No ‘3 Strikes’ Disconnection for UK Pirates
Written by enigmax on January 26, 2009Ever since the UK’s major ISPs and the music industry were forced together by the government to sort out online piracy, it has been feared that a ‘3 Strikes’ regime was on the horizon. Now, according to a government minister, that possibility has been ruled out.
Headed by the BPI, last year the British music industry signed a MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the country’s six largest ISPs. They agreed to send out letters to alleged pirates on behalf of the music industry, warning them that their illicit music sharing activities had been monitored and they should discontinue their actions.
This wasn’t enough for the music industry. What they really wanted was a “3 strikes” or “graduated response” – a warning for the first offense, slowing of the offender’s Internet connection on the second and on the third, disconnection of the user from the Internet.
Eventually, the government appeared it was about to get tough if the ISPs and music industry couldn’t come to a voluntary decision, with Culture Secretary Andy Burnham threatening legislation. Through the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), the government commissioned a public consultation last year into illicit file-sharing, and how to deal with it. In the end, no consensus was reached between the parties.
However, according to The Times, the “3 Strikes” option is off the table. In an interview with Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy, it was indicated that disconnecting users from the Internet in such a manner was fraught with legal difficulties. “I’m not sure it’s actually going to be possible,” he added.
This week the ‘Digital Britain’ report will be released. According to information leaked last week, Communications Minister Lord Carter will call for a new ‘Rights Agency’ to be overlooked by Ofcom, the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries.
It’s suggested that the agency would be financed by both ISPs and rights holders, and will assist in maintaining any new regulations. There are even suggestions that an additional charge on a customer’s Internet bill could be added to enable contributions towards the music industry.
The final report, due for publishing later this week, should clarify the picture, but since Lord Carter has a drive for everyone in the country to have broadband by the time the Olympics come to Britain in 2012, anything that could detract from that will be viewed with caution.
Previously: How Piracy Can Boost iPhone App Sales
Next: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent
115 Responses
Finally, the British Government has seen sense.
Pirate Never dies.
nice:) quick news takeover. its appeared on tweakers and TF simoultanious.
hurray for common sense!
Who wants to bet some hormone fuelled kid still comments that the "Gubmint and the MAFIAAs are working in cahoots to protect the evil copyright holders"
They have done something good at last
http://burn-blue.co.uk
If they do the "donation to music industry" through increasing Broadband charges how many people will compain… the music industry is still getting something they want, and something that can be so easily falsely acused! Now to shoot the music industry in the butt and tell them if they want a regulator, a third party to do this they must fund it, but the government overseas it… again though this would lead to the music industry having too much power, so lets just forget piracy exsits! xD
MeH
Mayhem excites Hell
You never hear of File-sharing in star trek .
why can't our world be more like theirs? :D
Jeez, it was about time for them to dump this, i'm glad my government immediately rejected even their "light" (=no total disconnect) plans for a 3-strikes-law.
"There are even suggestions that an additional charge on a customer’s Internet bill could be added to enable contributions towards the music industry."
What if someone buys CDs' and also subscribe to say Napster and already pay their way for music, are additional charges warranted?
Is it only the music industry which suffers? May as well also implement an additional charge for movies (mainstream, indie and pr0n) and computer games (irrespective of platform), to ensure no one misses out on this internet media tax.
If such a charge is levied, surely is it not then morally and legally acceptable the person then goes out of their way to download such media having paid the tax?
Well, they have the genius that is 'The Replicator'. Of course, we can only dream that someone will invent something like this, because anyone attempting it in the near future will find themselves sued into oblivion
The question I always want answered about “pay off the music industry” taxes on blank media, potentially broadband, etc. is how they divide up the cash… they would need to know how much each thing was downloaded, and distribute accordingly, to all the artists (record label or no) who were infringed upon.
If they only pass this money to the big companies, it would be an unfair advantage for the players that are already on top, and even ignoring that, there’s no way of knowing which artist should get what proportion of the cash collected.
Assuming it ever makes its way to the artists at all of course, which is a pretty big assumption.
I dont live in the UK but i'd really like some things
1)how much "contribution' should a person 'donate' if they are suspected of piracy.
2)Who makes the decision if the person is actually guilty of file sharing. Because as someone said earlier if someone actually owns a CD he or she can legally download music.
