BT ordered to block pirate links

[Jambo]

'They' being the record labels. £1 is easily enough to cover their costs - and as i said before, historically bands have had no trouble making their money from gigs/touring and merchandising.

£1 (£0.83 ex VAT) is not enough to cover the costs of production of an album.

Recording
Producing
Pressing
Distributing
iTunes 30% commission
Marketing

Also up and coming bands struggle to make any money touring. It requires a fairly large investment of funds to get going.

For mainstream pop acts maketing costs are astronomical. It costs about $1m to produce and release a Rihanna single.

Today, it is very tough to make a living in the music industry (even for very talented bands) unless they sign to a major label which is a different animal altogether. Major labels have the money to plough in but they need to see a high return to pay back their investors for risking their money.

It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.

 

[Dr Who]

Newzbin clients who use BT must have had a horrible day having to go to google and type NZB and then sifting through the bazillion other websites that catalogue like newzbin, not to mention binsearch.info which is just google for usenet which creates NZB's for you, for free...

All this has done is restrict one persons money making from "piracy promotion" it will have zero impact on piracy.

 

[Glaucus]

All this has done is restrict one persons money making from "piracy promotion" it will have zero impact on piracy.

What it actually does it open the door for many thousands of sites to be blocked, but that would take a while as each one has to goto court and get a judge ruling.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Lol worthy, ip ensures research and development, not hinders.

Who's going to forkout the estimated $1.3billion cost per successful drug development, when others could just take the drug and sale it with no cost of research and testing.

The pharmaceutical agencies will still develop new drugs and they will still sell drugs. It is not clear what you mean, take the drug and sell if with no cost? Do you mean resell the drug for a profit? Do you mean sell the drug as if they made it? Of course drugs are already resold for a profit. If you mean that someone could reverse engineer the drug and produce a copy and sell the drug for a cheaper price, then i see no problem with that. As long as it is of a similar or higher quality, the consumer does not lose out. The original producer is then forced to innovate and improve his product quality or reduce the price and again the consumer wins. Of course drugs and all products for that matter are already reverse engineered and resold with other products that is why we have so many lawsuits etc. There is also people that say that everything is a copy of a copy, nothing is original etc. Lastly of course there will be a cost involved in producing a drug or even a copy of a drug. You would need expensive machinery to produce the drugs and they would have to be of a high standard, the packaging would have to be of a high standard with an information sheet or the pharmacies would not stock them because the competition has them and the consumer wants it.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The pharmaceutical agencies will still develop new drugs and they will still sell drugs. It is not clear what you mean, take the drug and sell if with no cost? Do you mean resell the drug for a profit? Do you mean sell the drug as if they made it? Of course drugs are already resold for a profit. If you mean that someone could reverse engineer the drug and produce a copy and sell the drug for a cheaper price, then i see no problem with that. As long as it is of a similar or higher quality, the consumer does not lose out. The original producer is then forced to innovate and improve his product quality or reduce the price and again the consumer wins. Of course drugs and all products for that matter are already reverse engineered and resold with other products that is why we have so many lawsuits etc. There is also people that say that everything is a copy of a copy, nothing is original etc. Lastly of course there will be a cost involved in producing a drug or even a copy of a drug. You would need expensive machinery to produce the drugs and they would have to be of a high standard, the packaging would have to be of a high standard with an information sheet or the pharmacies would not stock them because the competition has them and the consumer wants it.

I think you're underestimating the costs of pharmaceutical development.

 

[Glaucus]

With no IP rights, anyone could take the new drug manufacture itand sell it. Well well below what the inventing comoany could do, due to the huge cost. Therefore they go bankrupt and no new drugs developed and no existing drugs tested for different treatments. Other than charity/government sponsored clinics which pale in comparison to the spending of large corporations.

You just don't understand anything do you.
Drugs aren't reversed engineered, companies. Get a monopoly for x years, after that any company can make it.

Again who's going to spend $1.3billion per new drug, when another company can come in with none of those over heads and just produce the same drug.

 

[anything I don't mind]

What a load of crap. Joe Bloggs invents a new device. No copyright/patent? Huge Company™ rip it off, make 10,000 of them before Joe Bloggs can finish making the second, and Huge Company™ have loads of profit, Joe Bloggs has nothing.

lolgroen

There is already many cases of this occurring even with intellectual property laws, in fact it could be argued that IP does not help this problem. The first thing anyone does when they invent something is register the invention with the patent office. This then notifies the authorities and other organizations of the invention. Some people have said that the last thing you want to do when you invent something is contact the patent office.

Joe bloggs does not have nothing in the example, he still has the invention, if someone else copies him, there is nothing stopping him from producing the original invention and competing with the person that copied him. We would hope though, as today, that most organizations would pay the inventor money before using the idea.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

There is already many cases of this occurring even with intellectual property laws, in fact it could be argued that IP does not help this problem. The first thing anyone does when they invent something is register the invention with the patent office. This then notifies the authorities and other organizations of the invention. Some people have said that the last thing you want to do when you invent something is contact the patent office.

Joe bloggs does not have nothing in the example, he still has the invention, if someone else copies him, there is nothing stopping him from producing the original invention and competing with the person that copied him. We would hope though, as today, that most organizations would pay the inventor money before using the idea.

lolgroen.

