Slashdot Mirror
BPI Defends Anti-File-Sharing Partnership With Virgin Media
MrSteveSD writes "The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has responded to criticism by Bill Thomson over its collusion with Virgin Media in targeting UK file sharers. BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor personally wrote to the BBC to set things straight, and he asserts that 'it's Mr Thompson, rather than music companies, who is stuck in the past.' Of course, Virgin Media customers who download music and TV legally often find their connections being turned down to unusable speeds due to Virgin's aggressive throttling policy."
Mike also points out a blog entry that describes one of the letters received by a Virgin Media customer. In the letter were suggestions regarding the customer's router settings and anti-virus software.
I am willing to bet I'm not the only one who wondered why the British Porn Industry was partnering with Virgin, before rereading the first sentence.
you let a record company also run an isp.
The record label was sold off a long long time ago. The only thing that's the same is the name. But don't let that little fact bother you.
I actually read the letter this guy got and this comment stood out:
"But, when I do, it does mean that traffic from other machines could be dropping out through my pipe because my laptopâ(TM)s configured as a Tor exit."
Sorry guy, but you are responsible for any traffic that comes thru your connection. its part of the contract. You violate the contract you can be cut off. Take it like a man.
We can debate all day long if there is such a thing as IP rights, if throttling is ok or the letters are proper ( i happen to think they should go suck an egg personally and don't believe in IP rights ) but using the argument 'it wasn't my PC' is pretty flimsy when you are running a proxy drain point intentionally.
Yet another reason we should all be using freenet.. you cant pin the 'act' down on anyone in particular. All they can do is bitch that you are using too much bandwidth.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are laws against running businesses cross fields. They are called Anti-Trust laws in the USA ("trust" being an old word that approximately means monopoly).
Unfortunately the scope and enforcement of these laws is very narrow as punishing a successful company for being successful is viewed as a bad thing. Basically the only time the law will be enforced is if a monopoly power (e.g. Microsoft) in one area (e.g. operating systems) uses that power to get an unfair advantage in another area (e.g. web browsers).
(IANAL, YMMV, etc.)
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
well.
you people are letting that happen in u.s.
lobbyists, corporate interests, 'donations' to senators, and they produce bills for their masters.
you need to take the reins back. and not listen to 'business should be free' bullshit from conservatives. for the freedom they speak of is only freedom for them to do whatever they want (to the extent of implanting workers with rfid chips for sake of 'security' - until california senate whacked them down) and get on top of the pile. theres no tolerance for competition in their view of life. so its pointless to lend an ear to them.
you need a new 'new deal' president like FDR. one seems to be coming up. grab him.
Read radical news here
Well, I suppose deaf people spend even less in buying music. The error, as always, is assuming buying would be an option for people who download illegally.
I recently downloaded an old movie from a torrent. I would have paid, maybe $1, for that movie. It's on sale at Amazon for $14.95. If I didn't have the option of an illegal download, I simply wouldn't have watched it. There's no way I'll pay $15 for something that's worth at most $1 to me.
What truly undermines that market aren't illegal downloads. Until the industry learns how to calculate pricing according to market rules, they'll have to live with it.
whether this is in England or North America. Cable companies and large ISPs in general have the same problem in most places.
They did not invest in infrastructure of the future at any point in the past. That is to say that they have never done what was needed to build a network that would support heavy usage.
An example of this is the cable company that I have to use (there are no options. Satellite is not a viable option for broadband IMO). I have three cable boxes on digital cable. If I rent a movie in the living room I can't move to the bedroom to watch it without having to pay twice. This means there is NO infrastructure built to know I have two boxes and which they are so that I can rent a movie once and watch anywhere in the house. This is not just ignorant of the capabilities of technology, it is blatantly ignoring them at the cost of value to the consumer.
There are a few people that would defend this situation with various excuses, but they won't work IMO because of the complaints that ISPs make regarding network usage, and the balance of guilt when you see what they were given as incentives to build a viable, usable network already.
Their business plan has been designed to steal as much money from the user's pockets and the government as possible. They have done nothing less.
