Panorama - Illegal Downloading

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

There is no copyright law in Turkey so it doesn't really have much effect this debate however this will need to change if the become fully fledged EU members.

Thats not entirely true.... it just doesnt cover the internet and the law is nto well controlled... just like Russia.

The copyright law certainly does need changing for printed matter but see above for my opinions on internet downloading.

 

[clapham_gull]

Musicians, actors, and other entertainers becoming fabulously rich, is a relatively recent phenomenon, enabled by technology.
Film and TV gave the artists fame and exposure, and the ability to record the sound and images in a relatively stable long term medium made the sale of that medium viable.

Now that self same technology which made this industry possible, has evolved to the point where the media is not only long term and stable, but also easy to copy and distribute.

What we should be seeing, is the industry either dissapearing, or evolving again, to take advantage of the new opportunities. (Dont ask me what these opportunities ar. If I knew, I'D be the millionaire).
Or more likely, a return to fair and normal recompense being paid to artistes.

Instead we see a business which is so hidebound that it is suing it's own customers in an attempt to preserve a very short term blip in the natural order, which made a small number of people very, very, very rich indeed.

Good post

 

[Guy Fawkes]

No, "fair usage" allows timeshifted viewing and making personal backups.

Football rights are complicated and their non existence on iPlayer is do with the fact that another organisation has the online rights.

You really need to get to grips with the law if you are going to have a debate on the subject.

So my point here is that it is down to where you obtain your copy, the same thing is 'illegal' from one source but 'legal' from another despite both being viewed from an internet site and both being free to the end user

so a) how are the music / film industries losing revenue if their free to the end user?
b) Should the end user be the one to prove that what they are consuming has been made available legally or should the medium being used be responsible for that. Why should they be allowed to carry media that they know that their end users will be downloading illegally.

If you go to an outdoor market or boot fair to shop, do you check that everything is genuine first and you are not breaking any laws like copyright on everything etc if you were to buy from a stall.

If, for example, a stall was selling counterfit clothing, and you brought something from it, would / should the authorities try to fine you upto £1000 for doing so or look to prosecute the stall holder?

 

[Deano's Right Foot]

The part of the bill that enables the people to be cut of from internet access is a huge own goal for the music industry. The bill itself has this sanction as a very last resort, but that is not what is being reported.

The music industry and especially the major labels are at fault in not supporting simple and legal downloading and streaming services. The majors charge huge advances which cripple Spotify and the like, and or take equity in the new companies. There is some question as to whether the artist sees much of these advances or equity. The major labels are hanging on to try and survive, and are not seen to reduce the huge salaries that upper and middle management are on. They could easily function on half the head count. With a cheap or advertising or subscription funded streaming service that works the need to own music either legally or through illegal downloading diminishes.

The method of licensing and paying for publishing or master rights is also cukmbersome, which is another barrier to streaming or downloading services succeeding. This supports the argument that some internet companies use that copyright is a barrier to free trade on the internet.

Surely the future is that everyone who wants to pays an extra fiver or tenner a month to Virgin Media, Sky, BT or even their mobile phone provider to access and/or download as much music as they want would work. £5 x 5 million subscribers goes a long way to making up for lost CD sales. But the majors are shit-scared of doing this, and will not even agree to test this model in a "closed" market like the Isle of Man.

 

[Razi]

Is there really a problem? From the Independent today:

Market research has, in the past, suggested that most people would be willing to pay for downloads that are affordably priced, and that seems now to be what is happening. PRS for Music, the non-profit-making body that ensures recording artists get paid when their work is used, said yesterday that royalties from online sales rose 73 per cent last year to £30m. For the first time, that was more than enough to compensate for the decline in royalties from CDs and DVDs, which was £8.7m in 2009.

I think that Films should be offered in a similar way - with the broadband on offer these days, and people downloading them illegally anyway, why not put films available for purchase and download?

Amazon offers DRM-free mp3s for download. £5 an album, not too shabby.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

To be honest i'm one that will but actual CD's for as long as they are available. I have bought the odd track off of Amazon.mp3 but if i want an Album I will always buy the CD, especially all the time the downloads are only 10-20% cheaper.

I don't agree with Illegal downloading but with the cost of buying download albums so high, I am not surprised that it is such a problem. I think if the record companies want to do this they need both the carrot and the stick. The cost of a download album or film needs to come down below a fiver and then they can legitimately say there is absoluteley no excuse for illegal downloads and come down like a ton of bricks on those doing it.

