Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Hmm. Evidently they took some fairly abysmal deals which is their own fault totally. It's all there in black and white, if they aren't selling enough to get by via the terms of the contract they signed that's their problem.

It seems this thread has gone back to the old defence that record companies are brutal subjugators of the artists so why not just download the stuff for free.

Be interested in the source of that image that was posted.

It is of course total nonsense - the less profit that record companies make the less willing they are to take a chance on more risky acts and the more likely they'll be to stick to reality TV output that is pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit. We see that effect every week in the album and singles charts.

Of course that doesn't fit in with the freetard agenda behind that image, does it?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Given the fact that the industry standard for a manager is 20% of artist income it is quite evident that the pie chart image is distorted to suit a particular agenda.

On the matter of artists having to sell pirated copies of their own media to get by it comes as no surprise - given the fact that "pirates" have decimated the worth of legitimate releases.

I think you've rater tidily answered your own (badly formulated) counter argument.

guys

The picture was a bit of fun hence the

Mr A knows i don't download music, I download TV eps watch them then delete them. Mainly Hd content that i cannot get on VM

[Angua]

The only new music I acquire is purchased at live gigs of the band or bought from our local independent retailer of known artists. Don't download music and hear very little new or interesting music on mainstream radio. Hate the reality idle way of finding fly by night talent and am saddened by the masses who go along with this and fuel the lifestyle of those who leech off the talent of others.

As for the cost of single tracks being 50p, I can remember buying a whole album for 50p

This government has legislated us to death, with more custodial crimes on the statue books than ever before. Why in all honesty should we be at all surprised by yet another ill thought out piece of legislation which could easily catch the innocent & therefore end up failing to do what it was meant to.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

guys

The picture was a bit of fun hence the

Sirius, No problem mate, it's just that there are some out there that would take the diagram as fact.

[Chrysalis]

The pie chart is distorted on an overall perspective true, artists often get better deals 2nd time round when they have had success and the gamble is less for the record company. But the image is not far off the truth for the lesser known artists who dont have past success.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The pie chart is distorted on an overall perspective true, artists often get better deals 2nd time round when they have had success and the gamble is less for the record company. But the image is not far off the truth for the lesser known artists who dont have past success.

You kinda killed your own point off when you used 'gamble'. If the record company is gambling their money why can't they get some reward on it? It would be interesting to see a similar chart showing how much the record companies invest in the acts and how many acts they actually see a profit on.

I would speculate the chart to be a long way off the truth unless you are seriously suggesting that agents and managers, whose payment is on a commission basis, are between them managing to eat 90%+ of a group's money.

Any group paying their manager and agent that much have some serious issues.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

As for the cost of single tracks being 50p, I can remember buying a whole album for 50p

Teehee.

Adjust that price for inflation or perhaps more accurately the consumer price index, compare it to equivalent albums now, and get back to me

I can pick up an album for not that much more than 50p from the bargain bin, doesn't really prove much.

As a general hint taking inflation, etc, into account a shiny new release album would cost a fair bit more than 15 quid now.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

....artists often get better deals 2nd time round when they have had success and the gamble is less for the record company. But the image is not far off the truth for the lesser known artists who dont have past success.

Who are these "2nd time around" artists of which you speak? Not a single artist I know that failed to recoup on their initial advance terms and has been subsequently dropped has gotten "better deals" second time around. Since the advent of the internet and digital file distribution the concept of "less" of a gamble in relation to anything committed to recording for any record company is a nonsense.

"Lesser known artists who don't have past success" such as who? Which artists do you know who are in a deal are represented by an already acknowledged as fictional and distorted (by your own admission) pie chart?

It's somewhat Ironic that you share your username with what was once one of the iconic UK labels.

[popper]

after all is said and done ,what has all this got to do with the thread subject matter ?

a simple question ,are people here looking to profit from this as yet unpassed statute ?

not that i care, im just posting the question to get rid of the Really annoying "you have not posted on our forums in several weeks..." message.

