http://razordox.darkbb.com/forum.htm

invitation code to join: mcpain

we share premium accounts everyday and scene releases as well

and one more thing we also provide high speed direct links to games and movies

you are so ridiculous I cant even respond. A store keeper paying for theft prevention and an ISP having to pay for this bullshit is two entirely different things. Only if your bosses can pay enough flack politicians enough to make them will this happen. And it wont. The networks should be neutral. You would have us be China.

to tempt me, needs to be stuff that is DRM free and can use on my mp3 player, that is not an apple :)

Please check the T&Cs of all the big UK ISPs and you will find that your service can be terminated for copyright infringement, and all sorts of other things.

However, the terms and condition say copyright infringement, not “suspected copyright infringement” – or “a notification from a rights holder who bought the evidence from some doggy outfit in Switzerland”.

The termination of service will not hold up in court on the basis of suspected copyright infringement.

The Virgin Music deal is likely to include a “bi-lateral” business deal to the effect that customers of the music service face technical measures on the basis of suspected copyright infringement – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8101050.stm . plus there is Detica…

Vivendi, which owns Universal, also owns a French ISP – Neuf Cegetel.

Both Sky, remember who owns them, and Virgin Media are media companies that happen to also be ISPs.

Well, with the trillions of dollars they got out of AllOfMp3 and so called “stealing” music “pirates”, they could span the globe with many layers of single-mode fiber glass cables. Oh, wait, those were just fantasy dollars that they couldn’t collect. ;-)

But on a more serious note: what do you think do a couple of transcontinental cables cost? What’s the cost of buying out and operating something like Level-3 or similar Tier-1 networks?

Compared to the loads of cash RIAA and MPAA affiliates make out of brainwashed relatively well-off young buyers, and from the revenues of their new business model (widespread carpet-bombing-style litigation), they could very well team up and buy a big network provider… or two, or three, and then it’s “bye-bye free Internet.” and “welcome back, 1:N cable-style distribution network.”

Granted, ISPs are small change, compared to backbone providers…

Everyone should form a global peer to peer network!

Secondly, the vitriol above seems to prove the point that no matter what the music industry offers, you guys wouldn’t except it – even a paltry £6.50 a month to listen to anything you wanted. That service would fail if it were in the format of playlouder, of course it would. So business sense dictates that it probably wouldn’t be in that form.

Once the creative industries (music, film, TV) do offer a service that, beyond any reasonable argument, is fair and acceptable by everyone but the most ardent P2P enthusiast, then the only option left to ensure that the wholesale ‘sharing’ is controlled, are these draconian measures. For a moment, put yourself in the shoes of anyone trying to make a living in these industries. Beyond all the paranoid conspiracy theories and ranting above, you’ll see that people are only trying to protect their interests. Politicians are not in the pockets of these industries. I for one am glad that something is finally being done to bring (a) the price point down to something that will encourage the legitimate enjoyment of music (we haven’t all got our heads stuck in the sand) and (b) make it easier to for legitimate services to triumph over the illegal ‘services’, and (c) bring an actual tangible punishment in to play if people continue to thoughtlessly pirate.

And using Talk Talk as reference in your report? Talk Talk are the most ridiculous, blatantly profit-motivated company I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. They care not one jot about ‘human rights’. All they care about is their subscriptions. Fair enough – they are a company, there to make money. But to disconnect someone because they are using their internet connection for illegal activities is an infringement of human rights, whereas to disconnect someone because they fall behind in their subscription is perfectly reasonable. I wish they would think their language through before throwing around such grand ideals!

Cue lots of people calling me a retard – GO!

http://memegenerator.net/Advice-Inspector-General-Alejandro-Ordoñez/ImageMacro/670395

“You’re failing to grasp what this means for ISP. Since the ISP hosts the content, legally, they no longer have to pay for customer bandwidth for the download of these blurays or any other hosted file. The proposed idea only gets better as file sizes get larger. If the content is as good as common pirate formats are there is no reason for a majority of customers to illegally download the content anymore.”

Nonsense, bandwidth is just bandwitdh, it’s irrilevant if it’s “taken” from the ISPs’ customers or the ISPs themself, therefore as many already pointed out, your arguments are just total nonsense.