3)How can the ISP actually differentiate legal downloads from illegal ones.
I dont live in the UK but i'd really like some things
1)how much "contribution' should a person 'donate' if they are suspected of piracy.
2)Who makes the decision if the person is actually guilty of file sharing. Because as Tango said earlier if someone actually owns a CD he or she can legally download music.
3)How can the ISP actually differentiate legal downloads from illegal ones.
let the record companys burn.
shifting formats were a challenge and they failed to step up, ill be damned if some etonian fat fuck wants me to pay more, because they are not making as much as they used to.
+ 1 for wepcracking, private trackers, usenet the scene seedboxes pptp vpn + pubs.
stupid cunts in suits who can barely send an email. FUCK YOU!
damm right m8…
I for one would also justify my extra leeching if i was paying a "tax"!
Think Canada, where blank media is taxed BUT the RIAA & co still whine and would do anything to stop it.
The problem is, is where does this stop? As you have said, P0RN, Movies, Music, etc.
How much "tax" would be enough to keep them all happy…
If part of my bill goes towards the music industry, i would expect music to be FREE online. ALL OF IT.
But no, instead I make a youtube video and its audio is muted because of the shit music industry found a copyrighted song inside of it.. and at that moment.. not only was all my pirating justified.. i have so much more to go..
A subtle correction: PRICE, not value. Price is not the same thing as value. These electronic files have no price, but they are surely valuable – just like the air.
Site edit – posted by Roze
It is not the end of this yet; the BPI will sure to try some more; and this too must be opposed vigorously.
The BPI will continue to do what they do until they are opposed not only on their methods, but also on principle.
Roze
http://www.10ch.org/
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, who has threatened legislation for 3 strikes, must go down. He has done much wrong, and therefore must simply go.
Down with Andy Burnham!
Down with Andy Burnham!
Down with Andy Burnham!
Down with Andy Burnham!
If no action is taken soon, then this "rights agency" will soon take away all of your rights. They have a few things in the way, but they shall get past them eventually. They must be stopped.
But will the RIAA / MPAA / IFPI / BPI / &c.?
If Ofcom ever creates this rights agency, it needs to be bombed and burned to the ground. Those bastards at the U.K. Music Industry needs to have their blood spilled on the streets and fields if they ever get this passed – let their impure blood flow through the streets and fields!
Do YOU also pay the publisher for reading that book you borrowed from yer friend……… Oh strike that you probably don’t have any friends do you? And what about the film you watched with the family ( if they haven’t disowned you yet ) or the next door neighbour? The album you listened to on the way to work, in your colleague’s car? and what about
————————————————————————————————–
bad analogies. if a friend gives you a book, he no longer has it. watching a movie with your family or neighbor is irrelevant. and obviously there is no issue if you listen to a friend’s CD while in his car.
it is an issue of scale. if you really don’t see the difference between your examples and rampant, limitless file stealing with untold thousands of complete strangers across the world…then you should probably rename yourself “retard side of the net”.
After all, we cannot let them get away with it if ever anything drastic happens. What shall the agency do? If there shall be any harm done to file-sharers, there must be VENGENCE!
“So grandpa who only surfs the net, uses FB and chats with his grandchildren and has no clue about p2p contributes to the fatcats running the music industry? WHY??!?”
—————————————————————–
because his greedy grandchildren don’t understand the simple axiom “don’t take what isn’t yours”.
There is no personal intention. Therefore killing won't be an adequate punishment. Think about it.
Andy Burnham deserves death.
"Can't beat 'em tax 'em". How wonderful. And what about the taxes to prop up other ailing copyright industries? books? film? artworks? Oh wait, only record labels qualify for handouts, and the rich bankers of course. There is corruption at every level of the UK government, just look at the latest laws for cash scandal in the house of lords; they are all crooks.
slap a musician and DOWN WITH THE AMPAA AND RIAA
(ahhh higher taxes won't that STIMULATE the economy)
yes folks the mpaa/riaa is anti conservative anti capitalistic and they are in fact acting COMMUNIST
I think it was more than common sense that forced this decision because the UK govt are not really known for common sense.. more for bribery and corruption (like France,Italy, Sweden (sadly) etc), they were scared of what legal waters they would find themselves if they did the 3 strikes thingy.
