusing to carry the site any longer. Most of the large sites that shut down are back up again now anyway.
No one has to download it at all. You just have to make it available to infringe on copyright.
The law would disagree with you there. Sure, offering it for sale would count, but so far it is untested in the UK if simply listing a file as available on a P2P network would count. In the US it does not.
You do realise that you can write a torrent client to specifically download off certain clients don't you? They can and do target specific people.
Of course. I contributed code to the Halite client, BTW.
I'm wrong and yet you agree that they could issue an order for the contents of the HDD, which seems to go against your initial statement that I disagreed with "so they can't examine your PC". Make up your mind?
The statement is true. They could not seize your PC. At most, they could ask for a copy of the HDD. You also ignored the fact that it would be almost impossible for the BPI to get such an order issued.
You will note that in the law you quoted, it says it gives the accuser the right to enter the defendants property to obtain photographs or copies of evidence. They can't force their way in, or do a surprise raid to prevent evidence being destroyed.
Also note that one hasn't been needed. The BPI has been pretty successful in court. This (http://www.slyck.com/story1070_UK_Court_Finds_Two_File_Providers_Liable ) shows that even the "no direct evidence" defense doesn't cut it. It's not like they haven't successfully sued people before with exactly the same sort of evidence. You're trying to claim evidence isn't good enough yet they've got verdicts in their favour with it in the past, so clearly it is.
If you read that article, you can see why those two failed. One claimed ignorance, clearly not a defence. The other failed to show that the evidence did not show he had committed copyright infringement. Presumably he didn't point out the weaknesses or perhaps he admitted he was the sole user of the broadband connection and did not have wifi.
One case poorly argued does not set a precedent in civil law. I wish the BPI would try to sue me, so I could settle this once and for all.
To give you some proof that it is perfectly possible to win, look at the number of people using the "virus defence" (one example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/24/trojan_defence_clears_man/) in criminal cases. Although the burden of proof is different, it clear is possible to argue that even when incriminating data has been found on your PC you were not necessarily the person responsible for it.
That's hardly threatening it, it's just telling them what could happen. They also are in a position to follow through with it if they wished.
Man holding baseball bat: "Say, that's a really nice car. It would be a shame if anything happened to it."
Good work Virgin push them all to Sky, its better anyway. :tu:
Damn, forgot to get me bet in at the bookies, probably only give me even money anyway.
Think we all agree Virgin are being foolish.
Upping the monthly charge for the 20mb service was bad enough, and could be even justified for some (I mean I've always got good speed and reliable connection from them). However, upping the cost then adding further restrictions (throttling) and now this 'big brother' approach, it really does make Virgin's rivals seem more appealing, especially the likes of BE who are offering upto 24mb in some areas for a great deal less a month.
Its almost enough to tempt me back to ADSL.
Upping the monthly charge for the 20mb service was bad enough
Indeed. Really, they are offering a very poor service on 20 meg and 50 meg is going to be even worse.
The 50 meg service was mentioned on BBC news the other day, but they failed to take even a cursory glance at the actual numbers. By that I mean the fact that the upload speed is quite pathetic. VM are touting 50 meg as being suitable for multiple users in a household, watching streaming media, browsing, playing games, downloading stuff all at the same time. With the low upload speeds available and throttling, it simply won't work as advertised.
Logan + mojo, this thread is not about throttling, its about VM enforcing its user policy, and hopefully fending off legislation that that could affect all UK ISP's.
hope i get one of these letters so i can make a paper airpalne and throw it over my fence at bottom of garden back into the VM car park
Logan + mojo, this thread is not about throttling, its about VM enforcing its user policy, and hopefully fending off legislation that that could affect all UK ISP's.
I wasn't talking about throttling specifically. Man, some of you guys are reactionary.
I wasn't talking about throttling specifically. Man, some of you guys are reactionary.
yes indeed mr pot......or is it mr kettle:rolleyes:
yes indeed mr pot......or is it mr kettle:rolleyes:
You have to wonder don't you.
Phormic Acid
08-06-2008, 21:28
To give you some proof that it is perfectly possible to win, look at the number of people using the "virus defence" (one example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/24/trojan_defence_clears_man/) in criminal cases. Although the burden of proof is different, it clear is possible to argue that even when incriminating data has been found on your PC you were not necessarily the person responsible for it.Which is what this ten-week-long letter sending campaign is all about. The account holder will tell the court that he or she did not carry out the infringement. He or she will argue that another person used his or her computer or that the security of the computer or wireless connection was compromised. The BPI will point to their letter’s ‘What To Do Next’ page, which explains each of these possibilities. They will put it to the court that it is more likely than not that either the account holder was the file sharer or that he or she bares a significant part of the liability for the financial damage caused by failing to successfully act on the advice in their letter.
Logan + mojo, this thread is not about throttling, its about VM enforcing its user policy, and hopefully fending off legislation that that could affect all UK ISP's.
Regardless, throttling was related to the point I was making. I was merely commenting that this latest announcement (regarding the BPI and subject of this thread) is just another reason for the average "Joe", Virgin subscriber, to think about switching to a rival.
Which is what this ten-week-long letter sending campaign is all about. The account holder will tell the court that he or she did not carry out the infringement. He or she will argue that another person used his or her computer or that the security of the computer or wireless connection was compromised. The BPI will point to their letter’s ‘What To Do Next’ page, which explains each of these possibilities. They will put it to the court that it is more likely than not that either the account holder was the file sharer or that he or she bares a significant part of the liability for the financial damage caused by failing to successfully act on the advice in their letter.
I guess it's a good job that anti-virus programs are perfect and wifi passwords, even WPA2, cannot be cracked. Oh, wait...
Anyway, that doesn't cover the many other ways you could be mistakenly targeted. On a balance of probabilities, they will loose, and even if they win they will only be awarded what financial loss they can prove. A typical music track costs about 65p even in the rip-off online music stores. There is certainly no way they can prove you sent it to more than one person (them).
Man, you have an amazing knack of missing the point.
The point is that the burden of proof is on the BPI. Like the police sending out letters when a speed camera goes off, they don't actually have enough evidence to win their case, and they have to rely on you admitting it to win.
In the case of speed cameras there are some extra legal requirements on the accused, but those are specific to speed cameras.
Try to make some kind of reasoned argument in the future, or just admit you are wrong. After all, if I just wrote "The countless people that contest speeding tickets and WIN would like to disagree with you there" it wouldn't be much of an argument, would it?
The difference is the people that win do more than turn up and go "well, you haven't got enough evidence" before putting their feet up and waiting for the case to be dismissed. You need to do a fair bit to get a speeding ticket dismissed, it's no where near as simple as going "well do you have any more evidence?" you have to actually show WHY the car in the picture is not yours seeing as it's the same car with the same registration plate.
If you turn up to court with no evidence of why it wasn't you and planning to just claim their evidence is inconclusive you're losing. It's the same with this. You have to beable to show why an IP that was leased to you would have been sharing copyright material without it being you that was doing it. Now that's not impossible, but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be. Without you contesting the validity of the evidence and showing why it's wrong it IS enough proof.
Again, you missed the point. These letters are not notices of intended "prosecution" (actually, they can't persecute you because it is not a criminal offence, they can only start civil legal action to recover any monetary damages they can prove).
Please tell me what point I missed? You stated "So far neither the BPI nor their counterparts the RIAA have done any actual downloading." I've proven they have, you're now saying that I've missed the point and have instead resorted to arguing semantics.
Fair enough, but you have to interpret what it means by scale. The BPI can only prove that they downloaded the file at best, and unless your ratio is public and is very high (say, 100,000% or 1000 copies distributed) or they can prove you were the original uploader (again, almost impossible on a public tracker, especially one located overseas) then they can't prove scale.
Bottom line is, the BPI will never be able to claim criminal copyright infringement against an individual downloading via P2P.
Actually it's not almost impossible to show you as the original uploader on a public tracker site. Infact, it's pretty trivial. Most public tracker sites do not have anonymous uploading, all torrent uploads are linked to a username. All they have to do is monitor new torrents from that username and cross reference the IP's until they find the one that's seeding in all of the swarms, then bingo, they've got the uploader AND a case for criminal infringement as all further distribution can be attributed back to them.
The scale doesn't just have to be over one instance either. If one person has been responsible for putting 100 movies onto a torrent site that'd pretty easily meet any test of scale.
You seem to have been mislead by the BPI, as the police were. No copyrighted material is hosted on torrent sites, only file hashes. The torrent sites do not distribute any copyrighted material, only links to it in the same way that Google does. In fact, the owners do get charged merely for indexing content, the argument being that they are "facilitating" copyright infringement. So far, that argument has largely failed, and as you point out the few victories the music industry has had were down mostly to the cost of defence, intimidation or the trackers host refusing to carry the site any longer. Most of the large sites that shut down are back up again now anyway.
You seem to have misread. I never said they were so how can I have been mislead? I said that the cases fall apart and the owners don't end up getting charged because they merely index content and don't actually host any infringing content.
I stated that the fact there is no copyright material hosted on them is WHY the cases are collapsing.
Most of the older large sites, the likes of suprnova, lokitorrent, elitetorrents, and more recently torrentspy all got raided or closed due to legal pressure, never to return. It's only really the pirate bay that keeps returning.
The law would disagree with you there. Sure, offering it for sale would count, but so far it is untested in the UK if simply listing a file as available on a P2P network would count. In the US it does not.
Actually the law agrees with me. By making a work available for download you are breaching the rights of the copyright owner to be the sole person allowed to distribute the work. If anyone actually downloads or not is irrelevant as you still have the intention of distributing it.
The statement is true. They could not seize your PC. At most, they could ask for a copy of the HDD. You also ignored the fact that it would be almost impossible for the BPI to get such an order issued.
Your initial statement however, the one I disagreed with, was not true.
It being hard for them to get an order is irrelevant, as I'm not stating what they will do, but that they theoretically could.
You will note that in the law you quoted, it says it gives the accuser the right to enter the defendants property to obtain photographs or copies of evidence. They can't force their way in, or do a surprise raid to prevent evidence being destroyed.
You're talking like everyone is an expert that knows how to destroy the contents of their harddrive. In reality joe bloggs would at best hold shift and delete, which would take all of 30 seconds to recover from. Refusing to comply with a court order is also contempt of court, and would pretty much gaurentee you get found guilty and get an added fine or even prison sentence.
If you read that article, you can see why those two failed. One claimed ignorance, clearly not a defence. The other failed to show that the evidence did not show he had committed copyright infringement. Presumably he didn't point out the weaknesses or perhaps he admitted he was the sole user of the broadband connection and did not have wifi.
One case poorly argued does not set a precedent in civil law. I wish the BPI would try to sue me, so I could settle this once and for all.
It's strange how if it's so easy to get off why isn't there a single cause of someone winning against the BPI? Maybe it's not quite as easy as you think and you're seriously over estimating the burden of proof required.
To give you some proof that it is perfectly possible to win, look at the number of people using the "virus defence" (one example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/24/trojan_defence_clears_man/) in criminal cases. Although the burden of proof is different, it clear is possible to argue that even when incriminating data has been found on your PC you were not necessarily the person responsible for it.
Yes, there are many defenses you can use. However just stating "I had a trojan" wouldn't cut it and would get shot down. You'd have to actually show that you had one, Julian Green (http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2003/08/va_porntrojan.html) is another who successfully used the defense, he had to hire in an expert witness to examine his hard drive and show the presence of trojans that could have been responsible for the images for him to get off.
It really isn't as easy of a defense to use as you think.
I was saddened to read this article (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/06/09/1447231.shtml) in Slashdot, not because it slams Virgin Media, but because its the most p*** poor piece of reporting (and I use that word through gritted teeth) that I have read in a long time, very poor indeed.
TheBlueRaja
09-06-2008, 18:15
This is hilarious, crap PQ, no Sky channels, then phorm, then they come out and say they are actively spying on what you do with your Broadband and if you did download a song they'll report you to the doughnut brigade.
When will people learn, Virgin (no) Media is a s(t)inking ship, long may it rot on the bottom.
then they come out and say they are actively spying on what you do with your Broadband and if you did download a song they'll report you to the doughnut brigade.
No they are not
The difference is the people that win do more than turn up and go "well, you haven't got enough evidence" before putting their feet up and waiting for the case to be dismissed. You need to do a fair bit to get a speeding ticket dismissed, it's no where near as simple as going "well do you have any more evidence?" you have to actually show WHY the car in the picture is not yours seeing as it's the same car with the same registration plate.
Wrong, again. The law states that if asked, you must make a reasonable effort to determine who was driving the car at the time. It's not a question of which car it is, it's a question of who was driving at the time and so gets the points on their licence. This is somewhat unique to the speed camera laws but the basic general principal applies: the people making the allegation must prove it was you.
Making "reasonable effort" is not that hard. Request details of the camera, maps, the actual photo, check if anyone paid for fuel on that trip etc. If you can't remember who was driving, the photo does not show the driver (usually doesn't) and there is no other evidence to suggest who it was, you are going to win. The persecution will not be able to prove who was driving at the time, and the law does not allow them to force you to take the points just because you don't know.
If you turn up to court with no evidence of why it wasn't you and planning to just claim their evidence is inconclusive you're losing. It's the same with this. You have to beable to show why an IP that was leased to you would have been sharing copyright material without it being you that was doing it. Now that's not impossible, but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be. Without you contesting the validity of the evidence and showing why it's wrong it IS enough proof.
I'm saying turn up with no proof. Producing evidence that it was not you is easy. Tell them you checked all PCs in your household and none of them have the file or that P2P software on them. Produce peer reviewed reports on how mistakes can be made, and offer explanations to refute any weak evidence the BPI presents.
You seem to have a very strange idea of how court works. Let's say I randomly decide to accuse you of copyright infringement. I find your IP address out some how, like when you connect to an online game or via instant messenger. I manufacture some bogus evidence consisting of faked screenshots from uTorrent showing your IP address transferring part of a copyrighted file to me. Are you saying that there is no way you could prove your innocence? No way you could avoid loosing and having to pay me reparations?
Maybe you spotted the other obvious flaw in the above scenario too. I couldn't sue you, because I couldn't get your identity from just an IP address, unless your ISP breaks the law or I somehow convince a judge to subpoena the data (pretty unlikely considering the evidence).
Please tell me what point I missed? You stated "So far neither the BPI nor their counterparts the RIAA have done any actual downloading." I've proven they have, you're now saying that I've missed the point and have instead resorted to arguing semantics.
To be honest I've lost the thread of this particular argument now. I think it had something to do with the fact that there is nothing to suggest that they did any downloading before sending out these letters. Sure, maybe they do it before suing, but then again most of the cases I am aware of so far suggest that they didn't.
Even if they did, it's arguably entrapment. If "making available" is not infringement, then downloading from a specific IP is causing that person to infringe. Of course, it's legally untested.
Actually it's not almost impossible to show you as the original uploader on a public tracker site. Infact, it's pretty trivial. Most public tracker sites do not have anonymous uploading, all torrent uploads are linked to a username. All they have to do is monitor new torrents from that username and cross reference the IP's until they find the one that's seeding in all of the swarms, then bingo, they've got the uploader AND a case for criminal infringement as all further distribution can be attributed back to them.
Unless you just happened to be using an RSS feed to automatically download everything from that poster, or if you just happened to be on those seeds. Plus, your IP address is likely to change so they would need a lot of information from your ISP to make the determination. You still have not established that an ISP could legally give up such information, especially in light of recent European Court rulings and parliamentary decisions.
The scale doesn't just have to be over one instance either. If one person has been responsible for putting 100 movies onto a torrent site that'd pretty easily meet any test of scale.
Fair enough. We are not really talking about people like that though, we are talking about the average user falsely accused of file sharing.
You seem to have misread.
I did, sorry it was late.
Most of the older large sites, the likes of suprnova, lokitorrent, elitetorrents, and more recently torrentspy all got raided or closed due to legal pressure, never to return. It's only really the pirate bay that keeps returning.
Suprnova.org is now run by the Pirate Bay, although it suffers a lot of downtime. It is officially back though. Mininova, now the world's no.1 BT site grew out of the old Suprnova.org too, with many of the admins.
What you have to understand about torrent sites is that yes, sometimes they do close, but more often than not they come back, either under the same name or a new one.
By any measurement the campaign to shut down torrent sites has been a total failure, and those that exist now are even stronger and more resilient to legal threats.
Actually the law agrees with me. By making a work available for download you are breaching the rights of the copyright owner to be the sole person allowed to distribute the work. If anyone actually downloads or not is irrelevant as you still have the intention of distributing it.
Wrong. The "making available" argument has not been tested in the UK, but in the US it has and it was ruled that it does not equal distribution. There is currently an appeal so the matter is still not entirely decided.
The analogy I'd make is a library with a photocopier. They have books, they are available for anyone to browse, and they have the means to commit copyright infringement.
Your initial statement however, the one I disagreed with, was not true.
It being hard for them to get an order is irrelevant, as I'm not stating what they will do, but that they theoretically could.
I could theoretically get a court order for your navel fluff but by any practical measure it's impossible.
You're talking like everyone is an expert that knows how to destroy the contents of their harddrive. In reality joe bloggs would at best hold shift and delete
No, in reality Joe Bloggs would probably search Google for "erase evidence" and end up downloading some spyware infested crap. Then again, they might get lucky, or already own some software to do it. I think both McAfee and Norton provide secure file deletion as part of their software suites now, as do many others.
Still, this point isn't worth arguing, since there is clearly no way to prove any kind of generalisation like that. It's irrelevant anyway since the BPI won't get hold of the computers or HDD images.
It's strange how if it's so easy to get off why isn't there a single cause of someone winning against the BPI? Maybe it's not quite as easy as you think and you're seriously over estimating the burden of proof required.
I wish they would sue me, really. I haven't done anything, but that doesn't stop them. I just wish I could test it.
The burden of proof is actually the balance of probability, i.e. 50%. So, I know it exactly. I have actual experience of how courts work and how civil judgements are made too.
Yes, there are many defenses you can use. However just stating "I had a trojan" wouldn't cut it and would get shot down. You'd have to actually show that you had one, Julian Green (http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2003/08/va_porntrojan.html) is another who successfully used the defense, he had to hire in an expert witness to examine his hard drive and show the presence of trojans that could have been responsible for the images for him to get off.
It really isn't as easy of a defense to use as you think.
Actually, that isn't quite accurate. If you read the wording of the article you linked to carefully, you will note that the article says trojans can control your PC, not that there was any specific evidence that they had done the actual downloading. Merely showing that they were they was enough to win, particularly in a criminal case where the defence must prove beyond "reasonable doubt" and could not rule the trojans out.
Anyone could easily download a few dodgy cracks from the net, get themselves infected. For the purposes of a civil case, a simple virus scan print out showing the existence of the trojans would probably be enough.
Inquisitive_mind
09-06-2008, 21:24
I know this might sound stupid and all, but I regularly use LEGAL torrents for my downloads, and my Internet Security Suite uses a P2P system to get its updates. I've been talking to some of the other techies at work(who for starters screamed at me for being with VM), and they seem to agree with my idea that this might get my a letter as the coverage of these VM letters implies that all they are doing are watching for P2P and torrent activity, not specifically for illegal files.
Anyone here got any ideas?