BTW i did sit through All the DEB video as it happened in the HoL ,(did You do the same?) and have seen these so called many ammendments debated , i also watched as each and virtually every single one got tabled, talked about, then systematicly Withdrawn , only a Very small amount of ammendments have got through and of these that Did, most were pure legal language corrections...
and even these were it seems, done without taking the well known EU directives into account.

its clear very little if anything that was wrong with the original bill or its concept as put forward has been put right to date, but no one seems to care as long as it opens up new profit avenues for tax paying companies to exploit.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by popper

...but no one seems to care as long as it opens up new profit avenues for tax paying companies to exploit.

As I said earlier "All too often it has been proven that business (especially at national and international levels) supersedes the rights and entitlements of individual citizens".

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You kinda killed your own point off when you used 'gamble'. If the record company is gambling their money why can't they get some reward on it? .

I didnt say anything wrong with it, rather that the artists are not the big losers as they made out to be.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

since noone has been able to tell me a clear answer on if people will be cutoff without legal process I will wait until I have looked into or someone gives the answer to give further judgement on this.

The law is already in place tho to protect these companies, the fact is if someone is caught distributing copyrighted material they can be fined and even sent to jail. Also in regards to if its illegal to download copyright material without redistributing it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I didnt say anything wrong with it, rather that the artists are not the big losers as they made out to be.

Really? Are you not the person who was talking earlier about artists having to get by through selling bootleg copies of their own media?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

since noone has been able to tell me a clear answer on if people will be cutoff without legal process I will wait until I have looked into or someone gives the answer to give further judgement on this.

The law is already in place tho to protect these companies, the fact is if someone is caught distributing copyrighted material they can be fined and even sent to jail. Also in regards to if its illegal to download copyright material without redistributing it.

Chrysalis, like many others you are trying to create a strawman argument. I notice from your speedtest result that you are a VM customer. If you check the T&Cs of VMs service to their customer base , in particular their AUP, you will find therein that it categorically states the conditions under which they may exercise their right to terminate the services provided to "you" where you breach any of the following:

3. Use of the Services

• 3.1. We reserve the right to investigate any suspected violation(s) of this AUP. When we become aware of possible violations, we may initiate an investigation, which may include gathering information from the User involved and the complaining party, if any, and examination of material on our servers, networks or any other equipment associated with the Services.
• 3.2. You must not use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users. You also must not allow anybody using your connection to use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users.

4. Use of Material

• 4.1. You are prohibited from storing, distributing, transmitting or causing to be published any Prohibited Material through your use of the Services. Examples of "Prohibited Material" shall be determined by us (acting in our sole discretion) and shall include (but are not limited to) material that:
• 4.1.1. is threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, defamatory, racist, obscene, indecent, offensive, abusive, harmful or malicious;
• 4.1.2. infringes or breaches any third party's intellectual property rights (which shall include, but not be limited to copyright, trade mark, design rights, trade secrets, patents, moral rights, paternity rights and performance rights) - this includes the use, distribution and/or copying of any material without the express consent of the owner;

You (or whomsoever pays the bill), and several million other VM broadband customers, have agreed to be bound by this particular clause of the contract which exists between VM and their paying / subscribing customer base - it is nothing new. What is new is that the Government (by way of elements of the DEB) are forcing the ISPs to comply with their own terms and conditions / AUPs.

Rights holders will police the illegal downloading and the annonymised aggregate data will be provided to ISPs to issue educational warnings up to a limit where persistence on the part of the offending party will necessitate a suspension / termination.

The pro "piracy" lobbyists have cited this as a new development, again, it's not. Take for example "Talk Talk" who threw their toys out of the pram at the time that the Government strategy to force them to enforce this obligation became glaringly clear to them. I suspect they tried to kick up such a furore simply because they cannot afford to implement and enforce their own AUP without haemmorraghing many thousands of customers.

