Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8390623.stm



If I was running such a company I would also be worried that deep packet inspection technology might be used to steal application secrets from my company.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

If you were running such a company and expressed such concerns I don't imagine it would be too long before someone would come along and put your mind and business worries entirely at rest by telling you that "sharing is not stealing", "sharing is caring", "all copyright is evil", "all culture shoud be shared" or some such drivel.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Lets be honest we have seen in the last twelve years a lot of legislation bought in by this government that on the face of it looked harmless enough and have subsequently seen how it was so easy to manipulate and be used in a completely different context. Credibility is where this government has now completely failed no one believes a word they say and no one takes anyting at face value.

As for piracy whether we like it or not the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back in and rather then trying to stamp it out companys and governments are going to have to accomadate it and look more to minimalising it. What doesn't help anti piracy people are the two big lies. They of course being "piracy is killing our business" and yet year on year same companys increase profits and the second one "every download is a sale lost" which for anyone with half a brain has been obvious tripe.

Programs and systems such as phorm are not the way to go and only end up hitting everyone not just those with a reason to be hit.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Anyone with "half a brain" knows that according to the old business model there was no "try before you buy" so, in effect and on that premise, every illegal download is a lost sale - it's not rocket science.

As for your other nonsense trying to undermine the catastrophic effects of downloading ask the ex employees of Zavvi, Fopp and Woolworths which all closed last year if they agree. Better still, show me their increased profits for the past year.

Please don't deign to spout nonsense without engaging the half a brain you claim to have.

Ebay subscribing to a letter stating "A shared respect for copyright is, of course, key." is shameful.

I challenge Alasdiar McGowan to explain why this bootlegger this bootlegger and this bootlegger ,amongst 23 others, who were reported to ebay no less than three times by the BPI and various other bodies last year are still openly trading on his platform?

Let's hear it Alasdair, I'm waiting.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

So Mr Angry your saying every download is a sale lost are you ?? so when a person has spent their available money for whatever period you think they will magically come up with more to buy the stuff that they end up downloading. I am not an advocate or supporter of piracy at all and have condemned it in the past on this and every forum i am a member of but for you to make out that every download is a sale lost is ridiculous.

Also recent studies have shown that pirates have a beneficial effect in terms of people that don't download buying on a recommendation now i highly doubt that is on a massive scale but it shows the issue isn't as simple as you and others wouold like to make out. I wasn't talking about retail outlets as i think your well aware when i talked about increasing profits but the major media companys that constantly spout how downloading is killing them. Same companys who put maximum pressure on retail outlets to cut what they sell the stuff for but never drop the prices they sell the stuff to retail for

If you cast your mind back to the eighties wasn't there that statement from them that unless tape to tape recording was stopped there would be no music industry in ten years yeah that came to pass didn't it. This issue is not as simple as either side make it out to be it isn't black and white and until all involved in this realise that we are never going to see any sort of resolution.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Rizzy, read what I wrote. I said "every illegal download" was a sale lost.

I don't subscribe to the school of "if you can't afford it steal it" and I have nothing but contempt for those who do.

From the BBC

A recent Demos survey [3.51Mb Powerpoint] garnered plenty of headlines, but its flaws were not widely reported. Firstly, it grouped people who used search engines to discover music in with people who use P2P, but you can of course use search engines to discover music, then listen legally to streamed music for free or buy music.

The study simply illustrated the unsurprising fact that, as a group, file-sharers tend to be bigger consumers of recorded music than non-file-sharers - because most file-sharers are very interested in music while some non-file-sharers don't consume music at all. The net effect of illegal file-sharing in the UK and elsewhere has been to reduce legitimate sales. This is why spending on recorded music has fallen every year since illegal file-sharing began to become widespread.

Nonsense. You have no substantive evidence to quantify that assertion and it is easliy disproven by the almost total collapse of the UK music distribution market. Again, make a distinction between downloading & illegal downloading.

The phrase was "Home taping is killing music" not "Home taping is killing the music industry". The more jaundiced amongst us realize that it is not as black and white as you try to make out. At the time of the campaign CD's were already in use / production and replacing vinyl and the Walkman had shifted millions of units. Indeed all of the lead aggregators (to this very day) in IT and audio hardware are primarily music businesses. The message it was sending was that by taping music (for example live radio broadcasts) people were not encouraging others to experience live music.

Here is how simple it is - debate aside. What gives anyone the right to copy for free something which should be paid for?

That is as black and white as it gets.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

If someone downloads something illegally, because they can get it for free that way, but would not at any time have considered paying money for it, then the illegal download is not a sale lost, because it is not a substitute for a sale.

