Here is the pledge:
http://www.28chan.org/pledge.php

no biggie

“Dear Ed,

I recently read your speech at the Intellect Conference with interest, particularly your comments about P2P and illegal downloading.

You rightly state that “we do not know and cannot know what all the answers are…” however I’m sure many vested interests on both sides of the debate are eager to point out to you what they consider are the answers.

Let me be upfront, I use a bittorrent client to do a lot of downloading, I have a Linux operating system and depend upon free open-source software as well as an efficient bittorrent client to access legal software and works.

I consider file-sharing and piracy to be two different things. For instance, it could be argued that file-sharing actually defeats piracy. Piracy is the stealing/poaching of goods to sell on to the public and depriving the owner of those goods of profit. File-sharing is just that, sharing, but electronically. In the 80’s I would make a music tape and perhaps lend it to a friend. The friend would not pay for this and it may even be the case that he finds a band he likes and then goes on to purchase their albums.

No financial transaction takes place between the two people who share. Through the 90’s I would record songs played on the radio onto a tape or CD. Again this is not frowned upon and costs the Intellectual Property owner nothing (IP owners actually send their music FREE to radio stations to play- imagine that?!). Hence, there is an argument that file-sharing promotes creativity and profits for content producers/owners (I think there are stats flying around the internet but I don’t have any to hand).

What copyright owners are suffering from at the moment seems to be an old business model, not the effects of file-sharing. Just as the horse drawn carriage suffered the onset of the motor car. No-one tried to copyright 4 wheel transport and restrict it to horses, and so should anyone really be trying to prevent new technologies from reaching their potential? The success of Apple I-tunes shows there is a profit to be made from embracing these technologies not limiting them (Apple I-tunes is essentially a P2P/download client- just not bittorrent).

Your speech on the whole seemed fair and balanced, not drawing any conclusions or inferences. However I did find this statment confusing:

“An operator investing in next generation networks will not want it clogged up with illegal peer-to-peer content if that means no-one will pay to ensure a return on the investment…”

Is broadband now free? You see I’m paying for my connection and I’m paying the rate set by my ISP for the bandwidth that they have promised. As far as I can see, poeple like me are the ones paying higher rates for higher bandwidth, so people like me are the ones using P2P or online gaming who are expecting to see a ROI.

If my ISP does not want to take my money and invest in next generation infrastructure, then I’ll cancel my contract and give my money to a another ISP that will.

One other thing, illegal bits (the bits that make up network traffic travelling over a connection) are no different to legal bits. That is to say, an mp3 from a legal website (or mp4 from itunes) is the same size of an mp3 from an illegal P2P connection. BBC’s iPlayer (a great service and terrific step forward) is as much a threat to bandwidth as a P2P shared movie. Being illegal doesn’t make the files somehow larger (if anything DRM in the legal files cause bloat).

If ISPs and content providers can’t provide the bandwidth to handle higher traffic, then they shouldn’t be advertising the service. After all, who do you think it is who pays for higher bandwidth and drives the need for investment in better infrastructure?

I thank you for taking the time to read this email,

AF”

They don’t agree and rule on their beliefs; they look out for the entire interest of the public and any middle man in-between.

Ofcome stopped mobile networks o2, t-mobile (and any other mobile operator who has offices in the UK) to cap prices on overseas call charging if they had operations in that country too.”

I thought that was the European commissioner/ess who did that?

thanks for the info.

But… The term “glogging” seems to be used as a scare tactic.

Is P2P traffic slowing down the interwebz {clogging} like the claim?

And when will the “clog” become so bad that the interwebz “stops” all together because of it?

So we lose more rights…yay…

It could work very much like the PPL licence for playing music in public does.
The ISPs pay a licence fee which is distributed out to all parties involed; Software and Media alike.
With the licence fee being passed onto the subscribers.

The “file sharers” get their content for what they consider to be “free” (nobody ever sees hidden charges once they’re on there).
The ISPs get to keep their subcsribers, and actually increase their revenue stream.
The Internet gets to keep it open structure.
And seemingly most important of all (caugh) the greedy corporate bastards get their money for producing what they call “art”!

