Yes i know people might not download next to nothing, but if this did happen I can see TalkTalk & BskyB paying it for the users. This will get them more customers alone!
But if the Copyright people did find a Legal Way of letting us download then piracy would take a plunge only the Cam's etc which are out there which look like a road with a pothole in them "Dire" will be downloaded.
Hmm, IP law, my speciality :-)
Bear in mind that, whilst downloading is not a crime, neither will it ever be, filesharing (which entails - from necessity- an element of uploading via seeding) is a civil offence and there are certain occasions where it can be considered a criminal act. For example, making something available to the public prior to public release could be considered a criminal act. Indeed, I am aware of three people who are currently awaiting criminal trial under the proceeds of crime act, admittedly they are site owners, but the principle is the same.
Whilst the ISPs will not be taking unilateral action against suspected filesharers (in other words, they will be responding only to specific complaints) the issue of privacy of the individual takes second place to the need to "uphold the law":
Bleating on about human rights being breached will get nobody anywhere if they end up in court, as the court will simply take the view that, in trying to steal someone else's work, you have breached their human rights in the first place. Remember, human rights cut both ways.Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8: Right to privacy
(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I am not in favour of the proposed changes in legislation, far from it, but neither am I particularly comfortable in defending the wholesale theft of another person's property, even if it is "just" their intellectual property. And, yes, I am a lawyer, yes, I am well experienced in copyright law and, yes, I have defended filesharers (and sites) - successfully.
Up until now, if you have been suspected of filesharing copyrighted material, it has been necessary for the complainant to obtain an order against your ISP forcing them to disclose your identity based on the IP address in use on a specific date and at a specific time. This has taken time and cost, and resulted in blatant profiteering by certain highly disreputable high profile city lawyers.
The proposed changes circumvent all that, leaving it for the ISP to issue a warning (with right of challenge and even the right of appeal) to the individual subscriber, based on a complaint made by the recording/software/movie industries. The subscriber will have the choice of a) ignoring it and risking loss of service, b) challenging it on the basis that they use an unsecured wireless network, they have had others in their homes or whatever or, c) accepting it and being grateful that they aren't being hit with a summons for a massively inflated sum.
Whilst this is likely to spur the growth of "detection bodies" scouring for the IP addresses of alleged infringer's, it is likely to end the nonsense that has already seen blood sucking legal vultures (Google for Davenport Lyons if you haven't already) demanding money from individuals under the threat that they will take them to court if they don't stump up on the spot. And not before time, in my humble opinion.
Are these proposed changes really that bad, I ask myself? Fewer spurious legal threats, fewer fat cat city lawyers making money out of frightened teenagers and their parents, and fewer people in court, in return for a verbal slap on the wrist from your ISP sounds like a much fairer deal to me. Especially as they're only likely to hit the most prolific filesharers, the sort who seem intent on downloading the planet for the sake of it just because it's free, and not the vast majority of casual P2Pers who are using the internet in the same way people taped off the radio in years gone by.
And for those intent on avoiding censure, there are always newsgroups, private P2P groups, VPNs and outfits such as RapidShare. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, filesharing will continue much as it has been developing and there's little that can be done about it.
But it wouldn't have come to all this in the first place if some people hadn't been quite so greedy, so blame them, not the MPs or the judges whose job it is to protect everyone's rights - not just the rights of those who help themselves. As usual, it is the behaviour of a selfish minority that threatens to ruin things for the rest of us. Let's not forget that it is the person whose property is stolen who is regarded as the victim in law.
(sorry for long posting)
TVC Administration
☑ ITV ☑ Chan 4 ☑Chan 5 ☑ SKY/BSB ☐ COMMON SENSE
Removal of privilidge
My worry is that people who loose their connection to the internet will be at a big disadvantage in the future. In my thinking this will most likely be the most vulnerable people in society.
Governments are essentially there to protect everyone especially the most vulnerable and quick legislation without considering the effect will cause problems in the future.
Intellectual property is a strange concept. If someone has spent time and effort to produce something they want to be paid for it. However does that mean that they would not have produced the product at all if they were not going to be paid.
I had a friend who designed slippers for a very fashionable slipper! firm. She was paid a normal day to day wage but her designs that the firm owned could be sold for more than 50 pounds an item. The designs were created by her and it was the design that attracted the customer but the firm made all the money. So if another company created a similar look for a cheaper price it would make no difference to my friends welfare.
