None of the government's ideas on how to address widespread copyright infringement via peer-to-peer networks has won support from both the rights holder and internet industries, it admitted today. The failure to achieve consensus on the issue spotlights Lord Carter's Digital Britain report, which will be published later this …
No voluntary consensus, so we'll have to legislate
As we can see, the government things no consensus over a law is better than no consensus over a voluntary agreement.
So who's going to end up with the short straw, the BPI or the ISPA?
"It would appear that the Government has placed particular emphasis on agreeing appropriate sanctions for repeat infringers. ISPA members would like to see equal emphasis and resources devoted to user education and viable legal alternatives."
That'll be the ISPA, then.
I've noticed that p2p is throttled so much (20k instead of 200k) I've had to go back to the ole direct download. Much faster and means no illegal sharing :D
The short straw will end up with the users (as usual)
The information commissioner
"....might give the impression that too much weight is being given to the rights of the industry at the expense of the rights of individual users"
There's a reason that we all got that impression Mr ICO
Call me a Libertarian...
But what does the Government have to do with this? Surely it's between the rights holders and the ISPs?
Old Sayings are the best.....
If you cant beat em... you know the rest.
To echo others views, why are the government involved at all ?
There is a legal process in place for the BPI to follow if they wish to prosecute, but they don't want to. Why ? Because in the UK you cant sue for punitive damages, so stupid cases of people being asked to pay $250,000 for 6 tracks wont happen.
So the BPI, who cant be bothered to use the law as it stands, seek to change it for their own nefarious ends and since it's big business, NuLabour just ask for a nice fat fee paid into their party funds.
Let the fires burn
One of the big things with regards to the internet is equal access for all users. If you start doing this how do you decide what is legal and what is illegal. Start throttling P2P traffic, but not all P2P traffic is illegal. I get all my Linux dlds through BitTorrent
I suppose they could check as this country seems to be quite docile to letting the gov't look into everything.
I figure if I let it go it will get to the point that gov't as we know it will implode like it did with Kings and Queens, only difference is it won't be as peacful.
Long may the fires burn in the hearts of every man woman and child. the fires of freedom, and equality. And may these fires set light to those in the elite class who look down on those that keep the world working.
Fuck the BPI.
I wouldn't waste bandwidth downloading any of the shit they're responsible for.
High Speed Internet
The ISPs have a point here: Which home user will pay for a high-speed connection when they can only browse the web on it? *
Without a decent legal alternative to illegal downloads, most people simply would not need more than a basic, say, 2Mbit line (in fact 512k would probably be more than adequate). Hence ISPs loose money.
* of course there will always be those who don't realise they don't need such a fast line and will get the best they can afford anyway, but this is just general stupidity....
now pass the dope
Not just music
Surely the majority of P2P traffic is no longer music-based - video and software are just as widely shared and have much larger file sizes. It is simply that FACT and BSA don't have the right lobbyists ?
The law is the last refuge of the dinosaur.
These neanderthal companies just don't understand reality.
Re: High Speed Internet
"Which home user will pay for a high-speed connection when they can only browse the web on it?"
Well, the web includes iPlayer. So you can throw away your telly and just watch TV online. The money you've saved on the TV License will pay about half the cost of an Internet connection.
"most people simply would not need more than a basic, say, 2Mbit line (in fact 512k would probably be more than adequate)"
I've tried both speeds. 512k isn't fast enough for iPlayer, 2M is fine. But, I haven't tried iPlayer HD.
I heartily agree.
the whole p2p fiasco is meerley a sideshow to distract the low-brow media from the fact that people are simply not willing to fork out for the re-hashed crap that the members of the BPI and RIAA are churning out.
Personally, I want to see Time Warner, Sony, BMG et al forced out of the music industry. Then hopefully the quality of content should dramatically improve as the Indies start to regain their rightful shares of the market.
We seem to forget that the mass market music industry is a flash in the pan. Manufactured bands were lapped up by punters who didn't know any better ever since Motown and some of the early fifties 'rock' bands.
We all remember the select few classics that survived, but if you were to collect all the tracks from the top 40 when that said track was released, you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between the majority of the rubber-stamped chords and rifts.
The big money part of the music biz was always going to be a flash in the pan, as the very tech that enabled such a biz, also spelled its downfall even back then, as it gave consumers greater choice.
It's simply that the tech saturation has reached the point where the savy consumer doesn't want to give out all his dosh for the musical equivelent of battleship grey wallpaper
@Re: High Speed Internet
Lol don't expect that tv license loop hole to stay open much longer.
