Simply pathetic.

There are so many great ways (I use itunes a lot for movies and TV shows)

-XBOX Live
-Netflix
-Zune Video
-PlayStation Store
-Zune Video
-http://themovie-downloading.com
-Hulu
-Epix
-http://www.jaman.com/

and most are US specific so where can a UK user use this service.

It’s the same all over again we are Americans we don’t care about anyone else (Unless we want to use their soldiers as canon fodder)

fair my ass – or – my ass is fair?

DEB – a slap in the face for democracy and free speech

they need money for the elections

Well said, good question and things to think about.

@NeoStyles and et al

They call you MAFFIAA because you are nothing but a corporate stooge paid to spread the their propaganda. You ignore the fact how corporate interest have:

- corrupted governments to pass corporate friendly laws
- corrupt the courts so that they can have “show” trials
- have gagged new media, replacing journalistic integrity with corporate propaganda and Pablum-For-Brain entertainment “news”

The sad thing, Neo-Style, is that your bosses are probably going to win. Not because they are right and just, but because they have corrupted everything to their advantage.

Our country is so screwed with such dinosaurs in charge of it.

Question (6): How can I get these things legally if rights-owners don’t provide them, or only provide through Apple? You say that there are lots of legal alternatives to piracy, so where are they?

There are so many great ways (I use itunes a lot for movies and tv shows)
-XBOX Live
-Netflix
-Zune Video
-PlayStation Store
-Zune Video
-http://themovie-downloading.com
-Hulu
-Epix
-http://www.jaman.com/

Rights owners are being very generous. They are giving customers all the options they will ever need for legal downloads.

Question (5): Why is it okay for a company to sue someone for something that made a healthy profit half a century before the alleged infringer was even born? In the case of the BBC, the product will have been made with public money. Don’t you see anything wrong with this? Why do you think this is irrelevant?</blockquote?
Because most of the debate over law reforms centers around contemporary infringement. Torrent sites do not become popular from offering half a century old movies. They draw millions of people for offering the latest and greatest for free. These are the films that get pirated in the millions.

Question (1): Why should we support a law that has so very clearly been bought and paid for – and largely by foreign interests at that?

Funding is always seen as a sign of corruption but in this case, I think it is safe to assume that they have a vested interest in protecting their intellectual property and would be more than happy to support any law that would be pursuant to this. Piracy is not obstructed by geographical borders. Thanks to the nature of the internet, American companies have been watching their copyrights being stolen for the last century in England. Anyone can download an illegitimate copy of anything, regardless of what country the rights holder resides in. This is why copyright must be enforced with an international view.

ssue (2): Accuracy. Lots of people in favour of the bill choose to overlook the fact that an IP address on it’s own isn’t a reliable guide to who’s done what. As a tech-savvy person, I know there are simply too many ways to get round it and too many online accidents that can damage the security of a person’s set-up.

ISPs probabaly have logs of every site a person visits and this will be more than enough to prove infringement. Besides, once the sources of piracy are shut down by swift and decisive legal action, people wont have to worry about whether the law is concerned with them or not. I doubt they will tackle piracy by suing thousands of individual people. Much easier to stop it at the source.

Issue (3): I think that – in practise – the DEB is going to be a blackmailer’s charter. It has no provision whatsoever for preventing abuse by rights-holders. Once an IP address has been acquired (regardless of it’s accuracy), there is nothing to stop a rights-holder from issuing the same kind of threats sent out by the likes of Davenport-Lyons.

People have become far too skeptical of rights holders. They aren’t evil people with diabolical plans. They are simply trying to earn a living off their work.

People have condemned them for trying to do exactly that (really, is there anyone who wouldn’t want to be paid for their work) by calling them the “MAFIAA” supposedly because they don’t like the the consequences of their actions.

Question (2): The creative rights industry is very fond of using the shoplifting analogy. In the same vein, if I break into your house and slap your wife, is it okay for the court to jail you for domestic assault because you forgot to double-lock the front door?