This business of throttling traffic because of bandwidth usage is criminal in nature. If you rented a car to drive to your aunt's house but found that you weren't able to drive the expected speeds on all roads because of crippling by the rental company, would you sue? would you rent from them again? would you complain to the appropriate regulatory agency?
Go ahead, tell me about the fine print in the contract. meh. I pay for xyz MBits/second and I have more than reasonable expectation that this is what I'll be able to get regardless of protocol, end destination, or content.
The fact that I can't and that ISPs are throttling the service that I paid for is criminal. Their business model is broken. period. They have oversold their network to steal money from you and I, and now they got caught. It is convenient for them to blame the BPI and **AA, and there may indeed be collusion, but the fact remains that they did NOT use the money they were given to produce a usable network and are now trying, AGAIN, to get the users or government to pay them extra to build one.
Why, yes, I do have a solution. I'm glad you asked. The last mile should never belong to a private enterprise. It should belong to co-operatives or the local council or some group that is directly responsible to the local public. By responsible, I mean by order of a vote, they can be replaced and the performance of the cooperative is judged on whether they keep their jobs in a way similar to how AT&T boardmembers are responsible to the share holders.
Yes, all that AT&T, Virgin, Verizon, Comcast et all can do is provide network services. They can only hook up their big pipes to the local WAN and provide backbone network services. You can subscribe to their email etc. or you can subscribe to someone else's email and home page portal. You would be able to access Google via any of them network service packages. Like emergency services, email services would be possible without having long distance.
Once network services are separated from last mile and provisioning services, their worth will be seen in the correct light, and all this throttling will become a thing of the past, a memory of bad times when criminals ran the board meetings and made marketing decisions for cable companies.
When consumers have the right to choose and can do so with a phone call, then the market place will work as it should.
In short, Fuck Virgin! and all their warlord comrades around the world.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Try the following experiment: compare this movie with this one. Then compare this film with this one.
I have a feeling that modern "blockbuster" movies are a giant step backwards. We had much more fun when films were done with shorter budgets and more imagination. Fx are OK for a while, but they can't make a bad film good.
We have a Justice Department that is absolutely unwilling to prosecute any big corporations for anti-trust. It's been like this for the last 2 decades, and it's now the reason we have only a few oil companies, only a few airlines, only a few national telcos.
One great example is Boeing. They were allowed to buy up all the other airframe manufacturers in the US because they claimed they couldn't compete with Airbus otherwise. Boeing got fat and happy, getting all the big contracts, until Airbus ate their lunch by building better planes. Boeing stopped trying so hard because they had no domestic competition, and now they can't compete with Airbus.
The government of the United States has been completely co-opted by big business. We now have a person running for president (the old white guy) whose staff is entirely made up of paid representatives of big business, who have been paying his way for his entire 30-year political career. Some of them are also paid representatives of other countries, including Iran.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not as much as you'd think. Virgin Media is basically NTL:Telewest with a new name. Basically after NTL and Telewest merged, they bought out Virgin Mobile (a cell provider with, again, very little connection to the original Virgin business in records). Richard Branson ended up with a pile of cash and a 10.7% stake in the new company because of that. That just added the mobile operator to the mix though, the bulk of Virgin Media is basically still NTL:Telewest, just with the Virgin brand attached to try and lose some of the smell that NTL and Telewest picked up over the years. It's not really working too well.
Oh, by the way, there's also Azureus Vuze, among others, who rely on filesharing to work, even as they allow for-pay downloads. We believe that ISPs, far from being a simple pipe, can become significant distributors of digital media, and share in the tremendous value that would be unleashed if more music were accessed legally online. Ah, now their true colors come out. To everyone who pointed out that BPI is no longer the same company as the music label, it looks as though they still want a piece of the pie. But despite the proliferation of licensed services, most music is still downloaded from unlicensed services - a problem that cannot be addressed through new models alone. Ok, one, how is that a problem? It's a problem if they aren't using your model -- not that they're getting music illegally. A download is not necessarily a lost sale.
And two, if it can't be addressed through new models alone, it can't be addressed -- again, without significant collateral damage.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!