OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

mr angry.

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

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

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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?

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

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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?

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

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

But I will stop caring about this anyway.

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

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

They cannot police this no matter how they try barring the uk internet going into lockdown with every port been blocked.

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The media companies (and now the parliament) is just too out of touch to realise whats going on.

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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).

See above.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

In america they even trying to get tv companies to block analogue recording now.

Your world must be really falling apart now.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Whenever someone from the copyright holders gets interviewed they also get very agressive when questioned about copyright.

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.

[Sirius]

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

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.

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.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Fully agree

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Fully agree

Almost three years ago in fact.

[Toto]

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.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

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. ???

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

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.

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

[Ignitionnet]

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

Heap remortgaged her flat to set up her own record label and release her second album, Speak for Yourself, in 2005. The follow-up, Ellipse, reached number five in the US chart last year.

During our conversation, she is keen to look on the bright side and not appear to moan. But she does point to several factors that have made life tough as a working musician.

First, the slide in record sales in recent years has left a noticeable dent in her bank balance.

"Even though the popularity and the fanbase is much much greater, and more people have heard about me through things like the Grammys and the Ivors and touring and word of mouth, it doesn't reflect in he sales of the record and doesn't go into my pocket."

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.

This is the full album. She leaked it herself inadvertantly when she posted the album in a streaming format, but didn't realize you can just right click and download each track if you have Real Player haha

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?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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?

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..

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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..

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Angua

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 webis hardly looking at the bigger picture.

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.

[Lord Nikon]

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.

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.

[Lord Nikon]

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