It is the same in the entertainment industry. A talentless business person who could not create themselves is the person who looses financially not the artist. I should say talentless is an artistic way more than business knowledge.
Lastly a few people have mentioned the quality of the product available on the internet being inferior but I have to say that is just not true. I remember the days of watching films like ET on pirate video and really having to suffer the bad angles, snowy picture and incredible bad audio. Things have improved a lot and that is why the real industry should be investing in ways to provide a proper internet service. Charging per item won't work but as previously mentioned some type of monthly fee would.
Why on earth should we allow ourselves to be charged a levy of £5 to support a commercial and profit-making section of industry?
Yes, they have a sob-story. Perhaps they should embrace the technology more and accept that society is changing, as also are peoples' demands and methods. Maybe they should think more about falling in line with technology as it advances.
The UK has, for quite a few years, been charged a higher-than-average price for CDs and other media - that is common knowledge. To even suggest that we start to subsidise an already lucrative part of industry is absolutely preposterous!
Just as a bank might refuse to allow those wearing "hoodies" or crash helmets into their establishments or a vegetarian restaurant may refuse to offer diners any meat based products, why should any content producer be forced to distribute any particular content in any particular way?
It is true to argue that we pay a far higher price for content over here, the worst example of which being Apple's iTunes. But that doesn't justify helping yourself. If everyone did that, there would be no incentive to invest, therefore a lot less worth downloading in the first place.
Apple (Corps, the Beatles label, not the fashion label badge stuck on imported electronic goods) have refused to release digital online versions of the Beatles catalogue for years. Whether or not that is a bad decision, it is their property, it is therefore their decision to make.
The whole levy idea isn't going to happen, it was originally thrown out by the House of Lords in the CBS-v- Amstrad case donkeys years ago (home taping (proposals). Only the most prolific uploaders and sharers will be affected, not the occasional downloaders.
Regardless of whether or not I think our copyright laws are total cr@p, which I most certainly do, I would be pretty annoyed if someone helped themselves to my property and then stuck two fingers up at me when I complained about it. Half the people moaning about these proposals are just leechers anyway, they seldom reseed content, so it will make little difference to them.
What would people rather receive, a warning from their ISP or a letter from a solicitor demanding damages?
TVC Administration
☑ ITV ☑ Chan 4 ☑Chan 5 ☑ SKY/BSB ☐ COMMON SENSE
That is the principle of marketing. Those that provide the better service in a better way to satisfy their customers more are the ones who will probably, in the long run, do better than their competitors.Originally Posted by TVC_Daniel
Regrettably we are starting to follow the ways of the US (as we unfortunately do in far too many things!). We are beginning to lose touch with the healthy capitalist society that I was brought up in. When people provided a service, it was actually a service they provided and would even sometimes go out of their way to do it. This might even sometimes be at some cost to themselves.
We are already well into becoming an exploitative society - get what you can, when you can, regardless of what it does to the consumers. A true service rarely exists. If it does, then it is more likely to be almost entirely because it returns a profit.
What I am arriving at is that it is becoming the organisations that are almost entirely dictating terms. The consumers are getting screwed left, right and centre. We are hearing about it every day now. Two days ago Sainsburys were not willing to give me almost £5 back as a credit note as change from a gift voucher. They wanted me to spend it because they did not issue credit notes! I did not give in. I'm also going to have a confrontation with British Gas because they have still not brought down their prices as they should have done.
Far too many people sit back and allow themselves to be told how to do things. If there were no resistance against bad or inappropriate marketing techniques, or methods that people did not agree with, then, as a society, we would be going nowhere. Some of the media organisations have embrased the change in technology and are changing their marking accordingly. Good for them, and I hope they do well.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments regarding consumer rights and the need for consumer protection, surely those same rights equally extend to those who produce and sell the goods stolen by filesharers?
If people provide a service at a cost to themselves, then they generally don't last very long in business. How people market and distribute their goods is entirely their business, not that of the people helping themselves to goods/services without payment. Capitalism is a double edged sword, competitive forces and the anarchic wholesale theft of goods do not sit comfortably alongside each other within the definition of a free market economy, and this isn't something that we can blame on the Americans.
Let's not confuse issues, a lot of downloading is prompted more by greed than need. Most people download because it is free, and the prevailing mentality is that of "if I can get away with it, I will steal stuff until it is all gone". If people were sharing 128Kb/s or 192Kb/s MP3s, or VHS quality movies, I rather suspect that very few would be all that bothered.