Overall good news except for this part:
"an additional charge on a customer’s Internet bill could be added to enable contributions towards the music industry"
So grandpa who only surfs the net, uses FB and chats with his grandchildren and has no clue about p2p contributes to the fatcats running the music industry? WHY??!?
http://www.eZee.se
I think it was more than common sense that forced this decision because the UK govt are not really known for common sense.. more for bribery and corruption (like present day France,Italy, Sweden (sadly) etc), they were scared of what legal waters they would find themselves if they did the 3 strikes thingy.
Overall good news except for this part:
"an additional charge on a customer’s Internet bill could be added to enable contributions towards the music industry"
So grandpa who only surfs the net, uses FB and chats with his grandchildren and has no clue about p2p contributes to the fatcats running the music industry? WHY??!?
http://www.eZee.se
No one should get bumped from the network. Instead, Deep Packet Inspection will ID the file being taken and the current retail value will be added to the monthly bill of the recipient. Music movies books, you name it. No music "taxes" and this is a neat, clean, completely fair solution. Just pay for whatever you take as in all businesses. The rights holders get paid, the downloader gets the file they want, the government makes the taxes they need and people who do not take music online don't have to pay for files they do not want and do not take.
How much more fair could this be? This will be the future: Loss of privacy due to rampant law breaking online eventually leads to surveillance and direct billing. Totally fair and eventually, inevitable.
uh… I think not doing something because you recognise the legal problems of doing it IS common sense…
"The problem of illicity filesharing" is that some think it to be one
Dumbside of the Net.
That’s you, isn’t it?
Site edit – posted by Roze
Good news…
Hopefully New Zealand will follow and and remove the '3strike law' that they want to implement on Feb 28.
Once again proving that MAFIAA idiots have no brains. You MAFIAA fuck, why don’t you just fuck off and die?
Site edit – posted by Roze
A retarded argument from a retarded MAFIAA plant. Go eat shit and die – you are better off that way.
Site edit – posted by Roze
@Reasoned Mind
"current retail value will be added to the monthly bill"…Wow,that will leave a real opportunity for us all to be well and truly overcharged.For example,a movie or say a CD price varies greatly depending on where you go to buy it doesn't it?!
This policy could easily have the effect of not stopping "piracy" but just creating a whole new generation of more shrewd and more deceptive file sharers.
Personally,if your suggested internet future ever occurs,I for one would be happy to pay a small sum for a virtual private network setup rather than once again allowing greedy fatcats to reimpose their inflated "retail values".
Once again, an ignorant MAFIAA fuck having the pretense of moral superiority, when, in fact, they are lower than the lowest. You ignorant MAFIAA fuck.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Hey, RIAA advocate, why don’t you just jump off of a cliff, you piece of shit? Humanity would be much better off without you, you piece of shit.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Eat shit and die, you MAFIAA fuckwad. Eat shit and die.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Who are you calling “greedy” you scum of the earth? It would be a more than appropriate term for those people you work for: the MAFIAA. Now fuck off.
Site edit – posted by Roze
@ Reasoned Mind
Do YOU also pay the publisher for reading that book you borrowed from yer friend……… Oh strike that you probably don't have any friends do you? And what about the film you watched with the family ( if they haven't disowned you yet ) or the next door neighbour? The album you listened to on the way to work, in your colleague's car? and what about…………………………….."insert everything you share here"………………………………………………..
Yeah, your absolutely 100% wrong. Sharing is caring. If I buy something ( once ), it's up to me what I will do with the product. Of course not for profit, cause that would be morally wrong. Better to be morally correct than politically correct, that's what I was brought up with.
As said above, wireless hacking will prevail and it only takes someone of political importance to get accused of sharing files they don't have the right to and it's all over for your theory. If you don't think so, then try googling WIRELESS HACKING and see what you come up with. I think even the old coffin dodgers ( old people ) will learn to do that easily in just a few clicks. LOL. he he he he he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Come on everybody lets push it all underground, oh it's ok the government are all ready doing it for us. Right where is that troll detector. Oh here it is………what does that say……..TROLL ALERT @Reasoned Mind CONFIRMED.
All in good fun eh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT.
I was actually thinking about Star Trek while I was watching Zeitgeist… exactly the sort of problem caused by money, they argued.
Frankly, I'm pretty convinced.
