BT ordered to block pirate links

[Glaucus]

I do agree with other posts that the way music and digital media is paid for and disseminated needs a remodel. I haven't bought a CD myself in ages, I don't download, I don't fileshare, I just listen to the radio or watch music channels on TV, youtube or even grooveshark.

They have remodelled, they get paid for this.
Raidio pays them, YouTube pays then, tv pays them, I can only assume grooveshack does as well.

 

[kylew]

This chestnut again

A) two wrongs don't make a right and you seem happy enough they are being taken to court, so why not individuals?
B) if this is the article you linked to earlier, they have the copyright and the contracts the arguments is the artists aren't being given the correct amount of royalties, which will come down to what the contracts say.

I wasn't saying two wrongs make a right, you are again purposefully misunderstanding me. It was in response to being asked why I think it's about control and their ego. Do I really have to explain this to you? My response was that "surely they can't be that bothered about piracy, that it's their real reason for their actions, otherwise they wouldn't partake in piracy themselves".

Additionally, they're making money off other people's work, this is far worse than the piracy that they're known to complain about because of the "poor artists" they they couldn't care less about.

 

[kylew]

All credit to you there kylew, you certainly don't give up easily . . . you keep right on stealing other people's work wee laddie

That's rich coming from you...

 

[Glaucus]

They are making money of stuff they own, they own it, they own the rights and the contracts.

It remains to be seen if they are withholding money, unless you got an updated article on the outcome.

And yes you have to explain yourself, because of this one court case, you think they aren't bothered about piracy and loss revenue. Yep you will have to explain that one as it makes no sense and goes against all information and research out there.

 

[Dolph]

Because what will criminalising it actually do to help the situation? It will cost more money than they're claiming to lose, and open the way for web censorship in a bad way. Making piracy a criminal act will just result in more criminals being produced, seems entirely pointless to me.

Criminalisation closes the door to web censorship, not opens it. It places the responsibility firmly back on the individual, rather than on ISPs or quangos to police the web.

How is it a fallacy? You're the one assuming more people would be employed if they were making more money, that's just an assumption on your own behalf.

I'm not assuming it is happening, just pointing out that you are assuming that it is not. Perhaps if you provided some evidence to support your viewpoint (independently sourced evidence would be nice), then I would be more inclined to accept it.

I'm not condoning it, but I'm also not saying it's a big issue that needs to be fixed. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be controlled on the basis that people who pirate might not buy anyway. The whole piracy debate is very much a grey area, yet loads of people love talking facts and figures that are essentially fabricated. From my experience, and I'm sure I've read reports on it stating that those who do pirate are more inclined to buy more, which correlates with my experience of it.

All the reports I've read that say that have been published by piracy advocate groups, and get treated with the same skepticism as research published by the music industry. We need some good, independent research into the situation.

Incidentally, I'll point out again that I don't support criminalisation is isolation, but as part of a package that works to strengthen and clarify the rights of both content owners and consumers. Currently the rules and laws are an outdated mess, and that needs to change. Consumers should have the right to do what they want with the media (apart from distribution) once they have bought it, but the counter to that is that the content owners get greater support in controlling the rights that remain with them.

 

[Scrutinize]

They have remodelled, they get paid for this.
Raidio pays them, YouTube pays then, tv pays them, I can only assume grooveshack does as well.

yes but this still doesn't appear to be reducing piracy.

 

[kylew]

have you got any actual evidence for this? because from a legal, and in my opinion moral perspective, industry has a right to defend and charge for its IPR

I do agree with other posts that the way music and digital media is paid for and disseminated needs a remodel. I haven't bought a CD myself in ages, I don't download, I don't fileshare, I just listen to the radio or watch music channels on TV, youtube or even grooveshark.

piracy of digital media has happened because it can and it is easy, it is a combination of many factors but ultimately, the industry needs a re-think on how they approach and license distribution and the pirates/filesharers need to accept that what they do is not acceptable no matter how they try to dress it up or put spin on it.

otherwise all that will happen are more draconian measures like this.

I don't have any "evidence", but surely it's an easy conclusion, no? How can they actually care about piracy if they're so willing to do it themselves? Surely their cries of "poor artists" and "Piracy is awful" is just an excuse for something else?

Also, piracy isn't something new to digital media, it's a lot easier but even with physical media, piracy was very much active for many years before things became digital.

 

[Tefal]

I think people are moving away fro man important point here.


newzbin doesn't host any copywrited media at all.


surely they should block links to the actual file hoster not some random 3rd party.

AS this is basically censoring a site which provides information the government doesn't want people to have, not any illegal content purely information.

 

[Glaucus]

yes but this still doesn't appear to be reducing piracy.

Why would It. People can own the file for free, there is pretty much nothing the music industry can do to reduce it. They have done everything they can from high quality drm free files, to subscription models, to free advertised models.

 

[Scrutinize]

All credit to you there kylew, you certainly don't give up easily . . . you keep right on stealing other people's work wee laddie

That's rich coming from you...

is it the ultimate compliment or ultimate insult?

 

[kylew]

Criminalisation closes the door to web censorship, not opens it. It places the responsibility firmly back on the individual, rather than on ISPs or quangos to police the web.



I'm not assuming it is happening, just pointing out that you are assuming that it is not. Perhaps if you provided some evidence to support your viewpoint (independently sourced evidence would be nice), then I would be more inclined to accept it.



