Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Pirates Will Always Win, Says UK ISP

Posted by Soulskill on from the except-in-pittsburgh dept.

TheEvilOverlord writes "The head of UK ISP TalkTalk, Charles Dunstone, has made the comment ahead of the communications minister's Digital Britain report that illegal downloading cannot be stopped. He said 'If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.' Instead he advocates allowing users 'to get content easily and cheaply.'"

25 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. They hit the nail on the head by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is really refreshing to see someone, sometimes, who understands the situation and puts it down this clear in an unbiased manner.

    we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.

    or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    1. Re:They hit the nail on the head by psnyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.

      or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.

      Charles Dunstone's wording is better when talking to politicians.
      Politicians know that new problems will always arise, so it's not much of a deterrent. But they do NOT want to look stupid.

    2. Re:They hit the nail on the head by janwedekind · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't stop copyright infringement but you can inhibit free culture.

    3. Re:They hit the nail on the head by A+coward+on+a+mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nuts to this argument. The packaging, extras, quality, and convenience that are offered as part of non-pirated media will keep the honest artists and publishers going strong.

      The music industry as it exists today is horrifically ineffecient and has had to settle price-fixing litigation as a result. Even after this wake-up call, they refuse to lower their prices signficantly. Do you honestly believe that it costs more to produce a 45 minute CD than it does to produce a 90 minute DVD?

      Finding decent quality rips and downloading them takes time and effort. A lot of people would rather not go through the hassle and instead just buy the product from a legitimate retailer if the prices weren't artificially twice as high as they ought to be. This is not a case of people not wanting professionally produced works or of people not being willing to buy them for a fair price. It is a case of the media industry refusing to sell things for a fair price.

      When CDs came out, they were fifty to a hundred percent more expensive than vinyl, but we were all told that the prices would come down because CDs are cheaper to make than vinyl or cassettes. Guess what - that didn't happen. Instead, the music industry just decided to charge as much as they wanted to charge and dare us to find a way around them. We found a way around them, and now they're trying to lobby and sue the entire world into submission. This guy is not the first one to tell them there's no way it works and that they'd better just start making the adjustment now to a less-lavish lifestyle now that large parts of the contribution they used to make to music production and distribution are no longer needed.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    4. Re:They hit the nail on the head by joaobranco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.

      or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.

      Trouble is, some of the new problems it introduces (namely overbearing policing of actions online, bordering on a police state) are not usually seen as problems by the politicians (at least those in power or which hope to achieve it soon), but rather goals that they date not describe publicly...

    5. Re:They hit the nail on the head by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Things will even out, again thanks to technology...
      A few years ago, high quality cameras and equipment for producing special effects cost huge sums of money, as did decent audio sequencing equipment... These days, a lot can be done very cheaply... Powerful computers with complex 3d modeling software are affordable and most special effects are computerized... Same for audio, a lot can and is done in software these days.

      Big productions can be good, but they do come at a cost... Big name actors don't come cheap, and aren't necessarily any more talented... There are so many layers of management, corruption and greed that the production actually costs far more than it should.

      Singers i think will do just fine, especially those who enjoy doing live shows... Technology is still no substitute for a live show. I guess other forms of live entertainment such as sports will also do very well. The effect it will have tho, is that being a singer will no longer be seen by people as an easy path to riches (as exemplified by all the talent shows on tv these days).. It will be seen as hard work, and only people who have a true passion for art will go for it.

      There are also other avenues for actors, big name actors like patrick stewart do live plays, professional wrestling is also a form of acting, and the fame of being the star of popular (not necessarily profitable, most widely viewed is what matters) movies can propel people into other fields such as politics (see arnold schwarzenegger).

      Incidentally, movies and music are already heavily used for advertising, not because they need the money to survive but because the producers are often greedy and only care about the money, not about the art.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:They hit the nail on the head by eiMichael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All this means that if your art can be reproduced, it will. Be fucking excited that people regard your creative endeavors worth reproducing. This doesn't mean people won't pay for some of it. It just means that people won't go through hoops and gatekeepers for it.