There you go with the "Big Brother is good" speech again. Besides this system not being technically feasible, it still is missing the point that these electronic files being transferred have no monetary value. They are not scarce, in fact, they are the exact opposite of scarce… they are infinitely reproducible. So the value these rights holders are claiming they ought to be be compensated for is all BS. Nothing has BEEN taken, and what was shared in not scarce, and thus has no monetary value. Do you recommend we start paying for air to breathe? It is in face in more limited supply than these digital files, which are limitless.
I dearly hope Zeitgeist is correct and that the monetary system is doomed to fail in our lifetimes. I shall not mourn its passing.
There you go with the "Big Brother is good" speech again. Besides this system not being technically feasible, it still is missing the point that these electronic files being transferred have no monetary value. They are not scarce, in fact, they are the exact opposite of scarce… they are infinitely reproducible. So the value these rights holders are claiming they ought to be be compensated for is all BS. Nothing has BEEN taken, and what was shared in not scarce, and thus has no monetary value. Do you recommend we start paying for air to breathe? It is in fact in more limited supply than these digital files, which are limitless.
I dearly hope Zeitgeist is correct and that the monetary system is doomed to fail in our lifetimes. I shall not mourn its passing.
Just a short note on that, if you plan to google "wireless hacking" and to actually do anything with what you learn, please use a proxy. They caught a wireless hacker by getting google's search records from his IP address, and he lost in court…dont go down that road…
http://bluehumor.org
As if it is "fair" to pay the music industry, which does nothing except copyright extortion lawsuits, a sum of money for private activities for which there is no basis to give them any, and only to the industry, and not any independent or small creator, which, of course, may be anyone, by spying on people's private activities.
these electronic files being transferred have no monetary value. They are not scarce, in fact, they are the exact opposite of scarce… they are infinitely reproducible. So the value these rights holders are claiming they ought to be be compensated for is all BS
—————————————————————————————————-
not a good argument.
while it is true they are no longer scarce, they still have value. regarding the amount of work, talent, and money that went into their development they are absolutely no different than tangible goods. as such, it is only fair they be protected.
Hahaha!
Should we punish the parents of the kids who did the columbine shootings as well?
what about the grandparents?
Same things for all the people in Prison…
Have we started punishing innocent people for the sins of their siblings?
If you honestly believe that, send your application to the industry they are looking for people like themselves.
/CJ
Dumbside of the Net.
It's just this kind of off-topic- ignore the real issues- pathetic but funny "logic" used by online pilferers that diminishes your case to the public, to the courts, to the people at large. Remember, in total you remain less than one in five worldwide (PEW Study, 2007) because 4 out of 5 have ethics and practice those ethics whether someone is watching or not. Surveillance is being driven by online infringement exactly because you think no surveillance means you should be able to steal. Hope you enjoy your hardrive full of files you didn't pay for, you are trading your privacy and liberties for them. lol
If you pay attention over time, you'll see where this is going. If women can get the right to vote or blacks can find increasing equality in a racist culture, online pirates could change this to their way of thinking if any of you ever actually did any valuable thinking.
But you don't. lol. You are far too busy stealing on the Dumbside of the net.
WHEN has COPYRIGHT beneiftied SOCIETY AT large LAST?
Ask yourself that and ask…WHAT does the IP holder contribute to me?
NO it is not an issue of scale that's a term morons use in obfuscation of the reality they don't know wtf they are truly talking about.
YA know look up some of these words.
So if your ok with me lending my cdr to my bud for no profit to anyone , whats the difference if i say make a Sftp and he can take a copy that way?
AHUH. OK. As to the book its a loan right wouldn't it maybe nice if he just made you a copy and you could then read it.
Still again no profit would have been had either way and thus no economic damage real or otherwise. THIS IS WHAT p2p sharing is.
If I sell an external harddrive with mp3's on it (instead of copying) is that legal? I assume since you can resell a book, you can resell mp3s (as long as it isn't distributed digitally). And what if I decide the harddrive is worth a lot more than the retail cost? Can I not attribute value to any object of my own?
Which leads me to another question, If someone designed a program that shared a file from computer A to computer B. and then deleted the file on computer A. Would that not parallel the "borrowing of a book/movie/cd" ?
