Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan

[Tarantella]

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tarantella

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.

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.

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.

[Mr Angry]

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.

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

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.

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.

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.

Agreed, 100%.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

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.

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.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

... 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.

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.

[Bricktop]

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

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Mick,

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

There is no need to advocate the illegality of downloading copyrighted media to me as I have never defended it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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