OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

here.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

And so it begins :mad:

I bet now that this will be used all the time. This is a licence to sue, Why do they have to release electronic download services now when they can just set the lawyers on people and earn there money that way.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Ugh. :(

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

??

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Seems fairly reasonable, a key point is that people aren't going to be cut off arbitrarily.

The 'licence to sue' seems ok so long as it's not abused in the manner Sirius describes as a substitute for offering content in more convenient ways.

My one major frustration is that this does nothing for serial downloaders from newsgroups but will instead punish those who use P2P which will perversely push them into giving money to Paedoshare and newsgroup services who profit from supplying content.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

How will the data be accessed??

Does the copyright holder say to VM I own such a film please tell me who's been downloading it (even though the filename might be bogus and the P2P hash might not match)

or

Will the copyright holder first have to catch the IP downloading the exact hash and then request full log details off the ISP??

Also will this not just push everyone towards SSL enabled downloads/shares??

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Or will the ISP be using Detica and have a complete breakdown of everything you have done on line anyway ready to be supplied at the drop of a hat. :mad:


This is going to be a Licence to print money for both the isp and the Movie and Music industries, Why bother to supply legal downloads when you can get the isp and its deep packet inspection kit to supply ready made suing material

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Could it be because not everybody considers theft as a first or only option?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Surely though even Detica (phorm or any other tap) on an SSL connection can only see your to/from/port as the rest of the data is encrypted, so for example they know that the SSL connection is downloading from a usenet site but not what they're downloading???

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I agree. I use SSL when ever i can now.

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

Maybe, but the fact is that certain cowboy law firms now see the ability to sue p2p users as the best way to make money and have made it clear they intend to carry on. Could this be the next no win no fee but in reverse :)

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Whilst I don't agree with the current buckshot blanket issuing of letters on the part of some of these firms the fact still remains that were it not for people engaging in illegal downloading to steal media / softwares then these firms would not have the inclination to operate that particular business model.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

How does an ISP benefit from something that they will have to pay for in order to enforce?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I fully agree with you. My main worry is that the isps will see this as a reason to push for access to the data from the equipment they are forced to install. They could say that the money made from access to the data will help fund the cost of supplying the large amount of data that COULD be requested by the lawyers who jump on the bandwagon of sue sue sue.

Its a lot of could's or if's but it makes me worried as to where we will end up with this.

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

I feel that the Deep packet inspection kit to be installed in half of VM's network will not only be used for p2p checking. It will in my eye's evolve very quickly when they see the benefits of a phorm type off shoot.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Several points here.

1) If Phorm is an invasion of privacy / breach of human rights, is this not the same? It is an invasion of privacy on people who are presumed innocent in order to see if they are attempting to break a law? Could not the same argument against phorm be brought into play to stop this from taking place?

2) It has been PROVEN in the literary environment that downloading of content for free INCREASES legitimate sales. Even when those downloads are free from DRM and of exactly the same quality as the paid for version.

3) The reason piracy is so prevalent is the COST of the legitimate version. When an office package, plus an OS upgrade exceeds the cost of an entry level computer. When you can have 5 people going to the cinema, or 2 people plus snacks for the cost of a new issue DVD. When someone who is visually impaired is expected to pay over 600 for a piece of software to read the screen to them, why do people think piracy is so prevalent? The money for films is made back at the cinema, the cost per unit for a DVD on a mass production run is pennies. Make the films more affordable, Make back catalogs available longer, Ditch the DRM that prevents some people from watching the films. Ditch those ****** annoying 'piracy is theft' commercials you HAVE to watch on a legit DVD. (Guess what. Pirate versions don't have that crap, they don't MAKE you watch 20 minutes of trailers. They just let you watch the film.)

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Exactly :clap:

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Well said :clap:

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Theft is wrong - no matter what statistical hand wringing excuse someone tries to peddle.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

...and you could end up in prison if caught stealing, however when you infringe on someone's copyrighted works the worse that could happen is you get a big fine.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Even when that same hand wringing is done by the record companies, movie studios and software producers :dozey:

They are always coming up with one excuse or another to charge OTT prices.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Oddly I remember movies and music being more expensive in the past and coming down in price over the years. Can't remember seeing new release CDs for less than a tenner a few years ago and don't remember DVDs being the price BluRay is now when DVD was a new format.

Must be my bad memory, and either way IP should be similar to other property - if the prices are (in your opinion) OTT you simply don't buy the thing until its' price drops to a level you like, you don't help yourself. Basic supply and demand.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I don't steal. We just continue to go without because we cannot afford the over bloated prices (even a 2006 game The Legend of Zelda has only just gone below £20 and is still £28 in most places). It is the claims of the various companies that XYZ are costing Millions in lost revenue through piracy. They are not. All of you who are paying OTT prices are covering this so called loss. Piracy does not equal loss of revenue, it just equals increased product awareness.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

If we're talking about games I remember Street Fighter 2 on the Super Nintendo. It was released in 1994 for a mere 65 Great British Pounds.

Legend Of Zelda, Ocarina of Time, a 50 quid 1998 release.

Your comment that piracy does not equal lost of revenue is absurd. Of course it does. Not to the extent that content producers claim of course but there will be a loss.