"don't take what isn't yours"
Like the rights of citizens to share one's own property. It never was the copyright holder's (meaning Industry's) right to usurp the citizen's right to share one's own property. Copyright is an usurpation of rights.
Yes, they are different. They are able to be shared easily. "Protection" you speak of but it is not protection at all. It is only taking away the right of citizens to share their own property.
file stealing
Wrong. It is file-sharing. "Stealing" implies "taking without consent." "Stealing" means taking a friend's CD without permission. "Sharing" means the friend copies a CD, and willingly gives a copy, which is not stealing.
it benefits society by benefiting the artists whose art you steal.
I am astonished by the number of comments seeking to justify non-compliance with IP laws solely on the ground that intellectual property is an intangible item.
Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but one has to wonder how the persons espousing such beliefs would feel if their employers only paid them for the portion of their workday in which they were engaged in physical labor and not the intellectual portion of their jobs. “Sorry, but you were only typing at the computer for four hours today. You were staring at the screen with a blank look on your face for the other four hours, and we don’t feel that we should have to pay for something as intangible as your thoughts.”
A “human effort”?
You act like that means anything or has any credible distinction from intellectual property.
It doesn’t. It’s just a silly phrase that you made up and has absolutely no relevance to anything.
Does “human effort” not go into the creation of intellectual property? Of course it does. You seem to be something of an idiot.
I am astonished by the number of comments seeking to justify non-compliance with IP laws solely on the ground that intellectual property is an intangible item.
WRONG. Try again.
Also, it is not a good analogy at all. We are not doing a job through file-sharing, or, even if we were, like those folks at The Pirate Bay, we are happy to share without being paid.
Why don't you just pay me for being able to read this comment, huh?
You seem to be something of an idiot.
You are speaking to a mirror.
You act like that means anything or has any credible distinction from intellectual property
Intellectual property does not exist. Period. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are completely different things and have nothing to do with "property."
Intellectual advances are always shared amongst everyone. That's how science works, that how culture works.
Also, human effort does have credible distinction. As opposed to machine effort, or computer effort. Copying and making copies is machine effort/computer effort. Think about the industrial revolution.
“It is a silly phrase that the industry has made up, without any relevance to anything. ”
——————————-
history begs to differ:
“The earliest use of the term intellectual property appears to be in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that ‘only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man’s own…as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.’”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_propert...
this is a tangent off the original comment which roze deleted because it was inane and made him look stupid.
as such, your comment references nothing.
“there are many artists doing so already. ”
and not a single one of them successful without a long lineage of label backing (radiohead/NIN).
“with me lending my cdr to my bud for no profit to anyone , whats the difference if i say make a Sftp and he can take a copy that way?”
the difference is still scale.
i see you didn’t mention how it “obfuscates” anything. plopping down a poly-syllabic scrabble word does not a point make.
Choke on your Doritos and Mountain Dew you basement dwelling, vampire complexioned loser.
no it hasn’t alice but i implore you to try.
You seem to be something of an idiot.
You are speaking to a mirror.
You act like that means anything or has any credible distinction from intellectual property
Intellectual property does not exist. Period.
You seem to be something of an idiot.
You are speaking to a mirror.
You act like that means anything or has any credible distinction from intellectual property
Intellectual property does not exist. Period. Scientists are paid to do scientific research, and then the findings are not kept secret.
You seem to be something of an idiot.
You are speaking to a mirror.
You act like that means anything or has any credible distinction from intellectual property
Intellectual property does not exist. Period. Scientists are paid to do scientific research, and then the findings are not kept secret, accessible only to those who pay.
You seem to be something of an idiot.
You are speaking to a mirror.
You act like that means anything or has any credible distinction from intellectual property
Intellectual property does not exist. Period. Scientists are paid to do scientific research, and then the findings are not kept secret, unless it were a military secret.
"You seem to be something of an idiot."
Of course, the most obvious example of idiocy is you. I mean, your analogy doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense.
Now fuck off.
"I am astonished by the number of comments seeking to justify non-compliance with IP laws solely on the ground that intellectual property is an intangible item."
Representation FAIL
"Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but one has to wonder how the persons espousing such beliefs would feel if their employers only paid them for the portion of their workday in which they were engaged in physical labor and not the intellectual portion of their jobs."
Analogy FAIL
You fail.
