UKC

It seems like this should be one of the biggest stories of year yet there seems little about it in the news.

Britain has now joined the ranks of China, Burma, Iran and many other repressive regimes in censoring the internet for it's citizens. We no longer have free and open access to the internet. So far as I know only one site is blocked right now.

Try this link if you're in any doubt:

http://thepiratebay.se/

The web site is still there. You can view perfectly legally via a proxy:

https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/

But now the government has built us all a firewall, switched it on and got it working it's only a matter of time before other sites are blocked from the UK. The right to free and open access to the internet we had up until last few weeks has now consigned to the history books.

(And yes I know it's easy to circumvent the block using proxies, Tor or many other ways but that's not really the point. They can use these techniques in China, Burma etc too.)

In reply to stp:
There is no great UK firewall. The Pirate bay is blocked by individual ISPs as a result of a court injunction, other sites have been blocked for years I'm pretty sure Newzbin2 has been blocked by most ISPs for a while.

In reply to stp: How dare they ! I demand my right to steal software/ films etc. Would you like kiddy porn too ?

In reply to stp:

It makes me a little uncomfortable too but it was in the news a couple of weeks ago when it first happened. It's also not the first step towards censorship or the only website that has been blocked. There's also not a central government firewall blocking access to TPB, the biggest ISPs have just been ordered by the court to take some measures to block their customers from seeing it.

In reply to stp:

It's not blocked for me?

In reply to stp:

nope it aint news.
Its been happening for years already, check the rather dubious group in charge Internet Watch Foundation. A charity with no direct accountability, always a good thing.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

As far as I can see the ISP's have had to go to some lengths to do this. The court injunction was in April and I read BT still hasn't got it's act together to comply. So whatever is involved on the ISP side it must be fairly major - hence my metaphor of a firewall.

In reply to galpinos:

Who is your ISP?

In reply to stp:


I've always thought that the past few years have been a kind of honeymoon period in terms of internet free speech. I sadly feel it's inevitable that the policy makers and the socially paranoid will eventually make their permanent marks.

In which case people will use the technology differently, as you say, to circumvent the rules.

In reply to stp:
Interestingly the ISPs aren't trying very hard, they are just about covering the minimum for the injunction and no more. If they wanted to they have the technical capability to make things a lot harder, China is reputed to be getting much more efficient at blocking Tor.

In reply to Luke90:


The thing is when they do things like this slowly over time no one seems to to notice. Which I'm sure is why they implement it like that.

In reply to stp:


So, you don't think UK courts should have the power to stop e.g. military secrets or defamatory nonsense from being put up on the internet if they judge that the right thing to do?

Well, we disagree then. I think the courts should be very careful indeed how they use that power, and that it's better to find another way of avoiding the problem if at all possible (e.g. by keeping a tighter grip on military secrets). Nonetheless, I do think they should have the power.

So I see nothing wrong with the existence of a power of censorship over the internet. I might, of course, see plenty wrong with plenty of uses of that power.

In reply to stp:


no it would be easy enough. Apart from anything else they have to have the mechanism in place already, its more that the ISPs dont really want to be involved in this, hence why some took it to court in the first place.

In reply to stp:

I've been following this whole thing very closely, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, CISPA and so on. As far as I can sum up in one sentence: our government is essentially being shoehorned by the US government who are in turn being shoehorned by Hollywood. It's a huge problem.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


you are confusing the ability to view a website/download files with the ability to upload them.
To take your scenario of military secrets if the UK ISPs blocked access I am pretty certain the Argentinians/Iranians etc might just find another ISP provider.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


Yeah I read TalkTalk were not very into the bill when it passed through parliament earlier this year.

For them I guess there is a danger they might lose customers if the the smaller ISP's are not affected (which is the impression I get).

I also take it this is a kind of experiment which is why they're going after TPB - the hardest nut to crack first. Or actually I guess Youtube will be harder but they've somehow made piracy respectable.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
I think the term censorship is probably unsuitable here, what they are doing is "reducing the availabilty of information to the more technically literate". So rather than stopping criminals getting at the data you are simply stopping stupid criminals getting at the data. The Pirate bay is tame compared to some of the computerised information sharing services; even the FBI have publicly given up on investigating some sites because they are untracable.

In reply to stp:

No idea. I'm at work....

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
It's a huge problem.

Is it? To look at this from a totally random and almost certainly daft viewpoint all we are doing is forcing people to become more computer literate:

As the means of accessing information become more complicated you have to learn more; Iran and China are turning out a high proportion of tech-savvy young people because they have to learn how to bypass web controls.

When I was at school pornography was something stored in hedges freely available to even the thickest kid, then something that most people could access by learning to use a search engine and in 10 years time kids will be learing how to set up an encrypted onion network to look at naked ladies.

IT education and we didn't even need a charitable foundation to build a small Linux computer to do it

In reply to stp:

I think it's more that their legal advisors whisper in their ears and tell them that legally their life will be so much easier if they can continue to be seen as nothing but providers of pipes down which information flows - making them responsible in any way for the traffic flowing through their pipes is a can of worms they don't want to open sitting on a slippery slope they want to keep clear of...

In reply to Reach>Talent:

It's a legislative firewall.

In reply to dunc56:

Haha. If that's the general view on this issue the. We're all doomed Hahahahahaha

In reply to stp:

Works for me too.

I'm in the UK

In reply to stp:


It's like boiling frogs. Throw them into cold water and then just turn the heat up.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


It's simpler than that. There is no privacy on the internet and there are people who own and have aspirations on owning the flow of information because it is good for controlling people and making profit.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


Unfortunately history shows that the majority will acquiesce and learn nothing but to put up with less autonomy.

In reply to stp:

http://thepiratebay.se/

its not blocked for me and i'm with BT

In reply to EZ:


Yes, those stupid majorities.

In reply to EZ:


Yep, those evil controllers of people have just tried to prevent access to a site which has lots of perfectly legitimate uses and is named "pirate bay" purely because it's users are big fans of Captain jack sparrow.

In reply to off-duty:


so aside from being a bit more specialist whats the difference between pirate bay and google, just the search engine bit?

In reply to dissonance:

I am not a technical genius, but I would guess that a site self proclaiming itself as the world's largest bit torrent tracker is hinting at its purpose in the facilitation of copyright abuse. I imagine that it's repeated losses at court would tend to support that view.
I could be wrong - is there a widespread legitimate use for pirate bay that I am unaware of?

In reply to off-duty:

There is plenty of non copyrighted information that gets shared legally between individuals via torrent files.

In reply to EZ:

I'm sure there is, but it's by no means the most common way of moving legal stuff around.

Neil

In reply to off-duty:


bit torrents have legitimate uses as well eg the sharing of non copy righted information.
Just like google can be used for both purposes and thats when they aint provided the dodgy content directly.


or perhaps the difference in the quality of the lawyers. There is a pretty good reason no one has been stupid enough to try the same trick on google and co.

In reply to stp:
Not blocked by demon

In reply to EZ:

Really? What kind of stuff? Are the horrible copyright holders just picking on a community that just like to speedily download out of copyright books and non copyright music?

In reply to off-duty:

Much of which can be downloaded from websites, or indeed in the case of books from Amazon, because there is no need to hide it.

Neil

In reply to stp: Why would you try to look at censored sites anyway?

In reply to off-duty:


They are draconian measures though. If there are people selling stolen goods at a town market they are unlikely to shut the full market. Rather than going after people who are downloading, and people who are simply providing an "index", they should really be going after the people who are pirating the films and uploading them. Bittorrent and Usenet have lots of legitimate uses and usenet in particular has been around longer than the world-wide-web.

Many studies have already shown that piracy loss figures look large in isolation but actually make up very little loss to overall profits both in the music and the film industry.

http://www.ipi.org/docLib/20120515_SoundRecordingPiracy.pdf

I can supply more studies if you want them.

The internet and www should not be controlled or dictated by big business. It is the very thin edge of the wedge as already mentioned the UK and US governments and academia are complicit in allowing chinese citizens to break out of their firewall - projects like UltraSurf were part financed by western governments.

In reply to Lady Jane Grey:

The thin edge of the wedge because once you allow business to control censoring then where does it end? If a site pops up with negative comments about a large multinational company who have practises in the third world which would be illegal in their own country, and that company seek to censor that information? How is that any different from China censoring tiananmen square to its citizens?

In reply to Milesy:

You are using the analogy of a dodgy stall in a legitimate market.
I would say it's more like a dodgy marketplace. You can't honestly be suggesting that the vast majority of pirate bay users are using it for anything other than to rip off copyright material.

In reply to off-duty:


nope it isnt. its like a map. Now you can get much the same from google, when is that going to be banned?
In fact with google via youtube you can skip the map bit and go straight to the market.

In reply to dunc56: I always wonder why people attack so hard like this. Hinting the guy is a pedophile because he wants an open internet? Whats all that about?

Maybe he didn't make the best argument but surely you can see some advantages to an open internet? Or would you rather somebody you don't know decided what is best for you?

In reply to dissonance:

As I understood it youtube remove copyrighted material on instructions of the copyright holders. Unlike pirate bay.

The analogy of the marketplace was in response to Milesy's similar analogy. Being the internet analogies get extremely stretched extremely quickly.

How about this one:- I want to buy illegal drugs. I can get hold of a drug dealer's telephone number - if I am smart enough I might even be able to get hold of it on google. However I could just go to Pirate bay where there is a nice tidy directory of drug dealers numbers and I just have to choose the one I want.

For anyone that is interested here is a link to one of the Pirate Bay cases
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html#para1 (20 Feb 2012 judgement)

I am all for freedom of speech on the internet and lack of censorship - if for no other reason than it is a lot easier to trace and catch the uneducated and naive internet user than the one that is familiar with proxies etc - but come on no-one can honestly be suggesting that the primary usage of these sites (and the raison d'etre behind their creation) is anything other than the facilitating of the downloading of copyrighted material.

In reply to off-duty:

I said that there is stuff that gets traded via bit torrents and you suggest that I am lying because people use torrents for illegal copyright infringement. I can't see how your argument follows.

In reply to stp:
Britain has now joined the ranks of China, Burma, Iran and many other repressive regimes in censoring the internet for it's citizens.


Like - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

In reply to EZ:

Are you suggesting that the primary usage of bit-torrent is for the sharing of perfectly legal material? If so perhaps you could tell me what that material is?

In reply to off-duty:

No I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting anything about the ratio of legal to illegal content traded by bit torrents. You appear to be looking for someone to argue with. Look elsewhere please.

In reply to off-duty: They are not repressive regimes. They are other countries that joined the ranks of repressive regimes.

Nice way to twist words tho

In reply to off-duty:


not really, they dont really block it being reloaded and, lets not forget they directly host the information.


so not breaking any laws directly but ban it anyway?
Nice.

I wish the same enthusiasm was shown with regards to phorm etc but then i guess the paymaster was different there.


note the complete lack of any defence.