Fortunatly most of the people who release the media I aquire don't particularly care about the rest of the world and have even opened most of their shows to online broadcasting.
Still, it's a great new thing the bootboys will be able to their Great British Firewall.
Sadly, if you watch TV through iPlayer, you're STILL required to have a TV License.
They have us by the bollocks whichever way we turn.
Yet again I say it...
Has the .gov never heard of encryption?
I am genuinely amazed anyone can be that stupid and know less about computers than the average 10 year old...
TV license law and iPLayer
The law with regards to iPlayer is - you only need to have alicense if you watch "live" TV - ie that which is streamed at the same as is broadcast through regular channels. "Catch up" TV is license exempt - I know, I heard a BBC lawer person on Radio 4 just yesterday clear this up.
weep for this once great Britain
Where once we had a government and a navy that were the first to stand against slavery, where we had a government that lead on universal suffrage, that invented a national health service that actually helped heal, that refused to give into fascism, that refused even in the darkest days of war to give up liberties and privacies for the people. Now we have this lot. In the pay of anyone with a few grand and a brown envelope, the people are a nuisance, an irregularity to be brow(n)beaten and forced into line. There has been a new spurious law on average for every day these incompetents have been in power. A new way of making an ordinary citizen a criminal, for that is what we all are in their eyes, criminals, waiting to be caught. Only the powerful, rich or the favoured are to be allowed freedom.
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment…You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinised…"
Weep for what we have done to ourselves.
@Piggy and Tazzy
The way I understand the law, you only need a license if you watch material online at the same time as it is broadcast on TV. Watching catchup services like iPlayer don't (currently) require you to have a license.
@Piggy and Tazzy
Actually, you only require a licence to watch live BBC broadcasts, as the iPlayer is not live its all good... :)
... just stear clear of the live broadcasts and its all ok... but for £10 a month is it really that much of a hardship? I'd pay that for mock the week on its own.
Someone MUST be responsible for our FAIL
The common people, who just were stolen the credit crunch money *twice* (once directly, once with the bailout), don't buy our mega-expensive stinking pile of pop tripe anymore. Shurely that's because they download it illegally, not because they are tired to finance our yacht-sized jets and supertanker-sized yachts by forking an arm and a leg for our recycled turd.
That's typical. Someone else MUST be responsible. Preferably someone powerless enough so that they can't fight back. Joe Bloggs will do! That's the same reason why the "not my fault" crook crowd are currently "bailed out" of the grave they dug, thanks to Joe Bloggs' tax money. You'll note that Joe Bloggs, who lost his house in the deal, will not be bailed out...
Hey, I've got a solution. Why don't we give the BPI, RIAA and friends whatever preposterous pile of cash they claim they lost because of P2P? Just give them some tax money! How much do they want? 2 T$? 3T$? No problem!
a kiddie workaround
So when one kid at a school buys the tune on itunes then bluetooths it to their 10 mates who all do the same.....at what point can BPI and all the other fools get involved?
They are wasting their time on what is really a great source of free viral product advertising if they applied more of their energy to something positive rather than pissing people off.
Enforcement by Ofcom?
Ha ha ha! The BPI really is demonstrating how tenuous its hold on reality is with this suggestion. There may be something of a Borg mentality at Riverside house, but they've never proved very useful at the 'resistance is futile' type enforcement on behalf of consumers. Although I suppose taking on Ol' Granny Smith and her hardcore lesbian grumble flick habit may prove less intimidating than the BT legal department.
Paris - twice as much brains as the entire BPI
It will never stop, but please do go on trying!
Given the choice 98% of us would always choose the free option, if a) no one gets harmed and b) we don't get caught. The genie is out of the bottle and it ain't going back in!
I have overhead your average Joe at the bus stop talking about multiple torrents so he can get the lastest movies. Even heard someone tell their mate not to bother with the old "You want cheap DVD? Very good quality. Only fiver!" down the pub, he has a mate who can get the latest stuff for nothing. So we only see very rough figures of the rip-offs taking place,. How many hands does a single download end up in?!
To quote Nelson ( Simpsons, not Navy! )
"Stealing is victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark!"
"Manufactured bands were lapped up by punters who didn't know any better ever since Motown and some of the early fifties 'rock' bands."
So what? If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't listen to crap radio.
" if you were to collect all the tracks from the top 40 when that said track was released, you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between the majority of the rubber-stamped chords and rifts."
So what? Disposable pop = good. Sorry if it doesn't have 15 chord changes or 8 minute drum sols.
I can't wait for a whinging baby who can't spell to tell us what we can buy!
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked