Slashdot Mirror
BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates
An anonymous reader sends this news from TorrentFreak:
After cutting its teeth as a domestic broadcaster, the BBC is spreading its products all around the globe. Shows like Top Gear have done extremely well overseas and the trend of exploiting other shows in multiple territories is set to continue. As a result, the BBC is now getting involved in the copyright debates of other countries, notably Australia, where it operates four subscription channels. Following submissions from Hollywood interests and local ISPs, BBC Worldwide has now presented its own to the Federal Government. Its text shows that the corporation wants new anti-piracy measures to go further than ever before.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
...have to VPN in to the work network to deal with switches or to check the status of an outage, I'm automatically assumed to be a pirate?
Seems like the BBC is looking to piss off every IT department in the UK.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Why not go all the way and say VPN users are terrorists? Just like all news media outlets are property of their respective government.
Lolwut? So when I connect to my corporate network to do legal stuff I get a paycheck for, I am a pirate?
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Think I'll be downloading my Doctor Who fix from now on.
Just like all news media outlets are property of their respective government.
It's the other way around. Government is property of the media, as the news media have power to make or break a candidate for public office. And with major movie studios owning most of the news media...
... is to avoid your ISP from injecting their own ads into web pages, like Comcast does. I would not be surprised if some ISPs tried to block VPN access just so they can mess with your traffic.
What say the managers and officers running the BBC open up all their finances for the public to see. What? You don't want to? Well then you must be embezzling.
The co-operative approach is obvious. I mean, if a Ford-brand car battery is used to electrocute a journalist's genitals in a spider-hole in Iraq, of course the journalist and his survivors can sue Ford. That's just obvious. And BBC is going to find that many businesses at home and abroad do not care to have their means of secure communication severed.
The BBC may want strong geo-blocking but it is completely against the interest of you and I. Geo-blocking is not a right given by law it is just a consequence of license agreements (an indirect consequence of copyright law).
Why should I as an internet user be compelled to give you accurate information about where I am located geographically?
"This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection,"
It also helps me circumvent geo-blocking technologies, ie. access GOOGLE, from China. Ooooohohhhhh....the evil!
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain.
Shh.
I use VPN to dial into my home machine while at work because the it idiots just check filters and apps instead of really examining traffic.
I also use netflix to watch top gear, but after this fiasco, I'll be looking into d/l all my favorite bbc stuff like ground force, sarah jane, mi5 and the rest.
Way to go BBC - did you ever read the book on making friends and influencing enemies?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Arrrgh, matey! Debit Left!!!, Credit Right!!!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The Slashdot summary essentially misses the point. It's not that VPN equals pirate, but that VPN use combined with heavy bandwidth should make them suspicious. Of course this means that the ISP should be monitoring the traffic in the first place. The whole thing is objectionable because it makes one private entity responsible for enforcing the legal/equitable rights of another, at their own cost.
.
To me, the BBC looks to be an organization that is completely anal with regard to who can view or who can access what on their website.
It looks to me as if the BBC would rather restrict than inform. But, hey, that is their choice.
If I were a news-oriented organization, I would probably take a different approach, but that's just me.
Methinks BBC did what they did on the advise of their lawyers, and I am sure that there are still plenty of good people within BBC who can discern good from bad, right from wrong
So ... why don't all of us contact BBC and tell them what we think ?
Their website is at http://bbc.com/
You can contact them via http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/cont...
Or file a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaint...
Their worldservice email address is at worldservice.letters@bbc.co.uk
Their FB page is at https://www.facebook.com/bbcwo...
Let them know, let BBC know how wrong they are about VPN
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Everyone who wears pants is hiding something!!!! or they are modest, or cold or something... But they are for damn sure guilty of wearing pants!!!!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Presumably this is to stop non license payers watching BBC iPlayer (it's catch-up TV and streaming service) from abroad. As a British ex-pat in South Africa (where the local TV is dire), I would happily pay a subscription to access iPlayer, but I can't. This can't be a difficult thing for them to do, but instead they want to enforce geo-blocking. Since they won't take my money, why bother enforcing the geo-blocking? This is just stupid.
Because no one ever VPN'd in for work purposes.
I mean, I did at every corporate and government job I have had to date, but I'm sure I'm the exception to the rule. I mean, who would actually work from home on a consumer grade connection?
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
What's surprising, based on this article, is the minimal checks that the BBC's geolocation blocking uses. It's purely DNS based. Just set your nameserver to a UK-based DNS nameserver and you can fire up and watch programs using the BBC iPlayer.
