Jump to content

Illegal downloaders face UK ban


Pooks
 Share

Recommended Posts

BBC News has reported that the government plans to bring in new legislation to stop people illegally downloading copyrighted material. I honestly can't see how they plan to enforce this.

 

What are your opinions?

 

As far as I can see they are going to target file sharing networks, putting the responsibility on the Internet Providers to police it. They don't seem to take into account that a lot of files available on file-sharing networks are legitimate. If you download a file called 'Rambo 45 - the rebirth.avi', then who is going to decide whether or not it is an illegal copy of the film or a video of your 45th grandson's wedding day?

 

Could government money be spent on something more useful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another case of people not understanding the technologies in question shouting loudest - and quite frankly this would be big brother in action!

 

How on earth could the ISP's know what was going over their networks unless they were checking every byte and bit and so everything you ever do would be under scrutiny. What ever happened to the data protection act?

 

[large boring nerdy discussion about how to bypass all this hullaballoo removed]

 

This is no different than someone going to Afghanistan and sending a kilo of opium to themselves through the post. Is the Post Office liable for prosecution since the poor postman delivered it to your door? I don't think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has crossed my mind to download MP3s of vinyl albums I already own, rather than the going through to long winded process necessary to record them on my PC then convert the recording to MP3s. How does that stand with the law, as I will already have paid for the music?

That's a very interesting point MuckleJoannie and, as far as I'm aware, there is still no definitive answer set by a precedent in a UK court. The main points are:

 

-> When an individual purchases a pre-recorded piece of music they are essentially licensing the intellectual property, contained within that specific media format, from the copyright holder for their personal use. What has been paid for is not the 'music' itself, but the license for the personal use of the music on that media.

 

-> It can be argued that different media formats, both digital and physical variants, are separate entities/ products, and the copyright license of one is not transferable to the other.

 

-> Using bittorrent or filesharing software, which is usually designed to upload as well as download files, would be considered as intent to distribute.

 

-> In general, mp3s circulating on the Internet are illegal copies of copyright material i.e. someone at some stage has 'copied' the material without the 'right', thus making the files illegal, regardless of whether a downloader owns an official version.

 

-> To further complicate matters, if you own a CD, and download an mp3 version, there is no way to prove whether or not you encoded it yourself for your own use, which is entirely legal (under 'Fair Use' and equivalent clauses). But if you own an LP and download an mp3 version, it can be proved that you didn't encode your LP due to the analogue characteristics of the LP.

 

As with most things copyright related, it's not legally black and white, and legislation is always in flux as it struggles to keep up with technology.

 

 

Isn’t the new BBC I-Player service a file sharing network would the BBC have to shut them selves down as well

The BBC hold the copyright to the programs and are free to distribute them however they wish. The iPlayer doesn't (easily) allow the download and/or storage of files, which simplifies matters in terms of copyright as 3rd parties can't redistribute the material.

 

 

 

I'll get me coat :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the UK Legislation is, but I do believe that downloading the songs even if you own the album is loosely illegal in the states.

 

The fact is that the RIAA or whatever the UK alternative is, are a group of businessmen, not musicians. So essentially when you hear them say "The industry is losing billions.." it really means that while yes, the artists may be affected in some way, it is the businessmen who suffer most.

 

Trust south park to make the most sense of it:

 

Kyle: He beat us. Because all this time we've been so caught up with how to protect our music that we forgot to just play.

Lars: But why play if we're not gonna make millions of dollars.

Kyle: [turns around and addresses the crowd] Because that's what real artists do. People are always gonna find a way to copy our music and swap it for free. If we're real musicians, then we should just play and be stoked that so many people are listening.

Stan: [joins Kyle and faces the crowd] Beside, maybe our sound would have gotten downloaded for free, but if they were good songs then people still would have bought tickets to see our band in concert. [shots of Rick James, Ozzy, Britney and two other acts.]

Kyle: From now on, MOOP isn't about money. MOOP is about music! We're not striking anymore! Who's with us?! [grins, but gets no response]

Britney: ...We're just about the money.

Other acts: Yeah, yeah.

Kyle: [casts his eyes down] Oh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an economic study done some years back.....

 

Interesting answer is that if all existing broadband users paid $10 per month extra, then all music ever recorded could be available for free to everybody, and the record companies would still make the same incomes......