I know this might sound stupid and all, but I regularly use LEGAL torrents for my downloads, and my Internet Security Suite uses a P2P system to get its updates. I've been talking to some of the other techies at work(who for starters screamed at me for being with VM), and they seem to agree with my idea that this might get my a letter as the coverage of these VM letters implies that all they are doing are watching for P2P and torrent activity, not specifically for illegal files.
Anyone here got any ideas?
From the link in the OP
"Accounts identified as being used for illegal music sharing by the record industry will receive two letters: one from Virgin Media and one from the BPI. Investigators will monitor copyright-infringing BitTorrent swarms and log Virgin Media IP addresses, which will be passed on to the ISP to identify the customers."
Hmm, I could put up some recordings of me playing and call it Girls Aloud r gud init and i bet it would get seen! My guess is they'd go on title. :D
Okay, wait a minute.
This is massively confusing to me, and Im pretty sure it is to others.
Could someone please simplify this and give us a summary of everything up to today?
As I understand it;
*The agreement between VM and the BPI is just to shut the BPI up. (If I recall, Virgin denied any involvement in targeting illegal music downloaders some time ago.)
*The probabilities of actually being able to prove that you have illegally been downloading music are low.
*People who download TV Shows, Films etc, are getting away Scott free? Its just Music sharers?
*Now VM and the BPI are complaining about who should actually pay for the paper and ink for the letters?
---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------
This is hilarious, crap PQ, no Sky channels, then phorm, then they come out and say they are actively spying on what you do with your Broadband and if you did download a song they'll report you to the doughnut brigade.
When will people learn, Virgin (no) Media is a s(t)inking ship, long may it rot on the bottom.
I cant wait to see your replies when Sky hands are forced to agree to the same BPI legislation of sending letters to Customers who illegally download music, because you know it will happen. Same goes for BT.
Fact is, whats the point of having these massive Broadband packages (20Mb/50Mb and beyond) if you arent gonna use them to their full potential!?
You can stream a movie with 4Mb BB, FFS, so does it not seem the company is shooting themselves in the foot as they try to look good on the PR side of it!?
Yes this is basically just Virgin keeping the BPI happy, and more importanly being seen to be doing something by the goverment. as they said they would legislate unless something was done which we all know none of the ISP's or the users want to happen.
This is also nothing new and other ISP have done this in the past ie BE online, If you search in the this forum theses a thread about it.
Mr Angry
11-06-2008, 01:29
Hi Steve,
Sorry its been a while but I've been a wee bit busy with some other matters.
On reading one of the recent VM press releases I was somewhat surprised to learn that you're planning on carrying out an "education" exercise on behalf of the BPI.
Given that I'm already pretty well versed in things copyright orientated could I just ask, under the rights afforded me under the DPA (http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_rights/preventing_unsolicited_marketing.aspx), that you refrain from sending me any unsolicited marketing (see: "educational") mail on their behalf as I have not requested, nor do I require, same.
Assuming that you are not the person at VM responsible for the protection of my personal data can you provide my friends and I with that individuals name and business contact details?
If you're unable to do so would you mind terribly if I pop on over to Companies Registry (http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk) ,as the ICO suggests, to find the name and home address of the VM company secretary in order that I might write to him / her to request that he / she ensures that the legislation is complied with?
Oh, while we're at it, could you ask Geoff the next time you're talking to him just what he and the BPI are doing to secure the intellectual rights and royalties due to artists like Vala Reegan (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=150252483995&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=005) (ebay item no:150252483995)? I'm only asking because it seems that Geoff and his pals have lost sight of a very sizeable part of their remit in that they seem to forget the rights of "older" artistes whose works are sold (for a profit) on ebay and seem to favour "educating" downloaders over freeloaders - after all, even an album distributed over a p2p network is, at the very least, "second hand" by the time the average VM customer might acquire it.
As ever Steve - I look forward to your swift, well informed, reply.
Sincerely
Mr Angry
zing_deleted
11-06-2008, 08:29
Nice letter mate :) and good to see ya
Hi Steve,
Who is this Steve
isn't BBC iPlayer P2P based? will that show up as illegal?
isn't BBC iPlayer P2P based? will that show up as illegal?
No. P2P technology itself is not illegal. It is the content
TheBlueRaja
11-06-2008, 19:02
I cant wait to see your replies when Sky hands are forced to agree to the same BPI legislation of sending letters to Customers who illegally download music, because you know it will happen. Same goes for BT.
Fact is, whats the point of having these massive Broadband packages (20Mb/50Mb and beyond) if you arent gonna use them to their full potential!?
You can stream a movie with 4Mb BB, FFS, so does it not seem the company is shooting themselves in the foot as they try to look good on the PR side of it!?
Forced? Exactly how will they be forced? I didn't realise the BPI were a lawmaking body in the UK.
VM took the cash and stuffed its customers, just like it tried to do with Phorm and just like it did when it refused to pay for the Sky channels but charge you lovely lot the same contract fee.
You don't actually think they are doing this to make themselves popular do you? Ask yourself, what's in it for VM, it didn't have to do this so whats it getting?
If it did come to Sky there is a simple solution which i encourage all VM customers to do - move.
But then, your all doing nothing illegal so why are you bitching?
We're talking in the hypothetical sense, Raja ^_^
Guys don't debate with blueraja, you're on a hiding to nothing.........he's consistent, and has Sky tattooed on his arse.
Guys don't debate with blueraja, you're on a hiding to nothing.........he's consistent, and has Sky tattooed on his arse.
Nah, it's a picture of Rupert Murdoch - appropriate positioning, though ;)
This will add to the debate, this is not going to go away.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/12/france_music_law/
This will add to the debate, this is not going to go away.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/12/france_music_law/
Which is why Virgin have done what they have done with the BPI.
Because, unless a voluntary solution can be shown to work and as this government loves to do, they will probably copy France, and force all ISPs to do worse that Virgin are doing.
I again ask, which one would people prefer? An 'information' letter, or a new law?
If they monitor IP addresses and can link that to stuff downloaded what happens if you use software like Hide IP? Is that good enough to mask your real IP?
Yes, as long as it supports Torrent clients.
Which is why Virgin have done what they have done with the BPI.
Because, unless a voluntary solution can be shown to work and as this government loves to do, they will probably copy France, and force all ISPs to do worse that Virgin are doing.
I again ask, which one would people prefer? An 'information' letter, or a new law?
:clap:
TheBlueRaja
12-06-2008, 16:32
Which is why Virgin have done what they have done with the BPI.
Because, unless a voluntary solution can be shown to work and as this government loves to do, they will probably copy France, and force all ISPs to do worse that Virgin are doing.
I again ask, which one would people prefer? An 'information' letter, or a new law?
I like it, V(no)M takes the hit and us Sky customers can do what we like.
Sweet!
Sky - Nowhere near as dumb as V(no)M.
:clap:
Not to worry though, i heard V(no)M are to introduce a P2PoDemand channel where you can download all the torrents they choose, you can get Unix and everything on Virgin One and Unix and some BBC stuff and Unix.
Great :tu: I'm betting your glad you've paid for that, just like toto is of his new tatoo on his ass which apparently has 3 letters and looks like GUM in the mirror.
If some lagit VM customers are illegally downloading copyright material, what's stopping them from buying a dodgy modem? It's just as illegal, either way, they're getting away with something free without paying for it. :angel:
If some lagit VM customers are illegally downloading copyright material, what's stopping them from buying a dodgy modem? It's just as illegal, either way, they're getting away with something free without paying for it. :angel:
I'm pretty sure if you are found to have bought or sold a dodgy modem you will end up with a criminal record. If you are found to have illegally downloaded music, at this stage you get a couple of letters.
I'm pretty sure if you are found to have bought or sold a dodgy modem you will end up with a criminal record. If you are found to have illegally downloaded music, at this stage you get a couple of letters.It's still classed as criminal.
It's still classed as criminal.
Yes it is. So are you saying you want the BPI to take those it identifies to court? Rather than ask Virgin to send a couple of letters?
I think most people are sensible enough to see the bigger picture on this issue. If isp's don't placate the government then then they will bring in something similar to that which the French government have. Eventually they will probably take action anyway but at least this puts it off for a while.
Yes it is. So are you saying you want the BPI to take those it identifies to court? Rather than ask Virgin to send a couple of letters?That's what they've done in the past.
One question for those on the newsgroups... Does the VM news servers have binary groups like A.B.MP3 , A.B.TV , A.B.Warez ????
If the answer is yes then isn't VM just as guilty of file sharing as the rest of those who do it????
Kymmy
One question for those on the newsgroups... Does the VM news servers have binary groups like A.B.MP3 , A.B.TV , A.B.Warez ????
If the answer is yes then isn't VM just as guilty of file sharing as the rest of those who do it????
Kymmy
No as it is not Virgin that either uploads or downloads the content.
This is the fine line that ISPs have to walk (and this affects all of them, not just Virgin)
If they monitor webpages/newsgroups etc for content then they can be classed as they content provider and we liable for copyright loss, libel etc.
However ALL ISPs are currently trying to keep themselves classed the same as the Royal Mail (or fixed phoneline providers) i.e. access provision only
It's still classed as criminal.
Nope, it's a violation of civil law. Copyright infringement by downloading is not covered by criminal law and will not result in investigation by the police or a criminal record.
Nope, it's a violation of civil law. Copyright infringement by downloading is not covered by criminal law and will not result in investigation by the police or a criminal record.
If the resulting download led to rights infringements such as selling on the protected material, then I believe that becomes a criminal matter. I could be wrong on this, but the reason why there are more civil claims than criminal ones is that the burden of proof is not so strict in civil cases, and its easier to get a judgement.
I'm sure somebody with legal experience in this matter though can add more meat to the bones though.
EDIT: Criminal law (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_5#pt1-ch6-pb5-l1g107) appears to cover copyright infringement, including the distribution of copyright protected material.
No as it is not Virgin that either uploads or downloads the content.
Unless VM rent a 3rd party NNTP server then quite simply the propogation technique of newservers mean that VM populate thier servers directly (i.e. they store the articles locally).
Same as a file sharer does whether or not they use the material
Kymmy
Unless VM rent a 3rd party NNTP server then quite simply the propogation technique of newservers mean that VM populate thier servers directly (i.e. they store the articles locally).
They use a 3rd party company who runs it on their behalf. Highwinds from what I have seen
Same as a file sharer does whether or not they use the material
Kymmy
No it isn't. A newsserver has articles PUSHED onto it by the way it works.
A filesharer PULLS any content onto their PC, i.e. you have to specifically click on a link for a torrent or click on a file in Limewire etc.
You cannot share a file any other way
what if copyrighted material is distributed to mates for no monetary consideration, merely because you're just a good bloke - make any difference? (not even a drink for the blank dvds the tight buggers)
this is what a friend sometime does
what if copyrighted material is distributed to mates for no monetary consideration, merely because you're just a good bloke - make any difference? (not even a drink for the blank dvds the tight buggers)
this is what a friend sometime does
Movies and TV shows aren't something that the BPI will be monitoring. It's still illegal though.
If the resulting download led to rights infringements such as selling on the protected material, then I believe that becomes a criminal matter. I could be wrong on this, but the reason why there are more civil claims than criminal ones is that the burden of proof is not so strict in civil cases, and its easier to get a judgement.
That is correct, but in the case of downloads clearly there is no commercial gain and unless you are actually caught selling the music it will be civil. The only way the BPI could turn the case into a criminal matter based solely on P2P would be to show you were uploading on a massive scale, but that would be nearly impossible to do.
The OiNK case is a bit difference, because they are charging people will somehow illegally obtaining and releasing pre-release music, although it remains to be seen if they have any real basis for prosecution or if the police were tricked by the BPI. Simply releasing music before the official release date is a civil issue (breach of contract most likely) unless theft or fraud was involved somehow.
I download various films, games and the odd MP3 of the newsgroups. At the moment however, I am unable to discern whether they are legal or not until virgin send me a letter of clarification – obviously!
Although I use a news-server with 256bit SSL so will the BPI not bother working out what I download if it’s only about 20-50GB per month?
---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:00 ----------
I see there is a debate as to how easy the civil courts can construct a concrete case.
Well I think it will be pretty difficult for the BFI considering MI5 seem to have trouble with warrants with hacking into suspected terrorists PC’s and thus the BPI other than monitoring traffic are going to have their work cut out if they need to confiscate your PC.
Furthermore electronic communication insofar never seems enough to convict terrorists or whatever and thus an IP address and file name I don’t think will be enough....but they have fined several people for sharing so do it somehow. A big emphasis on sharing though, I don’t think a pure a downloader has been convicted yet.
With regards to young Jimmy downloading without the parents knowledge: I can remember watching GMTV when a Dad was fined £5000 for what his daughter was downloading/uploading (bog standard P2P stuff) in terms of music and he admitted he can’t even turn a PC on!
I don’t think a pure a downloader has been convicted yet.
Isn't that the problem though?
When P2P first started out be it Napster, eDonkey, Limewire, Kazaa etc, you can just download.
However with the Bittorrent protocol you HAVE to upload as well as download for it to work.
I download various films, games and the odd MP3 of the newsgroups. At the moment however, I am unable to discern whether they are legal or not until virgin send me a letter of clarification – obviously!
Although I use a news-server with 256bit SSL so will the BPI not bother working out what I download if it’s only about 20-50GB per month?
It's doubtful that the BPI will go after anyone for using news servers. The simple reason being that they can't monitor it. VM could, but they have not announced any plans to do so, and if they did it would be a legal minefield (similar to Phorm - illegal surveillance, breech of privacy, loss of "common carrier" status etc).
If you are really worried, just sign up with Relakks or someone similar.
Isn't that the problem though?
When P2P first started out be it Napster, eDonkey, Limewire, Kazaa etc, you can just download.
However with the Bittorrent protocol you HAVE to upload as well as download for it to work.
I agree it is the problem! I am being self-centred with that comment because I use the newsgroups so I never upload anything.
---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------
It's doubtful that the BPI will go after anyone for using news servers. The simple reason being that they can't monitor it. VM could, but they have not announced any plans to do so, and if they did it would be a legal minefield (similar to Phorm - illegal surveillance, breech of privacy, loss of "common carrier" status etc).
If you are really worried, just sign up with Relakks or someone similar.
Does Relakks etc affect quality of service or anything like that?
They use a 3rd party company who runs it on their behalf. Highwinds from what I have seen
No it isn't. A newsserver has articles PUSHED onto it by the way it works.
A filesharer PULLS any content onto their PC, i.e. you have to specifically click on a link for a torrent or click on a file in Limewire etc.
You cannot share a file any other way
Sorry to continue this but just trying to get my head around it.
Someone who sells copied DVD's isn;t the person making the copies, or the person who evenyually buys them to watch, but is still liable in law. So whether or not a news server has the stuff pushed on them or not, quite simply they are storing illegal material.
It's a bit like the latest youtube court case isn;t it???
Kymmy
It's a bit like the latest youtube court case isn;t it???
Kymmy
Not really.
Youtube hosts videos. Which are specifically uploaded and solely distributed by youtube. Therefore it is quite easy to sue them as distributing copyrighted material
Newsgroups and the news protocol is by its very design, self replicating. So if someone connected to an ISP in the US uploads a copy of a file it will automatically end up on Virgin Media's news server
Who do you then sue?
So then why isn;t that illegal? It's still there on VM's servers for people to downlaod whether or not VM put it there??? Each chain is helping to spread the content,,,
It's like if a TV is stolen in the UK, everyone who comes into contact with that TV is guilty of handling stolen goods, so it's not just the person who steals it or the person who ends up with it, if you know it's stolen then you;re guilty.
Oh I wish the law was simply a case of legal or not ;)
Kymmy
So then why isn;t that illegal? It's still there on VM's servers for people to downlaod whether or not VM put it there??? Each chain is helping to spread the content,,,
It's like if a TV is stolen in the UK, everyone who comes into contact with that TV is guilty of handling stolen goods, so it's not just the person who steals it or the person who ends up with it, if you know it's stolen then you;re guilty.
Oh I wish the law was simply a case of legal or not ;)
Kymmy
So if the Royal Mail delivers something illegal, they should be sued for distributing illegal material?
homealone
14-06-2008, 15:30
So then why isn;t that illegal? It's still there on VM's servers for people to downlaod whether or not VM put it there??? Each chain is helping to spread the content,,,
It's like if a TV is stolen in the UK, everyone who comes into contact with that TV is guilty of handling stolen goods, so it's not just the person who steals it or the person who ends up with it, if you know it's stolen then you;re guilty.
Oh I wish the law was simply a case of legal or not ;)
Kymmy
I've always taken usenet to operate under the concept that they undertake to provide peering with all uploaded files as a 'common carrier'.
A bit of googling suggests that the interpretation of this concept isn't exactly cut & dried, but that 'newsgroup' providers hold it to mean that, so long as they themselves don't interfere with any content, they themselves are not liable for any of it. They are still, apparently, obliged to remove anything on there which becomes subject to a justified complaint, but they assume ultimate 'responsibility' for the content rests with the user, not the provider.
Taking your stolen telly example, basically what they seem to be saying is that all they passed on was a box, along with a whole load of other boxes, & it isn't up to them to open each one & determine which are legal, & which are not - similar to the Post Office not opening your letters to see if they contain anything libellous, because if they did, they might be held just as responsible as the intended recipient?????
Even the stolen goods scenario requires proving the suspect 'knowingly' abetted an illegal act.
The usenet approach seems to be that as they don't look at the content of any files, how do they know which are dodgy & which are not ...
- but ianal :)
So if the Royal Mail delivers something illegal, they should be sued for distributing illegal material?
No as Royal mail doesn;t have the legal rights to see what's within the mail...
But VM can keep track of the content of the newsgroups
I know it's not black and white but an infinate shade of grey as to how you look at it...
Anyway thanks guys for making it all a bit clearer :)
Kymmy
Phormic Acid
14-06-2008, 16:57
But VM can keep track of the content of the newsgroups
I know it's not black and white but an infinate shade of grey as to how you look at it...Which is why they can’t keep track of the newsgroups. Ignoring the shear scale of the problem, it’s impossible to always be right. If VM attempted to police the newsgroups, they would potentially become legally liable every time they failed to keep copyrighted material out.
Does Relakks etc affect quality of service or anything like that?
It's pretty much transparent. Generally I don't notice when I'm using it.
For times when you need maximum speed you can always just make one click to go back to a direct connection.
---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------
Youtube hosts videos. Which are specifically uploaded and solely distributed by youtube. Therefore it is quite easy to sue them as distributing copyrighted material
No. Current US law (where the suit is being heard), an indeed the law of most countries, gives people like YouTube protection because the material is user generated.
It's like if someone posted some copyright infringing material on these forums. It would be hard to sue the operators unless they refused to remove the offending material.
Newsgroups and the news protocol is by its very design, self replicating. So if someone connected to an ISP in the US uploads a copy of a file it will automatically end up on Virgin Media's news server
Who do you then sue?
Yes, it's similar to to an ISPs email servers or web cache, or a phone companies voice mail system. They can't really control what ends up on it. If asked, they might be compelled to remove certain material in certain cases, but you couldn't sue them just for storing it in the first place.
Yes this is basically just Virgin keeping the BPI happy, and more importanly being seen to be doing something by the goverment. as they said they would legislate unless something was done which we all know none of the ISP's or the users want to happen.
This is also nothing new and other ISP have done this in the past ie BE online, If you search in the this forum theses a thread about it.