The programme said that the biggest group of illegal downloaders are aged 16 - 24. These are people likely to be on low income so price is propbably the main reason they download illegally, therefore make it more affordable to bulk download legally, reduces the problem and preserves / increases their income.

At the moment to download a single costs 79p on itunes, so to download 40 tracks costs £31.60. Compliation CDs containing 40 tracks usually retail for less that half of this when they are first released, and are normally discounted further soon after release.

 

[Spiros]

This is the same debate as raged 30 odd years ago, just then it was about home taping of records. The music industry moaned about 'losing money' but even then it was shown that those who taped music usually bought it legitamately if they liked it. Also, the argument regarding deleted material - what do you do if you want something that cannot be obtained from a legitimate source because it's no longer in stock? In neither case is the music industry actually losing any money from 'theft' so why make it illegal?

 

[KneeOn]

Interestingly, i'm quite opninonated about this. I'm totally in support of Pirate Bay and the like.

Partly because without it, half the bands that i like, i'd never have brought. I went to my first gig (admittly as of so far my only one, due to a lack of money because funnily enough i'm spending it on downloads on itunes and on Brighton) because i loved the sound of ida maria.

However, i'm in support of pirate bay (particularly software) since as both an amature actor and an amature programmer, i'll release my source code and never charge for my scripts as a matter of principle. Somthing i've been brought up with. But its likely that professionals won't ever agree with that view. Which is a shame since you only learn the best techniques by looking at code better than yours.

 

[Husty]

Its a pointless thing to do because it is so laughably easy to go past, just visit ANY proxy site then visit thepiratebay and bam, undetectable, waste of time and money. No i dont agree in the slightest with it, (illegal downloading) on the whole anyway, when it comes to PC games its generally another story, but unfrotunately this legislation will do nothing,

 

[Razi]

Its a pointless thing to do because it is so laughably easy to go past, just visit ANY proxy site then visit thepiratebay and bam, undetectable, waste of time and money. No i dont agree in the slightest with it, (illegal downloading) on the whole anyway, when it comes to PC games its generally another story, but unfrotunately this legislation will do nothing,

I'm pretty sure that visiting a proxy wont help with the terms they are discussing with the pending Digital Economy Bill. The Government are recommending that your ISP monitor the traffic passing between yourself and them, and if they see anything dodgy/illegal, that your internet access be restricted/terminated (eventually). Visiting a Proxy means that people who own the site (e.g. Piratebay) wont know where you are visiting from, but your ISP will still be able to monitor that traffic of the files you are downloading and will know that it's you doing it.

At the moment, ISPs are refusing to disclose or even link IP addresses with illegal/pirated content except for cases where child abuse is involved. But our glorious Government is pushing for it to become law. Virgin Media have just started to process the traffic passing through, but not match it up with any particular user. yet.

 

[clippedgull]

I'm pretty sure that visiting a proxy wont help with the terms they are discussing with the pending Digital Economy Bill. The Government are recommending that your ISP monitor the traffic passing between yourself and them, and if they see anything dodgy/illegal, that your internet access be restricted/terminated (eventually). Visiting a Proxy means that people who own the site (e.g. Piratebay) wont know where you are visiting from, but your ISP will still be able to monitor that traffic of the files you are downloading and will know that it's you doing it.

At the moment, ISPs are refusing to disclose or even link IP addresses with illegal/pirated content except for cases where child abuse is involved. But our glorious Government is pushing for it to become law. Virgin Media have just started to process the traffic passing through, but not match it up with any particular user. yet.

That might catch out the soft core downloaders, but hard core fanatics will encrypt their traffic.

 

[Razi]

That might catch out the soft core downloaders, but hard core fanatics will encrypt their traffic.

Indeed. There are usenet sites (with a monthly payable fee) that offer full newsgroup access, at the high speeds that newsgroup allow, with a secure HTTPS connection. Next to no chance of being caught that way. If I was a regular on the internet piracy scene, I know what I'd be moving on to in order to keep my head down..

 

[BadFish]

I love the idea of downloading killing music.....kill away, kill simon cowell and the like, kill mindless pop music and let those that make music for love rather than money continue. Let them make a modest living from gigs and a few sales. listen to proper musicians who want their music to be heard and enjoyed and on the whole they have no problem with 'sharing' across their fan base.

 

[braintree]

Can anyone recommend a couple of good proxy servers to use with Pirate Bay and the like?