The ITVPlayer, in the other hand requires the actual program streams to be pulled using a UK-based IP address.
For people with the technical skills, a London, UK based virtual private server can be rented for about $10/month and perhaps less.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We're bummed that our territory protection doesn't work anymore. Global trade be damned!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If VPN use impedes the enforcement of geo-blocking then the answer is very simple - do not try and use geo-blocking. Restricting where content may be viewed is a concept which should have passed its 'sell by date'.
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain.
Yes and no. A starving artist who makes nothing from his work should continue to receive his small royalty, if he gets any; a project that hasn't earned back its costs should have copyright extended for a *long* time--maybe 40 years or the lifetime of the artist, whichever is longer. But a project that has made its producers hundreds of millions should enter the public domain within five to ten years. There is no justification for copyright beyond that term when a project has been enormously successful.
If the September 18 referendum results in an independent Scotland then the BBC may be in trouble. I've read that the BBC will not be made available there and so will the TV and radio set fees Scots pay for the privilege of watching and listening to the BBC. I assume the total from Scotland is substantial so there's likely to be more job losses at the BBC, probably a reduction in content production and maybe a cut in channels for both radio and TV. Too bad for the lower paid folks, but the high earners will likely make out as usual.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Content owners only need very limited rights so they can profit of their work for a short time.
They certainly shouldn't have the right to deprive people of information, because they haven't paid, or because they didn't pay for a new media format, or because they are using a VPN!
The more ridiclous these attempts to lock people from accessing information, the more they will be circumvented. Methods to circamvent will continue to improve, becoming ever more convenient until these idiot companies die or wise up.
Donation model ONLY. Money paid gets a copy, maybe something extra cool, that's it. If you give a copy to someone or copy it to your computer you are not a criminal and should not be treated like one.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Also, I do not know a single person that uses VPN in order to access 'content'.
I am wondering when people will start realizing that Internet is dead, and has been for at least 2 years.
Australians hate geo-blocking. It's a tool used to make them pay more for content simply because they live in Australia.
A direct effect if copyright was reformed to reasonable terms would very likely be a golden age for our culture. All of a sudden those pent up reserves of story craft would be unleashed in a myriad of creative expression and experience. Movies, Music, Books, Interactive Entertainment, everything that copyright currently hoards. New ventures into existing universes is one thing but the ad-hoc communities that would form around the freed works would also spur a renaissance in our culture. Old computer games could be packaged up in whatever emulation needed to make them operate on modern machines, freely distributed. Legitimate torrent sites could specialize in genres and not only host the information but also a chorus of discussion that would not have existed when the works were locked away. If our culture was a tapestry then releasing the flood would weave into it vibrant colour and pattern that is currently dulled and frayed. The only reason this is all prevented right now is regulatory capture by vested interests who choose to keep their penny rather than let a dollar fall into a collective grasp.
Shh.
They do a great job of attacking Jews too.
Is that really so outrageous that it justifies an entire Slashdot hatethread?
Yes. No-one should not have to provide "legitimate explanations" about their internet usage on such flimsy criteria.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
fuck it, i hope uk does not get the land of the stupid and of the walking whales like the us. this insanity has to stop. let's us all use VPNs or tor as collective disobedience. At the end of the day, this is just political propaganda, because the establishment wants to sniff and correlate more easily the (meta)data of ISP customers. Now if someone gave two black eyes to people who insults willingly the public at large, some idiots would think twice before spewing garbage.
The fossils running content providers, and some ISPs still can't figure out how to monitize the internet for their existing models of the world. This problem is so 1990's, still so applicable. Rather than realize the internet for what it is, they need to apply boarders and geoblocking because, well... because otherwise Johnny Rotten would be able to sell butter outside of Britain?
The BBC are morons. People aren't going to stop using VPNs, the genie is way too far out of the bottle for that. If they really want to control content for profit, perhaps they should look at all of the folks make money on subscriptions services?
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
The BBC is financed primarily by mandatory TV license fees. Everything they do should be in the public domain, just like other government-financed data and media. Why the hell should they weigh in on issues related to "piracy" at all?
Serioiusly, I have never read anything on that site that didn't hideously distort the facts.