So, as I have evidenced above - there was never really a legal or judicial requirement to be met for the processing of an account suspension or termination on the part of VM (for example) once effective and reliable data / intelligence could be established.

Where the legal / judicial requirement lay was in the identification of the offender to the rights holder (a third party) by the ISP. This, it appears from the most recent draft of the bill, is no longer an issue as the ISPs are being forced to take a more pro-active position in enforcing their own AUPs.

Why else do you think VM are so keen to work with Mr Clarke & his friends at Detica?

In addition, and direct reference to this, the Consultation clearly lays out the initial two obligations and an optional (where necessary) third under the DEB - read Introduction & scope, points 2.1 - 2.4

Now, about that list of "2nd time around artists" and the "Lesser known artists who don't have past success" where were we with that?

[Cobbydaler]

Not saying it's right or wrong, but what's your take on Courtney Love's speech Mr. A?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Not saying it's right or wrong, but what's your take on Courtney Love's speech Mr. A?

It's actually another one of Courtney's not very well researched rants.

Bearing in mind it dates from 2000 when she thought that Napster et al were not "piracy" it shows just how ill informed she was on the subject matter.

A more objective, and indeed factually based analysis if you can find it is Steve Albini's. Whilst parts thereof have been debunked it is, for the greater part, accurate in its analysis of the money tree from my knowledge and experience of it.

The bottom line is, irrespective of one's opinion of major labels & publishers (and it's interesting how Courtney's changed after the death of Kurt), it's the small guy (ultimately the artist) that gets hurt.

This pretence, for that is what it is, that "pirates" are "fighting the industry" is a nonsense. If they really wanted to "fight" the industry or "destroy it" as Christian Engstrom put it, then the best way for them to do that is to ignore the product / output all together - a total boycott where the industry cannot cite "piracy" as a prime cause of its losses.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Mr A knows i don't download music, I download TV eps watch them then delete them. Mainly Hd content that i cannot get on VM

It is quite ironic that you are forced to download content over a VM cable modem because they don't carry it in HD on their TV network. You'd have to subscribe to Sky to watch it without being able to download.

There's a loser somewhere along the chain in most things, in this instance, though no-one will feel sympathy and certainly not me, it is Sky as you'd either have a Sky HD subscription to watch their exclusive HD or you'd have to wait for DVD / BluRay. Virgin benefit to an extent as downloading plugs the gaps their substandard HD offerings leave behind to you.

The irony isn't lost on me at all

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This pretence, for that is what it is, that "pirates" are "fighting the industry" is a nonsense. If they really wanted to "fight" the industry or "destroy it" as Christian Engstrom put it, then the best way for them to do that is to ignore the product / output all together - a total boycott where the industry cannot cite "piracy" as a prime cause of its losses.

You have to love people complaining about the trash the industry is putting out and how the output is so low quality they refuse to pay for it, as they download it and get it for free. Obviously not that bad...

Would you agree with me that a total stop to piracy isn't the masterplan. Getting it to the kind of level it was at when Napster was not quite getting the attention of the industry, 2000, would be alright as at the moment it's just out of hand?

[Chrysalis]

Mr Angry you still havent answered my question.

As far as I am concerned someone finding my ip on a torrent tracker is NOT sufficient evidence.

So will isps be cutting off users based on that sort of information after the bill is passed?

Proper legal process which is fair is for the end user's computer to be examined for the content and after that evidence that they have distributed the material. Yes its a lot of work and yes life is a bitch, but everyone else outside of the industry also has to follow these kind of procedures for prosecutions.

So posting me an AUP which states if I break the law I can be cutoff is completely irrelevant.

Just so this is clarified I dont use torrents, and I dont download music. So this is not about myself its about having a proper legal process.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Mr Angry you still havent answered my question.

As far as I am concerned someone finding my ip on a torrent tracker is NOT sufficient evidence.

So will isps be cutting off users based on that sort of information after the bill is passed?

