NTL amongst supporters of Illegal P2P?

[themelon]

Its a bit strange really.........

p2p is not necessarily illegal

Pubs are not necessarily illegal

ntl can advertise on p2p as it alone is not necessarily breaking the law, the same as an ntl advert might for wahtever reason appear in a pub (leaftlet, tv, brochure, whatever)

ntl cant stop illegal activity on p2p in the same way they can not prevent the dodgy bloke in the pub selling knocked off car stereos and Lacoste aftershave.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

Downloading music isn't theft (much as the BPI, RIAA etc would have you believe it is), it's copyright infringement.

Stealing a CD from HMV though is Theft as you are taking a physical item.

Semantics..

If you download music and don't buy the CD, you are still denying the various people involved in the creation and manufacture of the album their money much the same as you would be if you stole the CD.

Regarding NTL supporting Illegal P2P, they probably aren't. I suspect they bought some advertising space from whoever provides advertising for eDonkey (or whatever network), and NTL have no idea of where their adverts are going.

Originally Posted by themelon

I dont actually use P2P for whatever illegal purposes but can sympathise with those who do.

As for stealing.........Fat executives are taking something (£10000 0 salaries) without working for it the artists do and only get £4 for every CD, so what goes around comes around.

As Ianauth says, there is a lot more expense to creating and distributing CDs than what goes to the executives. There are the studio fees (including production crew), advertising, manufacture, video making, session musicians, transport, warehousing, transport, wholesalers, retailers. All of these companies and people need to be paid.

They need to take a good hard look at the industry as a whole....and tackle the cause of problems.

True, and as I have stated earlier, I believe that piracy is not even the main problem for the record industry (although they are focusing on it). I believe that the main problem for the record industry is that most companies are following a similar formula for new bands: Audition for 5 members (any combination of guys and girls), commission a song for them. Create a video with a lot of computer graphics. Record an album with them, then finally send them out on tour.

Now, I have nothing against manufactured bands, as long as they are talented, and their music is good (for instance, one of my favourite bands, All Saints was created when the record company merged two groups - One with Melanie Blatt and Shaznay Lewis, and the other with the Appleton sisters), but there are too many now, and they all sound/look/act very similar to one another. I think it's causing people to get bored with music.

The other problem (mainly with the singles market) is that people are not going to buy one or two singles at £3.99 each when they can get both of those, and 38 others for £15.99 on a compilation.

I would actually say mp3 downloads actually boost the music industry more than damage it, I actually know people who have downloaded a few mp3s, enjoyed them and then gone out and brought the album, as at the end of the day you cant beat the real thing (CD Insert etc). It allows for a try before you buy, as opposed to buying a crap CD and being stuck with it.

Maybe they should look at reducing their prices, making it more competative, I have no doubt the majority would rather the real thing but they will not pay a premium to keep various fat executives in the latest armarni atire.

I think that mp3 downloads do help the companies. I used to use AudioGalaxy, and actually discovered several groups on there, whose music I would never have thought of buying, so in that way, the music industry has gained slightly from file sharing.

However, I do accept that there ARE people (and a lot of them) who don't give a fig about the quality of what they listen to, and just download stuff with no intention of purchasing a CD of it.

One thing I would like to see, however, is the likes of Apple, Napster, OD2 (provide music services for various people including Microsoft, Wanadoo & HMV) reducing prices.

While I can believe the prices paid are fair if you have a CD (with all it's associated costs), they should be reduced for downloaded tracks. Download companies don't have transport, warehousing and retail costs.

The same as everything really...........poorly managed making a CD say £5.99 would make sales go through the roof, piracy would become unsustainable and die but while they continue to rip people off piracy will always remain and be sucessful.

Not necessarily. At work, we operate a scheme where our students can download legitimate copies of Microsoft development software and operating systems for free as long as we (and Microsoft) log who downloads what.

We still have problems with students pirating their development software and OSes.

So, if students are happy to pirate something (and risk legal action from Microsoft) for something they get for free anyway...

[PC_Arcade]

Semantics..

If you download music and don't buy the CD, you are still denying the various people involved in the creation and manufacture of the album their money much the same as you would be if you stole the CD.

Rubbish, if I were to download an MP3 no body LOSES anything, although they don't gain anything either.
If I steal a CD then the retailer loses the cost of that CD and THAT is the difference, theft carries an associated loss, infringement doesn't (necesarily)

It has nothing to do with semantics.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

Rubbish, if I were to download an MP3 no body LOSES anything, although they don't gain anything either.
If I steal a CD then the retailer loses the cost of that CD and THAT is the difference, theft carries an associated loss, infringement doesn't (necesarily)

It has nothing to do with semantics.

Errr-so if you download that MP3 (as opposed to buying it)-where does the £3.99 (for example) come from that the retailer would have taken when you went into the shop & bought it?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

Rubbish, if I were to download an MP3 no body LOSES anything, although they don't gain anything either.
If I steal a CD then the retailer loses the cost of that CD and THAT is the difference, theft carries an associated loss, infringement doesn't (necesarily)

It has nothing to do with semantics.

You are arguing semantics.. If you download an mp3 and don't buy the CD, then while the retailer might not have lost the cost of the CD, he or she has lost a potentional sale. Also, the other costs I mentioned above still need to be paid, and while the loss of one potential sale will not affect anyone much (the record company still has to pay the studio time etc, but the cost of that in each single is probably less than £1), if 100 or 1000 people download a song and don't buy the CD that will affect everyone involved, and indirectly may cause a slight "loss" to the people who do buy the CD (they will have to pay increased prices). So, I believe that it is theft in much the same way as, say, tapping into somebody's phone to make calls and not paying for them.

