Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Downloaders beware....



larus

Well-known member
:( Wonder how much effect it will have!!!!!

From BBC.


Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.

The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.

Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government.

BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up.

Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: "All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks."

Mr Taylor said it had taken years to persuade ISPs to adopt this view.

So far, the ISPs seem to be grabbing the carrot - while avoiding the stick

The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.

It also commits the net firms to develop legal music services. "Conversations are ongoing between record labels and ISPs," said Mr Taylor.

Letters to pirates

The BPI has focused on educational efforts and limited legal action in recent years, in contrast to the US, which has embarked on tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged file sharers.

The six internet service providers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR).

The BPI said the memorandum covered consumers who were both uploading and downloading music.

Mr Taylor said: "The focus is on people sharing files illegally; there is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."

He added: "File-sharing (of copyright tracks without permission) is not anonymous, it is not secret, it is against the law."

At the same time the government has started a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy. A working group will be set up under the auspices of regulator Ofcom to look at effective measures to tackle persistant file-sharers.

Mr Taylor said newspaper reports stating that online users could be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing were incorrect.

"A levy is not an issue under discussion. It has not been discussed between us and government and as far as we are aware it is not on the table."

He said: "There should be effective mechanisms in place (to deter file-sharing) and as long as they are effective, we don't mind what they are."

The consultation document proposed that hard core file-sharers could have technical measures imposed, such as "traffic management or filtering and marking of legitimate content to facilitate identification".

In the past few weeks net firms Virgin and BT have sent letters to some customers identified by the BPI, which represents the UK record industry, as persistent music pirates.

'Long process'

Before now the BPI has called for a "three-strikes" system which would see net connections of persistent pirates terminated if three warnings went ignored.

Many net firms have resisted the call from the BPI and have said it is not their job to act as policemen.

Feargal Sharkey, chief executive of British Music Rights, said the plan was "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process".

Mr Sharkey, formerly lead singer with The Undertones added: "Government, particularly in the UK, has now realised there is an issue, there is a problem there."

One BBC News website user Mark, from Hampshire, said he downloaded and shared files illegally and argued customers were "getting their own back".

In an e-mail, he said: "I used to run half a dozen record shops in the 80s and saw how far the fat cats of the record industry would go, in milking customers and retailers dry with more hyped rubbish."

"Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back."

"So will this make me sharing a CD with my next-door neighbour over the fence illegal?" he added.
 






Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,349
Part of the problem is that prices for old songs are very high to buy legally on the net.

The I-pods etc, they sell are getting larger and larger capacities for storing songs, but if you were to fill up a player from legal sites, it would cost thousands of pounds to do so.

eg. a 60gb hard drive can hold anywhere from 12,000 - 15,000 songs. Each song from the Apple costs 99 cents (50p-ish) so to have 12,000 songs would cost about £6,000 to fill.

Technically, you are unable to copy a CD to your Ipod either, because it would break copyright law also.

Yet after a few weeks / months of dropping out the charts, you can buy singles for about 10p, or albums for about a £1 or 2 on CD's. Apple charge the same for a brand new song as a song thats been around for years.

How much does the artist actually get from the download charge anyway, a couple os pence, and the rest goes to companies like Apple in profits.
 
Last edited:


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
31,182
Bexhill-on-Sea
If people weren't so stingy nowadays this wouldn't be a problem. When I was a kid I did a paper round and bought a couple of singles a week and an album about once a month, I was happy with that.

Today everybody wants everything for nothing and are so greedy as well. Nobody is forcing you to fill your ipod with 12,000 songs
 
Last edited:






seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
44,054
Crap Town
The ISPs are only interested in throttling line speeds of those who download beyond "reasonable usage". Making parents responsible for what their kids download from P2P is also unworkable unless every kids pc or laptop in the land has blocking software. Your kids downoading video and music content could end up with the ISP giving you formal warnings before cutting off the broadband connection.
 




desprateseagull

New member
Jul 20, 2003
10,171
brighton, actually
wouldn't it be better / easier to go after the people who post the stuff to start with- cut off the source?

or build a firewall of some sort into browsers, to stop such files from being viewed/downloaded?

imo though, the genie is out of the bottle, and i don't think the real pirates arent going to be put off by a letter..

and what about the ISP sites themselves, hosting / offering free stuff, and even PROMOTING how fast, or how many files you can access..
 