It is interesting how happy people are to accept an unsubstantiated claim when it backs up their point of view though. I see your citation for the above claim being a quote from Lord Nikon which has no citation of its' own at all, and regardless only discusses the literary environment which is a completely different issue from movies, games and music which are very easy to make perfect, digital 1 to 1 copies of, unlike a physical book.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I think this is targeting the technically illiterate which is probably the bulk of ISP customers, there's plenty of ways anyone with a little knowledge can get around this even if dpi is used. I was under the false impression that this would be formalising the method currently used, that being, collecting IP's off public file sharing networks. I can imagine a quite few businesses, both UK and foreign, won't be happy about their data being sniffed, - even if assurances are given.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Multinational companies aren't naive - anything they need to keep confidential such as inter-office traffic will traverse the Internet via encrypted VPNs.

Certainly our office's traffic would be dull. Mostly IPSEC VPN to our head office and SSL to a couple of cloud-based applications. Thrilling stuff.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Music has never been such good value or widely available as it is today in CD and download formats. Putting aside the fact that the majority of what's churned out at present is utter dross, if you want back catalogue albums no matter how obscure chances are there's somewhere you'll be able to get hold of what you're looking for.

Also, when you can get double or even triple CD collections maybe even with a bonus DVD for under a tenner it's worth paying for isn't it?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Games used to get to under a tenner in a couple of years - not the case any more (unless of course you have £30 spare & get 3 for £30). By the time films are affordable they are available on TV. As for books, they have been available at your local library to borrow for nothing before the internet was even available.

The majority of people on low incomes either rent the DVD or borrow music from the library at a very reasonable price. If the cost is too high we do not buy - basic economics.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

It would be interesting to see how many people rent DVDs and more interestingly borrow music from the library relative to those who download them.

Indeed your last sentence is how it was, before the Internet messed with the equation a touch!

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Until you can magic money out of thin air the unaffordable will remain unaffordable regardless of availability. This is where I question the losses claimed by various companies.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I question them too, they are greatly exaggerated of course, but to suggest that the only people who download the content are people who couldn't afford to purchase it strikes me as ridiculous.

Even in your example assuming this is 'unaffordable' people download instead of renting, less need for rental copies and rental stores close.

There is a loss somewhere in the chain and it goes all the way to the top. Any time anyone who would have purchased or rented content downloads it and then elects not to purchase or rent as a result of obtaining it for free there is a loss which eventually ends up at the distributor.

I'm sure the same people who can afford 50Mbit and a subscription to a premium Usenet service could afford to purchase at least some of the content they download.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I have provided support of this claim many times, hence I did not think I needed to this time, however, I shall provide the evidence from an author.

Evidence from Eric Flint, Author for Baen Books,
That's his opinion on the matter, quoted from here, but you asked for proof. Ok.

Since the figures are all quoted by the author himself, and represent hard facts I shall give a link to the information here

Pertinent information is just below the table about a third down the document.




Note that he describes a significant increase in sales following the release of his book as a DRM free ebook available for download and distribution by ANYONE who so desires, and then cites a couple more examples by a fellow author. Please note also that baen books started their free library in 2000 and are still going strong 10 years later. Also note that they distribute DRM Free ebooks of all their titles, and occasionally release ebook compilation CDs which are also freely available on the net, None of their epublishing contains ANY form of DRM.

Reliable enough citations to back my claim?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Yes and no.

Primarily because your assertion "2) It has been PROVEN in the literary environment that downloading of content for free INCREASES legitimate sales. Even when those downloads are free from DRM and of exactly the same quality as the paid for version." directly contradicts your citation wherein you quote Flint himself as saying "Well, obviously I can't "prove" it, but it seems blindingly obvious to me that it was the fact that An Oblique Approach went into the Library in the fall of 2000 that explains most of that increase".

There is also the matter that piracy is not a factor in Flint's world as he, as an anti-copyright activist, together with all of the Baen authors have of their own volition given their permission for the free distribution of their works or parts thereof.

What is interesting from the Baen model though is the fact that figures after the roll out / launch of Bittorrent (the very month after the last figures provided by Flint) are very hard to find (if indeed any have been published at all).

That said, as I mentioned above piracy is not relevant to their particular business model therefore people legitimately downloading material as offered by the publisher are highly unlikely to fall within the remit of this legislation.

From that perspective I think it best that we try to stay on topic.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

If you want more up to date figures, email Tony Weiskopf, the person in charge of baen. But consider this. These figures are from 2000 and 2002, if the DRM free ebook distribution didn't work, would they still be doing it 8 years later? would they still be publishing the CDs with DRM free ebooks?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

LN, you may be missing the point.

Baen and their authors (some of them) allow their books to be distributed - it's their choice.

The problem with illegal downloading is that the authors/creators of that work are not involved in the decision-making process - that is the issue.

If authors or artists decide to make their work available, that should be their choice - not someone else's.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Well there are those of us who would rather own a hard paper copy of a book so downloading one is not something I would choose to do mainly for the fact I invariably take my books into the bathroom to read while I soak.Not going to do that with an electronic reader and I prefer the smell of an old book to one of heated plastic.