Finally Found the link to the message about Be doing this
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/25/33629678-beunlimited-warning-of-alleged-service-abuse.html
So what about those of us who are LEGALLY FILE sharing, for example, I get my updated GNU Linux distribution via Bit-Torrent. SO am I given to understand that just by downloading a large file in this case a 2.5g DVD *.iso image that even though I am legally entitled to do so, by doing so I may get my connection cut off? Because the only reason I ask is my connection has been consistently going down of late, at first I suspected the router was having a few problems so I took it out of the loop and rebooted the Modem and just put the lead straight into the PC and bypassed the VPN firewall altogether, but Lo and Behold it stills goes down whilst trying to retrieve a legally available distribution of linux!
The people in my house are getting completely miffed with the whole fiasco and if things don't improve we'll be getting rid of Virgin Media altogether and going back to BT.
Not to mention last time they sent a technical support person around to the house he removed the VPN/Router and deleted the settings for it right off the PC without my consent. I am having to write this from a secure hardened distribution of Linux and sorry to have to say this but not all of us are technophiles and idiots, if people want to get hold of illegal material (which no one in our house does!) I'm pretty sure their are a hell of a lot of ways they could go about it that don't involve Peer2Peer.
Secure Socket Layer and Encrypted communications for example, then the BPI haven't got a bloody clue what the hell people are sending to or from each other. . .
The purpose of having the VPN router on-line is to try and provide a barrier against some of the more seedy things out their on the internet and if you look on the Virgin Media website it assures its customers that you can indeed do that if you want to share the connection with all the computers in the house!
Also what about customers with an unsecured WiFi connection and someone leeching their bandwidth are they to be penalized for someone elses illegal activity on their WiFi?
Another thing is, what if you've paid for the download of that MP3 etc, is it just torrents their targeting or is it any large file activity.
The whole thing just hasn't been thought through and the customers are finding themselves with the short end of the stick. . .
:mad: You'd think they might warn their customers their cable is having a few problems or something, not just sit their cutting people off willy nilly and leaving us scratching our heads thinking our equipment is at fault when to be fair it looks like some over zealous admin somewhere could be making peoples life harder than it needs to be!:dunce:
From the link in the OP
"Accounts identified as being used for illegal music sharing by the record industry will receive two letters: one from Virgin Media and one from the BPI. Investigators will monitor copyright-infringing BitTorrent swarms and log Virgin Media IP addresses, which will be passed on to the ISP to identify the customers."
So your updated GNU Linux distro should be ok.
humph, but you can see my point, by taking this stance they are not going to cure the root of the problem like the site's that are making that material available which are the ones they should be targeting, not the average joe at home. . .
SSH && SSL && GNUPG && Crypto API.
They cant police the world, but I'm pretty sure they will give it their best shot!
Sorry, I thought your point was "SO am I given to understand that just by downloading a large file in this case a 2.5g DVD *.iso image that even though I am legally entitled to do so, by doing so I may get my connection cut off?"
<my bad>
Well that was partially my point and my connection is still up and down like a yo-yo it just went down for the 90th time. Used to be a Telewest customer till VM bought them out.
The thing I am trying to drive at, is surly it makes more sense to do what they would do in your work place, you try to visit a dodgy site, the ISP displays the page 401 or 404 file not permitted on this server. It appears you are trying to access a site with questionable material which has been blocked for your safety, not target the consumer in an all inclusive anti-piracy drive.
---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:02 ----------
By persecuting the masses they will only succeed in alienating their customers and that can't be what they want. . .
---------- Post added at 21:09 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ----------
Also what do you make of my other previous statement about the technician they sent around, just went straight on my moms PC and deleted the router configuration, I could seek litigation for illegal data tampering, he had no precedence to just go changing things and deleting stuff and when she asked him what he was doing he just sat their and grunted!
Charming!
homealone
16-06-2008, 22:37
I have never, ever, had a tech want to mess with my PC - presumably for the reason of risk of the litigation you are threatening - I have had one refuse to touch anything except their own installed equipment & state that the PC was my responsibility, though.
- Not to disbelieve your info, just to say it sounds a bit dodgy if the tech really 'went straight on' your mother's pc, because that isn't standard procedure, as far as I know??
Well that was partially my point and my connection is still up and down like a yo-yo it just went down for the 90th time. Used to be a Telewest customer till VM bought them out.
The thing I am trying to drive at, is surly it makes more sense to do what they would do in your work place, you try to visit a dodgy site, the ISP displays the page 401 or 404 file not permitted on this server. It appears you are trying to access a site with questionable material which has been blocked for your safety, not target the consumer in an all inclusive anti-piracy drive.
But then you will get accused of censorship. Companies can do it because they own the PCs, they pay you to be there. With the software business use it is also over restrictive. I've seen it where they block a whole site, just because one page may be illegal
With a residential connection, unless it is stuff like child porn, ISPs cannot filter unless the customer requests it. It would be the same as Virgin saying "You can't phone this telephone number because we think it might be for illegal purposes".
If they do, again they run the risk of being classed as a content provider, not a utility provider
By persecuting the masses they will only succeed in alienating their customers and that can't be what they want. . .
No it isn't what they want, but at the same time unless they do something the government will, which is going to be a lot worse.
Also what do you make of my other previous statement about the technician they sent around, just went straight on my moms PC and deleted the router configuration, I could seek litigation for illegal data tampering, he had no precedence to just go changing things and deleting stuff and when she asked him what he was doing he just sat their and grunted!
Charming!
Which is definately unacceptable, and not sanctioned by Virgin. In fact they specifically have in their tech handbook that install/fault techs cannot touch a PC without a customers permission and then all they are authorised to do is to go to a specific website to check the connection works
Her PC is where the router is at, its wired to the whole house which is how we'd had it set up for years, she called him in because she being a technophobe herself couldn't get it online when it went down. He then proceeded to go on to her PC and she watched him use add and remove, then unplugged the router, plugged the modem lead from it into her PC and she was of course back on-line, just not anyone else who wanted to share the connection.
Totally un-necessary all he had to do was try, IPconfig /renew /release and that would have probably sorted it.
Oh and that brings me to my next point /dns flush which erases the domain name referrer history.
It also raises the question of weather the monitoring of its customers also falls under the data tampering category. Their monitoring your data, how? By filtering your connection, isnt that data tampering as well?
Something worth thinking about!
From the link in the OP
"Accounts identified as being used for illegal music sharing by the record industry will receive two letters: one from Virgin Media and one from the BPI. Investigators will monitor copyright-infringing BitTorrent swarms and log Virgin Media IP addresses, which will be passed on to the ISP to identify the customers."
And there's the fatal flaw in their plan!
All someone needs to do is modify a BitTorrent client to report random VM IP addresses to a popular tracker every few seconds. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of customers framed, and the whole thing collapses.
Actually, it's going to be hard to tell that someone isn't doing that already. After all, if 6.5 million people in the UK download music (BPI's own figures) and there are approx 15 million broadband connections, then approximately 43% of them are probably being to be targeted. Will VM send these warnings to nearly half it's customers?
Her PC is where the router is at, its wired to the whole house which is how we'd had it set up for years, she called him in because she being a technophobe herself couldn't get it online when it went down. He then proceeded to go on to her PC and she watched him use add and remove, then unplugged the router, plugged the modem lead from it into her PC and she was of course back on-line, just not anyone else who wanted to share the connection.
Totally un-necessary all he had to do was try, IPconfig /renew /release and that would have probably sorted it.
Oh and that brings me to my next point /dns flush which erases the domain name referrer history.
I am quite surprised Virgin sent anyone out for that in the first place as usually they will not support routers unless you have one of the new ones issued directly from Virgin.
Even then all the techs are trained and sanctioned to do it get the modem working, anything is down to Tech Support or the customer
It also raises the question of weather the monitoring of its customers also falls under the data tampering category. Their monitoring your data, how? By filtering your connection, isnt that data tampering as well?
Who is monitoring your data?
Well thats obvious isnt it, you cant see what someone else is downloading unless you go filtering their requests and monitoring their actions. . . That could also be classed as data tampering. . . :)
As for the technician I am not really all that bothered just a bit shocked as I thought he could use better professional training. . .
Goodnight and thanks for listening!
And there's the fatal flaw in their plan!
All someone needs to do is modify a BitTorrent client to report random VM IP addresses to a popular tracker every few seconds. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of customers framed, and the whole thing collapses.
But then all that would do is cause the tracker to fail as normal clients would be trying to download pieces that don't exist
---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:51 ----------
Well thats obvious isnt it, you cant see what someone else is downloading unless you go filtering their requests and monitoring their actions. . . That could also be classed as data tampering. . . :) Goodnight and thanks for listening!
You can indeed see what other people are downloading, simply by downloading the same thing yourself. So you are saying anyone you uses a torrent is data tampering
Well its certainly spying isnt it. Why would you want to harvest another persons IP? and to what end? Did that person even keep the completed download or was he looking for something else altogether and downloaded that file by mistake?
These are factors that need to be considered, I mean oh hell yes if youve got someone downloading nothing but whole albums of songs then you would know if he was a pirate, I've seen those guys being caught on the television, trading standards raided a house and found some little chinese guy manufacturing DVD's now that's not legal I agree but he had thousands of DVD's not one or two. . .
Well in the BPIs case so they can tell Virgin Media, and request that VM send the two letters
As for everyone else out the internet that does it, who knows.
So by that definition we are all to be tarred with the same brush for getting one or two files off bit-torrent?
I still remember a time when the recording industry association of america sued a little 12 year old girl to the tune of 20k for downloading one Justin Timberlake song. A 12 year old little kid! Thats pretty rough justice. . .
If the BPI happen to catch you downloading a torrent that is not legal, yes.
It is hardly 'tarring with the same brush' though. You either do or don't download illegal torrents. whether it is 1 or 1,000,000 makes no difference
But then all that would do is cause the tracker to fail as normal clients would be trying to download pieces that don't exist
You can indeed see what other people are downloading, simply by downloading the same thing yourself. So you are saying anyone you uses a torrent is data tampering
The BPI just connect to a swarm and check the list of IP addresses for VM ones. Thing is, the list of IP addresses comes from the tracker. When a client connects, it can specify it's IP address (in case HTTP is being proxied etc) and that is the IP address that the tracker hands out.
In other words, you can frame any IP address you like!
I can show you evidence of 10 Downing Street pirating movies and the Vatican downloading porn!
But how the hell do you know whats legal and what isnt, record labels use the internet to give people tracks and songs legally, so its a very grey line isnt it? How do you know if its allowed or not, nice of them to warn you before you actually attempt the download. . . If you see a link and you click it, are we all now to understand that the internet will become a point and click instant offence zone!
---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/471?ref=rss
But how the hell do you know whats legal and what isnt, record labels use the internet to give people tracks and songs legally, so its a very grey line isnt it?
That's a good point. MediaDefender, the company that the music industry pays to attack BitTorrent sites, recently poisoned a perfectly legit tracker used by an indy label with fake torrents. When the exploit they were using was closed off, they DDOSed (attacked) it.
Vigilante justice at it's best.
How do you know if its allowed or not, nice of them to warn you before you actually attempt the download. . . If you see a link and you click it, are we all now to understand that the internet will become a point and click instant offence zone!
Again, it's a fair comment. Nothing to stop me downloading "Britney Spears Discography.torrent", renaming it to "Ubuntu Linux.torrent" and uploading it to a different site where unsuspecting users might click on it. Not only would you be tricked into infringing copyright, you would end up with Britney Spears on your PC!
Again, it's a fair comment. Nothing to stop me downloading "Britney Spears Discography.torrent", renaming it to "Ubuntu Linux.torrent" and uploading it to a different site where unsuspecting users might click on it. Not only would you be tricked into infringing copyright, you would end up with Britney Spears on your PC!
I think you would have a hard time proving beyond reasonable doubt on that one.
Thought, they might even have problem proving intent, apart from some questionable taste in music, when (and this seems to happen more often) someone creates a 'Britney Spears.torrent' and you get Ubuntu. ;)
I think you would have a hard time proving beyond reasonable doubt on that one.
Luckily it's not a criminal matter, only a civil one, so I don't ahve to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Luckily it's not a criminal matter, only a civil one, so I don't ahve to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Incorrect, its criminal also, I have linked to the act that supports this. The ongoing Oink case is an example of criminal rights infringement, although more complicated than little johny seeding bit torent with a few Hoosiers tracks. :)
Incorrect, its criminal also, I have linked to the act that supports this. The ongoing Oink case is an example of criminal rights infringement, although more complicated than little johny seeding bit torent with a few Hoosiers tracks. :)
The OiNK case involves criminal charges because music was obtained and released before the official release date, and the music industry alleges that they must have been defrauded somehow to obtain the CDs. It remains to be seen if that is the case.
However, mere copyright infringement via P2P is civil.
The OiNK case involves criminal charges because music was obtained and released before the official release date, and the music industry alleges that they must have been defrauded somehow to obtain the CDs. It remains to be seen if that is the case.
However, mere copyright infringement via P2P is civil.
OK, I've commented on this before, it IS illegal as per the covering act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_5#pt1-ch6-pb5-l1g107)
Specifically it says:
107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c
(1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright ownerâ€â€
(a) makes for sale or hire, or
(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or
(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or
(d) in the course of a business â€â€
(i) sells or lets for hire, or
(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
(iii) exhibits in public, or
(iv) distributes, or
(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
The BPI's own site says this:
Can a downloader go to prison?
So far the BPI has only brought civil proceedings against illegal uploaders; however, it does not dismiss the possibility of criminal proceedings in a sufficiently serious case.
The above is from the sites own FAQ (http://www.bpi.co.uk/index.asp?Page=piracy/content_file_79.shtml).
It is true that most cases are brought to the civil courts because it is easier to get a judgement, but criminal action CAN be brought to bare on an end user if there is sufficient evidence to show that they are distributing enough material that to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright.
I won't labour this point though, but I have considerable knowledge in this area, and have discussed it often on this site, and others.
This action by VM is one of education, not litigation, but the BPI have taken many end users to court, often ending in judgements in excess of £2000 against the defendant.
pip08456
17-06-2008, 17:14
I'm just wondering exactly what measures VM are taking. It doesn't affect me as I am now on Be and loving it, but I've just come back from responding to a friends request (he's still on VM) and in his torrent client EVERY tracker is showing up as being offline even though I know they are not! He is getting 0 downloads from those trackers including the private ones.
I don't want to get into the legality of file sharing as I know it is a grey area (don't say you never lent a cd, DVD, tape or video to a friend-exactly the same). But I would like to know exactly what measures VM are using in this respect.
I'm just wondering exactly what measures VM are taking. It doesn't affect me as I am now on Be and loving it, but I've just come back from responding to a friends request (he's still on VM) and in his torrent client EVERY tracker is showing up as being offline even though I know they are not! He is getting 0 downloads from those trackers including the private ones.
I don't want to get into the legality of file sharing as I know it is a grey area (don't say you never lent a cd, DVD, tape or video to a friend-exactly the same). But I would like to know exactly what measures VM are using in this respect.
Any evidence passed to them from the BPI will result in an "education" letter to the customer, there will be no interruption to network traffic by VM as a result of the first letter.
Whether VM take more stringent action is yet to be seen, but they have come out publicly and said that they do not want to terminate accounts at this time.
pip08456
17-06-2008, 17:34
Any evidence passed to them from the BPI will result in an "education" letter to the customer, there will be no interruption to network traffic by VM as a result of the first letter.
Whether VM take more stringent action is yet to be seen, but they have come out publicly and said that they do not want to terminate accounts at this time.
Hang on a minute. Who mentioned termination of account? He can still access the web but his torrent client is reporting all his trackers as being offline. I've told him to see if there is an update for his torrent client just in case it is a bug in that which I doubt as I use the same one. I was just wondering if VM had changed their stance as they have changed what they promised users.
As I said I have now left VM and am enjoying DOUBLE the speed that VM promised me (I was on XL but never got more than an 10mbps on a regular basis). Now I pay less and get a minimum if 16mbps and at most times 20 mbps with 1.5mbps upload speed with no restrictions on either. TRULY UNLIMITED!!!!
Just as a further comment, I came back from London on Sunday and saw an ad for VM advertising "Fibre Optic" BB from £16.00pcm. I see no fibre optic connections to any house. Isn't it copper from the cabinet from the street????
I can see yet another complaint to the ASA happening!
Hang on a minute. Who mentioned termination of account? He can still access the web but his torrent client is reporting all his trackers as being offline. I've told him to see if there is an update for his torrent client just in case it is a bug in that which I doubt as I use the same one. I was just wondering if VM had changed their stance as they have changed what they promised users.
As I said I have now left VM and am enjoying DOUBLE the speed that VM promised me (I was on XL but never got more than an 10mbps on a regular basis). Now I pay less and get a minimum if 16mbps and at most times 20 mbps with 1.5mbps upload speed with no restrictions on either. TRULY UNLIMITED!!!!
I was simply listing what VM were doing and could do, I wasn't implying your friend was being restricted.
Oh, BTW, Be Unlimited were already sending out copyright infringement warnings before this BPI thing with VM kicked off, I think there is a link to a copy of the letter in this thread.
I can see yet another complaint to the ASA happening!Too late mate, complaints have already been made to the ASA on that fibre issue, and on the ten points of complaint VM were not required to change their add.
Just to add some weight to my comment:
The Advertising Standards Authority (http://www.asa.org.uk/) accepted these arguments from the cable company and refused to uphold the complaints.
"The ASA noted Virgin's argument that the aim of the ads was to highlight the technological differences between cable broadband and ADSL broadband," the ruling stated.
"We also noted that cable broadband uses a combination of fibre-optic and co-axial cable to deliver broadband into the home. We acknowledged that Virgin's co-axial cables were made of either aluminium or steel and had a copper coating. "
Full article here (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2209107/asa-clears-virgin-lies).
The BPI's own site says this:
You trust those guys?!
It is true that most cases are brought to the civil courts because it is easier to get a judgement, but criminal action CAN be brought to bare on an end user if there is sufficient evidence to show that they are distributing enough material that [/FONT][/COLOR]to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright.
Good luck proving that beyond reasonable doubt.
Sure, in theory they could try, but in reality it would be impossible.
You trust those guys?!
Good luck proving that beyond reasonable doubt.
Sure, in theory they could try, but in reality it would be impossible.
Whether or not "I" trust them isn't the discussion here now is it?
Yes in theory they could try, and no doubt any success or failure will be documented here or elsewhere.
Whether or not "I" trust them isn't the discussion here now is it?
Well it is if you are citing them as a reference for your argument.
Nice try at spurious logic though.
pip08456
17-06-2008, 19:52
I will accept being corrected here as it is outside of my knowledge but I always thought that copper was a better conductor than either aluminium or steel.
I will accept being corrected here as it is outside of my knowledge but I always thought that copper was a better conductor than either aluminium or steel.
You could be right, I don't have a clue :)
And possibly not the ASA either, still there it goes. That said though, VM have had more than their fair share of adjudications against them too. ;)
pip08456
17-06-2008, 20:17
Oh, BTW, Be Unlimited were already sending out copyright infringement warnings before this BPI thing with VM kicked off, I think there is a link to a copy of the letter in this thread.
I've had a quick look through the thread and only can find a reference to someone posting something like "I believe Be and BT are sending out warning letters" NOT an exact quote but it is on page 1
Where is the letter? Anyone can say other ISP's are doing it but they should put up the evidence to support it!