Agreed, 100%.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Pur-lease............................get it right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

every illegal download" might indicate a POTENTIAL lost sale.

I wasn't going to get involved in this but I find I have to stand up for common sense in the face of such abject PR for those with a vested interest in upholding the case for mass surveillance for any reason.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Mick,

The "every" analogy does, under the constraints of the existing model, apply.

I know that it's difficult to quantify however the fact is that prior to filesharing the only way to access a true copy of any quality was to buy the product.

Radio, national TV etc were used to whet the appetite of the consumer but there was no "try before you buy". In essence - if someone heard a track and bought an album only to find that it was pants the labels didn't care because they'd actually made their money as the now disappointed consumer had already bought it.

They no longer have that revenue stream as consumers can now readily access the material for free. Ergo every illegal download is a lost sale.

The downloaders counter argument in regard to "Singles" does not wash either as these get sufficient mainstream exposure not only from the mediums referenced above but also from streams from artists sites.

If it were the case that downloading were purely for research or to establish "as a taster" whether one might reasonably purchase a track then how would one reasonably explain the plethora of people sharing single lady gaga tracks (by way of an example) on many of the torrent sites?

One would have to wonder if none of them have access to a TV or radio or any other medium of exposure to music.

By the way, I'm not an advocate of mass surveillance - but I'm not in denial over what has helped propogate it.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Ok just so we're clear i am not as i have said an advocate of pirates nor do i in anyway support their activity or condone it so please stop trying to make it look as though i do or have ever been or show something that says different. You talk about me talking nonsense but then you say "ask the ex employees of Zavvi, Fopp and Woolworths" as though they all fell because of piracy which is completely untrue woolsworth fell because of lousy management and zavvi were dragged down by that.

Personally i would like to talk to reasonable people from both sides of this to have a better idea of the fundamental ideology behind their respective stances and simply saying by the old business model highlights for me exactly what is wrong. The world has changed and the old business model isn't too well suited it seems to modern times so perhaps it is time for a new model to be adopted one that finds some middle ground that is acceptable for all partys. Not everyone who downloads is an evil thieving ******* anymore then every media exec is a slimy profit mongerer.

I can see why the industry's involved don't like piracy as i imagine it means people are able to fully try\listen or watch something before parting with money and many of these media companys have gotten entirely too used to pumping out the same tosh and rehashing things. I know from my own experience that many films now are totally generic and much of a muchness i don't mind as i buy them from bargain bins which is what i can afford. I buy about two pc games a year but i am aware that there are so many virtual copies of the same game that it would be very easy to spend a lot of money and feel ripped off. Thats what i mean when i say it isn't all black and white people won't buy if they are not confident that they are paying for quality and in my experience people will happily part with their money if they know they are getting a quality product.

There have been many people saying there needs to be a change and not all of them are idiots as you clearly feel i am for having an opinion different to yours so it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be. But just so we're clear are you saying you would support the snooping of all user's so that piracy can be cut if it actually works that way. Thats my problem here i don't even know how you pirate stuff is it like games patches where you go to certain sites or do you buy a program that takes you there (please if your someone that knows i don't want to know i am just highlighting my complete ignorance of it), thats how much of an advocate i am for it.

I would just like those involved on both sides of this to be able to speak and maybe have a rational and useful debate on the subject and for any media people that are on here or any pirates i would welcome a private message type chat to better understand this issue as i fully understand why if there are any pirates on CF they would not wish to make that public.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Perhaps not in the UK, but in many other countries you could listen to an LP/CD before you bought it. In Holland for instance, record shops would have a number of record players/cd players and headsets. When CD players came in they gave the customer his own controls so you could skip, fast forward etc. I've gone up to the counter with 4 or 5 CDs listened to them all, and ended up buying only one many times. It's considered normal practice.

Try before you buy in the music industry has been well established for a long time in some countries.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

No Rizzy, again, read what I said.

"By the way, I'm not an advocate of mass surveillance - but I'm not in denial over what has helped propogate it"

danielf - I am aware of, and appreciate, the listening post scenario but the reality is that in the context of catalogue availability they were, purposely, not designed to facilitate mass listenings. Additionally, on a cost / benefit ratio, listeners did not leave the shop with a copy of what they demo'd if they decided not to buy it.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Who is going to monitor Peter Mandelsons internet, cause he probably downloads gay pron from torrents etc.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

So you can prove that all of the alleged illegal downloaders would all have purchased a copy of said media if they had not downloaded it can you? I think not.