In reply to off-duty:

While not strictly moral I don't think a list of numbers is actually committing a crime. The police I am sure would take grea interest in catching the people who are doing the dealing though rather than who held the list.

In reply to dissonance:

Perhaps if pirate bay made some (even token) effort to prevent accessing copyright material then they may have had an argument. But they didn't.


I know the analogy is stretching but providing people with a list of drug dealers numbers and saying "This is a list of drug delaers number" is a crime.



I am not an expert b ut wasn't phorm ultimately banned? Isn't pointing at phorm a bit like saying "you shouldn't be stopping me you should be out catching burglar's and rapists?"


Yep. It is worrying that there is no defendant - however the judgement gives 3 reasons why they are not present and of interest is the third one - namely that the defendants were untraceable.

In reply to EZ:

Well since you don't appear to have any actual argument against blocking Pirate Bay then I guess I will

In reply to Jiduvah:

Yup. That pesky Human Rights Act. It's just there to oppress us all.
Or is it just possible that an illegal website has been blocked and no-one is actually getting repressed at all.

In reply to off-duty:

I guess the problem for me is that its a bought law, and I have problems with laws being bought.

As accurately stated above the media companies have been busily paying millions into the bank accounts of senators (this is a matter of public record) to get them to sponsor laws to promote their business case. They were very sucessful. Europe has fallen into line with the US, so propogating the bought laws over here.

There's been quite a few of these bought laws - the recent one being the extension of copyright to a much greater length of time than it was until recently - why? - a lot of 50's music was about to come out of copyright and the music industry didn't want to lose the revenue - so they bought a change in the law.

This to me is morally reprehensible.

The music industry appears to have an inbuilt resistence to changing with the times, and is using bought laws to prop up a business model rooted in the 80's.

In terms of Pirate Bay, as stated they do not actually host the files themselves, they are a telephone directory. They certainly facilitate breaches of copyright (I bl**dy hate the term "copyright theft" as its not even slightly "theft" - the originator still has the material, you have not deprived them of it). However to me it appears to be an application of laws that should not exist in their current form against the wrong people.

In reply to Milesy:

As - providing a list of drug dealers numbers would be a crime. I agree that we would be more interested in the dealers, but at least the buyers wouldn't attempt to pretend they were doing something legitimate

In reply to John_Hat:

Oh, and while I'm on a rant, do people know that the recent extension of copyright to 70 years after the death of the artist (from 50 years from the date of release) means that "Happy Birthday" is still in copyright, so evey single time someone sings "Happy Birthday" in public its a public performance and someone should pay money out.

Bit of a daft law really...

In reply to off-duty: That is what has happened yes, however there was some legal things that where spread on there, so we don't have access to it then yes its some from of oppression, tho I am happy to admit its very unlikely I will notice at all. Tho I never said it was anything there to oppress us. Again your twisting words.

I can't say I am against stopping people from taking things that hurt others either.

I just don't like the idea of somebody deciding what I can and can't see. What happens if they close down a site that you or I use because somebody else decided we shouldn't go on it? I don't like people having that power over me

In reply to John_Hat:

I am not sure what laws you say have been bought. This case appears to be relating to copyright laws from 1988.

I accept that people might "disagree" with the current business model of the music/movie industry - particularly when it stops them downloading free films and music - but that isn't really an argument to carry on doing it.

In reply to off-duty:


That is known as shifting the burden of proof. Why should anyone have to demonstrate that it is legal. Innocent until proven guilty? By your argument for banning it, just as there are cases where the facility is used for breaking the law, would you say that cars should be banned because there are people who speed? Probably not, but I appreciate that this is just an analogy and that you come across as having a heavily entrenched view of this subject.

In reply to EZ:


I would hope that I haven't got an entrenched view - though I do have en entrenched view of objecting to knee-jerk allegations of repression, unjustified censorship and government control.

As can be seen from the actual judgement in paragraphs 27 and 28 the claimants had to make some effort to satisfy the burden that pirate bay was primarily involved in illegal bit torrents. It wasn't helped by Pirate Bay's proclamations that it had no responsibility for anything that listed and was going to do nothing about any complaints.

In the real world as a presumably computer literate person are you genuinely and honestly trying to say Pirate Bay (and bit-torrents generally) are predominantly used for legitimate reasons? That people's primary aim when they first install a torrent client is to find some totally legitimate material?
In my view they clearly thought they had a loophole in the law that they could exploit, and as has been established at court across Europe, they were wrong. (until they win an appeal at Europe....)

It is a bit reminiscent of the various Hydroponic equipment warehouses that have sprung up around the country. They really have found a loophole in the law. (Or else we are the world champions in tomato growing

In reply to off-duty:



The smiley face looks like you are sniggering. Odd.
You cannot discount that people use torrents for transfer of legal content so you cannot imply that people who want to prevent the service being stopped are by their nature as users people who are necessarily (I'm using the word in a specific sense) breaking the law.

Your argument is very flawed and your attempt to write people off for having the opinion that torrents should not be stopped based on the presumption that either they are either breaking the law themselves or that they are endorsing people breaking the law. Your position is unreasonable, meaning it cannot be reasoned. It is a prejudice.

In reply to off-duty:


you mean like google etc? Have you tried googling pirate bay recently?



nope. BT etc backed down.


it shows an interesting set of priorities. particularly since you have to be a bit dimwitted to think the action taken will add anything.


conveniently. Now why do you think they aint going after google etc for the same?

In reply to off-duty:


Just stop. When you phrase your thoughts try to do it without implying what others are saying. That is called accusation. I'm not in court!
Specifically I answered your accusation earlier:


And as for what a person's primary aim is when installing a torrent client. How on earth should I know. Unless I ask you, I don't know where you plan on going when you get into your car, I have no idea. How could I? All I can say is that you are going to make a journey.

In reply to off-duty:



You can say the same about the VCR or even the radio cassette player, technologies that have been with us for decades now. How many people used the radio cassette for anything other than recording copyrighted material off the radio, or more latterly directly from CDs? Or the VCR or DVD recorder?

Do you think all these should be banned too?

In reply to EZ:

Sorry. It is the universal smiley for a wink.


I am not making any any implications that any of those objecting to the "censorship" are in any way involved in breaking the law or illegal users of the service.


I repeat I am not, and have not, implied that anyone involved in this discussion has done anything illegal, but I would hope that those of us discussing the subject have a realistic view of what bit torrents are used for. In my view it is unrealistic to suggest that bit torrents are primarily used for legitimate reasons.
That is based on my experience of the internet. Maybe I am totally wrong in which case perhaps you can surprise me by describing how you first downloaded a bit torrent client to get hold of out of copyright Frank Sinatra tracks, and the only use that you are aware of is in the entirely legitimate download of shareware and out of copy right books.

In reply to stp:

they tried with every single one of them.

In reply to off-duty:


No, but you are implying that those who stand in opposition to the prevention of torrents being legal are endorsing people who break the law. Honestly, just stop and reason your argument better. Hold your opinion about it if you don't see any sound reason to change that but stop with the rampant implication.


QED. If you can't stop yourself putting your foot in your mouth then stop opening it. I doubt that anybody likes to have it suggested that they break the law based upon nothing but conjecture.

In reply to dissonance:

Part of the cases against Newzbin and Pirate Bay had to establish that they were predominantly repositorys/directorys for copyrighted material. I think there is an important difference between a website that acts as a central point for the collation of material which is largely copyrighted and a search engine. Unless I have misunderstood Pirate Bay and I could actually get information from it about random websites and blogs.

BT backing down was good a good result wasn't it? As a side issue wasn't phorm all about a big company infringing our privacy, with as I understand it no similarity to the Pirate Bay case other than they both happened on the internet. As for priorities that again is similar to the way a speeding motorist complains that police should be catching burglars and rapists. (And in this particular instance the police did carry out some investgigation into Phorm whilst having nothing to do with the pirate bay, so even if the cops were unsuccesful at least THEIR priorities might have been in accordance with yours (Thats a winky face - hope no-one interprets it as smug or sniggering - it's not meant to be!!)


Because google operates in an entirely different way? The various companies involved seem to have been prepared to spend a lot of money in a lot of places which would suggest they thought they had a good case.

In reply to off-duty:


No but their whole philosophy or principle is about openness and not putting themselves into the role of Judge. Let people see and distribute what they want to. This has lead to some pretty unpleasant stuff on there occasionally. Or at least links to unpleasant stuff ...

But it can also be seen as quite a responsible position to take in the sense that they are refusing to use their skills and technology to limit people's freedom and take for themselves themselves significant power over other people or institute their own agenda.

It's also been used for leaking political material too. The group Lulzsec used TPB to leak a whole bunch of stuff last year relating to racism in the Arizona law enforcement system and much more. A pretty interesting read:

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/23/breaking-lulzsec-lea.html

Personally I think that in so called 'free, open and democratic societies' such information should be publicly available.

In reply to EZ:


The implication that I am trying to make is that the fight about internet freedom is being misused by a company whose primary function was in facilitating breach of copyright. I can't see that the prevention of copyright infringement in this case is riding roughshod over my access to the internet.

I made a (tongue in cheek) suggestion about "your" innocent usage of torrent that you have taken to be an accusation that you MUST BE a)using torrent at all and b)using it illegally. I probably should have added a smiley but you seem to object to them (Not sniggering, or smug - just hopefully to indicate a lighthearted poke)

You are the one that initially suggested that torrent is used for lots of legal stuff, but without providing any examples of it. I am suggesting that it is (in my opinion) common knowledge amongst even the most computer illiterate person in this discussion that the predominant if not primary usage of bit torrents and Pirate bay is the illegal download of copyrighted material.

I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. Or not even proved - just provided with some examples of the myriad and frequent quite legitimate uses of bit torrents and "The pirate Bay".
Undoubtedly - as you quite reasonably pointed out, it would probably be quite wrong for a perfectly legitimate service to be censored for a minority illegal use. As a result this was a factor that was required to be proved in these cases (see the paragraphs I referred to)- perhaps you think that this burden of proof wasn't reached in this case. Fine - point out where you disagree.

In reply to off-duty:


But it's not a loophole. It's an important legal principle at work. You don't make something illegal just because it might be used for some petty crime. (I emphasize 'petty' because obviously this doesn't apply to say nuclear weapons.)

The selling/owning the hydroponics set up is not the crime. The growing of cannabis is. The cannabis grower is prosecuted NOT the hydroponics seller/buyer.

The only reason the music industry wants to go after TPB is because they're lazy and it's far easier to do that than go after all the people using copyright infringing material - which is pretty much the entire population as far as I can see.