As to music well some classic albums of the past were about the artwork that accompanied the vinyl,tape,CD. Frankly the fun has gone out of collecting a music library because of the simpler cheaper graphics and most will download not caring about such things ..Maybe a legit copy of the music with some good artwork with a correct limited edition number might be one way to get people legally buying again.

However as I intend never to find myself in any court of law I dutifully buy all my music,software from reputed sites or shops thus making sure I won't face prosecution for copyright theft.I also do not share my music collection/software with anyone else online(and I learned a long time ago never to lend my hard copies of my music collection to ANYONE).

Yes I listen to music from certain sites before I decide whether to purchase but it's perfectly legal to listen provided I don't download it illegally.

Those who refuse to buy legally are thieves.They deny the artists their rightful earnings on the product and the less money arrives in the pockets of a struggling band preventing them from rightfully earning a wage for the job they do.Just because the end product is ephemeral and fleeting makes it no less theft even if the law doesn't view it as such.The fact that it is against a law still makes it an illegal act.

So only those who do actually break this law need worry..as long as you have the hard copies and receipts.

And all the above is just as applicable to films and photographs.

So I hope that the potential loss of privacy will be balanced by the prosecution levels of those caught committing this crime.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I buy my music. I buy my games and applications. I don't buy TV shows because of a number of reasons:

• Storage Space - While I can move content to an external HD the DRM makes this quite a hassle since I can't play it anywhere
• Cost - As a result of the above I often delete videos after I have watched them. I am not paying for something that I treat as disposible
• Not all shows are out here and the ones that are can often be subjects of delays from the States. As a fan of The Wire, I used to have to wait until the DVD release. Months after it finished broadcasting on HBO. Why wait that long?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I wait until a show is shown here legally.It's irritating yes but I'd rather be on the right side of the law.

Though I do understand the annoyance when certain channels arbitrarily stop showing a series midrun or won't air any following future series.Though invariably the series do get taken up by other channels.I was peeved mightily about House in that respect but thanks to Sky 1 and now Hallmark I can see him still.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I don't want to argue, but 'majority' as in who? The majority of what - people you know or talk to, or ..?
I (genuinely, not being awkward) ask because virtually EVERYONE I come into contact with - be it friends, relatives, neighbours, parents and people who bring their PCs, laptops and iPhones/Touch etc to be fixed/cleaned up ALL either have kids who download from P2P or do it themselves. None of them care about CD covers, lyric sheets or credits and much less a physical copy. All they want is that top ten album on their iPod for school/gym/the car or whatever. A relative used to get all the CDs he wanted off the 3 quid each, 2 for a fiver bloke at work, but now it's all free!!! He just asks his son and he's got it the same day. No-one needs 50mb broadband or even 10mb broadband. 2mb will do for a 60mb album in MP3 format.
And while I'm reasonably sure some of us do still enjoy picking up a vinyl album or single, and wait for the release day to pop into a shop and buy the CD, I'm also reasonably sure most of us know that in AnAverage Town in JoePublic Land the majority of kids' MP3 players are full of Rihanna's songs pulled from Limewire.
I recently had an iPod Touch in for repair that needed a restore. I asked them why didn't they do it themselves with the software they use for it. They said what, Bit Torrent?
:dozey:
in short, it's rife and has been for as long as I can remember.
If this all stops the the average user downloading at home, the bloke at work with the A4 lists downloading via NNTP & SSL will be happy again - until everyone works out how to do it.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

And they are all the reason why the music industry is in a mess...I'm looking forward to see all these avenues cut off one by one.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Thing is if these people were not downloading stuff would they actually bother to go and buy at current retail prices. This is my main bone of contention that downloading causes the huge losses claimed. When the reality would be not so many extra sales.

Why has there been an upsurge in cinema numbers? Perhaps significantly reducing the downloading would also reduce cinema numbers as people would have to choose between the cinema or a DVD.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

That's as may be, Maggy. Truth be told, people don't see the taking of a few albums from the majors as a big deal. They just don't see the big picture.
Widespread education campaigns (instead of patronising knock off Nigel ads) look good on paper, but it's never going to work. You can't make people pay for something they know they can get for less, or free. It's a nice ideal, but never going to happen. Something must be done to attempt to stem it to appease those losing out however - so here it is.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I agree with the sentiment there, a real book does feel better,

I feel the publicity about the sony rootkits on their music CDs and the high cost of an album during it's distribution life is also a contributory factor. If the CDs were more affordable more people would buy them.

Small point about that statement, and it's something that is definitely misrepresented online. you CAN NOT STEAL A COPYRIGHT, you can INFRINGE it, ie obtain or distribute without permission, but theft of a copyright is pretty much impossible. If you have copyright on a document and I photocopy it, I have infringed your copyright but I have not stolen it as you still retain your copy.


It is unenforceable. The more they try to legislate the more people will work out how to circumvent the checks. encryption, multipart multitiered encrypted rar files with padding files to hide MD5s, the encryption would stuff SPI, there are ways round every type of tracking. What the music and film industry needs to do is turn their thinking upside down. At this moment they are thinking 'what can we do to stop this' instead of 'what can we do to embrace this new chance at reaching a wider audience' and 'why do people copy our works, what can we do to encourage sales without making ourselves look like bad guys'

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

It certainly isn't "unenforcable".

However, whilst it will not put an end to online theft in its entirety, many people will be made to account for their actions.

Just like giving books away for free increases awareness so will the prosecution of those who steal increase the awareness of others as to the penalties for doing so.

That is the reality of the situation.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

For every method of tracking a countermeasure will be created, this has happened since the internet became available to the masses. It's an endless game of tag the industry has used to justify increasing prices. "We must increase price to combat losses due to piracy" "We have spend millions on DRM, we need to make it back"
DVDs were protected against copying by CSS - broken
DVD Region codes - broken
DVD RCE checking region more than once - broken
Blu ray protection - broken
Rootkit enabled CDs - broken
It's an endless game of tag used by the industry to try to retain the old methods of making money from movies. Baen looked at it from the perspective of "How do we use this to our advantage" with their epublishing business, and turned the standard market model on it's head. And made it a success.

Yes the baen model is about books and epublishing. That's because baen were the first to take the chance. To my knowledge no-one in the music or movie industry has attempted to take the same step with their industry. If they did I am sure the same surprises would be there.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I'm not disputing that it's a game of cat and mouse.

What I am saying in relation to this legislation is that it is enforcable, people will be prosecuted, public awareness of the illegality of their activities will be heightened and that, in itself, is a good thing.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

My feelings are there is about to be an increase in the amount of companies offering Secure connections, Vpns and such.

for instance

http://blacklogic.com/

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Why would they need DPI kit for this? I have read through the PDF file, and it appears that the evidence has to be supplied by the Rights Holder, there is no internal evidence gathering, for example.....


That does not seem to imply that ISP's must install DPI kit, it says that the evidence must be supplied by the Rights owner.

So, I am still trying to work out how this will benefit the ISP financially.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I am talking about the Detica kit presently being installed in VM's net work for monitoring p2p. That could quite easily be used for other purposes that will make money.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I have no doubt of that.

However, ultimately this will make no difference - there are already appropriate laws in place to get access to user data and usage should Government deem it appropriate to do so.

There will come a time - in the not too distant future - when people will simply have to accept and realize that Governments, their legal systems and corporate interests are not going to allow their creative industries / GDPs to continue to be decimated just because people think it is ok to steal.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Then with respect that may be off topic and already discussed in another thread, I sense some hijacking going on here. This is about how Ofcom and service providers are now required by law to deal with Copyright piracy, none of the methodology mentioned in the extensive report from Ofcom suggests ISP's have to install expensive, intrusive and complicated monitoring kit on their network.

I'd even suggest that this requirement could lift the burden away from ISP's in not having to install such kit - by placing the burden on the Rights holders to supply the evidence themselves, but I am still at a loss to see how an ISP can benefit from this law financially.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

So for instance :)

if a user is logged into a newsgroup provider who's servers are in the usa and that person is using a vpn from his location in the uk to a vpn provider in the usa and then on to the newsgroup server, who would have to supply the information, the only site in my eye's that will have the information on what has been downloaded would be the newsgroup provider in the usa as all the data would be encrypted via the vpn ??

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

I agree the equipment is off topic but i think that the ISP's will decide its the only way forward, VM i feel has realised this already and its why they have decided to take that route. The impact that this will have on the isp's will be large to say the least. All the requests for information on who had a ip will grow and grow as the rights owners realise they have a new revenue stream to tap into.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Yes, and there are international agreements to facilitate the transfer and exchange of such data - take for example the provider blacklogic whom you referenced earlier.

From their own T&C's:

You agree not to use our services for receiving and the distribution of pirated copyright materials, such as, but not limited to Pirated DVDs (such as movies), Pirated CDs (such as music), Pirated Softwares. This includes, but not limited to the following: The trading, selling, bartering, sharing, transmitting or receiving, of such materials.

And further

If we have reasonable grounds to suspect that an end user is involved in criminal activities, we reserve the right to notify law enforcement agencies.

These people are not fools - they are business operators who will take your money whilst protecting their own interests - anyone handing over money in exchange for these services who thinks that they are "safe" from prosecution is not well.

To assume that the entertainment and creative industries have not already infiltrated and road tested all of these services with a view to litigation in respect of the facilitation of infringement (especially on foot of the Limewire ruling) would be very, very naive.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

thanks for the explanation.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

And the point I was making is being missed. The ebook scenario could easily be applied to the music / movie industry. embrace the digital revolution, make e-distributions of some material free, ditch the DRM and the related expense of developing and using DRM. price the material accordingly to the reduced costs of production, stop being quite so greedy when it comes to per unit pricing. Think of it this way, if you make 2 pounds each on the sales of 5 DVDs you are making more money then 4 pounds each on the sale of 2 DVDs.

Legislation won't stop people waiting and using a library or DVD rental to avoid purchasing an expensive DVD, and those methods are legal. Has the music / movie industry complained about those methods of distribution yet?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

They are probably aware of the issue, but obviously feel that online piracy is a greater risk to their revenue stream, and therefore requires urgent attention.

You also need to understand that it is a little more complicated to lift DRM material off its original source. I would imagine that the P2P network is awash with DRM free material, and therefore a much easier medium for piracy.