 

[Glaucus]

Why would anyone pay the inventor when there is no reason to.

And how is an inventor going to compete with the low over heads of massive companies that are already tooled up for mass production.

This really is LoL ispf it was so silly,

 

[Dr Who]

What it actually does it open the door for many thousands of sites to be blocked, but that would take a while as each one has to goto court and get a judge ruling.

Indeed, and eventually it will become more expensive than the piracy it is trying to prevent.

Let us not forget that they then have to do each site with each ISP... The situation is unsustainable.

I am not even gonna get into the lost revenues situation as I am unconvinced pirates would ever spend the money anyway and would resort to copying cd's/mp3'ing and ripping films in another way like they did before the internet existed.

 

[Glaucus]

Do they though as said before, other than virgin. Everything is BT infrastructure,

 

[Dr Who]

Do they though as said before, other than virgin. Everything is BT infrastructure,

Wasn't the judgment to BT as an ISP not as an infrastructure provider?

EDIT: Yes, they still need to go after the other ISP's

 

[Vonhelmet]

Wasn't the judgment to BT as an ISP not as an infrastructure provider?

EDIT: Yes, they still need to go after the other ISP's

That's considerably easier now though, now that they've got precedent.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Why would anyone pay the inventor when there is no reason to.

And how is an inventor going to compete with the low over heads of massive companies that are already tooled up for mass production.

This really is LoL ispf it was so silly,

People would pay the inventor if they wanted to know how the invention worked, if you invent something as simple as a hammer then you can not expect no one to copy you. But if you invent a machine that creates matter in your living room. Then people will have to pay you money or steal it. Of course if they breach private property laws then they would be breaking the law. So it would be advisable to keep your invention a secret, or at least keep the blue prints a secret where possible. Alternatively if your invention required complex production methods then it would be possible to share your invention on the internet and then if you find the means, capital and product facility etc you could produce the invention for reasonable price and still make money.

Which companies are you referring to? Tesco for example from what i know is not involved directly with inventing spatulas and plastic tupperware and new tvs etc.

 

[Glaucus]

Why will they have to pay you. You get product and copy it.
With no ip, there would be nothing to stop them doing this. Why would they have to steal it, you just said IP rights should be removed. There would be nothing legally to stop them just copying it.

Really yet again you are living in dream land.

Well I've been using drug companies for the most part.

$1.3bilion to get a drug researched, designed and pass the tests to get it approved.

So you have company A who has 1,0.3billion overheads + manufacturing costs
Or company B that's has manufacturing costs and nothing else.

Who's going to sell it for less, who's going to go out of business and then where does future drug research happen?

 

[UncleBob]

Hull can get Eclipse internet too.

Eclipse and Karoo are both owned by KCOM, so being banned from one will likely bar you from using the other.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I think you're underestimating the costs of pharmaceutical development.

The cost of development is irrelevant to intellectual property. The idea that IP some how allows for research and development and without IP then no one would invent anything because no one could make any money because anyone could just copy an iphone and sell it.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Why will they have to pay you. You get product and copy it.
With no ip, there would be nothing to stop them doing this. Why would they have to steal it, you just said IP rights should be removed. There would be nothing legally to stop them just copying it.

Really yet again you are living in dream land.

Well I've been using drug companies for the most part.

$1.3bilion to get a drug researched, designed and pass the tests to get it approved.

So you have company A who has 1,0.3billion overheads + manufacturing costs
Or company B that's has manufacturing costs and nothing else.

Who's going to sell it for less, who's going to go out of business and then where does future drug research happen?

You get product and copy it, with what a pill duplication machine? With no IP the would be the cost involved in the production and if regulatory approval agencies still existed then there would be the regulation cost as well. Unless you are referring to some sort of black market kitchen copy of a drug that is being sold as an imitation copy? What pharmacy or person even is going to sell that ? I bet a lot of the regulation costs on pharma drugs actually prevent small starts ups more than it helps them. The cost of regulations is a burden on new drug companies.

 

[Glaucus]

You don't need a black kitchen with no IP rights, you simply find out the chemical in the drug and produce it. The drug is already licensed.

It's really not hard and you still skirting the points.


Take another example Dyson.
Pretty much a garage inventor. He builds up a few models and start selling them, with no IP rights, someone buys one. Takes it apart. Ships it off to his multimillion pound factor and kicks them out in far higher quantities and at a 1/3rd of the price Dyson can. Dyson goes bust before he even makes it.

Cost of regulation is a burden? Of course it is that's a good thing, or do you want untested drugs being used..

Just like aspirin, you don't need to get a new license, you just need to show it's aspen and medical grade. There's no new license made for it.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The cost of development is irrelevant to intellectual property. The idea that IP some how allows for research and development and without IP then no one would invent anything because no one could make any money because anyone could just copy an iphone and sell it.

The point, particularly with drugs, is that unless you can be sure of recouping your costs, you aren't going to sink those costs. Why would a company sink a billion dollars researching a working, safe, produceable drug if, having found the formula, anyone can produce it? You wouldn't.

The same goes for high tech stuff, like an iPhone. R&D costs, and if everyone can copy your tech from the get go, why are you going to develop the tech yourself?