I have no problem with Be it's the best move I made since TW & NTL came together when I was on NTL I had no complaints and that is from a customer of over 20 years standing! I can go back further than both those company's where even thought of!
I was originally with a company called Bolton Cable who were took over by Ninex who were took over by Cable & Wireless (or the other way round) who were took over by NTL WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS!!!!
So much for customer loyalty! No one on here can say I haven't given them a chance. It all went pear shaped when it was rebranded to VM.
Oh, BTW, Be Unlimited were already sending out copyright infringement warnings before this BPI thing with VM kicked off, I think there is a link to a copy of the letter in this thread.
I've had a quick look through the thread and only can find a reference to someone posting something like "I believe Be and BT are sending out warning letters" NOT an exact quote but it is on page 1
Where is the letter? Anyone can say other ISP's are doing it but they should put up the evidence to support it!
I have no problem with Be it's the best move I made since TW & NTL came together when I was on NTL I had no complaints and that is from a customer of over 20 years standing! I can go back further than both those company's where even thought of!
I was originally with a company called Bolton Cable who were took over by Ninex who were took over by Cable & Wireless (or the other way round) who were took over by NTL WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS!!!!
So much for customer loyalty! No one on here can say I haven't given them a chance. It all went pear shaped when it was rebranded to VM.
Link to the Be letter (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/25/33629678-beunlimited-warning-of-alleged-service-abuse.html), sorry it was on another thread. No arguments about you moving, your choice, and you're happy.
---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------
Well it is if you are citing them as a reference for your argument.
Nice try at spurious logic though.
Actually, I was citing them to prove your argument that copyright infringement by file sharing isn't criminal, when it in fact is, and that the BPI, and probably other rights enforcers will reserve the right to press criminal charges, as the BPI has done again Oink.
OK?
Enough on this though, I've just reviewed your other posts, and I want to refrain from smacking my head against a brick wall, and I refuse to be baited on subjects that I am qualified to speak on - by people who think they know what they are talking about.
Actually, I was citing them to prove your argument that copyright infringement by file sharing isn't criminal, when it in fact is, and that the BPI, and probably other rights enforcers will reserve the right to press criminal charges, as the BPI has done again Oink.
OK?
Not really, but it seems like you are not even bothering to read my posts properly because we are now back at square one. So, I'm not wasting any more time.
---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:21 ----------
Oh, BTW, Be Unlimited were already sending out copyright infringement warnings before this BPI thing with VM kicked off, I think there is a link to a copy of the letter in this thread.
I had one from Zen years ago. I told them they were mistaken, and they apologised and said they were just responding to a report they had, but would inform the rights holder of their error. They also promised not to send more letters from that rights holder until they produced more evidence than just a screenshot and IP address.
pip08456
18-06-2008, 00:11
Toto
Thanks for the link to the "alleged" letter but can you tell me any ISP in this country who doesn't have these details in their T's&C's?
This is not a warning letter at all it is an extract from T's&Cs.In fact I am going to pass it onto them just to see what the reply is. I would expect they would want it removed from this forum as being
a) I breech of copyright (It's their T's & C's)
b) Totally untrue.
It is also interesting to note that you quote a 13 year old. Says a lot!
Why would Be member services send an email to a be customer to a hotmail address??????
Toto
Thanks for the link to the "alleged" letter but can you tell me any ISP in this country who doesn't have these details in their T's&C's?
This is not a warning letter at all it is an extract from T's&Cs.In fact I am going to pass it onto them just to see what the reply is. I would expect they would want it removed from this forum as being
a) I breech of copyright (It's their T's & C's)
b) Totally untrue.
It is also interesting to note that you quote a 13 year old. Says a lot!
Why would Be member services send an email to a be customer to a hotmail address??????
I'm only reporting what has been posted here. The user policy/T&C's are pretty standard over most UK ISP's I'll grant you that, but it is wholly proper for an ISP to quote their T&C's to a customer if they feel there is a breach of their service.
What's the problem with a post from a 13 year old? My 14 year old neice is honest, a model student and incredibly bright, should her age make a difference if she posted here.
I'll look forward to your response from Be, but I would guess they won't discuss abuse cases.
I think you are starting to take my posts far to personally, when that is not my intention.
Toto
Thanks for the link to the "alleged" letter but can you tell me any ISP in this country who doesn't have these details in their T's&C's?
This is not a warning letter at all it is an extract from T's&Cs.In fact I am going to pass it onto them just to see what the reply is. I would expect they would want it removed from this forum as being
a) I breech of copyright (It's their T's & C's)
b) Totally untrue.
It is also interesting to note that you quote a 13 year old. Says a lot!
Why would Be member services send an email to a be customer to a hotmail address??????
The message has the word "Warning" in the title, and I don't see how it could be interpreted as anything else; they quote the T&Cs to explain why he should stop. Furthermore, the claims that you make of Be*'s T&Cs being private are false; they are freely available to anybody on their website.
Quoting a 13 year old has nothing to do with anything. Callumpy's post was a quote from Be* in the form of a screenshot, not an elaborate story he made up.
Doubt very much any action will be taken against those downloading copy right material, from things such as news groups etc..
The issues are going to arise from using P2P & torrents, due to the uploading of the material.
If you are uploading material from your Pc, using your connection, then you have to take responsibility for your actions. Its against the law to re-distrubute copy right material, & by uplaoding this, thats what your doing, i cant see how anyone can have any arguement defending themselves.
Its your pc & connection, your job to protect it, & your solely responsible for its use, so no point saying someone piggy backed my wifi connection.
If your uploading a torrent, then it has to be stored on your harddrive, then its on your pc, you need to be aware of what is & isnt on your own pc, simple as that.
il carry on using torrents as when i need them, but all this i can download & upload what i like, it infringes my civil liberities & privacy by checking what i download / upload is wearing a bit thin. If you want complete privacy stay off the net, if you going to use you connection for ill gotten gains, well your gonna have to give a little with regard to privacy matters as surprisingly theres people out there who dont want you to get those gains so easily..
Movies and TV shows aren't something that the BPI will be monitoring. It's still illegal though.
In that case, Ill just buy my CD's... or record streams from launch.yahoo.co.uk and other sources. :D
pip08456
18-06-2008, 16:39
I'm only reporting what has been posted here. The user policy/T&C's are pretty standard over most UK ISP's I'll grant you that, but it is wholly proper for an ISP to quote their T&C's to a customer if they feel there is a breach of their service.
What's the problem with a post from a 13 year old? My 14 year old neice is honest, a model student and incredibly bright, should her age make a difference if she posted here.
I'll look forward to your response from Be, but I would guess they won't discuss abuse cases.
I think you are starting to take my posts far to personally, when that is not my intention.
Don't worry Toto I take nothing seriously on forums, just like a good discussion!
I just wonder how a 13yr old can have a legally binding account when it is illegal in the UK?
It's all very well previous posters saying his parents may have the account and have given his email addy as the contact method but I cannot see any responsible parent doing that.
If I was paying for an account whether it be for son, daughter or friend I would expect any problems with the account to be sent to me as the bill payer so that I could take appropriate action.
Florence
19-06-2008, 14:48
The government are threatening ISPs again to start sorting this out..
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkEFlZlyklBNkFtuBm.html
The government are threatening ISPs again to start sorting this out..
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkEFlZlyklBNkFtuBm.html
Yep, they have been banging on ISP doors now for months, if no self regulation is thrashed out, they could face legislation. time's running out folks.
Yep, they have been banging on ISP doors now for months, if no self regulation is thrashed out, they could face legislation. time's running out folks.
So in fact Virgin Media is leading the way in trying to avoid excessive government regulation, and the other ISPs are not making the effort they should ;)
So in fact Virgin Media is leading the way in trying to avoid excessive government regulation, and the other ISPs are not making the effort they should ;)
You can wink at that statement, but given the alternative, possible litigation against ISP's who don't take action, you may not be far off. :)
I don't think ISPs have too much to fear.
On the one hand the government wants to be seen to be doing something. On the other hand they don't want to upset 6.5 million potential voters and their families/friends.
Legally there is not much they can really do. Blocking P2P is technically unfeasable and besides which there are lots of legitimate uses for it (BBC iPlayer for example). The three strikes thing won't work because no-one is willing to cover the cost of litigation when innocent users sue the ISPs for disconnection.
I don't think ISPs have too much to fear.
On the one hand the government wants to be seen to be doing something. On the other hand they don't want to upset 6.5 million potential voters and their families/friends.
Legally there is not much they can really do. Blocking P2P is technically unfeasable and besides which there are lots of legitimate uses for it (BBC iPlayer for example). The three strikes thing won't work because no-one is willing to cover the cost of litigation when innocent users sue the ISPs for disconnection.
On the contrary, three strikes can work, all ISP's remove "problem" accounts on their networks without the current three strikes rule. It happens more regularly than people know.
EDIT: There's an interesting news story (http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1103) about the VM/BPI initiative. For the life of me though I can't work out if the following quote was deliberate, or poorly researched.
The decision by Virgin recording company to send warning letters to alleged music pirates......:)
pip08456
20-06-2008, 01:49
On the contrary, three strikes can work, all ISP's remove "problem" accounts on their networks without the current three strikes rule. It happens more regularly than people know.
:)
Not quite true.
Most uneducated users of P2P don't know about encryption.
Not quite true.
Most uneducated users of P2P don't know about encryption.
Not sure what your point is.
Mine was that ISP's don't need a three strike rule, their T&C's allow them to remove problem accounts without legislation, my point had nothing to do with lack of P2P knowledge on the part of the account holder.
bigjonnyauk
29-06-2008, 21:01
hi guys long long time lurker lol
has this actually started yet i have never used torrents or p2p but i use newsgroups with ssl
anyone actually got a letter yet or has it started
hi guys long long time lurker lol
has this actually started yet i have never used torrents or p2p but i use newsgroups with ssl
anyone actually got a letter yet or has it started
Don't know if anyone has a letter yet, but the BPI seem to be focusing on file share systems, not USENET......yet. :)
hokkers999
30-06-2008, 00:44
If they send letters to those using newsgroups and note I said IF
Then they will have done one of 2 things
1. They will be deep packet inspecting, Something that the PHORM servers (if they have them installed) will allow them to do.
2. They are watching what you download from there own Newsgroup servers.
.
Best of luck trying, I use giganews and only connect via an SSL connection.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7486743.stm
According to the news report I've just seen on the BBC, 800 letters will be sent.
This is a dupe from the internet discussion since it applies to both threads.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7486743.stm
According to the news report I've just seen on the BBC, 800 letters will be sent.
This is a dupe from the internet discussion since it applies to both threads.
Cool, I hope I get one! Afterwards I will get the apology from the BPI framed.
alt3rn1ty
03-07-2008, 13:11
Considering how popular a read with parents this subject should be, and should they be inclined to do a quick home investigate possibly concluding with "Dont do this again else I switch off wireless, or dump your user account" does anyone have a collection of pointers as to what they should be looking for on their computers/event logs at home. Someone mentioned earlier you're average parent is not going to know to look elsewhere outside of my documents for downloaded content, are we talking hidden folders using spaces as a name etc etc.... what other 'tricks of the trade' may our darlings use to hide activities which could potentially drop us in the proverbial, instigating such a letter from Virgin/BPI?.
This will probably have to pair off into a separate topic, but I thought it relevant here. (Forgive me if its already covered somewhere on these labyrinthian forums, but busy parents are not going to have time/patience to go hunting, so a link would be good before I get my head bitten off :))
PeteTheMusicGuy
03-07-2008, 13:34
Cool, I hope I get one! Afterwards I will get the apology from the BPI framed.
If I was to get one I'd say somone will end up in court ;)
Considering how popular a read with parents this subject should be, and should they be inclined to do a quick home investigate possibly concluding with "Dont do this again else I switch off wireless, or dump your user account" does anyone have a collection of pointers as to what they should be looking for on their computers/event logs at home. Someone mentioned earlier you're average parent is not going to know to look elsewhere outside of my documents for downloaded content, are we talking hidden folders using spaces as a name etc etc.... what other 'tricks of the trade' may our darlings use to hide activities which could potentially drop us in the proverbial, instigating such a letter from Virgin/BPI?.
This will probably have to pair off into a separate topic, but I thought it relevant here. (Forgive me if its already covered somewhere on these labyrinthian forums, but busy parents are not going to have time/patience to go hunting, so a link would be good before I get my head bitten off :))
This might help, but use with caution, it can also identify iTunes software.
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/digital-file-check.html.
worth looking at the site actually, lots of info in there, good luck. :)
you're average parent is not going to know to look elsewhere outside of my documents for downloaded content, are we talking hidden folders using spaces as a name etc etc....
Probably the nice external hard disk that Aunty Mabel bought them for their birthday..;)
(well, I would if I was them)
brundles
03-07-2008, 14:59
Probably the nice external hard disk that Aunty Mabel bought them for their birthday..;)
(well, I would if I was them)
That complicates things further - if they are that savvy then chances are the software to do the downloading is also on said external hard disk meaning that the scanning software won't find it either.
And on a related note......
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm)
"Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled. "
Oops, just posted as a thread here (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/25/33635461-google-must-divulge-youtube-log.html)
And on a related note......
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm)
"Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled. "
Oops, just posted as a thread here (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/25/33635461-google-must-divulge-youtube-log.html)
This (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/19/33635457-eu-to-block-legitimate-p2p.html) also sounds ominous.
Welcome back by the way...;)
If they start sending out letters for downloading off the newsgroups, VirginMedia will have to admit they are Deep packet inspecting users surfing and downloading. Does that ring a bell with some people ????(PHORM)
If they start sending out letters for downloading off the newsgroups, VirginMedia will have to admit they are Deep packet inspecting users surfing and downloading. Does that ring a bell with some people ????(PHORM)
Since when are newsgroups anything like filesharing? It's a direct download from a server that the BPI can never find out about.
http://torrentfreak.com/virgin-media-absolutely-no-possibility-of-disconnecting-file-sharers-080703/
All I can say is I told you so, and what a waste of time, money, effort and paper.
http://torrentfreak.com/virgin-media-absolutely-no-possibility-of-disconnecting-file-sharers-080703/
All I can say is I told you so, and what a waste of time, money, effort and paper.
I'm not sure what your point it, but it was NEVER VM's intention to disconnect subscribers, and they told that to the BPI.
As to whether its a waist of time, effort and paper is yet to be seen.
Don't discount the possibility of account disconnections though, this is still only a trial apparently.
---------- Post added at 06:25 ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 ----------
Since when are newsgroups anything like filesharing? It's a direct download from a server that the BPI can never find out about.
Exactly, its another paranoid assumption comment fuelled by the current Phorm debate.
broadbandbug
04-07-2008, 13:40
If they start sending out letters for downloading off the newsgroups, VirginMedia will have to admit they are Deep packet inspecting users surfing and downloading. Does that ring a bell with some people ????(PHORM)
There is nothing to show they are doing anything with Newsgroups.. This is totally led by the BPI and they are only using Torrent IPs to id ISPs etc.
As far as I can see VM are just doing as little as possible to keep the BPI sweet.
If you look at CPW - they are refusing to co-operate with BPI and are getting threatened with Court Action..
I like the idea of BPI & Virgin at least trying to stop illegal music downloading of music as it might actually help improve the current state of the music industry but I hope online retails take note and offer higher quality mp3’s instead of the rubbish we have now…..I know it wont happen but I can dream.
I'm not sure what your point it, but it was NEVER VM's intention to disconnect subscribers, and they told that to the BPI.
That may be the case, but the fact of the matter is that the envelopes said they would consider disconnection on the outside. The BPI in particular has for some time now been touting it's judge-jury-and-executioner style "three strikes" rule too.
---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------
I like the idea of BPI & Virgin at least trying to stop illegal music downloading of music as it might actually help improve the current state of the music industry but I hope online retails take note and offer higher quality mp3’s instead of the rubbish we have now…..I know it wont happen but I can dream.
Actually downloading is already starting to improve music, because it allows artists to become popular based on talent rather than marketing budget. That is one of the reasons the BPI hates it - they can control what gets on the radio but not what people download or put on their MySpace page.
That may be the case, but the fact of the matter is that the envelopes said they would consider disconnection on the outside. The BPI in particular has for some time now been touting it's judge-jury-and-executioner style "three strikes" rule too.
---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------
Actually downloading is already starting to improve music, because it allows artists to become popular based on talent rather than marketing budget. That is one of the reasons the BPI hates it - they can control what gets on the radio but not what people download or put on their MySpace page.
Another "fact of the matter" is that VM insisted it [the envelope labels] was an administration error (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/04/dlvirgin104.xml). It's unfortunate it happened, but VM have made it clear to the BPI that they would not terminate accounts, only educate.
Yes the BPI want to force the issue, and wanted ISP's to be more draconian, but to date it would appear that only VM have agreed not to terminate accounts based on the BPI evidence, I can't speak for other ISP's at this time as they have not come out publicly in what they are doing with the BPI, apart of course from CFW, who have told the BPI to stuff it.
EDIT: Hell, I missed your comment:
Actually downloading is already starting to improve music, because it allows artists to become popular based on talent rather than marketing budget. That is one of the reasons the BPI hates it - they can control what gets on the radio but not what people download or put on their MySpace page.
What evidence have you got that supports your view that (illegal) downloading (filesharing) improves music for the artists? Look, I know that for many bands/artists its only "about the music", but come on, their in it for the money because it is ultimately a job for them. You can't honestly believe that piracy of music is atually good for the business, and this is only about the BPI?
Another "fact of the matter" is that VM insisted it [the envelope labels] was an administration error (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/04/dlvirgin104.xml). It's unfortunate it happened, but VM have made it clear to the BPI that they would not terminate accounts, only educate.
I know! It said that in the article I linked to! It was my point all along!
Jeez, is there an echo in here, or do you just like to repeat other people's points and make out they are your own?
What evidence have you got that supports your view that (illegal) downloading (filesharing) improves music for the artists? Look, I know that for many bands/artists its only "about the music", but come on, their in it for the money because it is ultimately a job for them. You can't honestly believe that piracy of music is atually good for the business, and this is only about the BPI?
Well, I was talking more about the fact that it improves the general quality of music for everyone since we are no longer reliant on corporate media outlets to discover new music, but I will address your point.
I don't know if you read Courtney Love's speech, but it's well worth checking out: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
So, a new band has a choice. Sign up with a record company and get screwed royally, or do what a lot of bands are doing now and use the internet for promotion by giving away their music. Lilly Allen and the Arctic Monkeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_monkeys) are just two such bands who went that route. They managed to come from zero to number one hits without having to sell their souls to record labels, and despite massive piracy of their work are not exactly starving.
Keep in mind that free music has been a promotional tool since the dawn of radio, at least from the consumers point of view.
Mr Angry
05-07-2008, 08:20
Well, I was talking more about the fact that it improves the general quality of music for everyone since we are no longer reliant on corporate media outlets to discover new music, but I will address your point.
I don't know if you read Courtney Love's speech, but it's well worth checking out: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
So, a new band has a choice. Sign up with a record company and get screwed royally, or do what a lot of bands are doing now and use the internet for promotion by giving away their music. Lilly Allen and the Arctic Monkeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_monkeys) are just two such bands who went that route. They managed to come from zero to number one hits without having to sell their souls to record labels, and despite massive piracy of their work are not exactly starving.