In reply to off-duty:


they were search engines. So you are saying if pirate bay reopening but just provided a few more links you would be happy? Say 2-1 legal links to random sites?


but bugger all to do with those who should have been enforcing the law and preventing deep packet inspection and modification.


its interesting in that in both cases those with the money for the lawyers got the results they wanted (or rather didnt in both cases but legally speaking it worked for them).


not really, it took an insane amount of pressure and then lacklustre results. Hmmm, kind of similar to NI and the phone hacking.


no they provide all the same links and via usenet archives in some cases give more.


not necessarily it could just mean they feel they can buy the results they want. Shame really if they put half the effort into sorting out a legal platform they would be quids in by now (see itunes etc).

In reply to stp:

Other than the fact that it was obtained illegally ( then I would say the Arizona stuff is a pretty "legitimate" use of Pirate Bay - shining a light where it might need to be shone. Lulzsec might even have a public interest defence against the hacking

I do draw the line at Child abuse images and links to them. Unfortunately I have a sense of humour failure there.

But it can also be seen as quite a responsible position to take in the sense that they are refusing to use their skills and technology to limit people's freedom and take for themselves themselves significant power over other people or institute their own agenda.


Though it could also be argued that their agenda was to provide a service with which they could make money by advertising.
They were almost inevitably going to run into some sort of trouble though, when their "right" to enable free speech appeared to operate without any "responsibility" for what they were facilitating.

In reply to stp:

I am well aware of this The issue with the hydroponics suppliers is that without them the crime could not be committed. And I cant imagine that the Hydroponics warehouses selling to the inner city estates I have worked in have any doubt what their set up will be used for.




Lazy or as you suggest it's just utterly impractical due to the numbers, though I believe that they are attempting to identify users with extremely high volumes of material and serve some sort of penalty notice on them.

And don't accuse the whole population of using it - i have just been castigated for even daring to imply less than that

In reply to stp:

Interestingly it seems there are already plans for political internet censorship in this country:

"For instance, the Home Office in the UK has apparently already asked for sites that glorify terrorism to be blocked leading some to liken the powers of censorship, available through use of Cleanfeed, to those employed currently by China."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system)


The term 'terrorism' doesn't mean much when used by governments and is usually just a synonym for 'political opponents'.

In reply to stp:
Those xxxxxxx xxxxx in the government should poke their xxxxxxx censorship up their xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx.

This is all being driven by hollywood big men. They are dictating law in a way that their own constitution won't allow to do to their own citizens.

The Global Online Freedom Act (U.S) also states:

(1) promote the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media; (2) use all appropriate instruments of U.S. influence to support the free flow of information; and (3) deter U.S. businesses from cooperating with Internet-restricting countries in effecting online censorship.

The bottom line is you can't either in the states or here, proclaim to be against censorship but then practise it. There isn't a middle ground.

In reply to off-duty:

What about Facebook then?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Former+Vancouver+private+school+teacher+pl...
Should we protect everyone from the proliferation of paedophilic groups and facilitating them to communicate with each other by shutting down Facebook?

In reply to dissonance:

I think that what they would have to establish is that they were not primarily a system to facilitate downloads of copyrighted material. Perhaps by vastly increasing the proportion of "legal" to "illegal" torrents. Then by perhaps having a system in place to address the concerns of copyright holders - rather than just telling them to eff off.



Again - I'm no expert. As I understand it part of the issue was negligible actual penalty, coupled with the fact the service was withdrawn, coupled with with the fact that a prosecution would be bloody expensive - but I will have to do a bit of reading up about all that. It looks quite interesting, cheers.


Having just googled I can see what you are saying. I think the legal position would be that the sites like Pirate Bay are specific lists/collections of torrents and nothing else designed specifically to facilitate access and downloading, and what is more the access and downloading of copyright material- with a specific disregard for any responsibilities. whereas google is access to the whole of the internet and that includes torrents.


I thought those in favour of internet freedom were against DRM

In reply to EZ:


I am not convinced that a network of 11 paedophiles represents a significant proportion of the 500 million users of Facebook.
Facebook is not specifically designed to gather together images of child abuse (or paedophiles).
It is not designed to specifically assist paedophiles in locating and identifying each other.
It is not predominantly used for the gathering together of paedophiles and the distribution of images of child sexual abuse.
It will also take down sites on request Similar to a cease and desit notice in copyright cases.

In reply to off-duty:


When the investigation was first requested the service was in full swing but it was the normal ignore and dont investigate approach.


apart from the not taking responsibility is a standard position, indeed in other news the government are proposing measures to support the lack of responsibility (namely the measures around naming people so that they are responsible for posting rather than the sites).


Firstly i didnt mention DRM and secondly i think you probably dont get why many people are against DRM. Namely that it inconveniences legitimate users and doesnt prevent the others. If anything those breaking the law get a better experience, they dont get all those "you wouldnt steal a car" ads for starters with a dvd.
The problem with DRM is that it is attempting an impossible task. By definition for any stand alone system the ability to decrypt it has to be included and therefore everything which is needed to break it is available to the motivated individual and once one person gets it then it becomes available to all in most cases. Some of the trusted computing hardware might get round this down the line although even they will be vulnerable.

In reply to off-duty:

Fair enough. I can see the differentiation that you're making but it is a reasonable case to make that Facebook facilitates illegal activity by its presence alone and so may be worthy of the same sort of legal constraints that are being brought to bear on the pirate bay.
http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Police-stats-suggest-Facebook-becomin...

In reply to stp:

Thought this comment from the Guardian about TBB was funny:

Policing the Internet?

What we've got here is a couple of minimum wage G4S flat-foot security guards trying to capture Jason Bourne.

It's not going to happen.

In reply to dissonance:
I'll have to have to have a look at your first couple of points, cheers.


It was tongue in cheek. Taking a bit of a sideswipe at the proprietary nature of itunes. It's definitely a problem for the music (and other media) industries. I agree it gets ridiculous when the ripped version is a better experience than the original - I also don't see why I shouldn't be able to buy a track and listen to it on my multiple devices, similarly with an ebook. Then again the industry has to have some system by which they get a return on their investment. I don't think there are any simple answers.

In reply to EZ:

You might try to make a case though I am not convinced it would be reasonable, but you would be as well to argue against the internet full stop on that basis.

In reply to off-duty:

I was playing the devil's advocate. I wouldn't do it to either Facebook or the Pirate Bay. In part is was trying to get you to illustrate the boundaries for your position. (so that I can understand rather than in some 'how can I trip him up' sort of way).

I don't like being asked what my solutions are most of the time so I appreciate that for your position that you may not need to have a solution...
How would you solve the problem. Would you have torrents outlawed and stamped out or could you imagine a way for legitimate data to be transferred whilst preventing the copyright infringement?

In reply to EZ:

Just a quick reply ! - difficult to know what a solution would be. The people committing the "crime" of copyright infringement are those who use torrents to distribute copyright material. As I understand it torrents can be monitored - and if they want to the copyright holders can chase after the end users, which i believe they might be starting to do in the case of those who are prolific.

If you want to install a torrent client and download stuff illegally then it is on your own head - the people who are likely to be targetted are those such as The Pirate Bay that are both facilitating the access to the copyright material, and refusing to take any action to filter out illegal torrents.

In reply to off-duty:

There are cases where corporations who hold copyrights on current media such as films or songs for example are picking out a few individuals and making examples of them. There have also been cases where thousands of individuals have been targeted for copyright infringement for downloading just one track that happened to be the one that the company targeted. Either way they broke the law.

Torrent clients can certainly be traced individually even when run behind a third party proxy such as Tor. In fact anybody who thinks that they can be anonymous on the internet at all is just mad (there is one exception that is war driving on a spoofed mac address on a device that has no owner identity data on it) Every packet of data that goes down the pipe from the internet to your pc and vice versa can be recorded and certainly is traced and recorded for source and destination.

What the major media companies will be trying to do here is to make a capital outlay to stop the illegal behaviour that costs them revenue in the business decision that it is cheaper o prosecute a single entity than multiple individuals.

In reply to off-duty:

And BitTorrent wasn't specifically designed to download copyrighted content, but that is how some people have chosen to use it. I use BitTorrent regularly, actually in the last 4 days I have downloaded about 12GB of content through it, some of the download links even came from PirateBay. Want to take a stab at how much of that content was illegal?

In reply to JoshOvki:

I have no idea. I would like to think ALL of it was legal? Are you going to say?

In reply to off-duty:

Yup it all was. Different version of Linux, some of which where up to 2GB, it takes a long time to download these things from just one client so being able to distribute it across several hosts is amazing. It has also been used for my degree for transferring up to hundreds of GB of harddrive images (exact copies of harddrives).

So wanting to block a system just because it can be used for illegal content is daft, people will always find a way of sharing media, it is up to the media companies to advance and make it easier for us to get hold of it legally, than try and block advancements.

In reply to JoshOvki:

eh?

Just buy it legally.. what's that hard to get?

One of the most idiotic threads for a while..

In reply to JoshOvki:

I don't think I have been arguing that torrents themselves should be banned, though I have been suggesting that they are predominantly used for illegal downloads. My view is their usage is at your own risk , viruses, copyright infringement et al.
I appreciate that legal open source software downloads are a perfectly legitimate use of torrent. Would you say that this was the primary download usage of torrents?
Pirate bay was shown to provide access to a vast amount if copyright material, it's whole system was designed to facilitate access and downloading of that material, and it actively refused to assist the copyright holders in any restriction of access .

Upthread I put an analogy about lists of drugdealers telephone numbers. I am not suggesting banning the telephone.

In reply to IainRUK:agreed, were all governed and managed, thankfully, as quite obviously most of us really are just not responsible enough, by half, as this thread shows, if you don't like it pack your bags and go to Syria (with climbing gear)

In reply to IainRUK:

Say you buy a DVD legally and you want to watch it on a Tablet computer or your phone, you have to jump through hoops to do this, and break the agreement by making a copy of it.

It is like a couple of weeks ago I wanted to watch a particular film, so I got my credit card out and logged into Netflix not available, went onto Love Film yes it is available, but only on rental and not stream, so I went into google searched for the film and torrent and then downloaded it. I was more than happy to pay for watching it if I could have there and then. If it was as easy to rent/buy films as it is to download them then less people would bother to download them.

In reply to JoshOvki: So as its hard.. just steal it.. fair enough.. perfect sense..

In reply to off-duty:

To start off with it was the primary use, but people will always find ways to abuse legitimate technology.

Initially that wasn't there key objective, they where just supplying torrent listings, but got flooded with illegal content because they where the most popular then. They didn't remove stuff because at the time the country they where in it wasn't illegal. Since then things have escalated and where they were based it has become illegal so they have moved.

It is more akin to suggesting banning the phone book.

In reply to IainRUK:

I am not stealing it:

Stealing: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".

I am not taking some ones property I am taking a copy of it, downloading is not illegal by the way, it is sharing it that is.

If they companies made it easier to access the material then I wouldn't have to.

In reply to JoshOvki:

The fact you weren't prepared to wait for it to be available in the format you want isn't really the strongest argument for software piracy.
I'd quite like to see Iron Sky. It only had a one day release at the cinema. I could download it, or I could get off my arse and go down to asda and buy it for a tenner. Obviously that requires some patience and effort on my part, but I am not going to blame the makers for my lack of principles/laziness.

