Did you received any letter from Virgin Media or other ISPs?

[Dragon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7486000/7486836.stm

 

[imadoofus]

No, but I don't use torrents

 

[agatward]

An interesting point for discussion is whether analysis of a user's traffic (i.e. categorisation of traffic etc.) counts as unlawful interception. This is probably why ISPs are somewhat reluctant to become the enforcers for the BPI and other agencies.

In order to categorise traffic, the content of data packets has to be inspected by software and labelled appropriately. This is different to just measuring bandwidth use, which can be done through simple counters on router / DSLAM ports, or through flow collection (which again is non-intrusive).

 

[amwebby]

The BPI is on the wrong tack here. They should be looking for the ISPs to pay a fee, similar to the Performing Rights Fee, for internet download. Policing internet downloads is never going to work because of the nature of the internet, it was designed to flow round obstacles.

People's relationship with music has changed, they no longer buy an artifact to treasure and keep, the basis on which the phonograph industry is still looking at the problem. People download music to consume, that might be for one listen or several repeated listens.

This fits in far more with the Performing Rights scenario than the Mechanical Copyright Protection one and would better protect artists' interests.

I speak as a copyrighted artist who earns an income from both.

 

[grober]

Surely this is just Virgin Media covering their own backs against any legal proceedings?

 

[fuzzer]

who isnt using SSL newsgroups these days anyways? They will only catch the n00b's

 

[portzy]

I've never understood this one. What is the big deal about sharing files (not that I do) such as music and video apart from it being classed as illegal by some decades old legislation not suited to todays world.

OK, the original artist misses out on some form of royalty but so what?, my neighbour borrows my lawn mower so the designer/ developer/manufacturer misses out an a sale. I dont get Flymo sending me threatening letters or kicking down my door.

Portzy.

 

[imadoofus]

who isnt using SSL newsgroups these days anyways?

I don't even know what that means

 

[Spinal]

No letter yet... but if I do receive one I'm definetly replying and demanding an apology for going through my private data...

I doubt they can see much, most bitTorrent traffic is encrypted nowadays, and any tracker that is worth its salt uses SSL... even some of the public trackers now have secure sites...

Michele
EDIT:

I don't even know what that means

SSL = secure socket layer... the little padlock on some sites that begin with https instead of http. It means information sent using GET and POST is encrypted...

 

[V8mate]

OK, the original artist misses out on some form of royalty but so what?, my neighbour borrows my lawn mower so the designer/ developer/manufacturer misses out an a sale. I dont get Flymo sending me threatening letters or kicking down my door.

Portzy.

When you share music, your lawnmower turns into another identical lawnmower at the other person's house and yours never leaves your shed

 

[portzy]

When you share music, your lawnmower turns into another identical lawnmower at the other person's house and yours never leaves your shed

Like your anology . But, if same friend comes to my house, copies my "Matt Monroe at The Movies" CD, then goes home with his/her copy, I/we have commited a copyright infringement. The original CD never left the shed.

Conversely, I keep the copy and gift my friend with the original then no infringement takes place but the original leaves the shed.

Portzy.

 

[V8mate]

Like your anology . But, if same friend comes to my house, copies my "Matt Monroe at The Movies" CD, then goes home with his/her copy, I/we have commited a copyright infringement. The original CD never left the shed.

Conversely, I keep the copy and gift my friend with the original then no infringement takes place but the original leaves the shed.

Portzy.

Yep - we all used to do that - but peer-to-peer filesharing has essentially allowed the whole world to queue up at your shed and pick up their copy.

Not quite the same as 'making a tape' for your girlfriend

 

[Palfrem]

Must be one helluva shed

 

[V8mate]

Must be one helluva shed

Yep - the Internet IS one helluva shed (especially if you use Tiscali, apparently )

 

[portzy]

Yep - we all used to do that - but peer-to-peer filesharing has essentially allowed the whole world to queue up at your shed and pick up their copy.

Which, to my mind, they should all be perfectly able (and welcome) to do at mine or anybody's shed. Its just that, to me at least, it seems to be a law that no longer has any meaning in the modern world and, as much as the record companies bleat on about it, there will always be this sort of thing going on between friends, real or cyber.

I can see where the CarPhone Wharehouse guy is coming from when he says "We provide the internet, what others do with it is entirely up to them" or words to that effect. We dont see law enforcement types berating car manufacturers that design and build models capable of twice the national speed limit and asking the same manufacturers to police those limits.

Sorry but I have verry little sympathy for the record industry, as you may have noticed, but this is 2008 and everyone is very savvy these days perhaps if the A&R departments gave the artists a bigger slice of the cake in the first place then there wouldnt be as much fuss from them, the record companies that is.

My 2p, thats all, I fully understand there are one or two Artists on this forum and good luck to them.

Portzy.

 

[Dragon]

We are talking about the original artist losing revenue. How will the original artist recoup back the lost revenue?

Morally it wrong but difficult to enforce.

 

[portzy]

We are talking about the original artist losing revenue. How will the original artist recoup back the lost revenue?

Fair point and the most often quoted and I think I've wandered OT but.......

How about the original and still the best; live performances?, realistically priced (quality audio wise) downloads? (if we must have them), realistically priced CD's/DVD's?, wake up to the fact that you are a musician at the end of the day?, does Sting/Bono/et al really "work" for such riches?, and dont get me going about McCartney/Lennon please .

Portzy.

 

[amwebby]

I think artists are awake to the Internet and the fact it offers the potential to change the revenue model so that they gain, not the BPI. See my earlier post on this subject. The record companies are the ones profiteering not the artists and that is something that is going to change via the Internet, whether the record companies like it or not.

 

[Dragon]

Warning

Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/10/nairport110.xml

 

[masqueraid]

I pay for a shed, I pay for a really big shed that I can put loads of stuff in every month.

I have a lawnmower in my shed, I'm not sure if I bought it originally or borrowed it a while ago. It's currently one of my favourite lawnmowers.

While it's in the shed several other people I've never met borrow it and then offer it around for other people they've never met to use. If lots of people like the lawnmower then pretty much everytime I look in the shed someone is borrowing it.

The people who sell lawnmowers say that this is unfair because when I bought the lawnmower (if I actually did) there was someting in the handbook that said I couldn't let someone else use it. In fact they now sell lawnmowers that are chained up so they can't be put into anyone else's shed.

The lawnmower sellers want the people I rent the shed from to tell them who is renting the shed because they've seen lots of people borrowing the mower, in fact someone who works for the lawnmower people just pretended they liked my mower and borrowed it for a while just to see whose shed it was in. That's how they found out who was renting the shed.

The lawnmower people have also tried putting lots of fake lawnmowers in their own sheds to see if anyone will borrow them.

They say that they really are doing this because the people who make the lawnmowers are starving because no one is buying their lawnmowers anymore but it turns out that the lawnmower sellers are taking most of the money people are paying for mowers these days. And even some of the more famous of the lawnmower makers are letting people borrow their mowers without paying now.

It turns out that lots of people actually buy a new lawnmower after trying one out first.

I think the lawnmower sellers are just scared that people will find out what's going on.