I suggest that as the number of illegal downloads made is an unknown factor ergo the number who would have purchased if an illegal download was unavailable is equally unknown, as is the number who did purchase after making an illegal download and the sales lost because of reports by critics and illegal downloaders that the product was the usual complete tripe.
Your statement is patently untrue. You omit to mention word of mouth from disappointed purchasers, you also omit legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net.
It's refreshing to hear you freely admit the Industry you support so vociferously hinges so much on deception as a business model. It is therefore unsurprising that so many seem to take so much delight in ripping it off. Sow and Reap come to mind.
There is no need to advocate the illegality of downloading copyrighted media to me as I have never defended it.
I am of the opinion that this is just the latest attempt using the latest pretext to roll it out.

Not forgetting of course our Oppressive Regime's tendency to roll over at the slightest behest from Washington. :sick:

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

They used to do it in some of the virgin megastores in the UK aswel.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Also use to do it in WHSmith.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

No Mick, that's not what I'm actually saying or attempting to prove. I'm saying that under the constraints if the exisiting business model in order to have obtained a full copy for the purposes of determining whether it was "any good or not" one (in ones' capacity as a "consumer" as opposed to a reviewer or critic) would have been expected to have purchased a copy of same. That someone elects to get a copy by other, illegal means, means merely that they sought to circumvent the purchasing process to acquire same. Whether they like / liked it or not under normal conventional business circumstances they would have had to buy a copy to arrive at that determination. So, in effect yes - an illegally downloaded copy - for the purposes of "evaluation" is a lost sale.

Suggest what you want. You are positing the age old excuse of "I only download to see if I like it and then I go and buy it". I have dealt with this position in earlier references to TV, Radio etc and, as you point out in your quote below, there are plenty of alternative sources to provide indicators which completely obviate any need for someone to download.

"Patently untrue"? Tell me Mick, since when have "word of mouth from disappointed purchasers....legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net" constituted "a true copy of any quality"? My comment above refers.

I highlighted the practice (business model) I don't believe that I've said anywhere that I supported it.

I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to make that statement or as to why you thought / felt I was trying to "advocate the illegality" of anything to you or that I assumed that you defended anything that I didn't advocate the illegality of to you. I assumed, from your lack of interaction and argument to the contrary that you understood the premise. Now that you've made it clear that you understand the illegality of it I'm happy to put it to bed.

Probably right, however my assertion stands - were it not for the wanton illegal pillaging of copyright works the Government would have no legally arguable pretext (beyond terrorism & national security) to roll it out.

Beyond dispute.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

This isn't necessarily totally true. A lot of the issues have been largely down to retailers' laziness to deal with the labels direct, preferring to deal with one company who supplies them totally, and then deals with the record labels - e.g. Entertainment UK and Zavvi. Whereas a local independent dealer here will order directly from the labels themselves, or their UK distributors, often on personal terms - with a far less turnover than a major retailer, and yet still survive? Why? Mainly because they order what they can sell and don't rely on funding their existing stock on credit. When Zavvi went into administration and it transpired how their business model worked, they were somewhat alarmed they operated in that way.

It's a fine balance, but if you hold small amounts of stock, and order in what you can guarantee to sell, or if you own your stock then your liabilities are more easily tied up in your business than if you don't own the stock - Zavvi didn't own the items in the shops because they hadn't paid EUK for them, hence when EUK went into liquidation, they caused a payment on the assets held by the likes of Zavvi, who since they had little they owned and didn't own the stock could either send the stock back, in which case they had no income, or go through themselves.

It's simple economics, and has little to do with illegal downloading. People have and always will pirate copyrighted material, and a lot of those who do will end up buying it.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

It's not a matter of "retailers' laziness". The fact of the matter is that major labels do not, by and large, deal directly with retailers.

On a point of interest, and I'm genuinely interested in knowing this, which of your local independent dealers don't fund their existing stock on credit / credit lines. I'm sure there are more but the only independent store I'm aware of in Nottingham is The Heavy Sounds and a fair percentile of their turnover is in second hand / used records & CD's.

Most recent figures in relation to local independent dealers suggest an ongoing decline in that sector. From the Guardian, April 2009:

Over a quarter of the UK's independent music stores went out of business last year, according to the Entertainment Retailers Association. In the record store heyday of the 1980s there were 2,200 stores; by 1994 there were 1,200. Today only 305 remain. The shops, and their dwindling number of committed owners, are, however, refusing to go quietly. This Saturday, more than 50 independent record shops from across the UK, and thousands more worldwide, will team up with top independent labels for Record Store Day.

It worked exactly the same way that Tescos arrangement with EUK worked. Did Tescos go under? No. Why? Because music was not their core business.

If you can predetermine a stock based only on "what you can guarantee to sell" you'd be a good one. If it were so simple and "a fine balance" do you not think that every remaining record store in the UK (independent or otherwise) would have returned their entire existing (unsold) stock and packed out their shelves with copies of "I dreamed a dream"?