      This reproduction opens your exposure to a MUCH MUCH wider audience. You may lose some paying consumers as they never really wanted to pay the price, but buying your CD was just the easiest way to get your art. Now it isn't. However, people may be willing to 'donate' the $9.99 they would have paid in a store to those who produced such art.

      This new distribution network for information is probably one of the biggest technological jumps in producing as it gives everyone who has an IP address the ability to distribute w/e it is they create. From tweeting to personal scientific research, everyone has the capacity to be a producer. This leads to tons of new competition against big-media, and as has been shown people will produce for nothing more than a few hits on their web site.

      In summary, if you do art for a living, good luck. Everyone is creative, and now you have a bunch of competition lowering the value of what you produce.

    7. Re:They hit the nail on the head by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason CD prices and DVD prices are what they has virtually nothing to do with the cost of production. It's because they lie on what the companies believe to be the optimum point on the price/demand curve - i.e. the maximum they can get away with. This is the result of monpoly distribution - if you want a legitimate copy of a particular artist on a major label, or a particular film, you go to their media representative and pay their price, or you don't buy it at all.

      If you look at the price breakdown of either media, the largest slices of the pie go to the retailer, the label, and the taxman, generally in that order. The artists get a very small percentage. Where you see price drops, thats due to competition between the retailers (i.e. supermarkets) reducing their cut, rather than the label taking a hit. Of course, the record labels have used it as justification to reduce the artist's cut, even though their own profit margins have increased due to the substantial falling cost of production. Pressing plants are a lot cheaper, and while a good studio engineer and producer still costs money, the equipment is a lot cheaper and time needed to run it through autotune has fallen.

      Just take radio; payola is still in business, so labels literally pay to get their music on the air, as a promotional tool to drive album sales.

      With DVDs, most of the costs of production have already been paid anyway; most films at least break even in the cinema, so DVD sales are just gravy, and they'll take as much as they can get away with. It's also why prices are so wildly different between regions; they price to what local demand will allow (prices are generally 50% higher in Europe compared to the US), and use DRM and import restrictions to prevent customers price shopping around.

      So, the internet. The long tail has turned out to be somewhat of a myth - online sales have emphasised the marketshare of the top marketed artists, not flattened it. Many of the more obscure back catalogues don't sell anything at all, as generally teenagers want the latest new hit, not some crusty 20 year old album from a band they've never heard of.

      What it has done though is freed the indies. OK, their share of the market might not be very big, but the market itself (if you include piracy) has grown quite a lot. indie music doesn't end up on piratebay much, and they can price themselves very low and still keep almost all the profit. Self-production is pretty cheap indeed now, and there's various indie distribution channels such as cdbaby that leave the artist with almost all the money. You might not make the megabucks of being a heavily marketed hit teen sensation, but it's still enough to make a decent living. Even major artists have twigged that once they're famous, if they can break free of the label they can really make a killing using the internet. Just look at radiohead.

      So the record industry is being squeezed between two places. Internet distributed indies are showing how the internet can make you money not lose it; and piracy is utterly destroying their artificial distribution monopoly, and its monopoly prices. They had their chance to become the go-to online distributer buy buying napster and keeping it running, and blew it big time - now apple have that title. The film industry is not making the same mistake; with services like netflix, and video streaming via xbox live, or even just over cable they're trying to stay ahead of the curve by offering convenience for a price. If they can keep that price low enough, and get titles out fast enough not to drive the general public to piracy, they'll survive. Plus of course, they have the cinema chains to fall back on; anyone prepared to watch a cam rip wasn't likely a customer in the first place.

