UK Music Pirates "Can't Be Forced Offline"

UK Music Pirates "Can't Be Forced Offline"

image

UK internet users who illegally share and download pirated material will not see bans from ISPs according to the Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy.

Lammy has been reported as saying that such a ruling would be hindered by legal complexities. "I'm not sure it's actually going to be possible," he said.

His comments come ahead of the government's Digital Britain report, a document that will detail suggested policies for the Cabinet to take on a number of issues, including illicit filesharing.

The Digital Britain report itself is part of the English answer to Europol's five year plan and is being written by Lord Carter, who you may remember from his perverse incentives.

The DB report is also allowing for the creation of the Rights Agency, which would monitor and aid ISPs in blocking suspected filesharers. Most ISPs are against the idea, as trying to locate anyone illegally sharing software would be the equivalent of looking for any number of invisible needles in any number of invisible haystacks.

Last year the Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said that the Government had "serious legislative intent" to enforce ISPs cut off illicit filesharers, while today Lammy suggested otherwise. "We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in a hotel and leave with a bar of soap - there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television," he said.

An unnamed music industry figure responded to Lammy's comments from a different angle: "The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from a hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it."

In essence, the government is trying to regulate ISPs through this Rights Agency and the ISPs simply don't want to be regulated. British Telecom, a leading UK ISP, says that "we're still hopeful that an amicable solution, without the need for legislation, can be reached. It doesn't make sense to try to get people online and at the same time scare them away."

Source: EDGE

Permalink

The_root_of_all_evil:

An unnamed music industry figure responded to Lammy's comments from a different angle: "The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from a hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it."

Not if those 7million ppl paid for the room they wouldnt

Now imagine if 7 million people stole televisions from the Music industry...

Again the music industry fails to notice the punitive way it's dealt with "piracy" in the past has led to the prevalence of it now. According to the strictest translation of the PRS laws on performance its illegal to play your music with the windows of your house open.

There was a time when record labels gave albums away to Dj's as they were the ones that made the music popular by getting it out to a wider audiance now they dont do this so an occasional club Dj like myself when he is working has to buy the entire Uk singles chart every week.

Now working on the idea that on CD many venues are have now created a ban on copied CDs so I need to buy originals this can cost me £2 a CD. Which I only play one night a week and hate the rest of the time so inorder to do my job I have to fork out eighty pounds a week, I earn a hundred pounds per gig.

Is it honestly any wonder that people pirate music? Oh and lets not forget the fact that most of the music press is bribed to give favorable reviews and most of the bands I like dont feature in magazines and newspapers anyway. So buying an album not knowing how good it is and being unable to return it is a very real possibilty!

The_root_of_all_evil:

An unnamed music industry figure responded to Lammy's comments from a different angle: "The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from a hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it."

While I do count piracy as theft, that isn't a great analogy. The only way that analogy would work would be if the hotel was charging people for the soap in the first place.

What is up with the inane news coming out of the UK.

ISPs could very easily sight TOS to boot pirates off the service. It's not about legal complexities, it's about ISPs not making the money these pirates proffer, which is a significant chunk of change.

The music industry isn't losing nearly as much money as they claim when you take into account the increased distribution and marketing piracy offers, exclude the pirates that wouldn't have purchased the albums anyway, and factor in the significant number of music money makers that aren't CDs (namely events like concerts). And they are prepared to offer little compensation for the millions of people that it is suggesting ISPs shunt over to competitors.

This is one of those "non-news" statements, nothing's happened and I could have told you all that before the announcement.

i'd be rather glad 7 million people are stealing the soap. the last thing i want is a used bar of soap when i stay at a hotel!

whoah, whoah... i think we are all making a grave error here, we are seriously underestimating the amount of stolen soap, we need to crack down! lol

The_root_of_all_evil:

An unnamed music industry figure responded to Lammy's comments from a different angle: "The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from a hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it."

The music industry does realise this happens already right? Having worked in a posh hotel (part of a chain too), I can quite safely say that we had a big enough stockpile of toiletries to last a small country 10 years, all for the reason that people took them. It was factored into costs and just taken as the norm. Most people will take things that are free if its offered to them, or they think they can get away with it.

What this really boils down to is that the music industry is beating the same drum it has since it first realised it was losing control of the majority of music sales, 'its not our fault, its because of x'.

Instead of actually developing a viable alternative to keep occasional pirates (those who don't always pirate tracks or who would buy more if it wasn't at current prices) or tempt people into buying music again they bleat about how its unfair.

But then this is an old argument. Ever since the name Napster hit the public consciousness, its been a downward spiral for big distribution companies.

Anonymous Music Industry Rectal Cumstain:
"The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from a hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it."