The only way forward for isp’s on the bandwidth front is to enforce caps. I’m currently on a capped service but have no port throttling etc so have no complaints.

They seem to make the isp’s sound poor. People are now using their connections for video services etc, is that such a sin, using what they are paying for… But it’s perfectly fine for them to infect us with the likes of phorm, and they don’t want us complaining.. wankers!!

There is shit-loads more than that.

The main thing here is _*ANY*_… Not ours/theirs/etc… _*ANY*_ that includes bittorrent, emule etc… whichever service I choose that isn’t extra pay should be covered by this… Imagine all the revenue they could get from punters this way. 1000*20=20000 now that isn’t that small a fee now is there…

C’mon start thinking… Make such deals with tv studios etc…

They don’t agree and rule on their beliefs; they look out for the entire interest of the public and any middle man in-between.

Ofcome stopped mobile networks o2, t-mobile (and any other mobile operator who has offices in the UK) to cap prices on overseas call charging if they had operations in that country too.

That meant, we, as a customer were rewarded with capped rates and these networks took the bullet.

In this situation Ofcom won’t just look at what’s right or wrong. If Ofcom can prove file-sharers are what keeps these ISP in business; that’s just one step in favour of making illegal file-sharing legal. And don’t get too carried away, you might find Ofcom going into debates and are in favour of file-sharers but pull out at the last minute. Why? Who wants to destroy the entire economy with making illegal file-sharing legal.

http://www.knockoffornot.com/default.aspx

Now firstly the ad calls him a crappy little man… Those are pretty strong words for an advert, gypses get called less, plus it’s pretty much a bully advert to me. Secondly there online game involves pelting people who download with tomatoes and such…

Surely this should be something to complained about to Ofcom???

Piracy’s a good driver for demand. OFCOM know this but there are pressures to curtail it because it doesn’t serve everyone’s interests fairly. I think it’s a difficult and complex situation between media companies and network access providers with ‘piracy’ of relative significance sat in the middle.

I don’t, as most (anyone?), have any surefire answers. Maybe the media companies should strike deals with the ISPs to provide a content distribution service to ISP subscribers that serves all interests involved. The ISPs have the facility. The media companies the product. The subscribers the appetite. Configure an attractive, competitive system with an interest in creating fairness for all. Challenge piracy by offering an attractive alternative for a majority of consumers. If it serves consumer interest (fairly priced, legitimate, high-quality, fast, easy, …) there will be demand. If the arrangement serves ISP interests (legitimacy, security, profitability, …) they’ll have more incentive to put pressure on piracy. Media companies could stand to regain their authoritive position of control over the distribution of their media. They also get paid. They also make friends with the real powers here, the ISPs, who may through self-interest serve to fight their cause.

Maybe OFCOM could help regulate something like this if deemed necessary. If they (all parties involved) can progressively squeeze piracy out to be replaced with legitimate and in-demand services, they could provide a more attractive incentive for investment into next-gen infrastructure development, one not so driven by current demand fuelled by the uncertainty and unfair act of unbridled piracy. Hopefully, though, if OFCOM do choose to do something they don’t just act irrationally by serving the interests of a few.

This is complete and utter bullshit.

New technology is fast enough to be able to handle peer to peer content with relative ease. It’s the old crumbling dinosaurs that are staggering under it’s weight. When you invest in new networks, it’s the filesharers that give you your return on your investment. They’re the ones that are putting food on your table.

Just talk to Verizon.

Man, we’ve talked about this, your becoming SPAM, your getting to as bad as the people your fighting?

Anyways… Anyone seen the Knock Off Nigel ads in the UK again? There’s a link to the website here on the right.

Now can someone explain to me, does Knock Off Nigel refer to him being a cheap skate? or is it the Movie/Music industries prefered thing to do with illegal downloading, Knock them off? I get the message a little confused…