In reply to off-duty:

Or they could make it readily available for a fee and everyone is a winner.

In reply to JoshOvki:
>

It's like last night, I wanted some beer so I took my wallet and went to the off licence. Unfortunately they were shut so I put the window through and took the beer anyway.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Oh dear. You have hung yourself with your own rope.

You have (by your own admission) taken a copy of it. Do you have the permission of the originator?

If not then it's stealing.

In reply to JoshOvki: You are taking something that isn't yours and you haven't paid for.. justify it all you want but it costs legitimate industries millions..

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well you broke the window and stole a physical item so broke the law twice!

In reply to Rampikino:

I think you will find it is copyright infringement, not theft.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Odd choice of names for an entirely legitimate site. Odd legal disclaimer also. A lot of this has been addressed Upthread and it's a pain in the arse to rehash on a smartphone
A legitimate phone book would remove a number if it was proved to be solely used for illegal downloads, AND the claimants had to show it was largely used for illegal downloading.

In reply to JoshOvki: Good point, if I'd found a window open round the back that would have been ok.

In reply to IainRUK:

I am not taking it, I am taking a copy. If I could have got it easily and legitimately I would have. If the media industry worked with technology and not against it there would be less piracy, and more money into there dwindling coffers.

In reply to JoshOvki:

apart from those that paid to make it.. would you work for free?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Then it would be part civil case, part criminal. It is totally different as you can't take a copy of the beer, only the actual beer.

In reply to JoshOvki:

The fact that they didn't does not make it their fault. No-one forced you to download. Accept some responsibility

In reply to IainRUK:

They get paid for it, "available for a fee" not "available for free"

In reply to JoshOvki: Its just the pace of technology, no doubt they want to exploit it as much as possible.. I'd have thought you'd be able to do that very soon..

If you spent 5 years writing a novel, would you want paying or just let people make copies for free?

In reply to off-duty:

I do accept some responsibility, but knowing that I would have happily purchased it if it has been easier wipes a lot of the guilty feelings from my mind.

In reply to IainRUK:


I would want paying, and to allow this I would make it available in as many different formats as possible. Now how do you feel about someone buying a book, reading it, and then selling it? They are taking money away from the author, as the author doesn't sell a second copy.

However with my writing skills I doubt anyone would want to read it.

In reply to JoshOvki:

1) Having watched it I imagine that your guilt isn't sufficient to actually pay for it retrospectively - to love film for the rental for example.
2) I presume you are familiar with the concept that occasionally we have to wait for things and impatience isn't a particularly good defence.
3)Blaming the victim isn't particularly endearing.
4)Given that movie is about 3gb then your usage of torrent by your own admission is 20% illegal already.

In reply to Rampikino:

It is illegal and it is immoral. It is not however theft or stealing, as for it to be one of those things there must be an intent to deprive.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams: You are depriving someone of the money they rightfully deserve...

I really don't get this thread..

In reply to off-duty:


so what about something a company has absolutely no plans to release? Exactly what are they being deprived off? No cost to the company and no lost income.


you know the size of movie files? something you aint telling us. you can admit it, we wont report you to your bosses.

Curiously about the only proper study into this (not counting the record industry inane extrapolations) show that those evil pirates are also the most likely to buy, people having the not unreasonable attitude that they might want a listen before buying.

The current approach and laws pretty much guarantee failure, especially with the uk laws at present forbidding most peoples usage.

In reply to off-duty:

Without going into the rights and wrongs of copyright theft, I already supplied a study on piracy's impact on the music industry - very little. There is also one on the movie industry I can supply as well. Online piracy is a problem sure, but a minor one and changing the law and introducing blanket censorship is not the answer. To add some colour to this I am a software engineer, and I am also a music writer and producer so I am not a uninterested party when it comes to piracy.

Forget about the piracy itself - the danger is nothing to do with the piracy - it is allowing technical measures to be put in place which can then be used to censor other things.

In reply to Milesy:

Interesting stuff cheers.
I am more than happy to accept the results of your studies, which would be a good reason why public (eg police) money shouldn't be particularly spent on pursuing offenders that big businesses aren't prepared to go after. The fact it is illegal and big companies are pursuing people would suggest that prosecutions will continue until a new business model is invented.
Part of that model might include just making it so easy to get legitimate downloads that people won't be bothered with the faff and technical knowledge needed to set up illegal download systems. That might be one reason why they are pursuing places like pirate bay whose primary aim appeared to be to make illegal downloading easy for everyone.

As for restrictions to the internet - the problem it creates for cops is that the more people try and censor the internet the easier the methods become for obscuring identities and the more technically literate criminals become. I would prefer them to stay technologically naive and easier to catch

In reply to stp:

There is now an online petition regarding the blocking of The Pirate Bay:


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30063

Though I'm guessing many/most people will be too paranoid to sign it and if so then that's a bit of a sad state of affairs for our so called democracy but also somewhat understandable.

That and perhaps the expectation that it will fall on deaf ears anyway.

In reply to off-duty:

I somewhat agree. If it actually does not impact their purse strings much then I would say there is no need for a new business model to stop downloading, but they need to look at a new business model as a way to increase revenue. They are going the wrong way about it. I am a big Spotify fan and I pay premium £10 a month to be able to listen to all the music I want. I have had it two years now thus I have spent £240 towards music - the thing is I would never have spent that much money on CDs which I would have got bored with and chucked in a drawer or something.

TV program piracy became much bigger when Lost was aired because the nature of the program tended to be ruined when other people were seeing it first. I personally know people who only downloaded it so they wouldn't get spoilers from other people who were downloading it. These people would never have considered downloading it.

Yes what they were doing could have technically been illegal, however when these programs were then airing three weeks later on UK television on a premium channel they were already paying to subscribe to, then the studio who created Lost are being paid and the lines of copyright theft are blurred somewhat.


You are right. The technologies being created to circumvent what I would regard as petty stuff is now being used by a lot more sinister lot.

In reply to IainRUK:

Stop being emotive. The law does not consider it theft because it does not result in something being taken which the owner no longer has.

It's still wrong to do it. But the correct terminology should be used to describe it.

Neil

In reply to off-duty:

Just to add that it is only illegal because big business have managed to persuade lawmakers that the problem was bigger than it was. Going back as far as casette recorders and VHS recorders.

A person or company claiming that they have been "potentially deprived" of a legitimate sale is far too fuzzy a concept. Using the strictest interpretation of copyright law, lending music CDs to someone is also against the law, and also potentially deprive the artist or label sales. Does it? There is no way to quantify potential losses in such a way in that is why blanket legislation is heavy handed.

In reply to Neil Williams: How am I being emotive.

I have no real concerns if others want to steal, just don't justify it...

In reply to Milesy:

Just a naive question: when video recorders came along we all recorded films from the telly - often TV news people would make remarks like "get your recorders ready for tonight, such and such a film is programmed" - and this never caused a fuss, or if it did it was so minor that I can't remember it. So why a similar sort of thing - making copies of films on a PC instead of a tape - such a big deal? I realise the copy procedure is loss-less to some extent but by the time it's heavily compressed the quality is often little different.

So why the fuss now but not then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You pay for it if its on TV..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Because the technology was in homes by then and they couldn't physically come in and stop them doing it. The industry did try though: For example many VHS would only allow the recorded media to be played back in the same player. If you recorded something and played it somewhere else a lot of the time it would be distorted in some way.

The fuss now is because there is a man in the middle they can blame and demand to police it. Another big factor is the movie industry make a lot of money through regional licensing. I.e. country A or region A pay over the odds to get exclusive rights to that area or for a certain amount of time. Allowing media to be freely changed between those regions undermines that.

In reply to IainRUK:

If you download Lost from the states three weeks earlier than it is aired on Sky 1 you have also paid for it - this is where the business model fails and where most people actually end up infringing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So why the fuss now but not then?

You were supposed to delete/record over it in a certain amount of time (1 month?).

In reply to Milesy: If you have Sky.. which I'm guessing most who download these things don't..

Look its fine.. I think its great people get things for free and justify it.. I really don't care that much about the morals of the situation, but just seeing people try to justify it is brilliant..

In reply to Milesy:
For example many VHS would only allow the recorded media to be played back in the same player. If you recorded something and played it somewhere else a lot of the time it would be distorted in some way.

I think that was down to poor manufacturing and different companies not exactly keeping to a fixed spec rather than an intent to prevent piracy.

In reply to IainRUK:

Because you are using emotional terms to say that it is theft/stealing. Legally it is not.

That doesn't make it OK, of course. Would you call parking without paying stealing? Or fare dodging? Neither of these are acceptable though they are not theft per-se.

You are confusing me with those who say it is OK to do these things.

Neil

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

they tried. there was the "home taping is killing music" line plus they manage to get a cut off every blank tape sold on the grounds it might be used for copying regardless of actual use.
Hence why it is hard to have sympathy for those companies.

In reply to Neil Williams: In effect yes.. you're removing revenue.. taking something from someone..

I just think its quite hilarious that an approach to limit illegal down loading is being compared to living in a dictatorship.. and I'm the one being emotive.. it really does get better and better..

In reply to IainRUK:

I would have a lot more respect for those of your opinion if you didn't use the invective about "stealing". It's NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. This is not the same thing. If you steal something the person who you stole it off doesn't have it any more.

If you want to argue that every download is a lost "sale" at £15 a time then I'm afraid that's utter rubbish too.

If you persist in calling it stealing I'm afraid I'm going to have to regard you as a bit of an fool who swallows and reproduces everything he is told to think by a load of very big corporations without any kind of criticism or rational thought.

Basically, Ian, I've long regarded you as one of the saner folk in this parish, and peddling corporate propaganda does not become you...

In reply to John_Hat: Fine.. I'm just a corporate whore.. scared by the dictatorship I live under, constant threat of imprisonment, suddenly dissapearing in this policed state...

Eh?

Look get mixed up in semantics all you want.. its taking profits/money from companies, its getting stuff for free you should by law pay for..

I doubt it is £15 lost.. its called market value.. they no doubt over charge to make up for losses from people taking stuff for free..

And its Iain...

In reply to John_Hat:

Did you type "an idiot", then change "idiot" to "fool" because you realised that "idiot" is not very PC, but then fail to correct the "an" accordingly?

In reply to Milesy and Bruce Hoover:

I think the difference is taping videos and music was largely (almost exclusively) personal use of media that you had already got access to - paid for or not.

Downloads enable large scale top quality distribution of media. The closest similarity I can think of are the dodgy DVD stalls where the owner had a bank of recorders and was selling illegal copies. I don't remember seeing that for VHS and music tapes.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

No it was Macrovision encoding.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

One of the issues is the ease with which pirated copies can be copied and shared. Once a digital file is "out there", it's very easy to copy it and make it freely available. Virtually anyone with an internet connection and a computer can do it. In the days of video recorders, the effort involved in copying large numbers and physically distributing the tapes was considerably higher. That's not to say there weren't campaigns to alert the public to pirated music and movies, but the potential loss of revenue was considerably smaller than it is now.

