Slashdot Mirror
UK Record Industry Sues 'Major Filesharers'
Joel Rowbottom writes "The British Phonographic Institute has warned that it is about to engage in a round of legal action against file-sharing users, following in the footsteps of the RIAA. Apparently they are 'safeguarding the future of music' - don't you just feel so secure and cuddly knowing that?" Their statement is available.
...sitting in the UK thinking I was safe from this type of stuff.
Ah well, at least I'm safe in the knowledge that ReiserFS can delete a rather large number of gigabytes in a few seconds...
Next those bastards will be trying to sue me for eating my crumpets with tea! Limey scum.
Joel Rowbottom writes Apparently they are 'safeguarding the future of music'.
I didn't know Slashdot was a propoganda machine. Nowhere on that page linked (where the statement is) is that phrase in the text.
I don't support the actions of these people, but don't lie to make your case. It makes you no better than the people you decry.
Those 'sharing' the files do not have a right to do what they are doing. They don't own the licenses to the songs nor do they have an agreement with either the artist or record company to distribute the songs. They get what they deserve.
Now go ahead and be good little mods and mark me as Troll or Flamebait because I dare to express a point of view which runs counter to the whole 'information wants to be free' crap.
If you're so keen on giving away information then you develop something, pay with it out of your own pocket and give it away. We'll see how long you survive.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
One thing I have wondered...the porn industry has traditionally adopted new technology quickly and effectively (printed books, photos, vhs, internet, dvd). So why haven't they glommed onto DRM?
The solution is simple; and it applies to everyone/everything.
If an inspector/cop/whatever comes to your premises to look for pirated music/apps/whatever, and you know you have a lot of it and your gonna be someones bitch in jail, the most effective thing to do would be
*drumroll*
KILL HIM! Why? Simple... You'll get a lighter sentance.
Now _there's a thought for ya...
:)
According to Pete Waterman
Bear in mind that this is the same man who gave the world Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Bananarama and Rick Astley within the space of a couple of years.
That kind of involvement in the music industry should really speak for itself.
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
Music has exists about as long as humanity...it doesn't rely on the current model of sales and profit, and music will continue to exists if the commerical system surronding it colapses. So, any arguments about safegaurding the future of music are fatally flawed.
This was from Channel 4 news, Krishnan said:
"But Pete, the industries own figures show an increase in Single sales since the people began to use P2P networks, surely that shows you they are having a positive effect on your market ?"
Pete replied:
"No, well yes they are increasing but that is probably just a blip, nothing to do with filesharing. Filesharing is illegal and it's wrong and you shouldn't do it and that's what we all need to remember here."
Yeah? Even if they'd said sharing files of music to which copyright applies, how about establishing such in law before trying this?
I can't believe that these people were getting away, unchallenged, with such sweeping (not to mention incorrect) generalisations also on (UK) television this morning.
Have we lost all sense of objectivity?
They were Disney comics, and hadn't been licensed for distribution in the UK :-)
And yeah, I heard of people getting done more for selling apples in imperial weights (or something like that) than is standard for selling dope too :-)
We wont care. We dont care about speed cameras, we dont care about CCTV cameras, we dont care about fox hunting or rights for fathers. ONLY THE MEDIA CARES.
They force feed us with all the shocking stuff like this - it sells as we all know. Tomorrow this will be yesterdays news and we will all go back to worrying about the cracks on Dirty Den's face.
Ever been fined in the UK? I have.
Did I ever pay? No.
Did they lock me up? No.
What did 'they' do? Apart from a few nasty letters and phone calls. Nothing.
No one in the UK will care except maybe Trisha.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Third Generation (I think that's what they're calling it) P2P programs like ANtz and Mute rely on a sort of plausible deniability and waste a lot of bandwidth. They're strictly peer-to-peer and distributed. When you get a request for a file, you don't know whether the originator is the person connecting to you, or someone behind them. There is no request to make a direct connection. So while you could point the finger at them, you may be wrong.
The problem with this - and I've pointed it out to the developer of Mute - is that someone with enough resources (like the RIAA, or that British Porn group) could log on thousands of times, and make enough reasonable guesses about who's sharing what with who to pinpoint some of the major sharers, who would be smart to figure out how to change their IP address and what parts of their collection they make available on any given day frequently to avoid detection.
Also, as I said, this wastes a lot of bandwidth, because you're not making a direct connection to the person you're sharing with, you could be acting as a conduit as well, so people who pay for bandwidth will raise the familiar bittorrent protests - I'm paying too much for what I'm downloading. Of course, P2P not being bittorrent and being used for trading 99.99% illegal stuff (bittorrent at least is used to distribute things like linux flavors), all those people should shut up and be grateful they're not paying $20 (or their local currency equivelant) for the CD/DVD etc. they're downloading.
Also, once this third generation stuff catches on, it's just a matter of time before they start sueing the guys who make the software for aiding and abetting file sharing, or whatever that thing congress wants to pass into law says is illegal. You know, the thing that overturns the Betamax/Mr. Roges law. Then again, the guy who makes Mute told me that he's in it for the fame, so being sued could just make his day. Though sueing the developer seems like a free speach issue to me.
The ultimate irony is that most of these client are based on Waste, which was made by Justin Frankel (homepage, Rolling Stone article, Wikipedia entry), who was an employee of AOL Time Warner at the time he released it.
Mod me down for this, but:
It is not okay for you to use a GPL'ed piece of code without GPL'ing it because this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question.
The difference is that GPL-infringing people want to make money out of GPL'ed software. File sharers don't want to make a buck out of the files they share. If they do, they should be punished.
It is okay to sue or threaten to sue people for the above mentioned infringement of the GPL license because it is important to protect the coder's rights and not set a precedent of ignoring violations.
So you compare suing, as a single developer or a small group of 3-4 people, a company with employed lawyers because they make money out of your product to the crackdown on school/college students by a billon megacorp.? Because they shared a bunch of files?
Of course, many file sharers are hypocritical. But that doesn't make these two of your arguments valid.
IMHO, the solution are media fees. See also my other post in this thread.
I have had 4 or 5 conversations with relatives who really dont understand that this 'great kazaa thing' with the 'free music - just type a name and its there' is actually illegal. They genuinely thought it was just 'an internetty thing I dont understand'.
This story is EVERYWHERE In the mainstream media yesterday and today - and will be for a while I expect. I would assume a fair number of kids will be having that internet connection to their rooms cut this weekend.
This is just moving towards a time where they can pass a law saying that all ISPs must block all ports besides port 80, and all ports registered with the FCC for valid, licensed use, like AOL Messenger and Windows Media.
I honestly don't see any inclination of them doing that.
My bet is a tax on broadband connections similar to the CDR tax we pay. Out of every 1 GB you download, $X goes to the associations which they'll then distribute to the likely copyright holders (e.i. themselves).
It will be a beautiful day for them when I download a linux distro and am forced to pay them money for copyright infringment.