By the way,

“They won’t be answering some random blog comment I hope you realise.”

You did, spreading misinformation. Prooves my point enough. I rest my case ;)

Those BigPond Services arent bundled into the price of the Broadband. They do offer Unmetered access to their sites if you are a customer, but you still have to pay for the downloads. They only offer the unmetered access to entice you to buy/download from their sites rather then competeters

Neither of these ISP’s have ever been forced at gunpoint to change their TOS, they have only ever gone by what the government has implemented.

just about everything you said was ignorant nonsense (i hope you were compensated for it none-the-less).

but i will just focus on the core of your moronic statements.

““So these suggested services aren’t of the “fill up your iPod” type, but of the “can only be used sitting-at-your-computer streaming services with limited download allocation” type. Surprised? Us neither.”

Um, you may want to do your research before writing such ill informed commentary.” end quotes..

who in their right mind prefers temporarily owning something (and only while at their PC) to permanently owning it??? Streaming anything to your PC is less than pointless… and claiming that to be equal to Downloading it or, worse still, that it is superior or preferable, is to insult the intelligence of all who reads it..

if you think anyone would buy into that then you are confused.. and clearly so.

AND limited allocation of Band?!?! pfff suuuure. dream on… and then you speak of research.

classic comedy. ie: clown shoes

However, IF they did try to “buyout”, the main ISPs surely the OFT (office of fair trading) would step in ?

And that fact is that the music industry business model is very different from ISPs business model.

Coupled with the fact that the current music industry’s model doesn’t work, it’s is not a very attractive alternative for an ISP.

For this to work, the music biz has to change… but then they won’t need ISPs…

Spark another one buddy because copyright does nothing to prevent plagiarism – copyright protects DISTRIBUTION rights (usually the rights of the publisher/movie studio/record company – not even the author) and nothing else.
If all these file sharers were changing files to claim authorship, well then maybe you might have a point.

Then people might stay with you as a provider.
Also get your own equipment into all exchanges so you dont have to resell BT’s shit wholslae offering which is the main reason for my previous point.

The only provider with and unlimited service and no Fair Use Policy is Sky, and they havent unbundled my exchange,

“That’s the optimistic view. The realist view would be that the entertainment companies will end up buying and owning the cables, i.e. the whole backbones of the Internet. This semi-centralized nature of the backbones is every Internet users’ heel of Achilles, and can only be temporarily counter-acted by encrypting EVERYTHING that transits through that MAFIAA-controlled backbone.”

… here:

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-uploader-raided-by-anti-piracy-group-100215/#comment-641614

“What TorrentFreak forgot about is the other advantages to the ISP beyonf extra direct profits. By hosting the library of (legitimate) tracks on the own servers the ISP no longer has to supply that bandwidth to customers who go for a pirated – or for that matter legitimate – download or streaming.”

Well it looks like everyone else corrected several mistakes, but left out the big one.

Most ISP’s are experiencing bandwidth issues in the middle & last mile. Their peering points and tier 1 points have no real problems.

Since you obviously don’t know what these are, I will explain. Middle Mile is from the CO to the DSLAM/DAC Node, Last Mile is from there to your home.

So locating a server at the CO does *nothing* but compounds their bandwidth problems.

Why? Steaming services will take up more bandwidth. Downloading 20 4 MB MP3′s takes virtually no bandwidth. I somehow doubt people are downloading 1k tracks each day.

Now streaming takes a constant connection between the server and client while the stream is going. Now lets compare that to fetching 1-4 tracks a once or twice a day.

People also use streaming services longer resulting in higher bandwidth use than the download format.

So the upgrades in the MM & LM that they are putting off doing now, they would not be able to put off. The high cost of running fiber and the costs of trying to keep piracy off the pipes, in addition to losing safe harbor protections afforded them, would not be worth the pennies they would get out of their share of the revenue.

This is only considering the Music end of it. Movie streaming would virtually force upgrades to the MM & LM of the network.

The percentage of subscribers who would leave would depend on the situation. If the fee was mandatory a higher portion would. If they will disconnect the subscribers for any accusation an even larger percentage would leave. If it was optional it would most likely not generate any real revenue.