I'd suggest that anyone who has any interest in this should read the whole Ofcom report, it makes for very interesting reading.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

To be honest most of my stuff i stream these days. I use certain sites for streaming tv and movies and spotify for my music.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

DRM is not present in the original source, it is included at the duplication / distribution stage. After all, the studios want to make multiple copies to send to the duplicators, the duplicators also want to be able to make multiple copies. to simply not include the DRM would be the easiest step possible and remove a stage of the duplication process.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Hand out the stuff DRM free it just speeds its' progress onto the P2P networks and newsgroups.

You can't compare Baen's works with music, movies, games or even more mainstream publishing, you can hardly say the following about J K Rowling:

You think people will pay for an album or movie after getting the finished product for free?

The 'costs of production' in terms of physical media are a fraction of the cost of music and movies, the majority of the costs are those involved in producing the content itself and, yes, marketing it.

Much as I wish I shared your faith in humanity I very simply don't. I see very little benefit in offering full, finished products to people for free, I know I would struggle to justify paying for something I already own.

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

Remember how optical media is made. It's not with a great big bank of DVDRW drives.

DRM is an automated process, the content is delivered already encoded to the media producers to be 'pressed' onto optical media. There's next to zero overhead there in most cases.

Even PC games, the 'cutting edge' of DRM are usually protected automatically, the publisher sends the unprotected files to a 3rd party who return the files protected and ready to be pressed. Alternatively there's some integration on the part of the programmers, but hey it's what they are paid to do.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

It takes on average 90 minutes to turn a DVD with DRM into DRM Free Xvid/Divx/MKV files, less to turn it into a DVD Image burnable by 99% of all software. The same process will remove any 'ads' such as the 'Piracy is theft' garbage.

So, tell me again how much of a speed increase not putting DRM onto the media would cause? The encryption identification and removal stage of the above takes less than 10 seconds.

---------- Post added at 19:10 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

you save the money involved in applying DRM. You stop the current EA debacle where to play games such as C&C4 you MUST have an internet connection even to play an offline skirmish game. Even if you bought the game in a retail store.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Your point is not being missed - at least not by the various media industries. There are multitudes of avenues for free music similar to the ebook model. Many, if not all, major labels and distributors have abandoned DRM since 2007 lead by Apple. That said it has not, to any great degree, made much difference.

It has been highlighted many, many times that the costs of music (cd and download) and movies (specifically dvd) have both decreased very considerably over the past few years yet there are no signs, whatsoever, of your "surprises" to be had from doing so as piracy is as rampant as ever.

Most labels have also subscribed to free streaming services such as Spotify but even the free delivery of streams does not stop or dilute piracy and furthermore the figures to date show that the adoption of these models result in a vastly inferior return for artists over traditional models (even with piracy factored in).

You can keep driving the so called merits of Baen but it is a niche provider whose contributors voluntarily elect to give their works away "for free" (it's not actually free as Baen have already furnished them with a publishing advance).

No, because as you have pointed out those services are legal. You do yourself a terrible disservice by asking such silly questions, really.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Not really, both methods could also be construed as lost sales...

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I'm not sure that DPI kit is the only way forward.

Based on the report, as I understand it, the ISP will need to keep records of those who have been accused of infringements, based on reports sent to them by the rights owner. Said Rights owners must provide a lot of information including the following:

That implies work on behalf of the Rights owners, and further on in the Ofcom report it also deals with the issues of quality control and audit of the data.

We can assume then that all an ISP has to do is create the appropriate DB's to store the CIR's, this certainly would not require DPI kit. But I'm still seeing a lot of costs here.

The DPI kit VM touted was to help them enable their music service, which to date has not taken off. Given the Digital Economy Bill, and this latest Ofcom proposal, it may not be required any longer.

You could argue though that DPI kit would have to be deployed as a solution to restrict infringer's from using certain network protocols outside of a suspension or termination of service, however such kit wouldn't require the layer of network interrogation in order to prevent inbound/outbound traffic of P2P traffic on a per user level.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

OK, so now at least you are acknowledging that illegal downloads might well constitute lost sales.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

do you also concede that illegal downloading might well increase product awareness and encourage sales from people who may not have been interested in paying money to see a film based on the trailer itself?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

It's a tough call I have to admit.

The optimist in me would like to think that there may be some merit in that synopsis but the realist / cynic in me tells me that people who can get stuff for free will, for the greater part through human nature, prioritize other essentials before purchasing the media legally once they've seen / heard acquired it illegally.

That's not to say that their behaviour is entirely cost related but rather that the popular perception on their part is that everything should be available for free on a try before you buy basis.

I'm sure there is a common ground approach to this somewhere on the horizon but I'm afraid many people, on both sides of the argument, are going to suffer some very considerable financial pain in the very near future / interim.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Fully agree.

I know plenty of people who after all reasonable living expenses being paid, will still not pay for something if they don't have too.

What makes my blood boil is that at least two of those people are in the service industry, where their salaries are determined by sales.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Can I as a subscriber challenge the media companies for harrasment if I start getting letters?

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Here is my view.

I am sensible enough to know a certian section of the population will never buy media, the only legal media they own would be whats given to them as presents, for the media companies they are a lost cause and they should be ignored.
There is a section of the population who would buy but dont currently if the media companies adapted to the global market and internet. I dont feel they would buy tho via the bullying methods currently been implemented.
There is also a section of the population who buy anyway regardless of ease of piracy. Including people who download and still buy media.