The fact that people are distributing 390Kb/s near perfect copies of albums, or DVD quality rips of movies that haven't yet been completed, let alone released to the public, has attracted the anger of the content providers. And I'm not sure that I entirely blame them if I am honest about it, it is one thing to argue they are pricing themselves out of the market, but another thing altogether to have it stolen.
And as both a lawyer and an occasional filesharer myself, I can't find it in my heart to jump on the outrage bus when content providers start biting back. And I hardly think a stiff ticking off from an ISP is all that bad, compared to the alternative threat from an ambulance chasing firm of city lawyers demanding their pound of flesh. If it bothers people that much, perhaps they should be using newsgroups, vpns, private sites or rapidshare instead of sucking the life out of the global Internet to fuel their unstoppable kleptomania and causing trouble for the rest of us.
TVC Administration
☑ ITV ☑ Chan 4 ☑Chan 5 ☑ SKY/BSB ☐ COMMON SENSE
The market is far far larger than just file-sharers. Within this group, there would be a percentage of file-sharers who are using a very vague complaint against the media companies as an excuse for their activities. They probably haven't given the issue much thought anyway.
Unless a protest is organised and co-ordinated, there has to be some activity which catches attention. In this instance, file-sharing has achieved this. The person who goes into Virgin and buys his CD or DVD does not achieve it, whatever his feelings.
I would therefore very much debate the point whether file-sharers are spoiling it for the majority. It could easily be argued that they are in fact achieving a change in the thinking and subsequent marketing methods of media which will probably be beneficial to most in the long term.
Im Spartacus
The "prolific uploaders and sharers" will as you say use "newsgroups, vpns, private sites or rapidshare".
The occasional downloaders such as my old lady will continue to use Limewire and get me disconnected from my ISP.
Wireless technology is highly vulnerable, so anyone with a laptop can download £549.99 Microsoft Office.
Its unfortunate that my old lady uses limewire, as she has got herself a virus which makes her part of a botnet, where the hacker uses my Ip to download £1536.33 Adobe Collection.
Unfortunately, since i am the bill payer of broadband my ISP is forced to ban me. Probably put me on a blacklist, so no other ISP's accept me.
Its a bad scenario, and how can I prove that it was my mum and should i have to "grass" her up for downloading some beatles. In any case thei'd blame me, the guy who runs his business online. Yey big fine and no internet, i get to work at asda.
----------------
The way I see it, its unenforceable unless the government decide to bring the ID cards out and we have to enter our "id" everytime we go in the world wide web.
Noobs will get hit, the leet will use better methods. The circle continues.
My webserver can download for me, 1&1 will get cut of the internet that would be fun.
On another note, I don't agree that content producers are getting hit "as much" as they make out. I have software with a high value, I use it irregularly it is highly useful but I would not buy it i have the money too but its too expencive, id use open source alternatives.
I downloaded an album the other month, only to listen to it and delete it. If this was in CD format id of sold it on ebay, therefore producers lose actual sales to 2nd hand.;
Adam H
" You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. "
Dealing with the rather specious statement:
It could only be argued by a delusional moron. Filesharers aren't "pioneering" anything, least of all performing any public duty, they're taking something for free that they don't have the right to. If it were a criminal offence then it would be called theft, pure and simple:It could easily be argued that they are in fact achieving a change in the thinking and subsequent marketing methods of media which will probably be beneficial to most in the long term.
Fortunately it isn't generally considered a criminal offence (see previous posts), but it is a civil issue that can cost you dearly. By all means fileshare as you feel fit, but don't try to justify the deed as if it were a benefit to society. For that matter, I wouldn't try to use that argument in defence or mitigation in a real court of law.Section 1, Thefts Act 1968:
A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Second issue; I agree that the proposed changes will impact upon the more naive user, but it is still going to be a whole lot better to find yourself (or your mother, in that case) opening a warning from an ISP (and you do get two of them, each accompanied with the right of challenge and the subsequent right of appeal) than a demand from a solicitor or, worse still, a summons.
As I have said previously, I have no particular axe to wield against filesharers, I do so myself, but I think people need to stop and take stock of the fact that if these proposals are adopted then far fewer people are going to end up on court. Whether you believe it or not, most lawyers consider that to be a good thing.
TVC Administration
☑ ITV ☑ Chan 4 ☑Chan 5 ☑ SKY/BSB ☐ COMMON SENSE
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