I download songs and albums but the greedy music industry doesn't realise that there are people like me who will download an album, listen to it and if it's any good will go out and buy it. If the album is crap I'll delete it and won't go out and buy it.

Their greed has now extended to workplaces like garages having to buy a 'licence' to listen to the radio in the workshop. If it's in their reception area they have to pay more. They're idiots-most of my customers have said 'f*** 'em-we'll leave the radio off'. Now how do people hear new songs if thousands of radios have been unplugged?

Their moves to block downloading will also backfire on them.
 


Twinkle Toes

Growing old disgracefully
Apr 4, 2008
11,138
Hoveside
I don't do any illegal file-sharing nonsense because I feel thrilled - nay, privilaged -to be able to contribute my funds to all those dynamic A&R go-getters. They DO have their coke 'n' bubbles to purchase, you know..
 








mattb

New member
Mar 18, 2008
1,332
wouldn't it be better / easier to go after the people who post the stuff to start with- cut off the source?

or build a firewall of some sort into browsers, to stop such files from being viewed/downloaded?

imo though, the genie is out of the bottle, and i don't think the real pirates arent going to be put off by a letter..

and what about the ISP sites themselves, hosting / offering free stuff, and even PROMOTING how fast, or how many files you can access..

my friend, don't concern yourself with things you clearly don't understand :thumbsup:
 


seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
44,054
Crap Town
I've not heard of this before ? When was this started ?
The Performing Rights Society (PRS) have been doing this for years. They go around to businesses to check if they have a license to broadcast music. Playing music to staff or the general public needs a license issued by the PRS which collects it as a means of protecting copyright for the original artists.
 




The Performing Rights Society (PRS) have been doing this for years. They go around to businesses to check if they have a license to broadcast music. Playing music to staff or the general public needs a license issued by the PRS which collects it as a means of protecting copyright for the original artists.

They seem to be hitting the motor trade with a vengeance at the moment-so much so that there have been warnings in a lot of the trade magazines recently.
 


seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
44,054
Crap Town
They seem to be hitting the motor trade with a vengeance at the moment-so much so that there have been warnings in a lot of the trade magazines recently.
Easy pickings, IMO , mechanics like to listen to the radio whilst doing an expensive service on your motor :lolol:
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,349
The Performing Rights Society (PRS) have been doing this for years. They go around to businesses to check if they have a license to broadcast music. Playing music to staff or the general public needs a license issued by the PRS which collects it as a means of protecting copyright for the original artists.

Why don't they just get the broadcasters to pay a slightly higher price instead, and also, as said before, their actions could be counter productive and actually end up damaging their industry, not only by limiting the coverage that the music artists currently get, because it will mean that fewer people will hear it (and possibly in turn, fewer will then go and buy it) but it may also damage to the music industry as a result of radio stations shutting down due to lost ad revenue as a result of smaller listening audiences, and in turn less airplay of their artists tracks.

What is next - Will the Newspaper industry crack down on waiting rooms etc, which contain papers, as it could damage their reporters livelyhoods through lost sales? or the Air freshener industry charging companies a fee as their customers may be smelling their wares and they intended only for the original buyer of their goods to be the only one to smell it's fragrence?

It's all a con to try to make more money, not to look after the artists, or to promote their goods and ultimately benfit their careers (and bank balances)
 


jmsc

New member
Jul 19, 2003
647
Old Shoreham Road :o(
wouldn't it be better / easier to go after the people who post the stuff to start with- cut off the source?

or build a firewall of some sort into browsers, to stop such files from being viewed/downloaded?

imo though, the genie is out of the bottle, and i don't think the real pirates arent going to be put off by a letter..

and what about the ISP sites themselves, hosting / offering free stuff, and even PROMOTING how fast, or how many files you can access..

You really don't understand the concept of p2p do you?
 






El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
40,116
Pattknull med Haksprut
FORTUNATELY this does not seem to apply to downloading adult movies, so teenagers, say GOODBYE to Muse, Amy Winehouse and The Kaiser Chiefs, and HELLO to Anal Nurse Academy 17
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here