 

I don't see a feasible way to beat the P2P technology in the long run, so it seems strange there is not more push for alternative funding models.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust south park to make the most sense of it:

South Park’s point seems to be that “real artists” shouldn’t try to protect their music and they should “just play and be stoked that so many people are listening” because “people are always gonna find a way to copy [their] music and swap it for free”

 

Does this mean that artists, and the industry that supports them, should spend millions every year paying for the privilege of producing recorded music and give it away for free? Don’t artists deserve to be paid for the work they put into their creative endeavours? Don’t record companies deserve to make returns on their investments?

 

Or maybe it’s just that some people prefer not to pay for music? :wink:

 

The record industry is a notoriously risky business and, as a rule of thumb, only one in ten artists with recording contracts break even. The other nine lose money for the record company.

 

Current downward economic trends mean that it’s less viable for the “businessmen” to take risks on signing new and interesting artists. The reality is that the more the record companies feel the pinch, the more the accountants have the final say in music business artistic decisions. Until (or if) as Carlos says, a workable alternative funding model is found

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it strange how the likes of myspace and youtube are now seen by many as a great launchpad for musicians, when in fact they are just another form of distribution. :s

 

In my opinion artists/distributers should be looking to make the process of downloading music legally a much simpler and effective method of purchasing music.

 

I have on several occasions paid for music downloads and either because they have failed, or i was being forced to use a specific piece of software to play them (yes, i'm talking iTunes here) i have ended up downloading them "illegally" simply to be able to play them on my mp3 player.

 

Would you buy a CD you could only play on a certain CD player in a certain house?

 

I have always emailed the band/company in question to tell them what i was forced to do and they are invariably sympathetic and agree the matter needs to be addressed.

 

If there was a legal system as simple and effective as the other ones are (I say other, as there describing alternative methods as illegal is not true), i believe many people would happily pay to download.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is further complicated by the internet being awash with music that is available for legal download for free. Lots of new bands offer a few complete tracks on their Myspace sites, at least one well established band has virtually their whole back catalogue available for free and sites like this http://www.ecbrown.org/mp3/default.htm list loads of free legal music downloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Sky+... I think that its because you can't distribute the files from you sky+ box.

 

Does this mean that artists, and the industry that supports them, should spend millions every year paying for the privilege of producing recorded music and give it away for free? Don’t artists deserve to be paid for the work they put into their creative endeavours? Don’t record companies deserve to make returns on their investments?

 

How does the industry support them if the artists only end up with something like a 5% cut or less?

 

I think artists have every right to make money.

 

South Park’s point seems to be that “real artists†shouldn’t try to protect their music and they should “just play and be stoked that so many people are listening†because “people are always gonna find a way to copy [their] music and swap it for freeâ€

 

Right. But you missed out an important bit:

 

"but if they were good songs then people still would have bought tickets to see our band in concert."

 

The bands are still making money. And plenty of it. How much do the Stones make on tour? Extreme example but you know what I mean.

 

Instead of fighting this P2P/Torrent stuff, the industry should embrace it. There are plenty of people in those community who agree with this statement.

 

For me, buying the band's CD's and merch from the show is the best way to be sure that they're getting the fair credit.

 

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate here: if you illegally download the album then send the band the money you would've bought it with, they get 100% of your money. I'm not saying do it, but it's interesting, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
Regarding Sky+... I think that its because you can't distribute the files from you sky+ box.

 

Not entirely accurate JAS. The only recordings I ever found that couldn't be copied to DVD from a Sky+ box, were films. And only films on the Sky film channels. Any other program which you record onto the Sky+ hard drive can be copied to DVD, VHS, or any other media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Anything recorded to the sky box's hard drive can then be copied like any other file, and put on DVD for storage if you like (Its called Pure Digital TV) - no different than keeping a VHS or cassette of take the floor :)

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate here: if you illegally download the album then send the band the money you would've bought it with, they get 100% of your money. I'm not saying do it, but it's interesting, no?

 

This is a brilliant point. Years ago (before paypal and broadband made it simple) we toyed with the idea of offering our album as single or a zip file of mp3's.

 

No restrictions, just straight up high quality basic mp3's. After all, if they buy the CD they can make these themselves, but then we have lost a large percentage of our money to the various middle men.

 

At that time, dialup and the payment issues made it unworkable, but i'd happily do it now.

 

This is an opportunity for musicians, and artists of many mediums, to get the rewards and exposure they desrve and avoid being ripped off as they have been for many years.

 

Sorry, rambling off topic :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...