My honest view is on a overall basis, that piracy should be considered as free advertising and publicity by the media companies. They should consider that to give out promotional media costs money in manufacturing and advertising, on torrents and the like all this cost is removed for them, the end user and the isp pays the cost instead. The facts speak for themselves, there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales, there is evidence that people who download on average buy more media than those who dont download. There is also evidence that much of the media been downloaded is not even available to buy.

I will use F1 as an example, looking at youtube, I notice that the clips been removed are the ones with english audio, in particular itv/bbc audio. As if bernie has a problem with us in the uk watching on youtube but not people in brazil. The content that gets removed is not available to buy. Its down to a power thing, the power to control the distribution, not down to lost sales. Of course they cant go to governments with that so instead they come up with trumped figures claiming they losing billions every year so the government panics and legislates.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

The studies that have indicated this are in no way scientific.

As far as there being no loss perhaps you'd care to tell Nintendo this?

Also http://www.edge-online.com/news/esa-...hest-in-europe

With a few seconds of Google, I'm sure I could find plenty more easily enough.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Absolutely.

I'm sure once you've made it clear to them that "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" they will see the error of their ways, issue you with an apology and simply go away.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I mean can I take legal action in the same ease they can against me with this legislation.

There seems to be no protection for people been wrongfully harrassed eg. when ip's get spoofed.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

I cant find any independent reports backed with facts sorry.

even the one you linked to was very poor.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Yes, of course you can.

It is, however, always worth remembering that in the real world - in the event that someone, based on evidence, decides to sue you - denying that you are a habitual infringer is somewhat more expensive than posting on a forum and any such denials, in order to be plausible, will require more than just a statement along the lines of "It wasn't me" or "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales".

See above.

There is nothing new here as far as culpable responsibility is concerned.

Every ISP that I'm aware of makes (and has always made) it expressly clear that account holders are responsible for what goes on with their account (wireless or not). The fact that people might now actually be brought to account for allowing their service to be used for breaking the law seems to be an issue for some.

If someone needs to have this pointed out to them three times (in addition to existing T&Cs) then they only have themselves to blame.

Whilst I'm not sure what you might consider to be "independent" or, for that matter what you might consider to be "facts", I am sure that if you were ever to find yourself in the unfortunate position that you were sued and you used the "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" defence you would go down in history as a comedic genius.

I'm also sure that in the eyes of the law ignorance is no defence.

You're an adult - I'm quite sure you are capable of finding links / facts to substantiate the fact that internet piracy reduces sales. If it didn't why would you bother referring to it as "piracy".

Also, it's rather interesting that in your earlier post you said "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" whilst simultaneously offering your "view" on how the big bad media companies might go about reducing something that, by your assertion, even they can't prove.

As I said, comedic genius.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

so someone is responsible for when they get accused of something they did not do on their account?

I am not talking about unsecured wireless etc. I am talking about if the accuser gets it wrong.

I have read the ofcom document and you are wrong in regards to counter prosecution, ofcom have not added a mechanism where the accused can do a complaint and get the media company fined for harrasment.

In addition ofcom have made an assumption the isp will appear in court alongside the media company, the owner of aaisp has already made clear he will not honour this.

If I was to unsecure my wireless and announce it I would then become a service provider and not be accountable under this legislation.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

You would then be breaking VM's T&Cs -

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

As foreverwar has pointed out - you have no idea, whatsoever, of what you are talking about.

I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong. OFCOM are not the "Be all and end all" of legal avenues - that falls to solicitors. All you would need to do, in the event you are threatened with being sued but are absolutely adamant that you are innocent, is to find a solicitor who is prepared to represent you.

Good luck with that if your defence is still going to be your comedy classic "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" .

What a big brave ISP they are. You obviously haven't read their AUP. AAisp does not need to appear in court because, get this, they will have already done their bit by providing the rights holders with the details of infringers in the event that they request same or get a court order to do so - that's how the people will end up in court.

Good luck with that too. Do come back and let us know how you get on with it. Don't forget to tell your ISP that you're illegally subletting bandwidth.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

As long as OFCOM does nothing about overseas text scams ripping off children (and therefore their parents) I will have no sympathy for them.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

mr angry.

I think you are just so blind its not worth discussing this with you.

You think I dont know what I am talking about when I point out there is and will be letters going out to people who's connection hasnt touched pirated content?

If you think the detection is 100% reliable you are the one who is misinformed.

My point is as well on the counter is why do I need a solicitor to take action against the media companies but they need to only have 3 letters sent to get me cutoff?

But I will stop caring about this anyway.

They cannot police this no matter how they try barring the uk internet going into lockdown with every port been blocked. The media companies (and now the parliament) is just too out of touch to realise whats going on. Its nothing more than a few corporates moaning about the fact they cant adapt to a new market and their profits are not as high as they like (they not losing money).
In america they even trying to get tv companies to block analogue recording now.
Whenever someone from the copyright holders gets interviewed they also get very agressive when questioned about copyright.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion - even if it is based in fantasy.

Did I say that or did you imagine that I said it?

I think you'll find back here on planet tangible reality nowhere have I said that I think the detection will be 100% reliable. Your paranoid imagination is running away with you.