I was at a seminar yesterday on digital publishing. One science fiction imprint is going to start making its ebooks available without any DRM from September - it's taking the view that anyone who want to download a pirated copy will do so anyway, so there's no particular benefit in applying any DRM restrictions. It'll be an interesting experiment.

In reply to IainRUK:
>

Did you read the study I provided you? I can provide you with a dozen more. There is no evidence to show that these copies result in actual losses. Many of the people who do this would never have purchased the product. I am not saying it is right. It is wrong because the law says so at present but the argument about losses is flawed.

In reply to tony:

Exactly. If they are and I assume they are keeping statistics on sales then as all the previous studies have shown there is no correlation between pirated downloads and "lost" revenue.

In reply to IainRUK:

"In effect yes.. you're removing revenue.. taking something from someone.."

Not by the strict legal definition.

Some examples:-

If I have an item on sale in my shop, and you steal it, I no longer have the item and you have it, and thus I can no longer sell it. If I wish to sell it I have to obtain another first. This is theft.

If I have a piece of software (say) on sale on my website, to which I own the copyright, and you copy it, I can still sell it from my website without any further outlay. This is not theft, because the act of copying it did not also take it from me such that I no longer possessed it.

The issue of abstract revenue is a different one. The person copying the software may never have bought it if to do so was the only way to obtain it. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty that by pirating £100 of software you are depriving me of £100. Whereas if you stole a TV worth £100 from my shop, which I had on sale for £200, you have definitely deprived me of £100 (not £200) worth of television, because that is what I have to pay to get another one. The latter *is* theft.

Both are morally and legally unacceptable acts (which is where my point differs from the other part of the argument going on). However, I do feel the correct terminology should be used to describe each, as the legal mechanisms surrounding them are different. Just as, to take an extreme example, murder and manslaughter are both unacceptable but are different crimes.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

To clarify:-

"Whereas if you stole a TV worth £100 from my shop, which I had on sale for £200, you have definitely deprived me of £100 (not £200) worth of television, because that is what I have to pay to get another one."

The reason I have not lost £200 (but have lost £100) is that there is no certainty I'd have ever sold one for £200. It's abstract.

Neil

In reply to stp:

All these petitions for everything! I don't put my names on any lists. Remember the Bolshevik purges? They started with lists.

In reply to EZ:

Too late, they've already got you, you signed on to ukc

In reply to off-duty:

So my huge, >500, collection of VHS tapes, largely unused for quite a while, is still legal? It seems the real argument is one of ease of use rather than principal.

Concerning the "loss of revenue" argument, I'm not even convinced that this is true. I had pretty well stopped listening to music, just my 30 year old collection of cassettes in the car, until the first download site came along. This got me interested again and I downloaded a few songs - often it took ages. The result was I bought a bit of equipment as my old amp didn't work and then a few CDs as this was much quicker than downloading and buying the old collection sort of CDs is very cheap.

The next step was mp3 players for the kids and lastly me, and a general return to listening to music again. The result in our case was buying CDs whereas I hadn't bought an LP since my early 20s and buying quite a bit of equipment.

Maybe my experience is untypical but I doubt it. On the other hand the agressive attitude of music companies really puts me off - I reckon they are cutting their nose off to spite their face.

In reply to Milesy:


some publishers have been doing it for a while eg Baen even have a "free library" (corrected the publishers name hence delete)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


oh dear. I hope you aint copying your cds to the mp3 player as that is illegal.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I know I'm noid! There is a difference between knowing someone is there and having to read their posts and someone signing on and lumping themselves in with a particular ideological position. If 'they' decided to look at me as an individual then I am sure that 'they' would find a way to hang me, much as the copper who disgruntled by your attitude decides to try to find a flaw with your car when they have pulled you over but have nothing to hang on you who then checks your tires and all of your lights etc etc. The trick is to not get pulled over. However, having a sign on the front of your car that says I hate coppers isn't doing you any favours in the anonymity stakes.

In reply to JoshOvki: do you understand how stuff like bit torrent works ?

In reply to dunc56:

If you haven't then read the thread and you will see that JoshOvki said:
implying that he does know how torrents work.

Does it matter, for the purpose of the conversation, how it works?

In reply to EZ:

Yes, cos he is saying it is the sharing which is illegal, not the downloading. Well he does know as you download you are sharing ?

In reply to dunc56:

Ahh OK, I see. Good point. It is possible to throttle bandwidth or even turn it off for uploading but that both defeats the system as a whole because it needs uploaders in order for people to download. That is known as leaching.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think you are splitting hairs here. Stealing software / music whatever is theft, pure and simple. It is equivalent to getting someone to do some work for you and then not paying them. They haven't lost anything other than their time and they have plenty of that to loose. The cost of software is the time the developer spent in creating it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So my huge, >500, collection of VHS tapes, largely unused for quite a while, is still legal

No, as I said further up the thread, you're supposed to delete the recorded content after a certain amount of time. Think that is/was a month.

In reply to IainRUK:

Apologies, Iain, for mis-spelling your name.

I didn't actually mention anything about dictatorships, living scared, etc, neither did I think I implied them. Neither do I, for that matter, believe them, you must be thinking about someone else or making assumptions.

Basically my point is that whilst I have a lot of time for the protection of intellectual property - I have several friends who are in bands, for example - I think that the intellectual property laws have gone astray, and are not being used to protect the artists, but to protect the business model of the large corporations who make money off them, who are unprepared to change their model, and are using paid-for laws to support it.

One of the soundbites that these corporations have propogated is that downloading music/film is "theft". Which it isn't, by any reading of the law. Hence someone producing such soundbites is likely to go down in my estimation as it would imply that they are not thinking overly about what they are saying.

To me there are four issues:

1. That the laws are bought. This to me is morally wrong - obviously its not legally wrong as the law is the law, how it got there is irrelevent.

2. Whether the laws are actually protecting those who should be protected -i.e. the artists. Several artists I know are of the view that the copyright laws are entirely for the benefit of the label.

3. Whether the protection given is proportionate - which I would argue it is not - 70 years after the death of the artist appears bonkers to me.

4. Whether attacking someone like Pirate Bay - an indexing service who hosts no copyright material - is misguided in any case.

If you want to engage on any of the above feel free.

In reply to EeeByGum:

>Stealing software / music whatever is theft, pure and simple.

That is a very lazy argument in a 'I understand the legal basics and will repeat that in my argument' kind of way. What it completely fails to address is the fact that many companies overcharge in a manner that is tantamount to theft in the first place. Let's look at oil or supermarket food prices. They reduce later than they have indication to do so and increase before. No wonder people look for a better method of obtaining what they want.

In reply to Various:

I am quite surprised by the number of people on this thread who have repeated the "downloading is theft" argument, when by any reading of the law is not. It is, however, the soundbite pushed out by the record/film companies which rather implies that people have not thought this through. Perhaps the comment about if you repeat something enough times it becomes the accepted truth holds?

As stated above, theft is removing some"thing" from their posession with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

Copyright infringement is not theft.

The only way you can argue this is saying that each download is "stealing" the revenue that would have been gained if the individual had bought the item. In which case you've got a lot of problems in the argument.

First, the cost of "theft" is the cost of the item to the "victim", which in the case of a digital copy is as near zero as makes no difference. The marginal cost of creating another copy of a film is zero.

Secondly, you have to assume that the evil downloader would have actually spent the money on the film in the first place. Which you cannot.

In reply to John_Hat: Not a musician or software developer then ?

In reply to John_Hat:
I am quite surprised by the number of people on this thread who have repeated the "downloading is theft" argument, when by any reading of the law is not.

Surely you've been here long enough to know that UKC is full of people who are totally incapable of adapting their viewpoints when proved wrong?

In reply to dunc56:
(In reply to John_Hat) Not a musician or software developer then ?

Please explain exactly which part of the laws on theft are breached by downloading content from the internet. It doesn't matter if Mr Hat is actually the owner of Sony Music the laws on theft don't magically change!

As far as I'm aware no one has ever been convicted of commiting electronic theft of music because it is really rather difficult to do, you would have to download the music and then expunge all traces of it from the owners computers. Copying the music isn't theft, in much the same way as cloning an animal isn't theft!

In reply to Fishmate:


You have lambasted my argument as simplistic and countered it with an argument that basically says that because you don't agree with a large company's ethics in how they make your money, you are somehow justified in stealing from it?

I work for a small software company. You would probably say our software is overpriced, yet it is exceedingly competitive compared to our competitors. Regardless of this, people who use our software either in breech of the license agreement or without our permission (they haven't bought it) are stealing. End of. There is no justification. There is no excuse. If you can't afford it. Don't use it. I can't afford a Ferrari - does that mean I can just steal one because Ferrari are a large penny pinching organisation formed to serve the rich and immoral?

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Hey I said nothing beyond that one sentence. We are arguing how many pins dance on the head of a ballerina. It's morally wrong. It is tantamount to theft. You know it, and I know it. Where is the coherent argument against this ? Watch Louis Theroux. The pron industry is on its knees as a consequence of this kind of thing. It's a travesty I tell you.

In reply to John_Hat: I suggest you read the thread.. you have picked the argument with me, obviously that you consider the other points in the thread fine..

OK it's not theft by the strictest meaning, but this justification of behaviour is obsurd.

I disagree. I think an internet company can be involved in assisting/facilitating breaking copy right and be OK, as long as they attempt to reduce the chances of it happening. That's my opinion. For example youtube.

Of course they are to benefit the label. They invest in the artist with an estimation of future sales and want to protect that investment. If it wasn't for such investment few artists would get heard/read etc.

Genuinely gutted to go down in your estimation..

In reply to EeeByGum:
I work for a small software company. You would probably say our software is overpriced, yet it is exceedingly competitive compared to our competitors. Regardless of this, people who use our software either in breech of the license agreement or without our permission (they haven't bought it) are DEPRIVING ME OF REVENUE

Software piracy isn't stealing, it is morally wrong and illegal but it isn't stealing.

In reply to John_Hat:

1. Rubbish. Of course illegal downloading harms the holder of the copyright, look at how much profits have fallen as down loads have increased?

2. What a silly point.. so how is anything theft.. if I steal a ferrari that's not theft as I wouldn't have bought one anyway..

In reply to Reach>Talent: You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. It's semantics. QUite frankly I don't give a shit if its right or wrong, I just find this defending illegal acts as the companies fault quite troublesome..

In reply to Reach>Talent:


So what is it? Are you saying that it is only morally wrong to ask someone to do some work for you and not pay them?

In reply to EeeByGum:


note stating "End of" or "Fact" doesnt make the preceding statement true.


there is a subtle difference between the software and a car.