Keep in mind that free music has been a promotional tool since the dawn of
radio, at least from the consumers point of view.
There's nothing quite like quoting a ten year old analogy from Steve Albini to make you credible.
Ho hum.....Courtney (I'm a multi millionaire off the back of my dead husband) Love, Lily (daughter of millionaire entertainment mogul Keith) and Alex (lets shaft our bass player just after we sign to Domino because he's a bit weighty) Turner are suddenly "the future" of not selling their souls to record labels?
Catch yourself on!
Indeed Mr Angry.
---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------
Keep in mind that free music has been a promotional tool since the dawn of radio, at least from the consumers point of view.
Hmmm, good point, something OiNK allegedly made some good money on. You are going way off the point. the BPI's actions is for rights protected music, where the recording company, writers and artists get paid of each track sold. you still have not been able to justify piracy, you never will, nobody will. I'm also certain that if you took the time to read the licensing requirements for those "free" to download tracks you would still see strict non reproduction clauses in there, at least for most of them.
EU may be trying to sneak through a "three strikes and your out" law, after MEPs signalled that this was a no-go.
Open Rights Group (http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/write-to-your-mep-say-no-to-3-strikes-through-the-backdoor/)
From BoingBoing (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/05/europeans-you-have-u.html)
"Back-room dealings in the European Parliament have resulted in a "three strikes" rule being included in a new telecoms bill -- the rule would force ISPs to kick people who've been thrice accused of copyright infringement off the Internet.
If this bill passes, then Europeans' access to the network that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, access to medicine, family, civic engagement, banking, government services, and the whole sweep of human online endeavor would last only so long as they avoided three unsubstantiated accusations of downloading music or video or software without permission.
Worse still, the bill is set to be voted upon on July 7 -- that's this Monday. "
Tezcatlipoca
05-07-2008, 18:26
The EU sneak something in? Surely not ;)
There's nothing quite like quoting a ten year old analogy from Steve Albini to make you credible.
Ho hum.....Courtney (I'm a multi millionaire off the back of my dead husband) Love, Lily (daughter of millionaire entertainment mogul Keith) and Alex (lets shaft our bass player just after we sign to Domino because he's a bit weighty) Turner are suddenly "the future" of not selling their souls to record labels?
Catch yourself on!
Making personal attacks on the artists does not make you right.
Those are hardly the only acts to go that route, just the most well known. The rapper Example is another good example. I bought his CD after watching "Vile" on YouTube and downloading the album for a listen. I almost didn't because it was so damn loud as to be almost unlistenable on headphones, but in the end I was swayed.
My other point, which you seem to have missed, is that the internet levels the playing field somewhat. Before, most people got wind of new music via the radio and TV. You have to get with the record companies to get exposed on MTV, but anyone can upload a video to YouTube or make a MySpace page. If you are good, the social/viral nature of the medium will get you noticed.
Most acts can't really expect to be mega-stars, but they can make a good living off self promotion on the internet.
In fact, even the big established acts have realised this now, e.g. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails giving away their material. Even Prince, who apparently hates downloading, gave away his latest album in a national newspaper for free.
---------- Post added at 03:23 ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 ----------
Hmmm, good point, something OiNK allegedly made some good money on.
That was just a lie made up by the BPI in order to trick the police into raiding OiNK. Copyright infringement is a civil matter normally, so they had to claim that OiNK was making vast amounts of money in order to get the raid, but in reality OiNK accepted optional donations to cover running costs.
you still have not been able to justify piracy, you never will, nobody will.
Okay, say you are walking down the street and absent mindedly whistle a few bars from that song you heard on the radio earlier that is now stuck in your head. The BPI happen to notice and demand performance fees. Fair?
The BPI are chasing Quick Fit and the police for having radios on which could be overhead by the public, resulting in a "public performance". Technically recording something on your VCR to watch later because you want to see the footy on the other side is piracy. That mix CD you made for your car is infringing too - you had better buy a second copy of every album to keep in the car. Ripped any CDs for your iPod lately? That's piracy too.
There are loads of examples where the majority of people break copyright and don't see a problem with it. The law is out of step with what people feel is right, but until recently the copyright holders have tolerated it and even encouraged it (PCD codes for automatically programming your VCR, for example). The difference now is that the internet threatens to make the BPI redundant.
mojo, I loved this paragraph. :)
That was just a lie [Added by Toto: Personal attack on the BI, and potentially libels them, didn't you just accuse Mr Angry of personal attacks only a few sentences ago?] made up by the BPI in order to trick the police into raiding OiNK. Copyright infringement is a civil matter normally, so they had to claim that OiNK was making vast amounts of money in order to get the raid, but in reality OiNK accepted optional donations to cover running costs.Come off it mojo, those fee's were a club fee, pay it and you get the goodies. You're not that naive surely?
Okay, say you are walking down the street and absent mindedly whistle a few bars from that song you heard on the radio earlier that is now stuck in your head. The BPI happen to notice and demand performance fees. Fair?Fair? No, but a really poor counter argument. We are talking about the BPI, who uses a third party company to collect IP evidence on computers sharing rights protected material. They store IP, date/time of upload from the source, and verify the track is what it says it is. I hardly think accusing Mr bloggs of whistling a portion of a Girls Aloud track is an action the BPI are going to take now is it?
The BPI are chasing Quick Fit and the police for having radios on which could be overhead by the public, resulting in a "public performance". Many public premises have the radio on, but must pay a simple annual broadcast fee, quick fit shouldn't be different. I didn't know they were taking the police to task as well, do you have something I can look at to support this please?
Technically recording something on your VCR to watch later because you want to see the footy on the other side is piracy.Incorrect, there is a provision called "time shift", allowing a person to record and watch a broadcast at a more suitable time. If it were illegal, VM, SKY and all video recording companies could be in real trouble, please think about it. http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law Section 8.
That mix CD you made for your car is infringing too - you had better buy a second copy of every album to keep in the car. Ripped any CDs for your iPod lately? That's piracy too.You are spot on, even recording a backup of a purchased music CD is in breach of copyright, the law though is at fault here, not the BPI.
There are loads of examples where the majority of people break copyright and don't see a problem with it.That's very true, but it still doesn't make it right, and finally......
The law is out of step with what people feel is right, but until recently the copyright holders have tolerated it and even encouraged it (PCD codes for automatically programming your VCR, for example). The difference now is that the internet threatens to make the BPI redundant.Nonsense, the law is only out of step with people who want to break it. The illegal distribution of copyright material over the Internet threatens the whole music industry in the UK and the rest of the world. The BPI is mandated by the majority of labels, studios and artists in the UK to represent their interests, particularly in the matter of piracy.
zing_deleted
06-07-2008, 09:13
yeah and all the money spent on catching people sharing a few mp3s really does show the music industry is in trouble doesn't it.
Piracy is big business for some and the car boot sellers chinese pub walkers and those making thousands of pounds every week are the ones who should be targeted
yeah and all the money spent on catching people sharing a few mp3s really does show the music industry is in trouble doesn't it.
Piracy is big business for some and the car boot sellers chinese pub walkers and those making thousands of pounds every week are the ones who should be targeted
Its the whole of the picture David, you can't exclude one from the other. So far all the BPI has asked is that ISP's take responsibility and act on their user policies, nothing more. If the BPI want to take civil action against individual music shares then that is out of proportion and probably a waste of money.
zing_deleted
06-07-2008, 10:45
Oh its gonna take a while to get used to being called David everyone please feel free when im just posting as me call me zing or ill cry lol
It was weird calling you David, so Zing it is :)
Neongirl
06-07-2008, 13:26
Well its only running for about ten weeks right? The only thing that makes me unhappy is privacy and my internet being monitored. How long before they start accessing our emails and other private stuff.
Exactly, its another paranoid assumption comment fuelled by the current Phorm debate.
So anyone that does not want Phorm and is active to stop Phorm by keeping it highlighted is paranoid are they.
If Virgin start sending letters to those using Newsgroups NOTE i said if, Then we need to be worried about what system they have deployed to be able to track that usage.
Virgin Media are no longer to be trusted with there customers data in my eyes. Dont forget they allowed a partner company to send data through the post on a CD for gods sake. It will not be long before they start to get threats from the BPI and then as usual they will cave in and give out the information relating to the Ip's listed to them. They have done it before and they will do it again.
Let us keep Phorm out of this thread please..there are enough threads dedicated to it already..
Well its only running for about ten weeks right? The only thing that makes me unhappy is privacy and my internet being monitored. How long before they start accessing our emails and other private stuff.
I don't know about the time limit, if any, but privacy is not an issue here as the BPI are collecting data directly from open peer-to-peer programs such as limewire or gnutella. The BPI don't know who the individuals are, but they know the networks being used. Virgin do not need to do anything more with the data that's presented to them except to identify the account and educate them. Anything more than that is pure speculation, and not what this trial with the BPI is about.
---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------
It will not be long before they start to get threats from the BPI and then as usual they will cave in and give out the information relating to the Ip's listed to them. They have done it before and they will do it again.
The BPI WOULD have to get a court order for any information on an IP address owner. Virgin Media will not cave in to pressure from the BPI and just hand that data over unless the courts force them. There is no provision in law that would allow to do otherwise, and would be a complete public relations disaster if they did.
It's worth noting that the BPI have done this in the past with limited success, so its certainly on the table if the BPI don't think these trials are working. CFW have said they won't volunteer to work with the BPI, but their customers could well be in queer street if they are forced to hand over customer data via a court order. Some people have ended up with fines in excess of hundreds of poinds. Personally I'd rather be "educated" by my ISP, go lick my wounds for a few days then remove the file sharing software, rather than having to go to a civil court and watch my bank account being bent over the table.
I know you don't trust VM Sirius, but you don't appear to be making a positive step to backup your protests with a move to an alternative ISP. If I had that much distrust in any provider, they wouldn't see my bank account for dust.
My reason for the paranoid comment is that some posters here cannot seem to seperate their debates away from the Phorm issue. I for one do not like reasonable discussions being hijacked by an already burgoning thread, I am also glad to see moderation in this aspect also.
You have every right to feel indignant over the potential privacy issues with Phorm, but remember there are other debates going on that, whilst they may touch on privacy, are not all about Phorm.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
Come off it mojo, those fee's were a club fee, pay it and you get the goodies. You're not that naive surely?
Did you ever actually visit the site? It was free to use for everyone. Donating got you nothing that free accounts didn't get. All content was available for free, 100%.
Your argument would really be more impressive if you had done even the most basic research. From Wikipedia: "The site's rules included a strict policy that users could not pay for membership, but have an opportunity to 'donate' at their own free will."
As to your point about personal attacks, the fact that it was a lie is, well, a fact.
Fair? No, but a really poor counter argument. We are talking about the BPI, who uses a third party company to collect IP evidence on computers sharing rights protected material. They store IP, date/time of upload from the source, and verify the track is what it says it is. I hardly think accusing Mr bloggs of whistling a portion of a Girls Aloud track is an action the BPI are going to take now is it?
Except that they do.
Did you know that music shops have to pay fees to the BPI to cover shoppers performing snatches of copyrighted music when they are trying out instruments?
Many public premises have the radio on, but must pay a simple annual broadcast fee, quick fit shouldn't be different. I didn't know they were taking the police to task as well, do you have something I can look at to support this please?
Sure, please educate yourself:
http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/37349
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm
They want to collect fees for public performance, which a radio or TV licence (which is presumably what you were referring to) does not cover.
Incorrect, there is a provision called "time shift", allowing a person to record and watch a broadcast at a more suitable time. If it were illegal, VM, SKY and all video recording companies could be in real trouble, please think about it. http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law Section 8.
It is true that it is now codified in law, but it only became the case in 1998 IIRC. Before then, it was technically illegal, but was tolerated.
Nonsense, the law is only out of step with people who want to break it. The illegal distribution of copyright material over the Internet threatens the whole music industry in the UK and the rest of the world. The BPI is mandated by the majority of labels, studios and artists in the UK to represent their interests, particularly in the matter of piracy.
I disagree. As I already argued in some detail, piracy is a good thing for music and the industry in general, just not for record companies. More over, I don't know a single person who had no at some point made a mix tape or copy for the car etc. In fact I doubt that there is a single adult in the UK who has not at some point infringed copyright and not considered it to be wrong or even a problem.
mojo
Sure, please educate yourself:
http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/37349
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7029892.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm)
They want to collect fees for public performance, which a radio or TV licence (which is presumably what you were referring to) does not cover.Thanks for the education lesson, a revisit of those two links by you may also help you identify the body taking action, it certainly isn't the BPI.
Except that they do.
Did you know that music shops have to pay fees to the BPI to cover shoppers performing snatches of copyrighted music when they are trying out instruments?Please refer to my comment above, those two articles will tell you who has the responsibility to collect fees.
More over, I don't know a single person who had no at some point made a mix tape or copy for the car etc. In fact I doubt that there is a single adult in the UK who has not at some point infringed copyright and not considered it to be wrong or even a problem.Indeed, and now that some may know, thanks to your point, perhaps they will at least think about it. :)
EDIT:
The site's rules included a strict policy that users could not pay for membership, but have an opportunity to 'donate' at their own free willYeh, I'm still not fooled. Donations, membership fee's, call it what you will, there was piracy going on, and we could argue semantics all day. But please feel free to come back and tell me you told you so when they decide not to take action, or he wins any potential court case against himself (owner of OiNK). I thought this paragraph (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/24/copyright-news-oink-and-tv-links-down-demonoid-back-up/) was interesting.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) along with INTERPOL were responsible for the investigation and subsequent raids and arrests. A spokesperson for the authorities claimed that “OiNK was central to the illegal distribution of pre-release music online”, and that OiNK was very profitable for the administrators: “This extremely lucrative and creative scheme consisted of a private file-sharing website being set up.” The only source of revenue for OiNK were donations from members, and this may now compound problems for administrators of the site as charges in addition to the copyright infringement charges have been filed as the site is being portrayed as a for-profit criminal enterprise.
mojo
Thanks for the education lesson, a revisit of those two links by you may also help you identify the body taking action, it certainly isn't the BPI.
The group responsible for collecting royalties is the Performing Right Society, but they are related to the BPI in that it is an industry body backed by the same people.
They represent the record labels, the same as the BPI. However, since the PRS does not sue people for copyright infringement or non-payment of fees, that task is left to the BPI. They are basically one and the same.
Yeh, I'm still not fooled. Donations, membership fee's, call it what you will, there was piracy going on, and we could argue semantics all day.
I'm not arguing that specifically, although it is worth noting that the site only indexed torrents, and did not carry any copyrighted material itself. Much like Google, it provided links and meta-data, but not the actual data itself.
Anyway, to address the specific point, I think you just admitted you were wrong... Well, just in case you didn't, I suppose you assume then that you have to pay to get into a church since although they accept "donations", they are really some kind of protection racket for your immortal soul.
The group responsible for collecting royalties is the Performing Right Society, but they are related to the BPI in that it is an industry body backed by the same people.
They represent the record labels, the same as the BPI. However, since the PRS does not sue people for copyright infringement or non-payment of fees, that task is left to the BPI. They are basically one and the same.
I'm not arguing that specifically, although it is worth noting that the site only indexed torrents, and did not carry any copyrighted material itself. Much like Google, it provided links and meta-data, but not the actual data itself.
Anyway, to address the specific point, I think you just admitted you were wrong... Well, just in case you didn't, I suppose you assume then that you have to pay to get into a church since although they accept "donations", they are really some kind of protection racket for your immortal soul.
[tongue-in-cheek]
Hope you're not a decorator, because that's one hell of an argument convincing your contract holder that the wall you just painted black is in fact white!
[/tongue-in-cheek]
That article goes in some way to defend OiNKS actions, but the change in IP law in the UK making it illegal to point to rights protected material, plus the collection of fee's, sorry, DONATIONS, makes their case rather sticky at best.
I have no problem admitting to anything I say may be wrong, my ego is not as fragile as you think it is.
So how many of those that received a letter would have been sent one not because they have been using Torrents but because someone using a cloned modem with there mac address had been using Torrents ?????
And to add to that what would there position be in a court of Law if there had to defend themselves ???.
Mr Angry
06-07-2008, 18:21
Making personal attacks on the artists does not make you right.
You seem to be getting confused between personal attacks and facts.
Those are hardly the only acts to go that route, just the most well known. The rapper Example is another good example. I bought his CD after watching "Vile" on YouTube and downloading the album for a listen. I almost didn't because it was so damn loud as to be almost unlistenable on headphones, but in the end I was swayed.
Yes, and Mr Gleave is such an advocate of downloading that he has disabled the function on his myspace page. Maybe he just got sick of making so much money?
My other point, which you seem to have missed, is that the internet levels the playing field somewhat.
How, exactly, does it do that?
Before, most people got wind of new music via the radio and TV. You have to get with the record companies to get exposed on MTV, but anyone can upload a video to YouTube or make a MySpace page.
Yes, and before, people who were exposed to new music through the radio and TV sometimes did a thing called "buying" that music which they liked. New artists are still being exposed by the radio and tv - you do not have to "get with" a record company to get onto MTV.
If you are good, the social/viral nature of the medium will get you noticed.
Yes, but just because you are "noticed" does not mean you will be financially secure as a result of your artistic endeavours. Even if they're "right on for the kids" there is only so much financial damage / loss that an artist can sustain.
Most acts can't really expect to be mega-stars, but they can make a good living off self promotion on the internet.
Name a few acts that are.
In fact, even the big established acts have realised this now, e.g. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails giving away their material. Even Prince, who apparently hates downloading, gave away his latest album in a national newspaper for free.
You see, this is where your argument falls to bits. These artists have already turned over quite a few million each - courtesy of record labels - and their global fanbases already exist. Coincidentally none of them simply "walked away" from their labels in mid contract to dive headlong into the internet.
Back to a few more facts.
Radioheads option was not exercised by Guy Hands as he considered their advance to be well in excess of their market worth. The figures show he was right. "Hail to the thief" (released in contract) sold almost 300,000 copies in its first week in 2003. "In rainbows" shifted just over 28,000 copies on i-tunes before the physical release. You do the maths.
Trent Reznor (NIN) has acknowledged that downloading is not the answer for a sustainable career. "It’s all out there,I don’t agree that it should be free, but it is free, and you can either accept it or you can put your head in the sand.” His way of not putting his head in the sand was to offer 2500 limited edition (physical) box sets (sound familiar?) at a cost of $300.00 each. I hardly think that anyone who downloaded a free version of his material for the first time would have pulled a hamstring rushing to the ATM to shell out that sort of money.
Prince is such an advocate / fan of the internet and downloading that he has closed his own site and sued the toys of anyone publishing his image on the web. Oh, that's right, he didn't "give away" his album. He was paid a quite sizeable covermount advance by the mail on Sunday.
The bottom line is that artists, labels, publishers and their accountants (most of whom are represented by the PRS, BPI and MCPS) know how truly difficult / dangerous the internet is from a copyright perspective. P2P users are not in a position to dictate with any degree of certainty that their activities have no adverse (or indeed positive) effects on the creative endeavours of artists.
-
Neongirl
06-07-2008, 19:36
Where I read about it on the BBC website it said this was a trial and would run about 10 weeks. So am I to assume after 10 weeks suddenly we are all going to stopped being monitored again?