Proper legal process which is fair is for the end user's computer to be examined for the content and after that evidence that they have distributed the material. Yes its a lot of work and yes life is a bitch, but everyone else outside of the industry also has to follow these kind of procedures for prosecutions.

So posting me an AUP which states if I break the law I can be cutoff is completely irrelevant.

Just so this is clarified I dont use torrents, and I dont download music. So this is not about myself its about having a proper legal process.

Chrysalis, with all due respect, I have answered your question.

For the sake of clarity - as I posted above - third party involvement aside your ISP is entirely within their rights to monitor and suspend or terminate your services if they believe they have sufficient reason to do so as a result of your having breached any of the many and varied terms and conditions (several of which I have printed above in black for all to see) to which you have subscribed.

However much you might wish to think that you are entitled to a CSI type investigation headed up by Grissom and a full jury based trial before Judge Judy decides whether you should be cut off or not it simply is not going to happen - nor has it ever been a requirement.

"Pirates" have bought into and propagated this idea that things should be free and ISPs have been remiss in enforcing their own terms and conditions and protecting the intellectual copyrights of third parties - choosing instead to chant the tired old mantras that they are "only a conduit" or "not there to police the internet".

Those days are over, it is real world time and, whether you, personally, upload or download material illegally is of no personal interest to me in this particular argument.

The fact is that Virgin Media, and I suspect all other ISPs, have in their terms and conditions sufficiently robust caveats to enable them to suspend or terminate services where a user is found to be infringing on a third party's rights.

Indeed, having just done a check out of interest here are TalkTalk's:

Your Use of the Services
6.1 You agree not to use the Services:
6.1.1 for business purposes or to sell on or supply the Services to anyone on a commercial basis;
6.1.2 for making calls, sending data, publishing, knowingly receiving, uploading or downloading any data or material which are or may be reasonably deemed to be a nuisance, a hoax, abusive, obscene, racist, defamatory, menacing, indecent (including to the Customer Services operators who deal with enquiries concerning the Service), in breach of confidence, in breach of any intellectual property right (including copyright) or which is otherwise objectionable or unlawful, or you allow others to do these things.

7.1 We may suspend immediately the provision of the Services to you until further notice without compensation if:
7.1.1 we reasonably suspect that you are in breach of these Conditions;

Someone really ought to point this out to Mr Heaney and his "Don't disconnect us" campaign who state [superironicdoublestandardspeak]It is not for rightsholders to make decisions about whether someone is guilty or not of infringing copyright[/superironicdoublestandardspeak].

The fact is, as I pointed earlier, ISPs have always had this right / obligation but have previously refused to enforce it because it would cost them customer revenue. Because they have refused to act previously the problem has grown exponentially to the point that it is very seriously impacting on industries and GDPs across the world.

Neither the Government, nor the rights holders, are prepared to sit back any longer.

ISPs who, lets face it, make millions from selling / boasting of their download capabilities are being brought to book (kicking and screaming I might add) hence this consultation on shared costs.

In summary:

As evidenced above ISPs can cut you off if they (with or without third party ie. rights holder participation) find you to be , or in the case of TalkTalk merely "suspect" you of being, in breach of another persons copyright or intellectual rights as per their terms and conditions.

They do not need, nor have they ever needed, a court order nor a due judicial process to do so.

Indeed as evidenced in TalkTalk's T&Cs they, contrary to Mr Heaneys assertions, are prepared to cut subscribers off without proof of infringing activities citing their reasonable suspicion as sufficient grounds to do so.

As a party to any contract you have a legal right to appeal any such decision on the part of an ISP with whom you were party to the provision of such services in the event that you feel they have acted unlawfully or breached their obligations under said contract.

The Government are now using existing law in conjunction with the DEB to force ISPs to comply with the law and their own (the ISPs) terms and conditions and warranties to third parties.

It is quite simple and, as I sad, nothing new in real terms bar a "pulling up of the socks" being forced on the ISPs.

If you cannot understand that then I'm sorry.