I thought you said earlier that you had read and understood the document?

Yes, please do. Your proposed defence in the event that they litigate is <irony>rock solid</irony> and you have nothing to worry about.

If they cannot police it then why (in the name of sanity) are you so intent on emphasising the apparent injustice of them being able to sue you and cut you off?

Simply tell them "you cannot police this, there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales". Remember to click your heels three times and it will all go away - just like a bad dream.

Yes, of course. That's right. They'd do well to come to this thread in order that they might see the error of their ways and bask in your wisdom on the subject.

Here is the news.

Outside of your tiny, selfish little world where you battle with the demons in your head to convince yourself that illegal downloading is a victimless crime there are thousands of people (to take but one grouping) previously in point of sale retail jobs - not "The media companies" but sales persons, van drivers, delivery men and women who have lost their jobs because people like you have no concept, whatsoever, of reality or social / socioeconomic responsibility.

You prefer to post childish, inane, ill founded, selfish self centred "opinions" which, when clearly refuted, you can't even be bothered to defend or expand on without making yourself look entirely socially inept as far as rational debate is concerned.

See above.

Your world must be really falling apart now.

I wonder why?

Is it perhaps due to the fact that they, like me, find the idea that people peddling the notion "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" should be allowed out on the streets unsupervised somewhat worrying?

As you suggested, I think it's best if you move along.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

VM need to get the last of the cloned modems off the network. Other wise there will be some poor buggers getting letters for someone else using a clone of there modem.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

You are absolutely right Sirius - you and I have discussed this previously.

Culpable responsibility is key to this whole issue. VM cannot now, willy nilly, continue to expose innocent customers to the very real threat of litigation.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Fully agree

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Almost three years ago in fact.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

If VM correctly implement the Ofcom proposal, there may be cases where the IP address cannot be matched accurately to a single user, such as in the case of a cloned modem. But I think that is a whole other issue, and other threads and hints from VM staff seem to suggest that VM are finally tackling clones.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I agree that they are being tackled, And the chance of being cloned has reduced greatly


However i hope VM have a process in place so that legitimate customers modems that have been cloned do not then have that same customer in front of the judge. None technical users will not know about the possibility that they might have been cloned as remote as it might be now. I wonder if that is why some users are so adamant that they have not used p2p software and yet they have had a letter for infringing and subsequently threatened with the sue hammer. ???

You say it is another issue however i think if ofcom and the rights owners are to go down this road of sue sue sue then there must be a definite policy in place to protect those that MIGHT have been cloned.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Interesting Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...s/10220002.stm

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Interesting article Damien, I picked up on a couple of paragraphs..

Independent artist, own label, so no cruel mega-corporation stealing all her money from her record sales. You'd expect all those honourable downloaders and uploaders who do what they do to punish big music while paying for masses of content they actually do like, more content apparently than those who don't download it, to really enjoy her critically acclaimed work and reward her appropriately for it, especially given it's available online without DRM.

Yet a search for her name and the word 'torrent'..

About 90,300 results (0.69 seconds)

121 results on a well known Usenet search engine. This from an artist whose records aren't really super recent, isn't 'mainstream' and should be exactly the sort of artist the sanctimonious leechers pontificate about deserving support when they 'stick it to the man' by downloading mainstream content.

EDIT: Lovely comment from the uploader of one of the torrents.

So she did everything right down to making her music available free to stream, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything to translate to sales. It did however translate to illicit downloads.

Thoughts?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

That I think it is time that they went after illegal downloaders of copyrighted media but that they use common sense about it.

I don't want to see fan base websites about art,music,films,comics,photography,books,blogs and such penalised,just those that make profit and hand out copyrighted material for free unless it is their own work.
I really thought that the harrassment of children who set up Hogworts sites were very unappealing and a few other sites along similar lines that fell foul of copyright issues..

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Agree - this is where they should target first and foremost. Instead it looks like Big Brother tactics to catch a pixel, which given the millions with access to the web is hardly looking at the bigger picture.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Therein lies the problem Angua. The big picture is "the millions with access to the web" and the levels of access and exposure to supposedly "free" material which they can avail of just because somebody, somewhere thinks they are doing an artist a "favour" by making their material available for free without asking the artist if they'd like them to do that "favour".

Maggy, "websites about art,music,films,comics,photography,books,blogs and such" which give away copyright material where they have no right or express permission to do so are not "fans", they are part of the problem whether they do it for profit / personal gain or not.

Fans buy things to support the creative endeavours of those artists they support. This is exactly what Imogen is saying. Effectively her fans are being denied access to her because the illegal free distribution of her recorded material has had an adverse impact on finances which she ordinarily might use to afford them access by way of touring etc.

It is a vicious circle but the bottom line is that if someone is going to promote an artist as a fan in the true sense then they should seek their permission to do so rather than elect to share material at their own volition.

Most artists I know would gladly interact with their fans on that basis and would be only too willing to engage them in the promotion / distribution of select materials.

We cannot, however, have a "fan" exemption when it come to infringement.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Or they could embrace the e-system. You reminded me of something.

Nine Inch Nails - Ghosts I-IV and Slip - both released under the creative commons license. DRM Free downloads available free of charge for both albums. Paid versions also available. I bought the Ghosts I-IV mid-level version, DRM free download with boxed CD set when it came out with additional extras.