Either way, whether it's theft or copyright infringement, it's still illegal. That's what I meant when I said you are arguing semantics.

[PC_Arcade]

That's where all the anti-piracy statistics are skewed, you assume that I would have bought it had I not downloaded it.
I would be very suprised if that was the case for every mp3 that is downloaded.

Besides this wasn't really about Piracy, or at least that wasn't what I intended when I posted the news initially. It was about NTL's alleged supporting of "illegal" downloads.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

That's where all the anti-piracy statistics are skewed, you assume that I would have bought it had I not downloaded it.
I would be very suprised if that was the case for every mp3 that is downloaded.

Besides this wasn't really about Piracy, or at least that wasn't what I intended when I posted the news initially. It was about NTL's alleged supporting of "illegal" downloads.

I can't see any "support" for illegal downloads from ntl-alledged or otherwise....

[Stuart]

Maybe you could argue they were doing it and got caught, but it sounds like they were geniuinely not aware it was happening.

Similarly telecommunications firm NTL blames its media buying agency which places adverts with third party networks featuring thousands of sites.

Since the matter was brought to its attention last month, the agency has strict instructions to make sure ads do not appear on such sites, a spokesman told the BBC News website.

Assuming their ad appears on thousands of sites, surely they cannot automatically know the content of each and every one? Still,it looks like they will stop it.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by scastle

You are arguing semantics.. If you download an mp3 and don't buy the CD, then while the retailer might not have lost the cost of the CD, he or she has lost a potentional sale. Also, the other costs I mentioned above still need to be paid, and while the loss of one potential sale will not affect anyone much (the record company still has to pay the studio time etc, but the cost of that in each single is probably less than £1), if 100 or 1000 people download a song and don't buy the CD that will affect everyone involved, and indirectly may cause a slight "loss" to the people who do buy the CD (they will have to pay increased prices). So, I believe that it is theft in much the same way as, say, tapping into somebody's phone to make calls and not paying for them.

Either way, whether it's theft or copyright infringement, it's still illegal. That's what I meant when I said you are arguing semantics.

You make a very good point you make there. It has been mentioned that people download music illegally because it is too dear but in doing so they are probably being responsible for the price being so high.

[ntluser]

The downloading of MP3s via P2P is just as illegal as a mate giving you a copy of a CD he/she has bought, for the simple reason that if you couldn't download it or get a copy from a friend you would have to pay a music retailer to obtain it.

The difficulty arises when music companies no longer produce a particular CD so that it is not commercially available. In those circumstances all the companies could claim is breach of copyright to which anyone accused can argue that they were quite prepared to pay but the CD was not commercially available.

This defence does not apply to people who week in week out download the latest songs, which could be purchased because they are commercially available either on the internet or in local high street stores.

[PC_Arcade]

Originally Posted by Neil

I can't see any "support" for illegal downloads from ntl-alledged or otherwise....

Can you not??

If you read the article Paul Myers, who is the Chief Exec of wippit alledges that

"(companies)" who now steadfastly support copyright theft with real cash money include Nat West, Vodafone, O2, First Direct, NTL, and Renault," "

It's not something I've made up nor am I saying that the accusation is true.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

Can you not??

If you read the article Paul Myers, who is the Chief Exec of wippit alledges that

That's his opinion that they support it, because they advertise on a P2P site. They don't advertise on an illegal P2P site, just a P2P site-very diferent.

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

It's not something I've made up nor am I saying that the accusation is true.

But it's something I feel you have overreacted to, & taken out of context.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

Can you not??

If you read the article Paul Myers, who is the Chief Exec of wippit alledges that

It's not something I've made up nor am I saying that the accusation is true.

The companies concerned may be accused of giving support to illegal music downloads via P2P through the services they provide but it is the abuse of those service by users that causes the illegality.

If a person rents a car and then goes out and uses it to deliberately run people over, does the public blame the driver for his/her improper and illegal use of the car or the car rental company who loaned that person the car in the first place.

I think it's unreasonable to ask any company providing services to have such an intimate knowledge of their customers that they can identify with ease those who will abuse the service and those who will not.

It's up to users to opt not to illegally use services provided, because if they don't the law may either stop the service or target illegal users as they have done in America.

[PC_Arcade]

But it's something I feel you have overreacted to, & taken out of context.

Umm, ok. Like you have done with this topic IMHO.

This site used to be NThellworld, and yet it seems that if NTL are critiscised (even jokingly as in this thread) then the NTL brigade whip round and defend them to the hilt totally blindly.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

You make a very good point you make there. It has been mentioned that people download music illegally because it is too dear but in doing so they are probably being responsible for the price being so high.

Seems interesting the way record companies always try and spout this rubbish to the consumer.

I dont believe record companies are really losing anything from mp3 downloads, in fact in a way I belive they are gaining. Im not going to spend money on an Album unless I like it, supposing I download a few mp3s I like I and many others are likely to invest in the album...........pure and simple its better quality and you get the full package.

The only money they lose, is the money they waste on trying to stop mp3 downloads.

They will NEVER stop Piracy in whatever form it exists, the people who dont buy genuine records now, will never buy records in the future, whether they download from the web or buy from the dodgy bloke in the white transit wrecker.

All the record companies can do is make their product more attractive to the (in the main) law abiding mass market.........the obvious way to do this is make it cheaper, if this means the redundancies of a few fat cat directors who are jobsworths then good............maybe they will get a proper job!

If they succeed in their battle against the illegal mp3..........I hope it backfires on them and some big record companies go under..........maybe then they will wake up and smell the coffee its the 21st century.