I do not do VPN and I have iOS apps that let me watch BBC. I also have it in the offering of hundreds of shitty channels in cable TV at home. Do I want to watch it? Not really. All the national TV channels have been going downhill in the last couple of decades. Even the paid ones suck big time. And it is a matter of time before the new generations that only want to see what they want and fast, the youtube/piratebay generations dont watch it at all. What is the fuss about, again? Last time I notice BBC is broadcasted to satellites though the word OPEN, and many apps and sites get it from satellite and allow to watch it for free. So what is the point about complaining VPN users do not pay?
Do you? Check Film On, the free version on the app store for instance (it is not the only one). Or check this site http://www.estadiofutebol.com/ with strong filters has it has lot of adverts. Or http://www.wherever.tv/tv-chan... Or here. http://cricfree.sx/bbc-one-liv... Who are they kidding? You dont need a VPN to see it.
btw, watch the thread down bellow where I posted sites I found on google that allow you to see BBC, so you know this conversation about VPNs and piracy is bullshit.
That line of reasoning is not a good path to go down for the UK. There are, in fact, a lot of public goods that countries make available to each other for free. If we started accounting for them all, the UK would be SOL.
For example, American consumers and taxpayers are paying for most of the medical research that the UK's single payer system would never be able to finance on its own; maybe the US should start demanding that the NHS start paying up? The US spends a lot more on defense than its NATO allies; maybe the US should start demanding that Europeans pay up? You get the picture.
The mere thought that a content provider wants to ban and restrict consumers is absurd to me. They should provide content that's equally accessible by everyone, no exceptions, and no bans based on your location in the world. For example I was abroad during the world cup, and I wanted to watch it, but I couldn't because my very own country's provider didn't let me because I connected using a foreign IP. But this is exactly the time I'd use a streaming service, when I can't access to my regular cable subscription. It feels to me that they're trying to hold on to values and methods that worked 20 years ago. They could get away with separating continents then (barely). But the internet is global, the world is global, you cannot restrict me from accessing the content I want to. Or you can, but it will force me to look for other sources. (torrent, circumventing geoban, etc). The answer is so obvious, why not let everyone have easy access to the content for a modest fee? I'd gladly pay, but don't please don't think a restrictive poor quality ad riddled online player will do.
I wonder if the costs for implementing DRM, polishing the bad publicity and paying all those lawyers is really in the same order of magnitude as the "damages" by some people enjoying BBC content. And the only damage I see is that those alleged "pirates" are using BBCs bandwidth to stream the content. They wouldn't (because they couldn't) be customers of the BBC anyway.
You mean the company that had widespread child abuse in its building for decades and everyone looked the other way? That BBC?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No. A good chunk of charities waste a good chunk of the money (usually around 80% of it) before it gets to supporting something. Donating to a charity is wasteful, donating directly to a cause on the other hand is another thing.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
If someone sells me the bandwidth and then bitches that I use it, they are operating a business under false premises. It is not reasonable for an ISP to identify behavior they sell me the resources to perform and then label that behavior criminal. So, yes, it is really that outrageous that it justifies an entire Slashdot hate thread. I could easily use different socket promulgation and circumvent the whole schema you're aluding. High volume of traffic means nothing to legality.
Wrong. The on-demand content from iPlayer in the United Kingdom does not require a license. Only live television.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Define what 'heavy' is? Because the more I think about it, the harder time I have a problem differentiating between the amount of traffic used for general internet + windows updates + anti-virus + work network shares + work backups etc. (as normal for corporate VPNs) verses streaming usage.
I think about my streaming usage and if I was to do it over a VPN, I suspect it would be significantly less than what I currently do on my work laptop over a VPN.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Their criteria for detecting was 'heavy VPN' usage, not traffic patterns though.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Opaque walls in private homes enable the residents of those home to commit crimes. The detection and prosecution of those crimes is a difficult task due to the use of opaque walls. All building contractors need to take responsibility, and join together to reduce and eliminate those crimes. I propose that it should not be permitted to build any new private homes whose walls are made from opaque materials.
Have you noticed the difference between my proposal and the BBC's proposal? That's right - the crimes enabled by opaque walls do not threaten to reduce the profits of large media corporations like the BBC. Ah well, I guess my proposal doesn't have much chance of adoption, then.
This statement:
"This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains."
Doesn't appear to be remotely close to what the topic claims:
"BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates"
Quite the opposite, it very clearly that "some users" use it for multiple purposes.
Yet that hasn't stopped anyone here from simply assuming the article header is correct and complaining. Which is precisely why everyone ignores nerds.