Where I read about it on the BBC website it said this was a trial and would run about 10 weeks. So am I to assume after 10 weeks suddenly we are all going to stopped being monitored again?
Possibly yes, or the trial ends, and becomes a normal part of Virgin's activity.
That article goes in some way to defend OiNKS actions, but the change in IP law in the UK making it illegal to point to rights protected material
Can you cite that specifically? Because a search on Google for "britney spears filetype:torrent" turns up a lot of results, and so you might want to advise them about it....
---------- Post added at 07:36 ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 ----------
How, exactly, does it do that?
You no longer need lots of money for promotion or industry connections (for getting on major radio stations etc). Now you can become massively popular with just a MySpace page.
Yes, and before, people who were exposed to new music through the radio and TV sometimes did a thing called "buying" that music which they liked. New artists are still being exposed by the radio and tv - you do not have to "get with" a record company to get onto MTV.
Really? Care to cite an indie act, not signed to any record label, who was promoted on MTV?
Some people would argue that pirates buy more music, not less: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3052145.stm
It makes sense really. I have discovered a lot of artists through downloads, and subsequently bought the CD.
There are other ways in which downloads make money for artists too. Young people who don't have a credit card can't easily buy music online, but often can buy ringtones etc via their mobile phone. The ringtone of a popular song generates money for the artist.
Yes, but just because you are "noticed" does not mean you will be financially secure as a result of your artistic endeavours. Even if they're "right on for the kids" there is only so much financial damage / loss that an artist can sustain.
Name a few acts that are.
Way Back When, the Inline Sk8ting Barbies back when they were going, Lucy Juicy etc. Try the MySpace music page, there are plenty.
Radioheads option was not exercised by Guy Hands as he considered their advance to be well in excess of their market worth. The figures show he was right. "Hail to the thief" (released in contract) sold almost 300,000 copies in its first week in 2003. "In rainbows" shifted just over 28,000 copies on i-tunes before the physical release. You do the maths.
You forgot to include the paid downloads via their web site and CD sales when released.
From Wikipedia: "Upon its retail release, however, In Rainbows entered the United World Chart, UK Album Chart, and the U.S. Billboard 200 at number one." The article has citations for that.
In other words, releasing the album on their web site and allowing people to download it for free clearly did not harm their sales much. Unless you think number one in the three biggest album charts is a failure.
Trent Reznor (NIN) has acknowledged that downloading is not the answer for a sustainable career. "It’s all out there,I don’t agree that it should be free, but it is free, and you can either accept it or you can put your head in the sand.†His way of not putting his head in the sand was to offer 2500 limited edition (physical) box sets (sound familiar?) at a cost of $300.00 each. I hardly think that anyone who downloaded a free version of his material for the first time would have pulled a hamstring rushing to the ATM to shell out that sort of money.
A more recent quote for you: "It's a stance we're taking that we feel is appropriate ... with digital technology, and outdated copyright laws, and all the nonsense that's going on these days"
According to Wikipedia, the Ghosts album made 1.6 million dollars worth of sales in the first week. Since the record company did not take it's cut, NIN got the lions share of that. Pretty good for one weeks sales.
Mr Angry
07-07-2008, 10:47
You no longer need lots of money for promotion or industry connections (for getting on major radio stations etc). Now you can become massively popular with just a MySpace page.
Which is absolutely fine if you're more interested in being "massively popular" than paying your bills or eating.
Really? Care to cite an indie act, not signed to any record label, who was promoted on MTV?
Yes, really. So much so that MTV have an unsigned promotion policy. In fact one of your earlier examples managed it before inking their deal. Actually I surprised you're asking me to name a few for you. I was under the impression that you were one of these kids who spent their entire time on the web seeking out new talent to download their material before you buy it.
Some people would argue that pirates buy more music, not less: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3052145.stm
This is, of course, a fallacy. "Pirates" buy more music than what, exactly? Someone who isn't a pirate? Hardly. The clue is in the name.
All this research suggests is that after downloading music some pirates might buy the music. Fantastic!!
It makes sense really. I have discovered a lot of artists through downloads, and subsequently bought the CD.
There are other ways in which downloads make money for artists too. Young people who don't have a credit card can't easily buy music online, but often can buy ringtones etc via their mobile phone. The ringtone of a popular song generates money for the artist.
Yes, because they pay for it through a digital aggregation system administered by their telecoms provider. This is an entirely different monetizing methodology than say, for example, mininova or the pirate bay for freeloaders. Additionally the ringtone makes almost as much money for the aggregator as it does for the artist. These very same young people can buy full tracks on their mobile phone - but do they? Not with any degree of regularity and, since the tracks are largely available free from pirate sites & P2P, why would they?
Way Back When, the Inline Sk8ting Barbies back when they were going, Lucy Juicy etc. Try the MySpace music page, there are plenty.
See below.
You forgot to include the paid downloads via their web site and CD sales when released.
From Wikipedia: "Upon its retail release, however, In Rainbows entered the United World Chart, UK Album Chart, and the U.S. Billboard 200 at number one." The article has citations for that.
In other words, releasing the album on their web site and allowing people to download it for free clearly did not harm their sales much. Unless you think number one in the three biggest album charts is a failure.
I didn't forget - I'm trying to educate you in the areas of digital aggregation v's physical product. Remember - "Hail to the thief" - 300,000 physical sales in first week vs 28,000 digital sales (not downloads) and 122,000 physical sales for "In rainbows". Again, do the maths.
Only Bryce and the band know how many, or few, download sales were made and at what price and they are very, very, hesitant about discussing / reporting same.
You quite obviously don't understand how the charts "work". The ability to reach number one in the UK chart with as few as 18,000 physical sales is already a proven fact. The addition / inclusion of paid downloads to the chart system has meant that it is entirely possible to reach number one with zero physical sales - see Gnarls Barkley. The crucial difference being that only paid for downloads are counted as sales.
Are you seriously suggesting that those people who downloaded "Crazy" for free from torrent / P2P sites then rushed online to pay for it via itunes? Again, catch yourself on.
You have, by a strange juxtaposition, proved my very point. Downloads of albums for free - just to hear them - does not translate into digital sales. Artists such as the already established and exceptionally rich Mr Reznor (who himself incidentally got into bed with the devil and paid hard cash to secure national radio play to support his release) can affrord physical product overheads in large number and the associated marketing costs. Acts, for example the Inline Sk8ting Barbies, can't and couldn't afford these overheads for the purpose of a risk release and the inevitable happens / has happened.
A more recent quote for you: "It's a stance we're taking that we feel is appropriate ... with digital technology, and outdated copyright laws, and all the nonsense that's going on these days"
Sorry, but that quote pre-dates his statement of June 6th in the NYT.
According to Wikipedia, the Ghosts album made 1.6 million dollars worth of sales in the first week. Since the record company did not take it's cut, NIN got the lions share of that. Pretty good for one weeks sales.
The statement from NIN - combined with the fact that they refused to report traditional sales figures - was so obtrusive as to leave the supposed success of this strategy in doubt.
Here is the statement from Reznor's publicist:
"Nine Inch Nails' 36-track instrumental opus Ghosts I-IV, released
March 2 via NIN.com, has amassed a first week total of 781,917
transactions (including free and paid downloads as well as orders for
physical product), resulting in a take of $1,619,420 USD.
This is, quite obviously, a mish mash of figures designed to cloud the factualities of the campaign.
Any decent accountant / statistician can see the ambiguity is entirely intentional.
Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge Trent Reznor a degree of success with his CCL releases. What I do take issue with is this nonsensical defence of downloading for free.
Put simply, if you want to acquire music then pay for it where it is appropriate to do so. That is the very least that artists deserve.
Can you cite that specifically? Because a search on Google for "britney spears filetype:torrent" turns up a lot of results, and so you might want to advise them about it....
Certainly, it was linked from that article I cited about OiNK. To many people in the know its called the "Gower Review", but don't confuse "IP" to mean Internet Protocol, in this context it means Intellectual Property. Interestingly it goes to discuss the significant part that the Internet plays in Piracy, and more importantly what measures it recommends to make ISP's more accountable for piracy through their network. This report was published in 2006, and is "waved" at ISP's to force them to consider a community responsibility. Based on this report the government could force ISP's into a corner by as early as the end of Q2 2009, not that far away.
I'm not going to tell you where in the PDF (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/E/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf) document to look, you will have to do your own research.
You can find summaries of the Gower review at various sites, again I encourage you to research those yourself.
BTW, Google are far more in touch with copyright law than me, I doubt they will listen :)
Sorry if this has already been posted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7492907.stm
Europeans suspected of putting movies and music on file-sharing networks could be thrown off the web under proposals before Brussels.
Sorry if this has already been posted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7492907.stm
That's a very hot potato, particularly as VM have said that they will educate, not disconnect file sharers under the current trial.
Which is absolutely fine if you're more interested in being "massively popular" than paying your bills or eating.
Except that, as I have already shown, being popular leads to earning money. If you are popular, people buy your CDs (yes, even if they are available for free, as NIN and Radiohead and many others have proven), come to your gigs (can't pirate those), buy your merchandise etc. Plus, you get paid to appear on TV or the radio, or in adverts and the like.
Honestly, if you want to participate in this debate you could at least make a tiny effort have at least a basic understanding of how the industry works. CD sales are not the only source of income, not that piracy precludes them or anything.
Yes, really. So much so that MTV have an unsigned promotion policy. In fact one of your earlier examples managed it before inking their deal. Actually I surprised you're asking me to name a few for you. I was under the impression that you were one of these kids who spent their entire time on the web seeking out new talent to download their material before you buy it.
So... you don't know of any? Or are you just lazy? I say it again: cite some.
This is, of course, a fallacy. "Pirates" buy more music than what, exactly? Someone who isn't a pirate? Hardly. The clue is in the name.
What are you basing your argument on? I base mine on statistical evidence (mentioned in the article).
I also suggest that, since pirates have access to all music instantly and for free it is much easier for them to explore and find bands they like. Most of my friends are not really in to symphonic power metal and it doesn't get much play on the radio or TV, but a quick look on The Pirate Bay and Last.fm helped me find loads of bands in the genera, sample them and eventually buy a few CDs from the ones I liked.
Can you suggest any other method by which I might have discovered those bands and ultimately bought those CDs? I'm not really in the habit of buying CDs on the off chance I like them, or based on some random forum post.
All this research suggests is that after downloading music some pirates might buy the music. Fantastic!!
Actually, it seems that despite piracy sales are booming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4044303.stm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-for-movie-biz-tales-of-piracy-and-record-profits.html
If you are still not conivnced, let's look at it another way. Just because someone downloads your music, does not mean that they would have bought your CD if they had been prevented from doing so. So what percentage of people who download an album would have bought it? And is it worth spending time and money fighting them in the hope that after attacking your customers they might decide to give you money?
Yes, because they pay for it through a digital aggregation system administered by their telecoms provider. This is an entirely different monetizing methodology than say, for example, mininova or the pirate bay for freeloaders. Additionally the ringtone makes almost as much money for the aggregator as it does for the artist. These very same young people can buy full tracks on their mobile phone - but do they? Not with any degree of regularity and, since the tracks are largely available free from pirate sites & P2P, why would they?
Maybe because most of them can't buy full tracks on their phones and even if they could probably would not want to. Downloading a full track would cost a fortune on most people's data plans, especially young people's. Also, most people want music on their PCs, available to listen to on speakers, or burn to CD, or copy to iPod, not on their mobile phone.
I didn't forget - I'm trying to educate you in the areas of digital aggregation v's physical product. Remember - "Hail to the thief" - 300,000 physical sales in first week vs 28,000 digital sales (not downloads) and 122,000 physical sales for "In rainbows". Again, do the maths.
Your numbers are off - I already pointed that out, but anyway... They make a boatload of money on something that was not only available for free, but which they themselves gave away for free on their own web site. I'm not sure how much more evidence that free does not equal poor starving artist you want. Your own examples support my argument, for crying out loud.
Only Bryce and the band know how many, or few, download sales were made and at what price and they are very, very, hesitant about discussing / reporting same.
Only they know why that is, although as I pointed out NIN had no such reluctance to share.
You quite obviously don't understand how the charts "work". The ability to reach number one in the UK chart with as few as 18,000 physical sales is already a proven fact.
Except that now they count downloads too. Anyway, the singles chart is dying... but who cares? Only the record labels, whose manufactured crap dominates it. Album sales from serious artists are doing very well.
These days, the ringtone can sell more than the single, including downloads. That should tell you something - most singles are rubbish and the kids that buy them would rather have that annoying 5 second hook as a ringtone or background radio rather than actually owning it. For the more serious stuff, people just buy the album rather than the single.
The addition / inclusion of paid downloads to the chart system has meant that it is entirely possible to reach number one with zero physical sales - see Gnarls Barkley. The crucial difference being that only paid for downloads are counted as sales.
Are you seriously suggesting that those people who downloaded "Crazy" for free from torrent / P2P sites then rushed online to pay for it via itunes? Again, catch yourself on.
Are you seriously suggesting that they would have bought the single if free downloads were not available? Actually, I did buy his album, after listening to it for free.
You have, by a strange juxtaposition, proved my very point. Downloads of albums for free - just to hear them - does not translate into digital sales. Artists such as the already established and exceptionally rich Mr Reznor (who himself incidentally got into bed with the devil and paid hard cash to secure national radio play to support his release) can affrord physical product overheads in large number and the associated marketing costs. Acts, for example the Inline Sk8ting Barbies, can't and couldn't afford these overheads for the purpose of a risk release and the inevitable happens / has happened.
Actually the Barbies did put out albums on CD. I know because I helped with the technical stuff on the artwork, and was listed in the credits. They put some MP3s on their now defunct web site too. Their main income was gigging, and they did okay from it.
That was my point really - the internet levels the playing field a lot. You don't need national radio coverage or CDs in HMV, just a free MySpace page and a PayPal account.
"Nine Inch Nails' 36-track instrumental opus Ghosts I-IV, released
March 2 via NIN.com, has amassed a first week total of 781,917
transactions (including free and paid downloads as well as orders for
physical product), resulting in a take of $1,619,420 USD.
This is, quite obviously, a mish mash of figures designed to cloud the factualities of the campaign.
Yes, 1,619,240 dollars is just a "statistic" and won't put food on the table.
Any decent accountant / statistician can see the ambiguity is entirely intentional.
They made 1.6 million dollars. Despite giving away their music for free. Not just piracy, but actually offering it to their fans on their own web site in an easy, high quality official totally legal and well publicised download. Free downloads do not equal no money for the artist, or even less money for them.
Can you provide some actual hard evidence that internet piracy has an appreciable impact on the amount of money an artist makes? Not just "it's obvious", but actual proof?
I provided stats and citations for my argument, now it's your turn.
Lets go after the people who upload and download copyright material and let the murders and rapists GO.
sometimes i hate this world
I don't believe ANYONE has said that............
Lets go after the people who upload and download copyright material and let the murders and rapists GO.
sometimes i hate this world
Hmmm, if ISP's were responsible for catching and prosecuting rapists and murderers, then your point would be valid.
Bt are diong Somthing simlerary i think only on totaell Broadband as yet i dot think it is openrech as yet but i may be wrong
Mojo, you make some valid points, but what about the artists who don't want their music reproduced without permission?
Don't they have any "rights"?
Bt are diong Somthing simlerary i think only on totaell Broadband as yet i dot think it is openrech as yet but i may be wrong
Yes they are, their acting on information sent to them from the BPI and contacting their retail BB customers identified from that evidence.
Mr Angry
08-07-2008, 20:21
Except that, as I have already shown, being popular leads to earning money. If you are popular, people buy your CDs (yes, even if they are available for free, as NIN and Radiohead and many others have proven), come to your gigs (can't pirate those), buy your merchandise etc. Plus, you get paid to appear on TV or the radio, or in adverts and the like.
We're not discussing "being popular". Your analogies using NIN and Radiohead still, for whatever reason, refuses to accept how they came to be famous. It certainly wasn't from giving their music away for free. The argument is - as a start up band who are not intent on giving their music away for free how do you get to be as financially secure, and popular, as NIN and / or Radiohead whilst people are decimating your revenue streams by stealing your music? Yes, I said stealing.
Honestly, if you want to participate in this debate you could at least make a tiny effort have at least a basic understanding of how the industry works. CD sales are not the only source of income, not that piracy precludes them or anything.
Nice try. I didn't say they were the only source of income - my earlier posts reference that very fact. I can assure you - with all due respect - that my knowledge of the industry stretches a lot further than doing artwork on failed band giveaway cd's.
So... you don't know of any? Or are you just lazy? I say it again: cite some.
Ho hum....you're the Myspace advocate. Why don't you try selling it to me?
What are you basing your argument on? I base mine on statistical evidence (mentioned in the article).
I'm basing it on the fact that I know what I'm talking about and have access to the figures to prove it.
I also suggest that, since pirates have access to all music instantly and for free it is much easier for them to explore and find bands they like. Most of my friends are not really in to symphonic power metal and it doesn't get much play on the radio or TV, but a quick look on The Pirate Bay and Last.fm helped me find loads of bands in the genera, sample them and eventually buy a few CDs from the ones I liked.
So you've gone from statistical evidence backing up your argument to you yourself suggesting. Thats quite some shift.
Can you suggest any other method by which I might have discovered those bands and ultimately bought those CDs? I'm not really in the habit of buying CDs on the off chance I like them, or based on some random forum post.
Certainly, you could do something which you yourself stated helps bands make money and can't be downloaded - you could pay to go to a gig - but I've gathered from your posts thus far that you're not in the habit of paying for something unless you can steal it first.
Actually, it seems that despite piracy sales are booming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4044303.stm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-for-movie-biz-tales-of-piracy-and-record-profits.html
Here's a few golden rules for internet debate which you might find useful. If you find yourself in 2008 and you're going to use links to bolster an argument don't use links from 2004. Better still, dont use links the content of which you don't fully understand. For example - having cited online downloads of "Around 1.75 million" being the root cause of a 9% increase in single (not album) sales the BBC then are quoted as saying "It also said sales of single tracks were up thanks to the availability of legal download services". What is interesting here is that there were virtually no legal download sales the preceeding year so anything would have constituted an increase. Additionally you'll see the use of the word "sales" in there the odd time - not "People who stole it first and then (allegedly) bought it" (my earlier Gnarls Barkley reference refers).
It also helps if you can make the distinction between "Box office" - that's ticket sales at cinemas to you and me - receipt figures and physical sales. Furthermore your arstechnica link actually goes on to admit that piracy is damaging the movie industry in that it is effecting physical sales of DVDs (see the difference there?). I suppose in your world that's because you can't download a cinema?
If you are still not conivnced, let's look at it another way. Just because someone downloads your music, does not mean that they would have bought your CD if they had been prevented from doing so.
So what percentage of people who download an album would have bought it? And is it worth spending time and money fighting them in the hope that after attacking your customers they might decide to give you money?
Call me an old "fuddy duddy" but I subscribe to the rule of thumb that stealing is theft. Lets put it another way. Just because someone walks into a supermarket and steals a bag of liquorice allsorts it doesn't necessarily mean that they would have bought them even though they don't like the pink ones. The fact is, even if they threw away the pink ones, they still stole the packet. Offering to pay for them "after the fact" isn't an option. Is that simple enough for you?