Speaking of software though, several companies are known for a rather lax policy on piracy in the home and even small business on the grounds that it boosts their skilled user base and hence makes it easier to sell to big companies.

In reply to dunc56:
My point and it really is a very simple one is that if you want to be taken seriously then use the correct terminology: If you go to B&Q and ask for a "whacky hitty thingamabob" don't be shocked if you get a funny look from the shop assistant and don't come away with the pin hammer you went out for. If you want to discuss depriving the music industry of revenue then don't keep saying "theft" which is something completely different.

Actually a large part of the downfall of the porn industry is that they popularised "Amature video" and were then shocked to discover that this didn't fit with the business model of having lots of expensive production assets.

Agreed. That still doesn't make it right. My feeling is that there is only a question over its morality because it has gone on for so long unchecked. Now that companies are rightly starting to pursue offenders, there is a feeling that somehow the pirates are being hard done by.

Incidentally, we get around the lax policy by issuing a free version of our software which is limited in its functionality. There is no excuse.

In reply to IainRUK:

Where was I defending it, I simply pointed out it wasn't theft?

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I love the fact you're all uppity that someone has misused the term theft for immoral acts, yet comparing the UK to a dictatorship isn't questioned, as they supported your distorted views...

And you go on about classic UKC responses.. Brilliant!

In reply to EeeByGum:

That's again different. The cost of developing software has no bearing whatsoever on the number of units sold, whereas a builder's time used is used based on the number of jobs done.

The only thing software piracy deprives anyone of is a possible sales opportunity, and that is not in law enough to make it theft.

Neil

In reply to Reach>Talent: I didn't say specifically you..

In reply to IainRUK:

Because if you steal a Ferrari the previous owner no longer has it. If you pirate a piece of software, the previous owner still has it.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams: I really don't understand these arguments. It is almost like you are trying to justify the fact that copying software or music is somehow ok. I just don't get it?

And to counter your argument about the builder - as a software developer / musician, you never know how many units you are going to sell which makes it all the more galling when your hard work and effort becomes hugely successful yet you make no money out of it because everyone has simply stolen it... oh sorry! I meant immorally copied it.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Simple - we redefine in law the word theft to include software theft - happy now ?

In reply to EeeByGum:

"I really don't understand these arguments. It is almost like you are trying to justify the fact that copying software or music is somehow ok. I just don't get it?"

Nope. I just feel the correct legal term should be used for it.

"And to counter your argument about the builder - as a software developer / musician, you never know how many units you are going to sell which makes it all the more galling when your hard work and effort becomes hugely successful yet you make no money out of it because everyone has simply stolen it... oh sorry! I meant immorally copied it."

Again emotive terminology. The law in this sort of matter deals in facts, not emotions.

Try "copyright infringement", which is the correct term for it.

Neil

In reply to IainRUK:
I love the fact you're all uppity that someone has misused the term theft for immoral acts, yet comparing the UK to a dictatorship isn't questioned, as they supported your distorted views...

And you go on about classic UKC responses.. Brilliant!

Given your background in academia I would by now have assumed you had learned to read and in turn been able to effectively extract information and analyse it critically. Evidently I was mistaken.

When have I stated I think the UK is a dictatorship? Firstly I'm well aware that it isn't.

I haven't actually voiced any pro-piracy stances in this thread! I work in R&D for a FTSE100 company specialising in high technology products and IP, why the hell am I going to be suggesting IP is a stupid idea?

I haven't suggested theft of IP is anything other than wrong, both morally and legally; I simply suggested that if you want to debate an issue then it would be a really good idea to actually put some effort into understanding it and using the correct terminology.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Or "pirated" is a common colloquial term.

Neil

In reply to dunc56:
Simple - we redefine in law the word theft to include software theft - happy now ?

Nope, unless that offence is purely for physically depriving the publisher of that product. It is copyright infringement and I'm more than happy for it to carry the same sentence as actual physical theft.

In reply to Neil Williams:

As well all know, Piracy is the removal of physical property from the high seas

NOT intellectual property. Somali Pirates DO NOT use memory sticks.

In reply to Reach>Talent: Good comeback..

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I think it is a lesser offence because of the lack of physical deprivation. But what the penalty should be depends, as with actual theft, on the value.

As an example, the penalty for infringing the copyright by making one copy for your own use of a single music track should be lesser than the penalty for stealing a bottle of Coke, which is sold at a similar price. The penalty for dodging a fare of similar value on the bus should be similar again.

However, infringing the copyright by making one copy for your own use of a £500 professional software package should be much greater than any of those.

Neil

In reply to dunc56:

Like it

In reply to Reach>Talent: So FACT and FAST are completlely wrong ?

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

I am a pedant too. This is just silly though. As you well know the laws of property don't fit the model of stealing on the Internet.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Ok which is worse - stealing a box with the DVD and serial in for Windows 7 and never using it ?

ORRRRRRRRR

Downloading Windows 7 and using it ...............

The box and DVD are worthless - look at Steam. It's an outmoded concept.

In reply to dunc56:

"So FACT and FAST are completlely wrong ?"

FACT and FAST act on behalf of software houses/the music industry and deliberately use the term "theft" to amplify their concerns, as would any other pressure group, but are indeed not strictly using legally correct terminology in doing so.

It's also the case that "FACI" and "FASI" are not quite as good acronyms, even if they would be more correct.

Neil

In reply to dunc56:
As well all know, Piracy is the removal of physical property from the high seas
How high exactly and does the Holy See count?

NOT intellectual property. Somali Pirates DO NOT use memory sticks.

9/10 Pirates prefer pointy sticks and AK74s, although I'm sure they are memorable

In reply to dunc56:

The latter probably justifies a higher penalty.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Sorry, "FASCI", which sounds like it refers more to a hard-right political party than an organisation against copyright infringement.



Neil

In reply to dunc56:

Not completely wrong, just mis-described. Well, actually entirely deliberately mis-described. The record companies, etc really, really want it to be seen as "theft", as the general reaction to describing someone as being guilty of "copyright infringement" would be "so what?". Theft sounds a lot better.

I'm kind of surprised they haven't called it rape.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I did that in part because your argument is very poor. All you have done in response to me is repeat yourself using different words. You are again, incorrectly, assuming that people are like yourself and accept things because someone official says it is law. In terms of this argument nothing is contravened. You, unfortunately can't see the bigger picture and refuse to accept the reality. If your company loses out in such ways they can't get on some moral high horse because they didn't protect their asset sufficiently well. In terms of the P2P issue this thread mainly pertains to we are talking about legalities that are flawed at best. Surely you accept that now?

You do know we can decide that laws aren't to our liking if we so choose. We aren't obliged to blindly follow because you need a rule book to preach from. Some of us are happy making our own way because we weren't born having signed any agreement to exist any other way.

For the record, anything I value that I dl gets purchased. The rest deleted. If I buy a car, I get to drive it first. If I buy a bed, I get to lie on it first. You want to sell me an album, then I want to listen to it before shelling out. If people I know don't have it then it gets downloaded for review. You know that's right, fair, decent and honest. X

In reply to Fishmate:


That works fine, if we all play by your 'rules'. What about those who never buy anything ? And download it all almost like a addiction ?

Isn't it different to download a book even if you own it in 'real' form ? So even that is not consistent with the music paradigm ?

In reply to dunc56:

I am both of them but can still take a view against the current corporate tactics.

In reply to Fishmate: Yeah, I pay for everything I keep after listening to it too.

In reply to Neil Williams: Ahhhh - now I understand. And I bet you stop people in their tracks when they talk about car tax instead of excise duty whilst laughing inwardly at them for being so ignorant.

Forgive me for voicing an opinion that did not use the correct terminology.

In reply to dunc56:

Having spent time researching digital media's impact on industry I can tell you that because some pron studio says downloading has affected them, does not make it true. Studies have shown that pron studios have been affected much more by the enhancements in technology and distribution media that allow more people in their homes to produce their own content and distribute it through their own websites. The studios have became defunct.

In reply to EeeByGum:

There is absolutely no proof you have been deprived of income. You have absolutely no way to quantify that anyone using your software without paying would have paid for it. Until you are able to do that in some magical way your net loss is zero. I am also a software developer (as well as a musician)

In reply to dunc56:

Fair comment Duncan, however I would still feel uncomfortable if I was rich, knowing that laws are not just set up to try and protect the rich but allow them to shaft Joe Public without recourse. I see a grey line where as you mention above, some take like it's an Olympic sport, however this doesn't explain the whole picture.

There is no consistency because there is no legal consistency and that is why the big guns are not being particularly honest when it comes to discussion of this matter. They are trying to hold onto what they have like a bunch of desperados. This is because, as I mentioned to 'ByGum' above, they didn't think it through and started out only seeing pound signs.

Funny thing greed, eh?

In reply to Milesy: 70,000 jobs a year in the US, over £1 billion a year in the UK.. estimates of losses due to music piracy..

The notion that it is a victimless crime is obscene..

Granted those estimates are the music industries own estimates.. say they grossly overestimated by 50% that's still 35,000 jobs..

That argument is just non-sensical. Incredible. 1.4 billion tracks a year in the UK.. are you suggesting that none of those 1.4 billion would have been paid for if not available illegally?

In reply to various:

By the way, just to sling something else into the mix, does the remuneration strategy for musicians appear a little strange?

If you are an artist (painter), you paint a picture, you sell it. If you want more money you paint another picture.

If you are a circus performer, you perform, you get paid. If you want to get paid again you perform again.

If you are in my work, you go to a client, you write a report. You get paid. If you want more cash you write another report.

If you make widgets, you make a widget, you sell it, you get paid. If you want more money, you make another.

If, however, you write music, you write something once, and then sit back for the rest of your life getting paid for doing absolutely nothing else, and then after you are six feet under you continue to get paid for another 70 years.

Just plain odd.

In reply to MJ:


Never heard of that, got a reference?

In reply to IainRUK:

Of course those figures look big when took out of context - they always do - but when you put them next to overall statistics they are insignificant. Please read the study I supplied way back at the start of this thread for some real figures on the impact of piracy on the music industry.

In reply to Milesy: I read it.. and I can't see how you come to that conclusion..

Nowhere in that does it use the term insignicant...