As for Slip - Well, given that the Billboard 100 is like the UK Charts, and records the SALE of music. Slip made number 18.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

And the point of a Creative Commons licence is that these licenses allow creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of recipients or other creators - the creators' choice, not someone else's.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Still a case of DRM free distribution encouraging people to spread it around and a sales total putting it into multiple charts worldwide.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

The Slip made its Billboard debut at No.13. That said, and as foreverwar has pointed out, the rights assignments under creative commons were determined by the artist, not the public.

It's worthy of note that even dear old Trent had to rely on conventional distribution through RED for the physical product - so he went some way to proving that part of the business model isn't as flawed as the freetards would have us believe.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I think you misread me.I'm suggesting that websites devoted to an artist or whatever subject that DO NOT GIVE OUT COPYRIGHTED products not belonging to them shouldn't necessarily be chased for the occasional use of promotional material.As for seeking approval to do so when did that become a requirement?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

No-one said that the distribution process was flawed, only that the concept of free distribution of non-physical media as destroying physical sales was flawed.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

You miss the point.

Conventional wisdom, indeed even your own post free download activities in relation to these releases, says otherwise.

Reznor elected to release the digital format under creative commons five months in advance of the (vastly overpriced) "limited editions" of the physical format (dependant on the old distribution model).

Week one of his physical release of The Slip saw a Billboard debut resulting from only 29,000 sales out of 250,000 pressings. Compare that to the published independant sales figures of physical NIN sales of releases (week one) prior to that endeavour and it is clear that the free distribution of non-physical media impacts adversely on end sales of physical media - hence the requirement on Reznors part for overly inflated point of sale product post release.

Common sense dictates that if you have an opportunity to listen to something illegally for free and, on that premise, decide that you don't like it and would not spend money to buy the physical product then that is a lost sale in what is ordinarily a speculatitve market whereby a legitimate listening / evaluation would involve a purchase.

---------- Post added at 01:30 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

"occasional use of promotional material" where such use is unlicensed or carried out without the permission of the originating artist (or copyright holder), whether for the purposes of promotion or not, is illegal.

There is no such thing as well intentioned infringement as far as copyright is concerned.

Seeking approval for the reproduction or use of (in part or otherwise) copyrighted artistic works has always been a matter of course.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Bear in mind also though that The Slip was released without any prior promotion. That in itself would affect sales adversely.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

In addition such fan sites are giving FREE promotion to their band, actor, film, book or whatever. They do not ask for any money toward running the site and the numbers they reach are probably minuscule in the grand scheme of things.

It is the out of proportion power given to a few big companies (these are the only ones who have the spare cash to go chasing the minnows) that I find so bizarre. If they went after people who are making money out of their product first and foremost I would have a lot more sympathy for them.

This appears no different to changing the rules for all benefit claimants to target the career scroungers. Which will only catch the innocent who are in genuine need.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

This is not necessarily true in certain regards. It is true to say that there were no bill posters, magazine advertisements or what might be considered conventional placements in advance of the album release there was, however, one of the biggest pre-release pushes to radio in modern history for an independant (by then definition rather than career history) artist for the single "Discipline".

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Nobody has an issue with this - providing they have the permission / blessing of the artist(s) / copyright holders to do so. If they are using material(s) already legitimately and legally in the public domain then there is no issue whatsoever.

These companies also invest out of proportion money to help promote and produce artists which they are legally entitled to recover. A cursory browse of Google will show that they are going after those who make money first and foremost. If that were not the case then there would be literally millions of cases clogging up the UK legal system. Nobody is asking for your or anyone elses sympathy, they are asking that people obey the law.

You analogy is interesting in that you'd think people would learn.

The issue is that the freeloaders in the guise of career scroungers place an unweildy burden on resources which would otherwise be spent on the needy / deserving (or in this analogy new music).

If people turn a blind eye to it then it will become the norm (as has been the case with the benefit system). You've seen / identified what happens in such a situation - it is unsustainable.

It is the "career scroungers" and freetards who have necessitated these rule changes which may affect the innocent - it is they who you have to thank rather than Government and business, that is a fact.

I think we should all, myself included, try to stay on topic rather than wandering off.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

had a read, so shes selling out but just has bad business sense.

her costs been higher than her turnover.

so she could probably increase prices.
cut down her costs.
sell online tickets, (people watch over stream)
look at bigger venues which may be more cost effective for larger audiences.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Nowhere does she say she is selling out venues. In fact quite the opposite - from the original (much more indepth and factual article) which appeared in the Guardian.

"Heap's tour page - showing the gruelling schedule she's going through - suggests she's not managing many sellouts; tickets appear available for lots of the venues."

It's her good business sense which is telling her that touring is not cost effective in its current guise.

Through no fault of hers but of the venue owners (Live Nation / Ticketmaster)

Hardly likely - you must have missed this bit "Some fans have been unable or unwilling to pay $40 (£27) a ticket for her current tour, and she blames venue owners, ticket agencies and promoters for bumping up the fees."

See above, she is "tied in" she cannot, willy nilly, offer streaming as an option when it can be "ripped" and not monetized.

Not if you put your ticket prices beyond the reach of the average fan as per your suggestion above.