Maybe because most of them can't buy full tracks on their phones and even if they could probably would not want to. Downloading a full track would cost a fortune on most people's data plans, especially young people's. Also, most people want music on their PCs, available to listen to on speakers, or burn to CD, or copy to iPod, not on their mobile phone.
OK, now I'm with you. The cost of an artist recording a single or an album to sustain or improve their lifestyle is less important than a kid going over his PAYG data plan costs. Right, glad we cleared that up.
Your numbers are off - I already pointed that out, but anyway... They make a boatload of money on something that was not only available for free, but which they themselves gave away for free on their own web site. I'm not sure how much more evidence that free does not equal poor starving artist you want. Your own examples support my argument, for crying out loud.
If the numbers are "off" you should be suspicious. They are from the artists own official sources!! The "boatload" of money they made was very considerably smaller than the boatloads they would have made had they not elected to give away the music. What they did was to trust in the loyalty of their pre-existing fanbase and they got stung, both of them.
Only they know why that is, although as I pointed out NIN had no such reluctance to share.
Given that both Radiohead and NIN have provided their (as yet not independently verified) own figures from their own sources hardly I suspect that their collective reluctance to talk about it is due to its phenomenal success. Point of fact, there is a difference between sharing and stealing - you don't seem prepared to acknowledge the fact.
Except that now they count downloads too. Anyway, the singles chart is dying... but who cares? Only the record labels, whose manufactured crap dominates it. Album sales from serious artists are doing very well.
I'll tell you who cares, those struggling little bands on myspace that you're so fond of harping on about who cant afford to record an LP so they can play with the big boys in the album charts.
These days, the ringtone can sell more than the single, including downloads. That should tell you something - most singles are rubbish and the kids that buy them would rather have that annoying 5 second hook as a ringtone or background radio rather than actually owning it.
We're discussing the theft of music, not derivative works in the shape of ringtones - please, do keep up.
For the more serious stuff, people just buy the album rather than the single.
Sorry, but I think you'll find that for the "more serious stuff" people buy the (undownloadable) vinyl - hence it showing the biggest per quarter growth over the past three years.
Are you seriously suggesting that they would have bought the single if free downloads were not available? Actually, I did buy his album, after listening to it for free.
Right back at you. Are you seriously suggesting that I should believe that you bought his album after stealing it first?
Actually the Barbies did put out albums on CD. I know because I helped with the technical stuff on the artwork, and was listed in the credits. They put some MP3s on their now defunct web site too. Their main income was gigging, and they did okay from it.
That was my point really - the internet levels the playing field a lot. You don't need national radio coverage or CDs in HMV, just a free MySpace page and a PayPal account.
I'm well aware of what the Barbies did - and the fact that it failed not least because they bought into the idea of the interweb being the future and making their wares available on it.
Yes, 1,619,240 dollars is just a "statistic" and won't put food on the table.
You're about as good at irony as you are at paying for music. No, $1.619,240 is not simply a statistic. It is the stated earnings from an album available in physical and downloadable formats. It represents a colossal loss in comparison to Reznor's sales, first week or otherwise, from previous albums released during his tenure with Interscope.
They made 1.6 million dollars. Despite giving away their music for free. Not just piracy, but actually offering it to their fans on their own web site in an easy, high quality official totally legal and well publicised download. Free downloads do not equal no money for the artist, or even less money for them.
They didn't "make" $1.6 million dollars - whether you believe the figures or not. The $1.6 million is total transaction revenue. Reznor has his studio overheads (in Beverly Hills no less). The hire in of musicians and the massive outlay in Payola for nationwide radio placement and print media overheads. These are costs which need to be recouped before anyone "makes" anything. Add to that the fact that $750,000 of the turnover is attributable to the physical product sale of the 2,500 collector sets (which, as you'll no doubt be aware, you can't download). Deduct from that the manufacturing / production and artwork costs and, suddenly your (and Trent & Yorke's) download for free utopia is as transparent a business / trust of loyalty failure as one could imagine.
Can you provide some actual hard evidence that internet piracy has an appreciable impact on the amount of money an artist makes? Not just "it's obvious", but actual proof?
I provided stats and citations for my argument, now it's your turn.
You may have missed it but I already posted the Radiohead and NIN figures in my previous posts. Two shining examples of reduced revenue as a result of free downloading - they tried and, by comparison to their in contract sales, they got burnt. Fact.
Again, you can do the maths or you can blether on inanely about how you and your ilk stealing music hasn't cost thousands of jobs in the industry and the retail sector and virtually decimated investment in new bands.
If the support network / investment revenue stream isn't there the artists cannot make money - simple.
Foreverwar put it so much simpler than I could.
Hail to the thief....indeed.
Mojo, you make some valid points, but what about the artists who don't want their music reproduced without permission?
Don't they have any "rights"?
Well, my personal opinion is this. Commercial piracy should be considered infringement and prevented. So, no dodgy CDs down the market, only official ones from the artist that puts money in their pockets. COpyright terms should be dropped to 15 years too.
On the other hand, sharing for free should be allowed, as should all other non-commercial use. Aside from anything, it is impossible to prevent. Already anonymous file sharing is possible and popular (see Winny and Share, for example), and will become more so as people like the BPI kick up more of a fuss. Copying something on a computer is as simple as drag & drop, ctrl-c + ctrl-v, one click.
Also, copyright is creating artificial scarcity in order to make the rights holders money. There is no god-given right to that, and while I think some protections are needed to help them exploit their work, equally they cannot expect to have total control over it or try to ignore the fact that it draws heavily on the public domain. For example, a typical song is sung in English, using established musical patterns and ideas and is influenced by other bands and the culture in which it is created. So, to say that a work is the sole property and creation of an individual is not really true.
Due to copyright law, most copyrighted work is unavailable. I read once that it was about 96% unavailable. Not in print, unavailable to buy anywhere in any form, except maybe second hand if you are lucky. That's a huge cultural loss, and from an economic point of view a waste - it generates no money for anyone, including the copyright holder.
It is perfectly possible to make a good living under the conditions I describe, as I have pointed out. That is what copyright should be for - not allowing record companies to make vast profits. You have to remember that most artists are not Britney Spears, the situation for them is very different. Even then, it has been shown that piracy does not stop artists making a living.
Here is a really good paper on the subject: http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/value_of_public_domain.ippr.pdf
---------- Post added at 06:35 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ----------
We're not discussing "being popular". Your analogies using NIN and Radiohead still, for whatever reason, refuses to accept how they came to be famous.
Well I did mention a few who used internet promotion to become famous already, but here is another: Sean Kingston.
[/quote]It certainly wasn't from giving their music away for free. The argument is - as a start up band who are not intent on giving their music away for free how do you get to be as financially secure, and popular, as NIN and / or Radiohead whilst people are decimating your revenue streams by stealing your music? Yes, I said stealing.[/quote]
You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide any evidence that it is true. Can you cite some material to back up your claims?
Name one artist who has been decimated by piracy (with some proof). Just one.
For most unsigned bands, the main thing is to get heard by as many people as possible. The more people hear you, the more turn up at your gigs, buy your merchandise and CDs etc. Mix tapes and bootleg CDs have been a popular method used by artists in the past, and now there is the internet too.
Ho hum....you're the Myspace advocate. Why don't you try selling it to me?
I cited loads of stuff. Make your argument backed up with citations or shut up. Otherwise you might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese.
I'm basing it on the fact that I know what I'm talking about and have access to the figures to prove it.
I'm afraid the contents of your head are not an acceptable source. Please cite some that can be verified.
So you've gone from statistical evidence backing up your argument to you yourself suggesting. Thats quite some shift.
Address the point of concede it, don't try to avoid it.
Here's a few golden rules for internet debate which you might find useful. If you find yourself in 2008 and you're going to use links to bolster an argument don't use links from 2004.
I think you will find that the music industry has been suing it's customers since well before 2004. If you disagree with the figures, cite some of your own more recent ones.
Furthermore your arstechnica link actually goes on to admit that piracy is damaging the movie industry in that it is effecting physical sales of DVDs (see the difference there?). I suppose in your world that's because you can't download a cinema?
DVD sales up 20% too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4719958.stm
Call me an old "fuddy duddy" but I subscribe to the rule of thumb that stealing is theft.
Good job we are only talking copyright infringement then.
Just because someone walks into a supermarket and steals a bag of liquorice allsorts it doesn't necessarily mean that they would have bought them even though they don't like the pink ones.
True, but the key difference here is that they directly deprived the supermarket of physical property and a sale, where are someone who infringes copyright does not do the former and may or may not do the latter.
OK, now I'm with you. The cost of an artist recording a single or an album to sustain or improve their lifestyle is less important than a kid going over his PAYG data plan costs. Right, glad we cleared that up.
Well, my point was that currently with data charged per kilobyte downloading a four megabyte audio file is expensive, but anyway...
You need to learn some basic economics. If I think a song is worth 90p, and Amazon has it for download at 50p, I'll buy it. Artist makes money. If it is not available for 90p or less, I will not buy it, artist makes no money. If your market is kids with little disposable income, you had better not price yourself too high. That's all I'm saying.
The "boatload" of money they made was very considerably smaller than the boatloads they would have made had they not elected to give away the music.
Proof? That simply isn't true.
I'll tell you who cares, those struggling little bands on myspace that you're so fond of harping on about who cant afford to record an LP so they can play with the big boys in the album charts.
You missed my point. I was talking about the manufactured crap that infests the singles charts. As I said (and you ignored), album sales are doing fine thanks and free promotion gets people to gigs and buying merchandise which is where small bands make their money.
Right back at you. Are you seriously suggesting that I should believe that you bought his album after stealing it first?
Maybe you should: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/06/free-downloads-vs-sales-a-publ.html
I'm well aware of what the Barbies did - and the fact that it failed not least because they bought into the idea of the interweb being the future and making their wares available on it.
They didn't fail, they did pretty damn well thanks. They only split when the members decided to go their different ways, that's all.
You're about as good at irony as you are at paying for music. No, $1.619,240 is not simply a statistic. It is the stated earnings from an album available in physical and downloadable formats. It represents a colossal loss in comparison to Reznor's sales, first week or otherwise, from previous albums released during his tenure with Interscope.
So what was his other instrumental four part album you are comparing it to? Or are you comparing it to the heavily promoted more mainstream albums NIN did? Because that sounds like apples and oranges.
Keep in mind that was 1.6 million in the first week. Do you have figures to show that was bad compared to other album's first weeks?
Payola for nationwide radio placement
Ah, okay, so you do know nothing about this then. You could have just said that at the start and saved us a lot of trouble.
FYI Ghosts is an instrumental four part album not on wide release, and certainly not played on the radio.
Well, my personal opinion is this. Commercial piracy should be considered infringement and prevented. So, no dodgy CDs down the market, only official ones from the artist that puts money in their pockets. COpyright terms should be dropped to 15 years too.
On the other hand, sharing for free should be allowed, as should all other non-commercial use. Aside from anything, it is impossible to prevent. Already anonymous file sharing is possible and popular (see Winny and Share, for example), and will become more so as people like the BPI kick up more of a fuss. Copying something on a computer is as simple as drag & drop, ctrl-c + ctrl-v, one click.
Also, copyright is creating artificial scarcity in order to make the rights holders money. There is no god-given right to that, and while I think some protections are needed to help them exploit their work, equally they cannot expect to have total control over it or try to ignore the fact that it draws heavily on the public domain. For example, a typical song is sung in English, using established musical patterns and ideas and is influenced by other bands and the culture in which it is created. So, to say that a work is the sole property and creation of an individual is not really true.
Due to copyright law, most copyrighted work is unavailable. I read once that it was about 96% unavailable. Not in print, unavailable to buy anywhere in any form, except maybe second hand if you are lucky. That's a huge cultural loss, and from an economic point of view a waste - it generates no money for anyone, including the copyright holder.
It is perfectly possible to make a good living under the conditions I describe, as I have pointed out. That is what copyright should be for - not allowing record companies to make vast profits. You have to remember that most artists are not Britney Spears, the situation for them is very different. Even then, it has been shown that piracy does not stop artists making a living.
Here is a really good paper on the subject: http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/value_of_public_domain.ippr.pdf
.....snippety snip snip.....
a) It's impossible to stop? That's a hell of a reason for not doing something; best not bother with street crime, burglary, racism, partner-beating, then - or perhaps it would be better to try and prevent theft, rather than just rolling over (imho).
b) loved the way you moved the goalposts from downloaded music to all copyrighted work (including print) to give yourself a good headline figure of 96% ;)
c) You keep harking back to record companies huge profits - I will keep harking back to the rights of the composer and artist not to have their work stolen. If people want to use CCL, good for them - if they don't, they should have their rights respected. Under your analogy, I should be able to squat in a newly constructed apartment that is for rent, as the builders probably based it on a previous design which was based on thousands of years of housebuilding. :D
a) It's impossible to stop? That's a hell of a reason for not doing something; best not bother with street crime, burglary, racism, partner-beating, then - or perhaps it would be better to try and prevent theft, rather than just rolling over (imho).
There are practical steps you can take to prevent those sorts of things, and they are the kinds of things that directly harm people. I don't think you can compare file sharing to physical assault.
File sharing, on the other hand, is participated in by at least 6 million people in the UK alone, and as I already said can be done entirely anonymously and untraceable if you want.
The current BitTorrent system is popular because it is easy to use and suits current broadband packages, but in countries like Japan where the average BB speed is 96Mb/sec more advanced systems like Winny and Share are used. Both of those are fully encrypted and untraceable. The more people like the BPI push, the faster we will move towards systems like those.
That's my point really - it is technically and legally unfeasable, even today, to stop it. Rather than wasting money trying to turn back the tide it makes more sense to embrace it and change business models.
b) loved the way you moved the goalposts from downloaded music to all copyrighted work (including print) to give yourself a good headline figure of 96% ;)
Well I don't have a figure for music alone, but I bet it's high.
c) You keep harking back to record companies huge profits - I will keep harking back to the rights of the composer and artist not to have their work stolen.
Well I don't consider copyright infringement to be theft, as it does not deprive anyone of anything. Arguably it might lead to the loss of a sale, but then it might not.
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. The current system is a fudge, and largely designed to generate money for large companies, not the individual artists.
Name one artist who you can show has been driven to poverty by copyright infringement. I can name lots that have done well out of it, but all I'm asking you to do is name one.
If people want to use CCL, good for them - if they don't, they should have their rights respected. Under your analogy, I should be able to squat in a newly constructed apartment that is for rent, as the builders probably based it on a previous design which was based on thousands of years of housebuilding. :D
You are missing the point - squatting deprives the builders of something (use of their house) and costs them money (clean up etc). Downloading a song from BitTorrent does not directly cost anyone anything.
On the other hand, the builder's architect is free to draw on the public domain for inspiration when designing the houses, which is fair enough.
mojo, I am sorry but I think it is you who has missed the point, or rather accepting that you are wrong, by still trying to make an argument from wholly inaccurate ideals
Well I don't consider copyright infringement to be theft, as it does not deprive anyone of anything. Arguably it might lead to the loss of a sale, but then it might not.
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. The current system is a fudge, and largely designed to generate money for large companies, not the individual artists.Did you actually read the Gower review I linked to you? How can the current system be a fudge when artists DO receive royalties from each piece of work legitimately sold? I don't disagree that the owning label makes the lion's share of the cash.
The whole band members of Slade bought back the ownership of their recordings from the record company, so that if any one band member never performed again their works will still make them money if they continued to be popular. Noddy Holder said it was an expensive risk, but its paid off for each band member since.
Ultimately you don't consider it theft, but the truth in fact is quite the opposite, and there is both civil and legal recourse enshrined in UK and International law that proves you wrong.
There are practical steps you can take to prevent those sorts of things, and they are the kinds of things that directly harm people. I don't think you can compare file sharing to physical assault.
File sharing, on the other hand, is participated in by at least 6 million people in the UK alone, and as I already said can be done entirely anonymously and untraceable if you want.
The current BitTorrent system is popular because it is easy to use and suits current broadband packages, but in countries like Japan where the average BB speed is 96Mb/sec more advanced systems like Winny and Share are used. Both of those are fully encrypted and untraceable. The more people like the BPI push, the faster we will move towards systems like those.
That's my point really - it is technically and legally unfeasable, even today, to stop it. Rather than wasting money trying to turn back the tide it makes more sense to embrace it and change business models.
2 million speeding tickets were issued in the UK in 2005 - if the numberplates were obscured (easily done), doesn't it make sense to stop chasing speeders and change the traffic laws?
Well I don't have a figure for music alone, but I bet it's high.
OK, you've convinced me ;) (or should I just riposte with "I bet it's not" :D)
Well I don't consider copyright infringement to be theft, as it does not deprive anyone of anything. Arguably it might lead to the loss of a sale, but then it might not.
So it's OK if someone verbally abuses you, as it may upset you and cause you emotional distress, but then again, it "arguably" may not? btw, it doesn't matter if you don't consider copyright infringement as theft - the law does, and I fought the law, and the law won!
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. The current system is a fudge, and largely designed to generate money for large companies, not the individual artists.
Name one artist who you can show has been driven to poverty by copyright infringement. I can name lots that have done well out of it, but all I'm asking you to do is name one.
How could I name them - they have broken up or no longer perform due to lack of income ;) - but seriously, once again you have gone to extremes to try and validate your viewpoint - I was talking about theft and loss of income due to illegal downloads and not giving the artist/composer their due, and you have changed it into "driven to poverty"..........
:erm:
btw, do you hold the same views on IP for software, films/tv, and publications?
mojo, I am sorry but I think it is you who has missed the point, or rather accepting that you are wrong, by still trying to make an argument from wholly inaccurate ideals
Did you actually read the Gower review I linked to you? How can the current system be a fudge when artists DO receive royalties from each piece of work legitimately sold? I don't disagree that the owning label makes the lion's share of the cash.
The whole band members of Slade bought back the ownership of their recordings from the record company, so that if any one band member never performed again their works will still make them money if they continued to be popular. Noddy Holder said it was an expensive risk, but its paid off for each band member since.
Ultimately you don't consider it theft, but the truth in fact is quite the opposite, and there is both civil and legal recourse enshrined in UK and International law that proves you wrong.
slade.. one of the best loudest bands of the day.:cool:
Barton71
10-07-2008, 20:09
"btw, do you hold the same views on IP for software, films/tv, and publications?"
I would. Copyright laws go too far in supposedly protecting the so called artist and the production companies. Take a movie like Star Wars. It was released in 1977 and Lucas is still making money out of it today, or take a singer like Elvis, who died over 30 years ago. People are still making money from his songs. Its disgusting to be honest. We have all been more or less brain washed into thinking that this is acceptable. I think we would all love to continue to be paid today, for a job we done 30 years ago.
I dont have a problem with Music, TV and movie people making money from their works, but the whole system is wrong. They are all too interested in protecting each others little corner of the world. For example, why does it take some movies, months to be released in Europe, after they have been released in the USA. The same with TV shows. And some albums are never released in other countries.
These people are still hanging on to business models of yesteryear. The world is a much smaller place today then it was even 10 years ago. Communication to almost any place on the planet is instant, and people want to be able to discuss movies, TV show, video games, and music with their peers all over the world. Its not just the attitudes of the people who share files online that has to change, but its the attitude of the major music lables, movie and TV studios which has to change. They either give the consumers what they want, when they want it, or the consumer will take it. Its no use for these people to try and regress the way consumers think, and for them to wish the internet didnt exist, whilst hiding behind the law, and claiming to be a victim. They need to start thinking of way of which to deliver their content to the consumer in a way that fits in to the 21st century, and stop trying to fit the 21st century in to their out dated business models.