Bad analogies are so fun to pick apart. In this particular case, those small bars of soap in hotels, well it really doesn't matter if you swipe them or not. Sanitation law forces the hotel to throw away any open/used hygiene products after each guest leaves, so it's lost money either way. It's a cost of doing business in that industry, and paid for by the room rental to boot.

But really, it doesn't matter what any music fat-cat says about piracy because they've over-exaggerated and misrepresented facts so often, that I can't dredge up so much as an ounce of caring from Giveafuck Bay. Bands make the most of their money from touring and sponsorships, slight amounts of money on CDs (though the record label makes the most of it, and the retail establishment gets a cut too) and virtually nothing off legal downloads (iTunes) and broadcast radio use. Like a certain band? See em in concert and I truly don't care how much you pirate the music.

mark_n_b:
ISPs could very easily sight TOS to boot pirates off the service. It's not about legal complexities, it's about ISPs not making the money these pirates proffer, which is a significant chunk of change.

It is about legal complexities. The problem is not finding the person, the problem is proving that he did it. Because of things like open wireless networks, trackers providing false IP addreses etc., it's very hard to prove that the person did it and easy to make a mistake, even if his IP is seen as uploading/downloading the content. And if an innocent person can be accused wrongly, a guilty person can say that he's the victim of the same error. Also, you have to prove that the content is actually illegal copyrighted material. Just because a file says "the newest hottest X album 2009.zip" doesn't make it so, so the file has to be downloaded by the tracking software/person and checked to make sure it contains what it says, which is extremely expensive and difficult to do automatically on a large (thousands, millions of customers) scale.

How long would an ISP last if it disconnected people based on evidence gathered by a private firm (not police or government) using a system that is known to make mistakes? Or, how much would it slow down the internet traffic for everyone (including non-pirates), if some content-checking software & hardware had to check EVERYTHING that goes through the ISP's cables? Those are the kinds of things the ISP are fighitng against, since that would pretty much bankrupt them on the spot. Disconnecting actual pirates would only lose them the money they pay. Trying to implement the offered solutions would lose them clients regardless of their piracy status.

Hang on, but haven't hotel chains noticed a drop in soap theft as the internet has made teleconferencing so much easier, therefore making business travel less necessary and making some aspects of hotels out of date?

I imagine the hotel industry noticed and immediately moved to new pricing schemes and adding extra value like free wifi in rooms and lower prices and aiming ads at different audiences, instead of trying legal action against anyone with the internet and a pillow.

Still, at least the music industry immediately embraced the new technology and invested in ways to make it profitable instead of ignoring it til it was too late and then blaming the public - oh hang on , that's not quite what they did after all.

mark_n_b:
ISPs could very easily sight TOS to boot pirates off the service. It's not about legal complexities, it's about ISPs not making the money these pirates proffer, which is a significant chunk of change.

The iiNet v AFACT case in Australia is discussing the ISPs obligations to customers vs copyright holders.

One issue is that the copyright holders use a DSN lookup to track the IP, and so identify the account illegally downloading. This however is not accurate for a number of reasons.

Also an issue is the privacy and telecommunications laws in Australia, which make it illegal for ISPs to track users or for the ISP to give out customer details to a third party.

Wow, who would have called it? A thread about pirating where half the users defend it not because they pirate themselves (what law abiding citizens they are), but because obviously 110% of all profits from Music, Videos, and Videogames goes directly to already rich CEOs and they're just "taking the man down". Duhhh it's not like those companies employ hundreds of thousands of employees, or anything, who need that money to live, or anything.

Khell_Sennet:
Bad analogies are so fun to pick apart. In this particular case, those small bars of soap in hotels, well it really doesn't matter if you swipe them or not. Sanitation law forces the hotel to throw away any open/used hygiene products after each guest leaves, so it's lost money either way. It's a cost of doing business in that industry, and paid for by the room rental to boot.

But from an industry that thinks used sales are theft and assumes every download is a lost sale, I'm not surprised. They probably would reuse the soap.

In other words, I bet they thought this was an accurate portrayal, not factoring in every element from a logical point of view.

Point remains, the hotels aren't worried about soap theft, despite the "cost" as it would be factored by the music industry. It's never seemed very cost-effective to go after people who download music, and that was the original point. Hotels can accept the loss of "soap," or they can set up checkpoints to search bags, lobby the legislators, sue for loss of soap, and come up with new restrictive soap user agreements. Or they can just accept that soap is soap.

I'm not a fan of piracy. I spend a ton of money on music every month, and a bit on video and games as well. But the more aggressively piracy is chased down, the more expensive it is, and the more people get caught in the net. And, of course, it doesn't really get people to buy more music. In fact, I can't think of many better ways to lose customers than the way the media industries have been going about things. And then you ask the ISPs to get involved, or the authorities, and you're creating a huge hassle for everyone involved, costing them money, and for how much gain?

Yeah, it's their right to the pound of flesh, but is it really worth it?