All the reports I've read that say that have been published by piracy advocate groups, and get treated with the same skepticism as research published by the music industry. We need some good, independent research into the situation.

Incidentally, I'll point out again that I don't support criminalisation is isolation, but as part of a package that works to strengthen and clarify the rights of both content owners and consumers. Currently the rules and laws are an outdated mess, and that needs to change. Consumers should have the right to do what they want with the media (apart from distribution) once they have bought it, but the counter to that is that the content owners get greater support in controlling the rights that remain with them.

Well with that, I'll say that without piracy, there are a lot of games and movies I wouldn't have bought. From my experience, piracy creates sales (I'm not stating it categorically, though I do believe it to be the case) which is why I have hundreds of games in my Steam account.

 

[Dolph]

I think people are moving away fro man important point here.


newzbin doesn't host any copywrited media at all.


surely they should block links to the actual file hoster not some random 3rd party.

AS this is basically censoring a site which provides information the government doesn't want people to have, not any illegal content purely information.

This argument was destroyed in the first court case against newzbin...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...bin-hammered-by-uk-court-for-infringement.ars

 

[kylew]

Why would It. People can own the file for free, there is pretty much nothing the music industry can do to reduce it. They have done everything they can from high quality drm free files, to subscription models, to free advertised models.

But it's still the model that consumers obviously don't want. As people are saying, if there was a legitimate service that gave you everything you get through piracy, I'd imagine piracy numbers would reduce a lot. People paying £10 for newsgoup access would hardly be against paying the same for official access to the same media, but the media companies don't want to adapt their business model with the times.

 

[Glaucus]

But it's still the model that consumers obviously don't want. As people are saying, if there was a legitimate service that gave you everything you get through piracy, I'd imagine piracy numbers would reduce a lot. People paying £10 for newsgoup access would hardly be against paying the same for official access to the same media, but the media companies don't want to adapt their business model with the times.

What do you get in piracy that you don't get in the music industry? You get far more options in the music industry. The only thing the music industry can't offer is free content. That's it, the one thing.

There are service where you pay a fix amount for all the content you want. So that's null and void.

 

[RomanNose]

I think people are moving away fro man important point here.


newzbin doesn't host any copywrited media at all.


surely they should block links to the actual file hoster not some random 3rd party.

AS this is basically censoring a site which provides information the government doesn't want people to have, not any illegal content purely information.

Yes this is what I have said various times, I can't believe that this has gotten through the courts when they are not even hosting . There is one technology that I have forgotten the name of, it's basically a key that you can use to find a file on a p2p network. I am not sure how large it is, but let's say it's 8 characters long, should it be illegal to distribute these keys?

 

[Scrutinize]

I don't have any "evidence", but surely it's an easy conclusion, no? How can they actually care about piracy if they're so willing to do it themselves? Surely their cries of "poor artists" and "Piracy is awful" is just an excuse for something else?

then you need to appreciate it is nothing more than your opinion, you may be right, you may be wrong.

Also, piracy isn't something new to digital media, it's a lot easier but even with physical media, piracy was very much active for many years before things became digital.

indeed, but the scale of piracy was significantly limited when it was on physical media. it was / is still a large industry though but people I knew accepted piracy with physical media was wrong whereas they don’t seem to have the same mindset with digital media.

Why would It. People can own the file for free, there is pretty much nothing the music industry can do to reduce it. They have done everything they can from high quality drm free files, to subscription models, to free advertised models.

I don’t have the solution, if I did, I probably wouldn’t be posting on here, rather touting my consultancy fees with the industry.

maybe, they should just roll with it, disseminate all the media free directly themselves, and try to make money from website banner advertising. This may kill off stores like HMV but they are suffering anyway.

 

[Danthus]

But you can work to protect your right to work within the new framework instead of the current one.

This isn't about rights, it is about money.

 

[Jambo]

As for the independent record labels, they don't have a divine right to earn money as a record label, and it's becoming truer all the time that record labels aren't as necessary as they once were, what if all of a record label's artists went independent and the record label wasn't able to earn any money from it? Is that the same as stealing too?

They have a right to receive payment for the music their artists create. If all of a record label's artists went independent the bands would still be operating as a self published label which is often what an independent record label is. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a portfolio of bands.

It's not about naive people "stealing" from these record labels, they wouldn't be operating if they weren't making any money.

That is not true. Many labels are operating at a loss and struggling to make money because people aren't prepared to pay for music.

I think people are moving away fro man important point here.


newzbin doesn't host any copywrited media at all.


surely they should block links to the actual file hoster not some random 3rd party.

AS this is basically censoring a site which provides information the government doesn't want people to have, not any illegal content purely information.

The site is directly supporting and encouraging piracy. I think they should block both.

 

[Glaucus]

maybe, they should just roll with it, disseminate all the media free directly themselves, and try to make money from advertising. This may kill off stores like HMV but they are suffering anyway.

there already is several services which is free and based on advertisement. But then people complain that it's got advertisement. That's the thing there is no solution and there is nothing more the music industry can do. It is a clear sign that the laws need updating.

 

[Dolph]

This isn't about rights, it is about money.

It's about both, the right to control your property is what allows you to make money, you can't make money without protecting that right.