See the reference above re: Tescos (which also applies to other major chains at the time). It was never in a distributors nor a labels interest for retailers to outright "own" their own stock as this would have involved greater credit lines based on the sale or return model, breakages, mechanicals, promos etc. People fail to see this. In the end Zavvi ended up with £100 - £106m worth of stock for £40m - not much comfort to those who lost their jobs but certainly no bad thing for a kickstart when they eventually resumed trading.

As I've pointed out above it's not as simple as "simple economics" - if only it were. I have already explained, no less than twice, how illegal downloading plays a major part on the bottom line yet people are either in denial or pretend they cannot understand the premise of "buying" something to see what it is like.

Yes, people will always pirate copyrighted material where there is a reasonable opportunity for them to do so. That does not make doing so right, even if they do go out and "end up buying it".

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

I'm not denying that illegal downloads play a big part in the bottom line, but it seems to me that you are desperately clinging on to a business model that is about 40 years out of date.

This business model you quote where every illegal download is a lost sale became obsolete when cassette tapes became popular. Before downloading became an option, people were always making tapes for their mates. Quoting your own source here, the heydays of the record shops were in the 80s. Pirating copyrighted materials was rife in the 80s, and it seems record shops did quite well back then. The only thing that has changed is that it has become a lot easier to get hold of pirated material.

Oh, and for the 'record': no I do not condone the widespread pirating of copyrighted material. I reckon 98% of my music collection has been paid for. In fact, hardly anything of it is downloaded at all. It's all hardcopy CDs and LPs.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Sorry danielf I'm not clinging on to a dead business model - I'm merely explaining that model.

As I said in my earlier post to Mick "I highlighted the practice (business model) I don't believe that I've said anywhere that I supported it."

Not really, you'll recall - and I pointed this out earlier - the music businesses made and sold the blank cassette tapes and the mediums by which they were played back - both domestically and personally (Hi-Fi tape deck, portable tape deck and Walkman). Effectively they were making more money due to the required outlay on the part of the consumer to keep up with technology.

If anything the advent and subsequent popularity of the cassette further increased the profits of the music industry, "simple economics" as nffc would put it.

See above. Bear in mind also that the 80's saw the introduction of the CD as a medium. Subsequently, and in tandem with the introduction of CD Walkmen and Mini Disks, the demand for vinyl (as a non portable medium) fell.

See above. Once the transition to the binary (MP3) came about the music businesses were quick to corner the blank cd markets -0nce again they, for the greater part, are the manufacturers of playback and recording machines. It truly "got out of hand" when someone not connected with the music business (Apple) created a stand alone platform.

Nice pun. Neither do I. I'm just pointing out that taking something for free just because you can does not make it right or OK. It comes at a cost and even if you buy the track / album later as many claim to do, it does not deflect from the fact that you acquired it without paying first.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Hang on, it seems to me that the players that made money out of the media and the playback equipment overlap with, but certainly don't make up the copyright holders/labels. Sure, Sony, Philips et al. have/had their content branches, but generally, the labels that really lose out on copyright infringement are not part of the media and playback producing industry? Or are you saying that the big guns didn't give a hoot about the losses of the minor players because they were getting their money anyway?

(Incidentally, bakc in the 80s Holland introduced a levy on blank media to recoup some of the lost sales, which I thought was a really good idea)

Yes, I do agree there, but I'm also a big fan of the try before you buy concept. It's good to see services like Spotify spring up that allow you to do so legally, because the 'buy in order to try' business model really is outdated imo.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

More or less - however they eased the pain of the losses suffered by the "minor players" by buying them out in their droves. Suddenly indie labels and publishers were wealthy beyond their wildest dreams but their "kewl" factor was dead in the water once anyone looked at the heraldy (the remaining 50% of Creation records sold to Sony for $30m by way of just one example).

Yes, this is still in place until 2010/11 as far as I'm aware - it constitutes a small "offset" but the move to harddrive based devices has all but abolished any benefits.

I agree.

Spotify, whilst good, still needs to prove its worth from a musicians point of view.

Whilst the potential is ENORMOUS the revenue streams generated are of little or no consequence and that needs to change. Currently those organizations charged with negotiating and collecting such things are not keen to progress the debate because they have realized that their doing so is the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas.

I'd be happy to elaborate further by pm should you wish to do so.

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Cheers for that.

(I have a mint copy of CRE012. I wonder how much that's worth) :)

Re: Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan
 

Depending on the colour scheme and assuming the sleeve is also mint you'd be looking at anything up to $40.00 0r 25 Euros.