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Synopsis: “Piracy” of recorded music costs the U.S. sound recording industries billions of dollars in lost revenue and profits. These losses, however, represent only a fraction of the impact of recorded music piracy on the U.S. economy as a whole. Combining the latest data on worldwide piracy of recorded music with multipliers from a well established U.S. government model, this study concludes that recorded music piracy costs American work- ers significant losses in jobs and earnings, and governments substantial lost tax revenue.
There is little debate that U.S. sound recordings are “pirated” in vast numbers in the U.S. and in interna- tional markets. Piracy of these works harms the intellectual property owner, who loses the revenue that would have been gained had the legitimate recording been purchased. These “direct” losses, however, rep- resent only part of the story. Piracy also causes significant and measurable harm to the “upstream” suppliers and “downstream” purchasers who also would have benefited from the sale of legitimate, copyright protected sound recordings. Indeed, the harms that flow from pirate activities produce a cascading effect throughout the economy as a whole. These harms include lost output, lost earnings, lost jobs and lost tax revenues.
In order to alert policy makers to the magnitude of these ripple effects, this paper estimates the true impact of piracy in the sound recording industry on the overall U.S. economy. Using the RIMS II mathematical model maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), this study estimates the impact of pira- cy in the sound recording business on the U.S. economy as a whole. The effects of music piracy on the U.S. economy are quantified in terms of lost economic output, jobs, employee earnings and tax revenue.
The true cost of sound recording piracy far exceeds its impact on U.S. producers and distributors of sound re- cordings. Piracy harms not only the owners of intellectual property but also U.S. consumers and taxpayers.
Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that:
a. As a consequence of global and U.S.-based piracy of sound recordings, the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in total output annually. Output includes revenue and related measures of eco- nomic performance.
b. As a result of sound recording piracy, the U.S. economy loses 71,060 jobs. Of this amount, 26,860 jobs would have been added in the sound recording industry or in downstream retail in- dustries, while 44,200 jobs would have been added in other U.S. industries.
c. Because of sound recording piracy, U.S. workers lose $2.7 billion in earnings annually. Of this total, $1.1 billion would have been earned by workers in the sound recording industry or in downstream retail industries while $1.6 billion would have been earned by workers in other U.S. industries.
d. As a consequence of piracy, U.S. federal, state and local governments lose a minimum of $422 million in tax revenues annually. Of this amount, $291 million represents lost personal income taxes while $131 million is lost corporate income and production taxes.
As policy makers turn their attention to the viability of the U.S. economy in the global marketplace, it seems obvious that the problem of music piracy should be afforded a high place on the policy agenda in coming years."

In reply to Fishmate:
>
An interesting argument. Usually best made from behind a very big barricade with lots of ammunition and a plentiful supply of food and water.

In reply to IainRUK:

The thought of a large company or a whole industry over-estimating anything is reprehensible. How dare you sir?

It is in part a victimless crime and in part not, however the big guns choose to argue that is only the latter. Stop lieing business peeps and start trying to treat your client base with a modicum of respect.

The only way to stop this is to completely stop the internet which would be beyond darkness itself.

In reply to John_Hat:

Is that really the case? An author gets paid for reprints for sure.

I'd have thought that for all reprints off an artists work he would be similarly renumerated..

In reply to off-duty:

That applies to populations, not individuals, no?

In reply to Milesy:

You dirty basket ! That is some flowerly language to disguise a jazz fest

In reply to Fishmate: Did you read the report Milesy linked..

It was an independant report, my figures came from there, but I also stated that even if they were over estimated that's significant losses..

I just cannot see how it is a victimless crime at all.

When a band gets paid £millions for their recordings, the label would have forecast record sales, or downloads, if 1.4 billion are downloaded illagally each year that's a lot less being bought, so the industry suffers, the big guys lose some money, but the bottom guys will lose jobs..

Look keep down loading, I don't care, just don't try and justify and it and claim it a victimless crime..

In reply to IainRUK:

Books are in the same camp as music artists as far as I know (I don't know for certain). I didn't mention books in my post above though.

Still odd compared with more or less everything else.

In reply to John_Hat:If, however, you write music, you write something once, and then sit back for the rest of your life getting paid for doing absolutely nothing else, and then after you are six feet under you continue to get paid for another 70 years

The way music and games are paid for is inherently not "fair" in my opinion. I have bought CDs for £12.99, listened to them once and just left them on the shelf. Conversely, some of my favourite albums would have been good value at £200 given their replay value to me. That is not to mention their ability to see me through the bad times in life. Perhaps we should pay per listen ........

Also games - £40 - what a con !!!! But, you play Skyrim for 100 hours and you show me a pastime which is such good value. Ok, apart from climbing/sex/running etc.

In reply to John_Hat: I know, I just would have thought if a author is paid for reprints, so would an artist..

In reply to IainRUK:
similarly renumerated..


GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD

In reply to EeeByGum:

No, because I don't think one of "car tax" or "vehicle excise duty" is a more emotive term than the other.

"Piracy is theft" is an emotive statement. It is also legally incorrect.

Neil

In reply to dunc56: sorry mega jet lagged..

In reply to Neil Williams:

Disagree, TAX is emotive.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Hmmm - piracy. Isn't that where one (immoral) ship pulls up next to another and nicks all the stuff on it? Or takes ownership of the ship and then holds it to ransom? Isn't that a bit like theft i.e. "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another"

Ok - so software isn't something you can hold, but the software I have written is mine and you can't have any unless you pay for it. If you take it without my permission, that is theft in my book and I don't give a sh1t what the legal a-holes have to say about it.

In reply to dunc56:

Hmm. May be a personal reading, I see "duty" and "tax" as having roughly the same strength of meaning when referring to the Government taking your money.

That said, "Congestion Tax" is more emotive than "Congestion Charge".

Neil

In reply to Fishmate:

Well it appears that you are happy to live within the laws that keep you safe but ignore the ones that inconvenience you. Pretty similar to those who I meet who are happy enough to rob, burgle and assault because they don't really see why the law should apply to them - just that you are a little bit more white collar.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Except I haven't taken it from you.

I think this is a circular argument, anyway; I think the law and language describing it should be purely factual, not emotive, and you clearly don't.

Neil

In reply to dissonance:

How so, I'm just using the mp3 player to listen to the cd I paid for?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

UK law doesn't take media shift into account, but if we're saying that the thing that's being sold is the music it certainly should, IMO.

Neil

In reply to Bruce Hooker: mp3 players don't play CDs so you must have copied it to a "retrieval system" (the mp3 player), which is banned. The wording on the copyright label does rather suggest to me that actually listening to music at all is illegal. After all, catchy tunes stay in my head, which is a retrieval system.

In reply to IainRUK:

I saw you are jet lagged, so I wont harp on. I did state clearly that in part it isn't just a victimless crime. I agree there are those who milk it dry and I too have issue with that. I believe I'm not one of them.

Having seen your posts of late, I'm sure you agree that anyone who claims loss off of projected figures is only going to get kudos from the ignorant and uneducated and, of course, those who have something to lose and will use anything to protect their asset which they failed to do initially because of their greed.

In reply to off-duty:

Highly presumptuous at best. I don't care for any laws whatsoever. I just happen to be a person who treats others as he wishes to be treated himself. Therefore I'm unlikely to break many laws due to having my own standards.

Do you need a rule book to be decent to your fellow man?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


because under current UK law you are not allowed to make copies of the cd. Least not while you are in the UK (not sure what the French laws are).
I expect you to hand yourself in to off-duty immediately.

In reply to Neil Williams:


But you are reaping the benefit of it. You didn't have some software, you stole it and now you have the benefit. The fact that you can't physically hold it doesn't really matter.

I could hack into a bank and award myself a million quid. All I have actually done is change a few electrons on a chip somewhere. There is no real money involved yet this is still theft. There is nothing emotive about theft of software apart form the fact that you are stealing something that you can't physically hold.

You keep mentioning the law, but put quite simply, the law is still to catch up with the information revolution. You can keep quoting it until you are red in the face, but it simply does not reflect the reality at present.

In reply to EeeByGum:


yes it does. There is a specific offence for software or music piracy. It isnt theft because you are not specifically denying someone else the resource in question.

To take your bank example the chances are you a)get hit with some charges around illegal access and b)depending on whether you transfered it from someone elses account or not get charged with either theft in the former case (since someones bank account would be a million quid down) or fraud/something similar if you just magicked it up.

In reply to EeeByGum:


Yes, I think you've summed up very well what most people think... especially for music, a bit less for software.

The reason people think this is that they are fed up with being ripped off by editors, by overpricing and the refusal to replace a defective disk after a certain time - they say you don't buy the support, just the "license" but when the support fails outside the legal guarantee period they forget this.

If companies really want to solve the problem they should at least think about the goodwill aspect of it all and make a concerted effort to meet their customers' expectations rather than just trying to maintain their present rip-off attitude by repressive measures... but that is certainly expecting too much from such apparently limited minds.

In reply to John_Hat:


Not really, no.


AFAIK there is copyright on original art works, so if you paint a picture that someone likes and you can sell it to them, they can't then go on to sell prints of it to other people without some kind of license from you.


If someone in the audience videos your performance, how would you feel about them then making a profit out of selling copies of that video of your work without your permission?


Depends how specific the report is to that client. Companies like Gartner make a decent wedge by writing generic reports which they then hawk around a number of clients/subscribers. They're protected by copyright, too.


And if someone else makes a business out of selling identical widgets by copying your ideas, you lose out. That's what patents are for (reference Apple vs just about everyone else in the known universe, it seems).


The same is true of books, software and other creative work. The point is not so much that you get continue to get paid for it - after all, you can opt not to take any money - but that you retain ownership of the ideas in the song, book or whatever. So anyone else who wants to derive gain from reproducing your material has to give you a cut - or give it away for free while acknowledging your ownership of the copyright, if that's how you distributed in the first place.

It's called copyright because you have the right to control reproductions of your own original work. The fact that some works eg recorded music are easier to copy than others shouldn't make a difference to the principle. Similarly, neither should the fact that advances in technology have made some of these things easier to copy than they used to be.

The fundamental question is: if you created something original, then someone else made a business out of selling your work without your permission, how would you feel?

In reply to EeeByGum:

Nonsense. Creating a false bank balance would be fraud, unless you withdrew it in which case it might be theft because you'd have actually deprived the bank of some actual money.

Neil

In reply to EeeByGum:

I would be reaping the benefit of it, but unlike the offence of theft, you would not have lost the benefit of it.

Neil

In reply to Fishmate:


Well the rule book helps us all to compromise our behaviour, because shocking as it may seem not everyone's moral standards are the same, and some people's normal behaviour is not acceptable to others. Some people even think it is reasonable to listen to my music and then distribute it without making any contribution to the original artist - can you believe it ?

In reply to IainRUK:

For a scientist that argument is amazing! You start from a completely invented estimate, say, well it could be wrong a bit so let's cut it in half, and then think you have worked out a reasonable figure! I can't believe you act like this at work? You don't, do you?

I'll make another estimate, I reckon that free downloading gives people a chance to sample the product, creates a feeling of good will with the artist or label, and generally pushes the desire to listen to music so all in all I estimate this creates extra revenues of £50 million per annum... but to be fair and give them the benefit of the doubt let's just say we should divide that by 2, no, let's go further, by 5, which still proves that the company makes a whopping £10 million extra! And you want to stop such a lucrative activity? Clearly you don't give a damn about all those children who will starve when their daddy is put out of work - shame on you!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Never heard of that, got a reference?

http://www.is4profit.com/business-advice/general-advice/exceptions-to-copyr...