Also it would depend upon the number of included downloads. Less than 30 a month at £7 would probably not see many people signing up.

Additionally not everyone would understand it. They would assume they could now download what they want since they are paying for music each month. Once they realize this is not the case they would be very upset, this would cause even more problems as these now pissed off subscribers would be calling to complain.

Overall the value to the ISP and the people in general would be in a unlimited, DRM free plan. Once the industry is completely backed into a corner we might see this happen. With the new ’360′ recording contracts this may be further away than many have hoped.

I can see a lot of parents paying this to side-step whatever their kids are up to (and that they don’t understand). I would in a flash.

Better still if it was helped by a safe site for downloads/torrents so you get less of the lime(ware) disease on Joe Average’s PC, and of course an opportunity for merchandising, etc.

For a moment I thought they had…but then realised they are basically continuing the whack-a-mole game and not looking to get the best deal that is practical, rather than their market-fixed ideal.

The music biz has enough money to start its own ISP, then let the market decide. But lawyers only think about making other people take the risks.

Lord knows we could use the competition. Deregulation hasn’t worked…if you want internet you get to choose between one cable company, and one phone company. And they charge the same. We’re screwed!

*facepalm*

jerk.

Step 1) Spend billions on lobbying, anti-piracy organizations, expensive lawyers with long drawn out trials, and ridiculous advertising campaigns to persecute the people who didn’t deem your products worth paying for in to begin with.

Step 2) ???

Step 3) Profit!

you gone too far guys no one give a hoot any more.

Perfect. Well said. Thanks.

Then I read the bit that added it wouldn’t actually be *your* music to keep…

Shame. They’re close to being sensible but they’r just too scared to take that the real brave step.

So they’ll fail.

First of all, suck my d*ck (!). Your post is so full of holes you shouldn’t tell anyone they are misinformed.

A broadband tax has been proposed before. It’s a terrible idea that does more harm than good, and it’s definitely *not* a business model.

If you add £5 on the price of every internet connection, think how many households could end up without internet. Alternatively, if this is made opt-in, it simply won’t work because most people will choose to save that £60 a year.

The issue is, as the Talk Talk representative put it, with violating human rights: not ISPs, not content companies and not even governments have the right impose this completely unnecessary tax to uphold a failing industry.

The loss of customers that would ensue could be far greater than any cost-saving that will come from lower bandwidth costs — users will go to the cheaper ISP that does not push this service onto its users.

The real problem comes back to copyrights, which is what these companies are trying so hard to uphold: 100+ years of copyright are impossible to enforce, and asking internet users to foot the bill by adding a tax on internet connections is the WRONG thing to do.

If copyrights are shortened to a reasonable duration, (such as 5 to 15 years) it will be fairer for everyone, it will be far easier to enforce and all this nonsense will be unnecessary. The content companies will also have less power and won’t be able to demand changes (through RIAA, MPAA etc, which are the fronts that are actively lobbying for this stuff) in legislation that hurt human rights ever again.

But this companies exaggerate with their intentions…

O know of many people who left a ISP because they started to use traffic shaping in P2P protocols. So if they started to monitor people because of some shady deals with this companies it would be a huge hit on theirs users base, that would move to a safer ISP.

This is highly non-viable.

they will dress is up as some kind of gateway to music.. OTHER than the internet.. or just not clarify that.. and people will think its different.

sounds like it will be no different than youtube

Not so many people are interested in music download when you can download almost everything from youtube and other streaming sites.
not to mention torrents cyberlockers and other P2P

people who pay for music will pay in any case, and the who do not (like me) will sooner die than buy some album.

In any case if isp is providing some music distribution service it has no reason to limit piracy in any way, because this will not increase profits enough to offset loss.

Just to add that the bundle you speak of (by your own measure) offers music from 3 of the 5 labels which directly contradicts your own statement that the offer is as good as the illegal/pirate sources. ALL music from ALL labels are available in that way

Do try to keep up, its tiresome having to keep correcting you

You call this commentary badly informed and then go on to talk about bundled packages in Australia, when this article is about a study done in the UK, for the UK. Congrats for missing the ridiculously obvious and ruining your own point

You go on to talk about DRM free dloads when this study is about streaming services with a minor dload addon, talk about comparing apples and pears