      My maxim is always this - in a world where you can sell bottled water, you'll be able to sell packaged entertainment media. You might not make as money as you'd like, but give the customer a cheap, easy to use experience that 'just works', and you'll stay in business. Trea

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  2. Of course... by XPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as there is internet, there will be piracy. Plain n' simple.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Of course... by Lillesvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm inclined to correct that, because long before the internet there was piracy too. I remember copying the new Guns n' Roses album (Use your Illusion I) and lots of other stuff to tape. Yeah, that was 1991 - internet did technically exist, but let's be realistic, it wasn't a common thing to see in a house hold.

      So how about we say, "as long as art exists, there will be piracy"?

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    2. Re:Of course... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      back then piracy was what people did when they made hundreds of dupes and sold them on a market stall. taping an album off your friend was just taping an album off your friend.

      half of my dad's music collection was lp's and recorded tapes, half were dupes an blank tapes. the same went for everyone i knew. there was never even the inkling that there was something wrong with this.

      now all of a sudden anyone who obtains dupes for free is a vicious evil greedy selfish thieving pirate and deserves to be financially ruined and/or imprisoned.

      fucking absurd.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    3. Re:Of course... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how about we say, "as long as art exists, there will be piracy"?

      No. Not at all.
      You can't pirate something which is freely given.

      As long as copyright exists, there will be piracy.

      If and when society discards the crutch of copyright in favor of modern means of funding creative endeavours, piracy will end.

      Getting rid of copyright is the only way to end piracy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Of course... by impaledsunset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And making killing people legal is the only way to end murder....

      Current copyright law is FUBAR, which doesn't mean we should get rid of copyright completely. Even a sane version of copyright will still be infrinded just as any other law out there, which doesn't mean that one shouldn't exist. Sane copyright laws should exist, however they should be beneficial to art and culture, not to the RIAA's pockets, and shouldn't thread down on almost everybody's and their wishes.

      Currently many people want and have the opportunity to remix and share art, so they will do it. On the other hand, current copyright laws make almost everything you can do with a work illegal. It's simply inconsistent with reality.

      P.S. What's this piracy are you all talking about? Why would you bring sea-robbers in a discussion about copyright?

  3. Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please by jginspace · · Score: 4, Informative

    Exactly what he said:

    TalkTalk has always maintained the defence that it is merely a broadband pipe and not an online policeman for the content industry.

  4. I don't think that's actually the industry's goal. by Pollux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe the industry knows that you cannot stop 100% of software piracy. I don't think that's their goal.

    I remember back in 2000 when I went to my dentist. He sat me down and started making the usual small-talk, asked me where I worked, what I was majoring in in college, etc. When I told him I was a comp sci major, he brought up Napster. My dentist was using Napster. He went on and on about how computer illiterate he was, but he had no problems using Napster, and how he was finding songs on there from back when he was a kid, how he could find anything he wanted, and how simple it was to get whatever song he wanted...

    I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

  5. Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Making ISPs police the users and the content is as if they wanted to make BMW and others responsible for all the illegal activities people commit in their cars.

    How come it's so hard to differentiate between offering access and being responsible for what people do with it?

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:I don't think that's actually the industry's go by Yacoby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    he had no problems using Napster, and how he was finding songs on there from back when he was a kid, how he could find anything he wanted, and how simple it was to get whatever song he wanted...

    I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.

    Then the solution is not to sue the dentist, but to give him options to get the music he wants cheaply and easily. By cheaply, I don't mean the current prices that they are ripping me off with. 12p a track sounds reasonable. 10p to the artist, 1p to the publisher, and 1p to the distributer.
    When they try and sell me a digital album for £8 - £10, I just give up. Do they think I am made of money? Why should I pay a large amount of money for something that costs them nothing to reproduce?

    One big issue the industry will hit is that when people my age (late teens) get to the point when we are the dentist, we won't have any problem pirating things. We won't have any problems with computer illiteracy. We will know where to find the programs that encrypt the traffic. If we don't, we just ask a friend who does.