Relevant section from above: -

Time-shifting

A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time.
This time-shifting exception does not however cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening. The making of a recording for purposes other than to time-shift a programme for you or your family is likely to be an infringement of copyright.


Doesn't state a precise time period. However, you're not supposed to view more than once.

In reply to MG:


So when Apple explain in the instruction of an ipod how to copy tracks to the player from a cd they are inciting people to break the law? In such a legally minded profession it seems surprising that they haven't been attacked over this.

In reply to off-duty:

a little apples and oranges here. My morals are good enough, so I have no need to concern myself with others. As I have already said, if I like I buy the CD, so I'm happy to agree with you that if artists have hit the studio then they should get PAID IN FULL.

If I heard your music online for the first time and liked one track, I may look for an album. If I can dl that, I will. If I like it, I will buy it. If I don't I delete.

In reply to MJ:

Thanks for looking it up, that would be news for most people, even TV presenters.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I agree with you/

Now here's a thought (which I've mentioned before): the copyright laws have been rendered as obsolete now as the laws that used to obtain in Henry VIII's time about who was alllowed to wear what clothes.

Technology means that it is just too easy to copy material - there can never be enough resource to prevent it, and consumers will never be persuaded that it is such a heinous crime that they will voluntarily refrain (or pay extra taxes to basically police themselves). The genie is out of the bottle.

So, rather than creating ever more complex, draconian yet unenforceable laws (and providing ever more employment oppportunities for lawyers) those directly affected - artists, promoters, publishers, production studios - would be better off accomodating the fact and finding new ways of adding value such that they still get remuneration for their efforts.

There will be difficulties, in particular, and above all, it's difficult to see what adjustments film production companies can make. But just because it's difficult that doesn't make the impossible - preventing copyright theft - any more rational.

In reply to Fishmate:

The only problem with that viewpoint is that the only arbiter of your morals is yourself. I am sure a religious fundamentalist who believes that gay people should be stoned, a Marxist who believes all property is theft and a racist who thinks ethnic minorities should be deported are all pretty convinced their morals were "good enough".

In reply to off-duty:
I wouldn't have said it unless my lifes experience told me those choices were good ones. In that sense I receive societies approval every day. The examples you provided relate yo people who don't care for the thoughts of others, so more apples cereal and oranges .

In reply to off-duty:
ignore the cereal bit. using phone on train. Will be climbing in 45 mins. enough peeps on this thread should spend more time doing that than this. enjoy

In reply to dunc56:

Yup I understand how bit torrents work, I also understand how IP Tables work, not in the spirit of bit torrents mind.

Here is a scenario for you all, I want to watch a film that my friend owns. I can:

A. Go around his house, borrow it, watch it then give it back
B. Download it, watch it, delete it

Which is more wrong and why?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

eh? Did you read the study and later posts.. it was an independent study which exactly matched the figures I quoted.. so 'completely invented'..

I did however think it was industry sources, as I saw it on an industry site, but the actual report is independent and linked here.. I'd expect an apology but I know you're too much of an arse to offer such..

In reply to IainRUK:

You'll get no apology for pointing out the unscientific nature of your "calculation" - half of zero is still zero! BTW, why do you feel the need to defend the money grubbing bar-stewards who rip us all off by overcharging for music?

PS. I too expect no apology from you but as I am polite I won't say why.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I've not defended them. Many industries over charge. I just think the law is naturally lagging behind at the moment, it has slow machinery, technology moves fast, that doesn't mean its OK to break the law.

In reply to IainRUK: Additionally, as I've said I don't care about the law breaking.. I just find this justification for their crime ludicrous.. at least have the balls to say, 'yeah I'm doing it because I basically can't be caught'..

In reply to IainRUK:

Except that you basically can be caught.

In reply to EZ: I know.. but the reality of a conviction for personal use is miniscule.. hence why people do it and use the justification of its a victimless crime and the numerous others used here..

In reply to IainRUK:

Basically your argument assumes that every human being of sound mind is obliged to approve and respect and mindlessly obey the laws laid down by people who may not always have our best interests at heart or in mind. I can't decide whether that assumption is in any way healthy?

Don't think for yourself, it's already laid out for you.

In reply to Fishmate: Eh?

I break the law.. or I vote in different people who I think will have an impact..

But when I opt to break the law I do so knowing its wrong, wrong for a reason, but I'm willing to do so for selfish benefit for me.. speeding.. tresspassing etc..

I just don't blame it on others.. and say they gave me no option..

In reply to IainRUK:

I don't think anyone has said they have no other option, but I am guessing you are refer to what I said. My other option was not to watch it, but I wanted to watch it so did. I could have borrowed it on my friend, I guess that would have been okay?

In reply to JoshOvki:

ISTR the licences on a lot of music and films also strictly speaking prohibit lending to others. Software almost universally does.

Neil

In reply to stp: From a parents perspective, the sooner they make internet porn 'opt in' the better.

In reply to tatty112:

The problem with that is that it could only ever be anywhere near 100% on UK sites (you could legislate for them to be tagged in some way, but UK law has no influence abroad, and some would break the law and not tag).

So a belief that all such sites would be "opt-in" is a dangerous thing. They wouldn't be; 99% of them would be, but there would still be exceptions. It's not like satellite television where there is one broadcaster who can control the "adult tags" on all programmes reliably.

There can be no substitute for proper parental supervision. And that still applies if this is introduced, as it will still be possible for tech-savvy kids to work around it. Just as with television.

Neil

In reply to tatty112:
(In reply to stp) From a parents perspective, the sooner they make internet porn 'opt in' the better.

Great idea unfortunately it is completely unworkable. Any system that has a close to 100% filtering rate of porn sites will filter out huge swathes of the internet; there is a shedload of explicit images on wikipedia for instance. A lot of companies already suffer as a result of getting falsely blacklisted, just look at the recent Iranian censorship debacle for an example of filtering innaction: http://www.businessinsider.com/irans-online-censor-filtered-the-ayatollahs-...

In reply to tatty112:

or alternatively parents could supervise their kids properly.

In reply to stp:

More fuel to the fire: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112

In reply to stp:

It was on the news. UK ISP's have had to block the IP from their DNS servers. If you change the settings on your router from using your ISP's DNS servers to use google DNS servers, it will work fine.

In reply to dissonance:

Have you found a way to do this yourself? What children do in the security of their bedrooms is, and always has been, impossible to manage, unless you sit watching them all day and night, which I think could result in other more serious problems.

I don't think parents should be so worried about junior masturbation, there are worse things that kids can do to absorb their excess energy - climbing mountains, or joining the Conservative Party, for example - so if internet replaces the centre spread of the Sun what does it matter?

Signed,

An Unconcerned Parent, Ealing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Oh God, that's the second post in a row that you've posted that I've agreed with. Time to go and lie down in a dark room.

I'd just add - if kids are spending their time searching t'interweb for bestiality, snuff movies and jihadist or christian fundamentalist stuff then it's probably a bit too late to think that supervision is going to make much of a difference.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I partly agree with you. Anyone who says 'parents should supervise their children more' is clearly an idiot. It is impossible to supervise children 100% of the time.

The problem with internet porn is it allows children to access things that they are unprepared to deal with. Look at the recent rape case of a young boy who was copying things he had seen on the internet.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


possibly dont let them have the computers etc in the bedroom? Or get openDNS etc and have a fairly effective way of locking down the sites they visit.

Of course it wont be entirely successful but a)it doesnt make others have to cater for the lack of parenting and b)it will give kids useful lessons in computer security and problem solving getting round the barriers.

In reply to tatty112: ' Look at the recent rape case of a young boy who was copying things he had seen on the internet.'

Rubbish - you are mistaking a defence plea in mitigation with a fact.

There have always been a (thankfully tiny) minority of kids interested in rape, the internet is just a red herring.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Good idea, why should the kids have all the fun

In reply to dissonance:

But it will also have a pretty negative effect in that they will be reminded on a daily basis that you don't trust them.

The problem is that they need a computer for school and nowadays this means an internet access. I suspect, but don't know, that the sort of kids that really go after the most noxious stuff already have a problem, not the other way round.

I don't know about others but I don't look at porn sites, when I first got internet I did out of curiosity but they get boring after a while - there are just so many ways sweaty men can copulate with panting women. Like workers in a chocolate factory, they have free access to the choco and after a bit they don't touch it anymore.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


True but then again i see that as preferable to making everyone else tick boxes due to this.


yes it does seem to be a bit chicken and egg.

In reply to IainRUK:

I'm very confident most people who deploy P2P tech do so being aware of consequences and general corporate opinion of such activity. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard anyone blame their actions on others in this respect. I think they do it for the same reasons you speed or tresspass in terms of mindfulness of the act itself.

Regarding voting in people you feel may have a positive effect. You have no control over this. Success or failure depends on whether you vote in the majority or not. That is not a state of empowerment, merely participation in a poor process.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

But similarly there have always been a minority of adults interested in kids, the internet facilitates their access.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm fairly sure that desensitization to porn is fairly well recognised, with knock on effects on actual sexual behaviour. I don't think ready access to porn for adolescents with all that burgeoning hormones and sexual awareness is a particularly good thing.

(warning - possibly a bit graphic below - don't read if sensitive!)
I have heard (admittedly anecdotally rather than evidentially) that more and more girls are getting seen by docs with anal tearing with the implication being that it is due to the fact that anal sex is seen as expected behaviour as a result of porn.

In reply to off-duty: I've heard this too. And the sad irony is that (so I'm told) anal sex was a staple of the porn industry because the inevitable grunts and groans were a rough simulation of coital pleasure.

So girls (and boys, I suppose) are jeapordising their health to allow boys to do to them something that they copied from someone trying to disguise the idea that they weren't really very interested.

Weird. More education, it's got to be the key.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Weird. More education, it's got to be the key.

Or maybe: -

Weird. More lubrication, it's got to be the key.

In reply to off-duty:


I have met women and men who think that receiving anal sex is pleasurable so I don't think that one can assume it is due to pornography changing people's expectations regarding sex.

In reply to EZ:

That may be a factor as well, however I would be a bit worried if "pleasurable sex" was causing me to end up in a and e.

In reply to off-duty:

Agree. I suspect though that the injuries are more to do with the approach taken to the act. Being too rough and other aspects that are inappropriate for this thread.

In reply to off-duty:


I haven't had any "knock on effects" but that could be down to age.

As for anal sex, without going into detail there are some girls that prefer this and it doesn't do them any harm so maybe it's the way it's done rather than the doing it.

Obviously the answer is to get these frustrated boys off rock climbing, perhaps by hijacking porn sites and sending people off to ukc when they click on "big thrills this way"... It will do them a lot of good and relieve the hospitals, although maybe not.

In reply to stp:

Intrestingly as far as I can tell its not censored on mobile networks, meaning it can be accessed on most phones.

In reply to Niels:
Some networks have, some haven't