MSE News: Illegal music downloaders face internet blackout

Natty68

I got totally confused by reading the article.. I see our local MP has voted Aye, funny that when he is standing down this term. I wonder if this his final act of stabbing the knife in for his area.

tomstickland

Youtube muted a video I uploaded because it auto-detected that the soundtrack contained a sample of a track licensed to WMG.

There's no way that anyone would watch my video as a substitute for listening to the original recording. I mashed it up into a mix.

Watching the video is not stealing a sale from anywhere.

The other record companies are more switched on and just link adverts to your video when their content is recognised.

JasonLVC

I thought there was a shift from P2P downloading (the bit that this bill is really focused on and concerns people 'sharing' content) and more towards direct downloads from file depots such as megaupload, hotfile, etc.

The only copyright theft taking place then is the host - who removes the content when requested - (and then someone else uploads it again), the person downloading isn't 'sharing' anything and so circumnavigates this new bill entirely (if I am understanding the bill properly that is).

Trust Labour to introduce a law that is out of date before it is enacted.

[Deleted User]

Not just p2p sites they can ban now. Any site that they suspect of violating copyright can be locked out. Say goodbye to wikileaks and your right to free speech on the internet. It's an absolute disgrace!

sweetstudent

I agree somewhat, but only if persistant offenders are cut off via a court order. Downloading copywrite content is illegal and it is stealing! Yes i agree that music should be cheaper online, but people should not resort to illegal downloading. It puts peoples jobs at risk - not the singers/performers but other people who work behind the scenes.

chriswatts

sweetstudent wrote: »

It puts peoples jobs at risk - not the singers/performers but other people who work behind the scenes.

This was actually a falsehood propagated by the music industry. Can't remember which website published it but it has been proved that theoretical cost of illegal downloads does not correspond to lost revenue.

Although it has been suguested that most sources of illegal downloads also contain viruses and malware so I wonder how much illegal downloads cost in fraud.

Also I did watch (as well as most of twitter tweeting insults in realtime at the MP's) BBC parliament when the bill was debated and most of the MP's didn't know a thing about the internet. No comprehension of what a anonymous proxy was, or IPV6, didn't know people can change IP address and one major point raised how can they guarantee that the wrong person doesn't get framed?

Asheron

Communist China style internet censorship

sweetstudent

chriswatts wrote: »

This was actually a falsehood propagated by the music industry. Can't remember which website published it but it has been proved that theoretical cost of illegal downloads does not correspond to lost revenue.

Although it has been suguested that most sources of illegal downloads also contain viruses and malware so I wonder how much illegal downloads cost in fraud.

Also I did watch (as well as most of twitter tweeting insults in realtime at the MP's) BBC parliament when the bill was debated and most of the MP's didn't know a thing about the internet. No comprehension of what a anonymous proxy was, or IPV6, didn't know people can change IP address and one major point raised how can they guarantee that the wrong person doesn't get framed?

So, what if everybody decieded that they would illegally download new movies instead of going to the cinema to watch them or buy them on dvd? Is this okay and acceptable? Would this not put jobs at risk?

chriswatts

sweetstudent wrote: »

So, what if everybody decieded that they would illegally download new movies instead of going to the cinema to watch them or buy them on dvd? Is this okay and acceptable? Would this not put jobs at risk?

If everybody actually illegally downloaded everything then jobs would be put at risk. The point that has been made is that if illegal downloaders were actually forced to pay for all the files that they had illegally downloaded they wouldn't even be able to pay for a fraction of it. A illegal download isn't a tangable thing, so someone illegally downloading a file hasn't reduced the number of files in excestance it's just made a extra one. If anything attempts to stop illegal downloading like closing down sites and sueing people has resulted in a small drop of illegal downloading and not the corresponding rise in legal downloads.

Illegal downloading isn't okay and acceptable and if anything quality and cleanest of source is a far better reason to legally download than the so called lost profits. Unless you do want to give all your credit card numbers to some hacker!

cliffski

chriswatts wrote: »

If everybody actually illegally downloaded everything then jobs would be put at risk.

In other words, its all fine as long as the rest of us law abiding mugs still pay for stuff so that the priveledged few can download everything for free...

No thanks. Its about time people downloading stuff they havent paid for are described as the freeloading leeches that they are.
Hollywood movies and software and computer games take serious effort to make. Why people these days feel 'entitled' to take this stuff for free is quite beyond me. What else in life were you born with a right to enjoy at others expense?