Although its not the primary reason I use VPN, I'll admit it...yeah, BBC, I live in the US and I use it to watch your programming. Because US factual and documentary programming sucks. And BBC America is a fucking joke. Just to name a few off the top of my head, if a BBC program has David Attenborough, Monty Don, or Fred Dibnah in it, I'll watch it. Even if its a show about watching paint dry. So instead of trying to find ways to lock out people like me, why don't you turn it in to a money making opportunity...shut up, take my money, and sell me a TV license.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
As someone who lives and works in the U.S., I love BBC. Listen to BBC news radio on the way to work every day (free streaming on TuneIn Radio) and watch several BBC shows on cable.
In fact, BBC is something I wouldn't mind spending extra money to get a 'TV license' for, just like they force people in the UK to pay.
So offer me one. Give me a internet license for BBC online and let me stream it from whereever I am on the planet. If you want you can do it by creating your own VPN and renting that to me.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Why the hell the BBC don't just drop the geo-location detection and switch to having an access code system that has an unlock key linked to your TV license I don't know
Obvious there are all the users that use VPN's to connect to their office networks and the arguments that only public VPN users are pirates, but what about gamers? There are a lot of gamers that use VPN's to run games that either don't work well through a NAT situation or only support LAN play and so need a VPN to make that work across a LAN.
On one side, VPN users are pirate. Ok. So no VPN.
On the other side, not using a VPN to work/transfer personal stuff is a security risk, that can lead to data leak, identity theft, etc. So, VPN. And screw the BBC. I suppose they do all their data transfer in the clear, too?
Actually this comes from 'BBC Worldwide'
A massively incompetent organisation who takes the BBCs programmes, sells them for £1.2 billion and then hands the BBC a little over 1 tenth of that amount!
They pay their employees an average of £79000 each to somehow lose over a billion pounds whilst selling the BBCs programmes.
I mean seriously, how much can it cost to sell a product that is fucking digital, according to BBC Worldwide it costs £524,700,000 to sell stuff, WTF? (and that's excluding wages of 144,000,000)
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
After cutting its teeth as a domestic broadcaster, the BBC is spreading its products all around the globe.
The BBC have been doing this for well over half a century.....
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
The irony of this discussion is that as someone who lives in the UK and pays his licence fee, I still sometimes run into content on the BBC that I'm told I'm not allowed to see because I live in the wrong place.
This is why I lack much sympathy for the Beeb when people use VPNs and the like to circumvent geographical restrictions. I do understand that there are commercial agreements and licensing conditions at work here, and I do understand that the BBC Worldwide commercial arm is not the same as the BBC itself (though it is a wholly owned subsidiary).
Just to be clear, I think the BBC is a borderline national treasure. It is certainly not perfect, but the range and quality of programming it has produced over the years is so much better than the apparent norm on commercial television channels that I pay my licence fee gladly, even if it is a bizarre pseudo-tax based on archaic rules about who has to contribute.
However, if you're going to take primarily public funding, with only a relatively small amount coming from BBC Worldwide's commercial activities, then not sharing the results with those members of the public who are paying your bills is not on, IMHO.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Hey, Beeb. If you don't like people pirating your content (I don't, other than watching YouTube), them let them buy access, FFS. I'd be willing to pay a modest fee to watch domestic BBC programs for the convenience of not having to wait months / years / never (Porridge) for the content to show up in alternative media.
When the BBC opened 4 digital channels here in Oz on FoxTel, my assumption was that this is an intermediate move to establish the brand and also debug the distribution channels ahead of a time a few years away where everything is an "app" on whatever STB you choose, with a paid subscription model. Foxtel is only being used for now (I supposed) because that's where the technology is at and not everyone yet has an open-ish STB that can support arbitrary channel apps.
This latest shows that the BBC isn't doing this after all, which is a great shame, as it's surely the way TV is going to go (as long as governments have the balls to tell Murdoch to stuff his 80s distribution model up his arse). If there were a BBC "app" with a simple subscription model (in the manner of say, Apple TV) then the BBC would not give a shit who runs a VPN or how the content is accessed. They only have to ensure that the client has paid for the service. I'd go for that, it's a no brainer. Everyone wins - the BBC, the consumer, the box makers. Oh, Rupert doesn't, oh well, boo hoo hoo.
I just don't get it. The BBC is generally quite forward-looking and surely can see the way this is all going? If they truly can't, as this stupid comment seems to imply, then I really hope somebody gets their brain into gear over there soon.
Roy: No, BBC, I'm sorry. The Elders of the Internet would never stand for it.