People have long maintinned the falsehood that just because it is possible to steal from the creative rights industry or convient to do so, this makes it ok. Everyone is entitled protection of their rights. This isn’t the wild west, where one’s own actions take precedence above the law. It is just like the take down policy’s of many torrent sites which basically say “We will let happily let people pirate your work until you perform a tedious, cumbersome take down request.” They should have never added those torrents in the first place (it is common knowledge that all creative works are copyrighted) and the creative industry shouldn’t have to ask people to stop enabling others to defraud them. They are entitled to that right under the law.

Oy! You, Neostyles, #51. You need to take your MAFIAA peddling crap elsewhere.

Typical pirate logic. Right, because anyone who isn’t selfish and believes in paying for things and supporting that which they enjoy works for the “MAFIAA.” When people pirate they do it because they believe in it, but when people pay for things, they can’t be doing it because they also believe in it? Uhm..

During Fascism lese majesty was a serious crime, still there were plenty of jokes about the duce around, but most of the times the law wasn’t applied.
The point that should make you cringe is that sometimes the law WAS applied.

By turning each citizen into a criminal, the government is free to do as it please.
We’re at the mercy of white collar criminals like ACS:Law no longer guarded by safety locks we put in place through blood.

Not good.

Hi, I’m someone who works for a living creating copyrighted works. I won’t give too much away for obvious reasons, but I have a vested financial interest in seeing a system that supports and promotes digital distribution of copyrighted works and ensures fair rewards for content creators. I disagree with the Digital Economy Bill for a number of reasons, as do around half of the creative workers I know. I’d like to tell you about some of the issues I find objectionable and ask you some questions, if I may.

Issue (1): Corruption. I have no particular political agenda to push, no special loyalty to any political party or interest. I nonetheless object to what is, and is seen to be, a for-sale sign in front of the legal rights of every British citizen. It is painfully obvious that Mandelson and his friends have been bribed heavily with either promises of executive-directorships or cold, hard cash to force this bill into law. Even if I agreed with every provision in the bill, I still don’t want to see these little shits profit from selling off our democracy.

Question (1): Why should we support a law that has so very clearly been bought and paid for – and largely by foreign interests at that?

Issue (2): Accuracy. Lots of people in favour of the bill choose to overlook the fact that an IP address on it’s own isn’t a reliable guide to who’s done what. As a tech-savvy person, I know there are simply too many ways to get round it and too many online accidents that can damage the security of a person’s set-up.

Question (2): The creative rights industry is very fond of using the shoplifting analogy. In the same vein, if I break into your house and slap your wife, is it okay for the court to jail you for domestic assault because you forgot to double-lock the front door?

Issue (3): I think that – in practise – the DEB is going to be a blackmailer’s charter. It has no provision whatsoever for preventing abuse by rights-holders. Once an IP address has been acquired (regardless of it’s accuracy), there is nothing to stop a rights-holder from issuing the same kind of threats sent out by the likes of Davenport-Lyons.

Question (3): Given that the obligation of a commercial business is to minimise expenditure and maximise income, given also that monetising copyright-infringement is much, much cheaper than selling a CD, earns much, much more money and requires absolutely no payout to creators, what’s to stop record companies from simply using the first half of the law to acquire IPs and ignoring the rest of it in favour of invoicing? Is there any incentive whatsoever for them to actually do anything at all to lower the levels of piracy? (I’m aware that’s technically two questions, BTW)

Issue (5): Some of the legal actions will be for things made a great many years ago. The rights lobby is pushing for copyright to be extended even further.

Question (5): Why is it okay for a company to sue someone for something that made a healthy profit half a century before the alleged infringer was even born? In the case of the BBC, the product will have been made with public money. Don’t you see anything wrong with this? Why do you think this is irrelevant?

Issue (6): I believe in paying my way, I believe that those who work hard to create something should be fairly rewarded, so the vast majority of copyrighted works I possess were obtained entirely within the law. I want to get a whole bunch of things legally and online (and without installing anything programmed by Apple – their badly-behaved software wreaks havoc with my OS). Most companies don’t, however, provide anything obscure or older than a decade or two, because they just aren’t profitable enough. Some are held exclusively by companies that won’t allow distribution outside their countries.

Question (6): How can I get these things legally if rights-owners don’t provide them, or only provide through Apple? You say that there are lots of legal alternatives to piracy, so where are they?