Okay, I thought that the industry was stupid, but I never thought that they could come up with such a stupid analogy as this one. Just shows you how much they hire retarded people for their spokespeople.
Im all for someway to let us carry on and artists still get paid, but bumping up my bb price isnt the way, i already pay quite alot as it is. Im testing that spotify thing and so far so good i just hope they get more types of music, dnb and some less commen stuff and im happy to play my music via that, but apart from not having everything it doesnt seem much different that browseing h\d to play music… its fast! the search and everything
Has it not occurred to you that BitTorrent occurs through computers, not "human effort"?
"You seem to be something of an idiot."
Look who's talking. Now, I think that it may be best to go to elementary school.
No, it doesn't.
This argument has already been discredited so many times. Why do you insist on repeating an invalid argument?
The law begs to differ. There is no “intellectual property” in the law.
Site edit – posted by Roze
WRONG. There are plenty of indie artists that are successful through distribution through file-sharing networks. Why don’t you try to substantiate your point that there are none next time, instead of throwing out these unsubstantiated ideas?
Site edit – posted by Roze
That’s only something that the industry scum like you (who, by the way, is impersonating someone else) would say.
Site edit – posted by Roze
If you have read TorrentFreak, then you would know that there are some.
Site edit – posted by Roze
That’s just the most retarded thing ever. By the way, impersonating someone else, you industry plant, only makes you look bad. This officially proves that you have nothing positive to contribute to humanity, so just fuck off and die.
Site edit – posted by Roze
I guess you better delete all of you comments now, since you impersonation attempts and the content of your comments make you look stupid.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Why don’t you try proving that it has ever benefited any artist? Of course, you can’t, since it is false. You can’t prove something that’s false.
Site edit – posted by Roze
@”free lunch brigade”
The fact that you are “free lunch brigade” impersonating someone else is obvious; you are not very good at impersonating someone else because people are easily able to see that it is actually the retard who posts as “free lunch brigade.”
Also, lol at “vampire complexioned” – you are very funny. It doesn’t really help your case to try to use random stereotypes which are untrue, than to actually argue the issue.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Yes, it does obsfucate. Also, there is no difference in scale. Sharing is sharing.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Why don’t you just go kill yourself instead of coming up with these pathetic retarded arguments in favor of the vile MAFIAA?
Site edit – posted by Roze
Fuck off and die, you MAFIAA defender.
Site edit – posted by Roze
Fuck off and die you record label defender.
Site edit – posted by Roze
What, the MAFIAA has nothing good to say anymore, so they resort to random insults and impersonation?
Site edit – posted by Roze
And massive illegal distribution of content creator’s work is an usurpation of creator rights.
says the guy that didn’t substantiate his…please list some of these bands in question.
you know what else makes you look bad? using a bunch of stupid nicknames to agree with yourself.
Yes, thats why I’ve cleaned them all up, attributing your comments and roze’s appropriately – Ben
that’s because i’m not trying to hide the fact, whereas you ARE trying to hide the fact that you use multiple nicknames to agree with yourself, flandre, lunasa, nobody, merlin, tei, mystia, mystia lorelei, dollop etc…
rather pathetic. in my opinion only someone of the aforementioned stereotype would go to such feeble lengths as to fabricate other people to agree with their own drivel.
Psst, Roze – you know we can tell when you use blank accounts to agree with yourself. It flags it up for us. Spamming the comments will just get you banned.
I'll edit in your name to all your comments, just so we know who they're from.
and not a single one of them successful without a long lineage of label backing (radiohead/NIN).
Then you must be living in a cave, because there are plenty of them.
Care to cite any law that actually uses the word "intellectual property"?
roze, this comment is particularly ironic and hilarious given the rest of your spam in this thread…
Just to point out, the people doing those jobs don't expect to be paid for their work the next pay period, let alone 50 years or more later. If I want to have any income in any particular year, I expect to have to work during that year. I don't expect to be paid for today, for the work I did in 2000 and 2001 (which was for a TV company). If I owned the copyright of that work though, I suddenly should? Think about your answer carefully.
btw, as I said to roze, I've changed the name on all your comments to match each other, under your usual nick of 'freetard' – it makes it easier to track who says what.