As for musicians, if they want to make money, they should get out there and start playing more gigs, instead of loafing about for years on end, living off the earnings of past glories. They should all take a leaf out of Bob Dylans book.
They should all take a leaf out of Bob Dylans book
But obviously not pay for it ;)
Did you actually read the Gower review I linked to you? How can the current system be a fudge when artists DO receive royalties from each piece of work legitimately sold? I don't disagree that the owning label makes the lion's share of the cash.
*Sigh*
You seem to be arguing that if someone downloads a song, then the artist has been deprived of money. But, what if the person downloading the song would not have bought it anyway? The artist lost nothing.
Assuming that you can't know if a person would pay anything for a song (unless you can suggest some way to determine that), can you explain how that person downloading it directly "steals" something (i.e. deprives) from the artist?
You have lost the argument I'm afraid. I have provided evidence to show that piracy does not adversely affect the artists (the record companies are another debate). You have done nothing other than repeat you "but it's stealing!!!" line, with no evidence at all of loss for the artists beyond "but they must be loosing because people download for free!!!".
Either back up your claims [MOD EDIT by Kymmy].
---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------
2 million speeding tickets were issued in the UK in 2005 - if the numberplates were obscured (easily done), doesn't it make sense to stop chasing speeders and change the traffic laws?
The law says licence plates must be readable. Enforcing a "no encryption" rule on the internet would be impossible and would also make online shopping/banking highly insecure and prevent a number of other legitimate applications.
btw, it doesn't matter if you don't consider copyright infringement as theft - the law does, and I fought the law, and the law won!
Wrong. Theft is a criminal matter, copyright infringement is almost always civil unless it is done for profit. The two are different in the eyes of the law, because the law recognises that intellectual property is different from physical property.
How could I name them - they have broken up or no longer perform due to lack of income ;)
I imagine history records their names though, and presumably if they had given up due to lack of income that could be specifically linked to piracy there might at least be an article or two about it. After all there are plenty of articles about people who do well out of giving their stuff away for free.
I was talking about theft and loss of income due to illegal downloads and not giving the artist/composer their due, and you have changed it into "driven to poverty"..........
Okay, give me one citation for that then.
btw, do you hold the same views on IP for software, films/tv, and publications?
Yes.
[MOD COMMENT]
This is a general warning for all members.
People have a right on this forum to post thier views, if this view is against your own then please support your point of view without telling others to "SHUT UP". Behaviour such as that will not be accepted.
The mods are now keeping a close eye on this forum and will take action when needed.
Kymmy
*Sigh*
You seem to be arguing that if someone downloads a song, then the artist has been deprived of money. But, what if the person downloading the song would not have bought it anyway? The artist lost nothing.
Then if that person does not intend to buy it he has no right to download it.
What right has he or she have to download a music track he or she knows they have no intention of paying for. ?????
Then if that person does not intend to buy it he has no right to download it.
What right has he or she have to download a music track he or she knows they no intention of paying for. ?????
That is spot on. Whilst its very difficult to put an exact figure on how much Artists/Labels are loosing, it is loosing and this is the whole point.
The emergence of legitimate online purchasing shows that the said "Artisits/Labels" are trying to recover monies they would have received from legitimate "sales".
Some have argued on here that the free lunch that is illegal file sharing of rights protected material actually helps the industry, but provide no evidence to support it and therefore is far from the truth.
http://www.researchcopyright.com/article-music-copyright-infringement.php
Arguments for and against this activity has failed to stem the tide of losses, and it could be argued that the end user is the ultimate victim. The past DRM activities of one well known music label led to a PR disaster for that company, which may well have increased costs for the legitimate end product.
But some simple math may help here to show that illegal file sharing does have a negative impact for the Artists/Writers.
For example if the artists get a 3p royalty for every single track sold, whether it be on a hard copy medium or via a digital download, then it isn't difficult to work out that say 10,000 illegal downloads that DO NOT lead to a purchase of that artists work in any form means a net loss of £300.
Some figures estimate that about 6,000,000 computers/accounts in the UK alone are responsible for the illegal distribution of rights protected material. "Rights protected", the means by which that artist gets payed for his work. If that figure is anywhere near the truth, then there is loss, even if you have a beef against the corporate machine that promotes the material, there is loss to the artist.
That article does allude the need for a different model in light of this digital age, but it still has to stem the tide of file sharers who are only motivated by their own greed, no matter how much they love the music.
TraxData
11-07-2008, 13:07
Some have argued on here that the free lunch that is illegal file sharing of rights protected material actually helps the industry, but provide no evidence to support it and therefore is far from the truth.
Well, i dont know about everyone else, but i wont go out and buy a CD until i've listened to the album, why would i waste £20 on an album to find it's total crap (which most music today is), i'm the same with movies/games, yes i download it...and if it's good, i'll go buy it (except when its £50 for a game, that's really stupid) so it does help the industry, and you'll find quite a few artists (robbie williams for example stated on live tv (news) that he didnt care if people downloaded his music, why? because he gets more fans this way, more people interested in his music and more people go to his gigs/live shows).
So no, it is not that far from the truth, if it wasnt for people downloading the music they wouldnt make as much at live shows etc.
For example if the artists get a 3p royalty for every single track sold, whether it be on a hard copy medium or via a digital download, then it isn't difficult to work out that say 10,000 illegal downloads that DO NOT lead to a purchase of that artists work in any form means a net loss of £300.
Isn't that flawed? only one person bought the CD, ripped it and shared it, the people who downloaded it were most not likely to buy it, so no its not a net loss of £300 at all, you cant lose something you wasnt going to get :rolleyes:
You'll find most people will go out and not take the risk of spending that much money on something they might not like, who loses out then? ah yes, the record company!
Some figures estimate that about 6,000,000 computers/accounts in the UK alone are responsible for the illegal distribution of rights protected material. "Rights protected", the means by which that artist gets payed for his work. If that figure is anywhere near the truth, then there is loss, even if you have a beef against the corporate machine that promotes the material, there is loss to the artist.
No there isn't, if you knew anything about the music industry, the artists barely make any sort of profit on CD sales, they make profit from live concerts, only place that lose out is the music companies, again, go back to point one, you cant lose something you dont have.
That article does allude the need for a different model in light of this digital age, but it still has to stem the tide of file sharers who are only motivated by their own greed, no matter how much they love the music.
Motivated by their own greed? get real.
It's the record companies here that are full of greed, yes i mean, there 138million/year profit is so damaging isn't it, staff on 100-500k/year really have to live rough.
Maybe when they stop charging silly prices people will go buy dvds etc, most people are on poor incomes (9-12k/PA) and simply cannot afford to go buy loads of dvds, so they download them and buy them WHEN they can afford them, there is nothing wrong with that, the company still gets the money and the family get the movie, there is no loss.
Not everyone just downloads and downloads with no intention of buying something you know, i download TV shows because i hate watching adverts, i download movies to see if they are any good, if they are, i buy them.
I download albums to see what they are like, if there is only one or 2 good tracks, i wont buy it, simple as, i wont buy off iTunes either, not at 192Kbit/s rate, not worth 99p.
Well, i dont know about everyone else, but i wont go out and buy a CD until i've listened to the album, why would i waste £20 on an album to find it's total crap (which most music today is), i'm the same with movies/games, yes i download it...and if it's good, i'll go buy it (except when its £50 for a game, that's really stupid) so it does help the industry, and you'll find quite a few artists (robbie williams for example stated on live tv (news) that he didnt care if people downloaded his music, why? because he gets more fans this way, more people interested in his music and more people go to his gigs/live shows).
So no, it is not that far from the truth, if it wasnt for people downloading the music they wouldnt make as much at live shows etc.
So artists only make a good living from live concerts? How much do you think they actually get from ticket sales from a 10,000 seater gig when you take out all the associated costs?
And isn't the point of a live gig to get them noticed so that they SELL more music?
Isn't that flawed? only one person bought the CD, ripped it and shared it, the people who downloaded it were most not likely to buy it, so no its not a net loss of £300 at all, you cant lose something you wasnt going to get :rolleyes:
You'll find most people will go out and not take the risk of spending that much money on something they might not like, who loses out then? ah yes, the record company!Well I did say it was simple math, but the point is valid. If you decide to offer what you purchased as a free upload via peer-to-peer, and just a 1000 people took it and never purchased that album-and why should they when they just got it off you for free-then of course the artist is going to experience some financial loss. I am deliberately not mentioning the distributor because most people think they are the bad boys.
No there isn't, if you knew anything about the music industry, the artists barely make any sort of profit on CD sales, they make profit from live concerts, only place that lose out is the music companies, again, go back to point one, you cant lose something you dont have.Do you know anything at all about the music industry either, because the dirfference between barely and nothing is surely something?
Surely then they have potentially lost something, even if it was very little?
Motivated by their own greed? get real.
It's the record companies here that are full of greed, yes i mean, there 138million/year profit is so damaging isn't it, staff on 100-500k/year really have to live rough.
Maybe when they stop charging silly prices people will go buy dvds etc, most people are on poor incomes (9-12k/PA) and simply cannot afford to go buy loads of dvds, so they download them and buy them WHEN they can afford them, there is nothing wrong with that, the company still gets the money and the family get the movie, there is no loss.I'm sorry but I see no reason why a person should own something if he can't pay for it. I'm sure the security guard at my local Tesco whould feel the same. Theft is theft which ever way you colour it.
There is nothing to back up your claim that people use illegal downloading as a credit service, and then pay for it when things get better.
Silly prices for DVD's this makes me laugh! People online have buying power, I can save more than £7-£8 quid per title if I shop around online. Again, if you can't afford to purchase a DVD, then it shouldn't be in your collection.
Not everyone just downloads and downloads with no intention of buying something you know, i download TV shows because i hate watching adverts, i download movies to see if they are any good, if they are, i buy them.Fair enough, but your example may not be typical of the common downloader.
I download albums to see what they are like, if there is only one or 2 good tracks, i wont buy it, simple as, i wont buy off iTunes either, not at 192Kbit/s rate, not worth 99p.I thought it was 74p or were you referring to DRM controlled music?
You can also listen to tracks on the radio, or watch them on music channels with your preferred TV provider. There are perfectly legitimate ways to make an informed decision about what you want to listen to without breaking copyright law.
Barton71
11-07-2008, 20:12
Toto, you dont seem to get this at all. Its the distributers who are out of step with the rest of the world. Its the music, movie and TV industry who are having a hard time dealing with the internet. Bill Thompson from the BBC wrote just this week,
"Around the world content industries are lobbying hard to get laws passed that will help them support their 20th Century business models in the networked world. They want legal protection from the winds of change that are blowing through the music, film and other creative industries and allowing them to threaten, sue and even imprison those who challenge their ability to make a profit". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7493365.stm
These people have to change, and if that means that they need to take a dip in profits in the short term, then so be it. The benefits of change will be there for them in the long term. They just need to be made to see this.
Toto, you dont seem to get this at all. Its the distributers who are out of step with the rest of the world. Its the music, movie and TV industry who are having a hard time dealing with the internet. Bill Thompson from the BBC wrote just this week,
"Around the world content industries are lobbying hard to get laws passed that will help them support their 20th Century business models in the networked world. They want legal protection from the winds of change that are blowing through the music, film and other creative industries and allowing them to threaten, sue and even imprison those who challenge their ability to make a profit". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7493365.stm
These people have to change, and if that means that they need to take a dip in profits in the short term, then so be it. The benefits of change will be there for them in the long term. They just need to be made to see this.
and what are the benefits of change??
Theft of other people's work ;)
Sorry - the ability to let artists flourish by not paying for the effort they have put into their creative process. :D
Toto, you dont seem to get this at all. Its the distributers who are out of step with the rest of the world. Its the music, movie and TV industry who are having a hard time dealing with the internet. Bill Thompson from the BBC wrote just this week,
"Around the world content industries are lobbying hard to get laws passed that will help them support their 20th Century business models in the networked world. They want legal protection from the winds of change that are blowing through the music, film and other creative industries and allowing them to threaten, sue and even imprison those who challenge their ability to make a profit". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7493365.stm
These people have to change, and if that means that they need to take a dip in profits in the short term, then so be it. The benefits of change will be there for them in the long term. They just need to be made to see this.
I agree and even the BPI have said there needs to be change, BUT that does not mean that taking music (or any other IP), without paying a penny for it is right and proper.
Bill Thompson makes a valid point, nobody should have their livelihood affected by a disruption in their internet service because the law says we can't violate IP in any form. However, at what point does it become acceptable to flout the law no matter how ridiculous it may be? Should a paedophile or serial hacker be banned by a court from even accessing a networked PC even if it will affect his livelihood? The law is certainly ridiculous isn't it?
Virgin Media themselves have said to the BPI that they won't be placing sanctions against their customers, and said so in no uncertain terms. Old Charlie boy at CFW pretty much told the BPI to stuff it. The BPI know ultimately that for this to work they will have to take court actions, which is going to be expensive for them considering its the membership fees to the BPI is their only major source of income. Civil cases are expensive, especially when the defendant knows the law, and can turn up in court with.......hmm, too much info there. :)
The bottom line is this.......that piece of rights protected music we are allowing to upload from our PC, whether we like it or not, has strict rules on how its to be used. Break the law, civily or otherwise and we must be prepared to accept the consequences (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/uk_p2pers_fined/).
We have been warned.
I wonder though if people would be prepared to pay an additional monthly charge to their ISP to be able to share music legally, as proposed by the Open Rights Group in their interview with BBC News 24? I would bet my right leg that you will have loads of people with Internet accounts laughing at the very idea, simply because they know you can have your cake and eat it too.
I agree and even the BPI have said there needs to be change, BUT that does not mean that taking music (or any other IP), without paying a penny for it is right and proper.
Bill Thompson makes a valid point, nobody should have their livelihood affected by a disruption in their internet service because the law says we can't violate IP in any form. However, at what point does it become acceptable to flout the law no matter how ridiculous it may be? Should a paedophile or serial hacker be banned by a court from even accessing a networked PC even if it will affect his livelihood? The law is certainly ridiculous isn't it?
Virgin Media themselves have said to the BPI that they won't be placing sanctions against their customers, and said so in no uncertain terms. Old Charlie boy at CFW pretty much told the BPI to stuff it. The BPI know ultimately that for this to work they will have to take court actions, which is going to be expensive for them considering its the membership fees to the BPI is their only major source of income. Civil cases are expensive, especially when the defendant knows the law, and can turn up in court with.......hmm, too much info there. :)
The bottom line is this.......that piece of rights protected music we are allowing to upload from our PC, whether we like it or not, has strict rules on how its to be used. Break the law, civily or otherwise and we must be prepared to accept the consequences (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/uk_p2pers_fined/).
We have been warned.
I wonder though if people would be prepared to pay an additional monthly charge to their ISP to be able to share music legally, as proposed by the Open Rights Group in their interview with BBC News 24? I would bet my right leg that you will have loads of people with Internet accounts laughing at the very idea, simply because they know you can have your cake and eat it too.
the monthly charge is the best idea this started years ago when they applied a tax/surcharge on blank cassettes. then people could rob.....sorry download with impunity
Barton71
12-07-2008, 01:01
and what are the benefits of change??
Increased revenue. An example for the movie and TV industry would be, at the moment, when a new movie is released, or a new episode of a TV show airs, you can bet that with in a few hours there will be a copy available for download illegally, so why dont they just make it available for download, and streaming on the internet at the same time its released in the cinema, or on TV, and, given that there is little uniformity across the globe as to when movis are released, and TV show aired, make it available world wide. At least then, they would be making a couple of pounds out of it, rather than nothing.
For the music industry, something along the lines of a universal "Musicstation", for your PC, would be a good start. I have Musicstation on my mobile phone, and i pay £1.99/week for unlimited music downloads from a catalogue of over 1 million songs. I can also share my music with anyone else who subscribes Musicstation. The drawback is, i cant transfer the music to other devices, burn CD's, or use the music on my home movies, so there is effectivly no "Fair Use" policy, but i use a AUX port to listen to the music in my car, and i have a set of speakers at home, that i can connect to my phone, in order to listen at home. Given the drawbacks, Musicstation is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but for me, its the best option available at the moment.
As has been said before, there are 6 million file sharers in the UK, and god knows how many world wide, so there is a business in there somewhere, just waiting for someone with big enough *******s to come along and start milking it. If they werent so concerned with protecting regional distributers and TV channels, they could be making a fortune.
What right has he or she have to download a music track he or she knows they have no intention of paying for. ?????
What right do they have to listen to it on the radio, listen to it at a friend's party, in a shop, on TV etc?
What right do they have to listen to it on the radio, listen to it at a friend's party, in a shop, on TV etc?
:LOL: Any answer to legitimise theft
What right do they have to listen to it on the radio, listen to it at a friend's party, in a shop, on TV etc?
On the radio, in a shop, or on TV, the shop or broadcaster will be paying a PRS and PPL fee, so the listener is covered.
PRS (http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/PLAYINGBROADCASTINGONLINE/Pages/default.aspx)
"Money is due for any public performance of music, whether live or recorded, that takes place outside the home and from radio and television broadcasts and online"
At a friend's party, they are exempt from paying any PRS or PPL
PPL (http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/PDFs/$file/PPLinfoSheet5playingMusicInPublic.pdf)
"Under UK copyright law (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) a PPL licence is required when sound recordings subject to our control are played in public.
By ‘public’ we mean any event except a family or domestic gathering. An event such as an office party, a Christmas disco or a Valentine’s Day dinner dance is public.
An example of a private event would be a wedding reception or birthday party"
HTH
PRS (http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/PLAYINGBROADCASTINGONLINE/Pages/default.aspx)
"Money is due for any public performance of music, whether live or recorded, that takes place outside the home and from radio and television broadcasts and online"
PPL (http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/PDFs/$file/PPLinfoSheet5playingMusicInPublic.pdf)
"Under UK copyright law (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) a PPL licence is required when sound recordings subject to our control are played in public.
By ‘public’ we mean any event except a family or domestic gathering. An event such as an office party, a Christmas disco or a Valentine’s Day dinner dance is public.
An example of a private event would be a wedding reception or birthday party"
HTH
See
There you go again, Your bringing facts into the debate :LOL:
On the radio, in a shop, or on TV, the shop or broadcaster will be paying a PRS and PPL fee, so the listener is covered.
PRS (http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/PLAYINGBROADCASTINGONLINE/Pages/default.aspx)
"Money is due for any public performance of music, whether live or recorded, that takes place outside the home and from radio and television broadcasts and online"And they do sue people that don't pay ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4712008.stm
Barton71
12-07-2008, 12:50
So the Performing Rights Society want to be paid more than once for providing one service? They want paid by the radio stations for playing the music, and then paid again for people listening to the radio broadcast which the radio station have already paid for. That, by any moral stanard, is extortion.
erm, no - what makes you think that?
As stated above in a previous post
Under UK copyright law (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) a PPL licence is required when sound recordings subject to our control are played in public.
By ‘public’ we mean any event except a family or domestic gathering. An event such as an office party, a Christmas disco or a Valentine’s Day dinner dance is public
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.