  8. Wow, progress being made, but ... by soporific16 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    they're still calling us pirates. I like to think of myself as someone who likes to walk around the tollbooths the entertainment industry puts in front of everything, not walk through them. Haven't they got enough money? How many copies of my favorite albums do i have to buy to replace the ones i lost, or had stolen or whatever? Because the tollbooth owners don't care about that sort of fairness, how can i be expected to WILLINGLY put up with the hassle of the tollbooth experience when i can just walk around? The ISP guy got it spot on in one regard -- the only way to combat the culture that has developed to avoid this hassle (ie filesharing) is to make stuff dirt cheap and mega accessible. But there's no or very little profit in that is there, and so here lies the contradiction of trying to own something in digital form and make "good healthy profits". Normally i would sarcastically say "good luck with that" but its simply not funny that while they're trying to make these healthy profits we have to put up with all the associated nastiness of their stand-over tactics and absurd propaganda... can we have the revolution now please?

  9. Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wish my ISP would filter out all the car analogies for me.

  10. Re:Yep, now explain that to the politicians please by superskippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem is that TalkTalk sabotage their own arguments by being one of the biggest proponents of Phorm and traffic shaping. If it's just a pipe, and "oh we can't possibly be expected to look inside the packets and find out what they are", why are you planning on inserting adverts into my web pages at the ISP stage?. Why do you open up my packets and make some of them go slower or faster?

    The truth of the matter is that ISPs secretly love pirates- they pay the broadband bills. Modern piracy has been a big loss for the content industries and a big win for telecoms companies. Please don't pretend that Dunstone is resisting this because he is a huge fan of civil liberties, he is resisting this because it is good for his business.

  11. Re:Amazon! by adona1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, pirates should check out Amazon. I've checked it out. However, because I don't live in America, they wouldn't let me give them my money. Credit card out, mp3s selected, and bam...sorry, you're in the wrong country (nothing stopping me buying the CD from Amazon though). And the record companies wonder why they're dying...

    --
    Between the falling angel and the rising ape
  12. Re:Yep you can stop P2P by Swizec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes it's hard to stop copying, but it's not that difficult to seriously clamp down on P2P. To me it's easy to spot P2P, the characteristics are: 1) Lots of connections to multiple other IPs 2) High upload AND download So if you see that, you can just leave the first 4 "conversations" that are downloading alone, and the first 2 "conversations" that are uploading, and squish down the rest till the first bunch are done. By conversation I mean IP to IP. Doesn't matter how many TCP/UDP connections between two IPs, it's still one "conversation".

    1) What if I open 20 different websites in a few seconds because I happened upon a cool wikipedia article?

    2)What if I'm chatting, uploading a video, opening websites and running a dev server? Many many connections.

    3) How do you define "high" transfer? Firstly I can tell my torrent client to curb how fast it's going to just a few kilo per second. Secondly, I could be doing something funky, like, I dunno, running an ftp server to share photos and video between people in a design shop.

  13. Re:Amazon! by caluml · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, exactly, are you thinking that | cat on the end is adding?

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  14. It's a sudden break of common sense by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been screaming this line for years and years.

    It would appear, I'm a fucking visionary.

    Why do they put up so many barriers to buying their content?

    Make it cheaper, make it easier to find and access. If I could buy your content online in HD format for what I think it's worth, then I would buy it instead of download it. You think it's worth more than it is. You strictly control access to it. You claim that your business is suffering. Adapt to the damn market.

    And finally, make up your damn mind. Is it a product or a license? You can't have it both ways. If it's a product, I can understand that. Since downloads are not stealing and aren't a diminishment of your product, we can download anything we want.

    If it's a license, then I have a right to download the mp3s for all the vinyl and CDs that I own. I also have a right to download any movies I own on vhs (which is a lot.)

    If it's both, we can still download anything we want.

    Copyright law was intended to prevent counterfeiting. Piracy isn't counterfeiting. Downloading isn't piracy. Downloading isn't counterfeiting.

    The statutory damages were intended to prevent corporate counterfeiting. They were never intended to be applied to music fans.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.