The creator doesn't have any rights though, they all belong to the industry. If I made a copy of a Slipknot album, I wouldn't be hurting the band themselves, they're hardly losing any money (I could download 10 CDs and mail them the money for 1 directly and they'd be getting around the same amount).
The "problem" these days is that record labels are simply becoming unneeded.. Quite a few artists are more than capable of recording their own music, and if they can't it's not all that expensive to rent out a recording studio (though some big labels might have you think otherwise).
When you say "content creator's work" you're ignoring that they don't get much at all. The worst case scenario is that the artist becomes more popular and they can charge more for bigger live shows. I haven't heard of a single case where the money from a lawsuit against someone who shared music was given to the original author(s).
When you say "content creator's work" you're ignoring that they don't get much at all. The worst case scenario is that the artist becomes more popular and they can charge more for bigger live shows. I haven't heard of a single case where the money from a lawsuit against someone who shared music was given to the original author(s).
————————————————————————
these are good points, succinctly put and i thank you for making them. you immediately stand out from the rest of the hormonal teens around here…
while i agree that the record and film industries shortchange their respective content creators, my point is i don't see the pirate community offering anything better. 7-14 cents an album does add up after a while. i know better than anyone here how the studios (in particular) do not care about their content creators. my particular profession though integral to the creation of a movie is grossly underpaid in relation to other above the line talent such as actors, producers and directors. however, again, i do not see the pirate community offering anything better. at least the studios (or labels) pay SOMETHING, meager though it may be, it is better than nothing.
I have a solution: all you just just register for these stupid IntenseDebate accounts and stop pretending you aren't impersonating each other =)
It certainly does offer something better. It offers free distribution and audience. Those two are most important. The Pirate Bay certainly has done much good – unlike the industry, which steals from the artists all the time, The Pirate Bay does not earn profits for themselves.
A right is a right only when it does not interfere with other rights, which is why there is no right to take away other people's rights. Thus, there is no "creator rights to take away the citizen's rights to share their own property." The only "right" that file-sharing usurps is the "right" to take away the citizen's rights to share their own property, which, of course, is not a right at all.
Well, all I can say is that I'm glad that this hasn't been followed up, although, the British Government does like to lie on a regular basis. For example, if you've been watching the UK news recently about the new airport terminal expansion at Heathrow, the controversy of them not sure whether to do the runway or not. It's all a visage, a deception, a friend of mine is currently getting his final security checks done to go and work on this new runway/terminal project. I'll reiterate this, The British government lies on a regular basis, so don't be so sure the storm is over yet.
This to be created subsidiary of OfCom is a joke, it'll be a new amalgamation of the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA/FAST, where the good ol' government will squeeze more money out of us to fund feck knows what.
you want me to prove if copyright has ever benefited a content creator?
lolololololol
"It certainly does offer something better. It offers free distribution and audience."
—————————————–
which amounts to exactly "jack" and "shit" if it doesn't keep a roof over my head and food on my table.
"The Pirate Bay does not earn profits for themselves."
——————————————-
you don't have any proof of this. the reason you have no proof of this is because the pirate bay refuse to make their finances transparent. and the only reason anyone has for not making their finances transparent is because they have something to hide.
…none of which matters since the reality, whichever end of the spectrum it may reside, will soon be revealed during the trial.
"A right is a right only when it does not interfere with other rights, "
———————————————
therein lies the dilemma. your supposed "right" to distribute my hard work on a massive, unlimited scale with complete strangers and without the smallest trifle of compensation for your greedy consumption most definitely infringes upon my rights as a creator. bit of an impasse there.
Record Industry = Not needed and dying.
Artists & Film makers have no excuse for not getting money, they can do live gigs/cinema.
Stop trying to get an easy buck.
"Artists & Film makers have no excuse for not getting money, they can do live gigs/cinema."
———————————————–
theater box office accounts for less than 18% of the film industry revenue. so your plan is for them to just willingly give away the vast majority of their business?
There is a difference between money they need and money they want.
if you're a communist, yeah, there's a huge difference.
chances are you yourself own a multitude of products and treat yourself to a multitude of services you don't really need and the money you used to procure them could just as easily have gone to someone without food, a home, clean water, or medical care.
double edged swords are sharp aren't they?
I do own a multitude of products and treat myself to a multitude of services I don't really need but I am grateful for what I have, unlike moaning Actors/Movie people, which was my point…
3 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.