Those are the most prominent issues to my mind, I hope you (or someone else if Neostyles isn’t available) can take the time to answer them.

Many thanks.

The think is the music/media comapnys are lining the pockets of companys that supply services that can be used for piracy, such as VPN’s, cuberlockers, and newsgroups.

The trouble is they will struggle to close these company’s down as they also have legitimate uses.

the media companies are owned by some bad people who have been slowly corrupting the world of their monetary resources.. in such a way that the majority of the wealth is in alot less hands.

they have NO trouble what so ever in obtaining money.. they just hit the big-boiz up!

Knowledge is POWER!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/default.stm

On 19 May 2009, the Daily Telegraph revealed that Connarty was the fifth highest claiming MP in the UK, having claimed £156,207 in allowances between 2007 and 2008, excluding travel costs. [1] His reply was to claim that the information upon which the revelations were based was stolen property. Mr. Connarty purchased all the items listed below using public funds. The principles governing allowances as contained within the Green Book stated that they were there, “to ensure that members are reimbursed for costs properly incurred in the performance of their duties.”

1. Sony T20 camera: £249.89 03/05/07 2. Luxury Briefcase: £ 99.00 (Marks & Spencer) 3. Wheeled Overnight £214 (Marks & Spencer) 4. PC Projector £799.99 5. Sony NP-FH50 £59.99 6. PlasmaTV & Stand £1398(30/04/07) 7. FM Electrical Headphones £69.00 8. BOSE headphones & BOSE docking station £403.40p 9. Bed & Bedding £1114.75 (05/01/07) 10.Bed & Bedding £1124 (31/03/07)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connarty)

If I were to pay for the air that I use to breathe for free, I’d get hysterical too…

My point, neo, is that we’re not on Mars, nor on the ISS nor on some place where air is scarce and has to be paid for. And the same is true for digital files: scarcity is just imaginary and artificial in this domain. You can’t legislate against simple economics and hope this would have any effect whatsoever.

This idea has already been used in fiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_%28short_story%29

Regional news is loosing money because TV ads aren’t worth as much anymore, not that people aren’t watching TV.

Next, if this passes, everybody should just accuse the media companies of copyright infringement. Just say do logged their IP address sharing something you made. Anybody can accuse anybody. We still won’t be able to proove anything. It doesn’t matter anyway. They don’t have to sell DVD’s, CD’s or Blu-Ray products. They couuld just say come and see us or go to the cinema, but no, they try and milk more money.

And most amusingly….

What exactly is so amusing about that? This is exactly what the copyright/digital media debate has revolved around ever since it began. Only pirates have tried to repackage it with irrelevant issues like how long copyrights take to expire. A recent article at TF indicated that there are almost 400 million pirates. All these people are busy, casually ripping off copyright holders night and day.

Like they said, this should have been addressed years ago. Online piracy comes in many forms : public trackers, edonkey, usenet, private scene groups, etc. But it’s all devoted to one very simply purpose : getting things for free. No matter what people want others to believe, it’s not about the ability to consume media digitally (there are dozens of sources for legal downloads now) or being “independent.” It’s simple the convenience of getting things without payment.

And as soon as a law is introduced that would make people pay for the things that they have grown accustomed to getting free for many years, they become hysterical. They claim that their rights are being violated or that they are being enslaved by their government.

This was going to happen at some point or another. A system in which everything is free cannot work and was doomed to fail from the beginning. People have to make money off of their work. It is the most basic part of an economy.

Either way, I’m taking no chances. I’ve taken out a VPN subscription, which I’ll be using all of the time, and I’m in the process of making sure that my family and friends are protected.

It’s on.

I’m with you on this one. This really makes me sad and ashamed to be represented by so many seemingly uneducated individuals. It is time for a change but again who have we to choose from? Don’t vote for Conservative and risk Labour getting back in or a hung parliament. I would like to vote for an-other. Our representatives are truly pathetic to say the least. People need a voice and these proven corrupt politicians are not going to talk for us.

Something needs to be done. May 6 will go some way I’m sure.

It is not the common person that is for sure.

What a facade, what a despicable display of disrespect for constituents.

Time to remove these arseholes, either at the ballot box or forcibly.

http://tinytim.tk/defineguilt

Democracy, where ?