Moss: "Unbelievable! Some idiot disabled all VPNs, meaning all the computers on every floor are teeming with MITM attacks, plus I've just had to walk all the way down the motherfudging stairs, because the lifts are broken again!"
But what exactly are you going to say? Despite the inflammatory slashdot summary the quoted text from the BBC submission only says that pirates use VPNs. This is not at all the same as saying that all VPN users are pirates. The troubling part is that they are advocating that ISPs should throttle and disconnect users based on accusations from other companies which, as we have seen time and time again are often inaccurate.
So lets go after the real issues and not invent new ones based on deliberate misinterpretation since the latter will result in loss of all credibility and leave the field wild open for really draconian suggestions.
If one sits inside all day watching pirated content instead of getting out in the sunshine and exercising, one is bound to put on a few kilograms!
After cutting its teeth as a domestic broadcaster, the BBC is spreading its products all around the globe.
The BBC launched in 1922. The World Service on shortwave in 1932.
In the states, PBS's "Masterpiece Theater" has been importing or co-producing productions by the BBC since 1971.
Yet it's ok for the carriers to commit GPL violations as they deploy their set-top boxes.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I would be very surprised if the BBC themselves (well, their IT dept) didn't use VPN's. Almost any mid-large sized business will be using them in some fashion, and even many small businesses do these days.
A lot of ISP's ban home servers if - par example - you're divvying out content to the internet (though often not unless you're caught, those port 25 and/or 80 blocks are also common).
However, a lot of "home servers" these days are just media boxen used to personal consumption. The cloud-enabled ones usually have some service for allowing remote-access as well. Geeks may have a file/media server along with maybe a game host of some type, which doesn't necessarily break the TOS for the ISP.
Most companies keep their pirates in the finance department.
I'm suddenly remembering that it's been a while since I saw "Month Python's TheMeaning of Life".
Everyone uses them. Every major corporation and government... including the BBC. Fire your tech writer.
Next topic.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
that the downfall of our race was caused by our absolute insistence on basing everything: human relationships, law, economics, etc. on passive entertainment. Maybe this really is (as some have asserted) SETI's great cosmic filter.
"The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
For example, American consumers and taxpayers are paying for most of the medical research that the UK's single payer system would never be able to finance on its own;
What? The NHS pays for is medicines and technology at prices negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies. It doesn't get them for free.
Also male baby cattle, just because they happen to be born male and unable to provide milk profit later, kept lying low in tents for their entire short life span, so their meat remains tender, and commands a higher profit at the meat store, that seems like an unhappy, suffering, consent lacking scenario, and people should be able to eat the not-so-tender veal meat, like they can eat regular beef steak. It's like if I had to be an animal bred and raised for meat food, I'd like to live out a happy life, and when it's time for me to die, I'd like not to be a priori informed about it, it should just happen like I'd go to sleep, and never wake up. I would much prefer that situation compared to constant mental anguish and suffering throughout my life. Do unto others as thou would have them do unto thee. Sometimes that principle comes in handy. In fact the great game analyst, Johny Neumann came up with the forgiving tit for tat method as a best strategy: play tit for tat most of the time, but once in a while forgive, like 9 out of 10 tit for tat, good acts for good acts, bad acts for bad acts, but once in a while, 1 out of 10, or something like that, if you're stuck in a perpetual bad acts for bad acts response situation, make a good act for bad act response. Never make a bad act for good act response, though.
Prescription drug prices in the US market are much higher than the NHS negotiated prices; without the US market and the high amount of US consumer spending on drugs, drug companies would have little incentive to invest in new drugs.
Of course, once the US has paid for the development of new drugs, drug companies aren't going to say "no" to as much revenue from the British NHS as they can negotiate.
Prescription drug prices in the US market are much higher than the NHS negotiated prices; without the US market and the high amount of US consumer spending on drugs, drug companies would have little incentive to invest in new drugs.
Your own doctors' and hospitals' inability to negotiate a good deal isn't the NHS's fault. You don't really think that if the NHS paid more the drug companies would say "oh well, we'll charge everyone else less", do you? They'll charge as much as they can get away with, just like now.
A more likely reason for drugs being so expensive in the USA is that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D. How much cheaper would it be if they didn't do that? Don't blame your own dysfunctional system on the NHS "not paying up" because they do, and the companies make a fat profit out of it.
But instead of countless threads all complaining about their valid VPN uses, we'd get countless threads of tumblrites triggered by fat shaming.