Well, sooner or later Obama will step in and raid every teenagers bedroom with FBI agents. Just like in the anti-piracy warnings... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Or maybe he'll finally get that bill through congress that SHUTS DOWN THE INTERNET!!! http://www.tomshardware.com/news/obama-shut-down-internet-legislation,7478.html

Fuck it all, pirates are dicks, the music corps are dicks, the government is too busy trying to give each side a figurative handjob whilst asking for respect. There will be no clean conclusion to this story, it will end in fascist polices or the collapse of capitalism.

Lol, i just read that back to myself. I need to stop sounding so apocalyptic...

I don't care if the record labels are making less money because of piracy - they're dicks. They're only interested in the money to be squeezed from bands and will make a band change their sound to suit what the mass majority want. Bands get a relatively small amount of money from CD sales and if the band I love isn't going to benefit much from me spending most of my weekly income on a CD (which is £30 right now), then I'm not going to buy the CD.

Someone has already mentioned that the costs of finding the music pirates would be MASSIVE. It's difficult to prove they're doing it and it's easier for them to hide their I.P. If record companies want rid of music pirates, they should foot the bill themselves. However, if someone was to say that to them, they'd take a hissyfit because, in reality, the cost of stopping pirates is probably a lot more than the money they would have received, had those pirates bought every track they downloaded.

Plus, there's adverse effects on other parts of the economy. ISPs would lose a lot of money. If this figure of 7 million piraters is correct, and let's say, hypothetically, those 7mil pay £30 a month on their internet, phone line, etc. If every single one of them had their internet cut off, that's £210 million of lost revenue for ISPs in one month alone. Multiply that by 12 to get the figure for a year and it's just over £2.5 billion. This results in job cuts, reduction in spending on projects to help increase internet speeds, etc. because ISPs don't have the cash to install fibre optic cables to people's homes, or expand their coverage. This means job cuts within the ISP itself, and in industries that manufacture the cables and whatever else due to lost demand. Plus, reduction is government revenue because they won't receive tax on profits, etc.

I'd love to ask record companies if they're that desperate to cut off pirates that they're willing to foot the bill to find and prosecute them all (who seem to be mostly teenagers) & accept the instability they'll cause in another industry.

So basically pirates in the UK can't be touched? Hmm, you know by posting this thread you may have converted so many brits to piracy.

Sevre90210:
So basically pirates in the UK can't be touched? Hmm, you know by posting this thread you may have converted so many brits to piracy.

Just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean you will commit it.

Wasn't this whole business Darth Mandelson's idea? I doubt that numb nut has a clue - if this was in place then people would be getting banned constantly by accident, not to mention people getting banned because someone's illegally using their connection.

Something should be done, but this isn't the way.

Dahni:
I don't care if the record labels are making less money because of piracy - they're dicks. They're only interested in the money to be squeezed from bands and will make a band change their sound to suit what the mass majority want. Bands get a relatively small amount of money from CD sales and if the band I love isn't going to benefit much from me spending most of my weekly income on a CD (which is £30 right now), then I'm not going to buy the CD.

Can you even comprehend the irony in that?

Amnestic:

Sevre90210:
So basically pirates in the UK can't be touched? Hmm, you know by posting this thread you may have converted so many brits to piracy.

Just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean you will commit it.

But we can agree that you would be more likely to commit it when there are no consequences. Lets not have a repeat of yesterday.

Woodsey:

Dahni:
I don't care if the record labels are making less money because of piracy - they're dicks. They're only interested in the money to be squeezed from bands and will make a band change their sound to suit what the mass majority want. Bands get a relatively small amount of money from CD sales and if the band I love isn't going to benefit much from me spending most of my weekly income on a CD (which is £30 right now), then I'm not going to buy the CD.

Can you even comprehend the irony in that?

yes, yes i can.
although, bands rarely ever rely on album sales to make money for themselves. if i'm gonna buy a CD, I buy it from the band themselves at a gig, that way there's more money going to the actual band. I go to gigs and I buy merch, that is where the bands get their money from. Plus, I tend to like smaller more unknown bands so there's no reviews of them so to listen to a full album, i can't go onto spotify and search for it, and their myspace only has two or three songs up. If I was to go buy their album and it turned out that all of it except the two on myspace were absolute balls, i'd want my money back.
I'd rather download the album, listen to it a few times and if I really like it, I'll go see them live, buy their merch + buy the CD at the gig, so there's no store making profits on it.

Dahni:

Woodsey:

Dahni:
I don't care if the record labels are making less money because of piracy - they're dicks. They're only interested in the money to be squeezed from bands and will make a band change their sound to suit what the mass majority want. Bands get a relatively small amount of money from CD sales and if the band I love isn't going to benefit much from me spending most of my weekly income on a CD (which is £30 right now), then I'm not going to buy the CD.

Can you even comprehend the irony in that?

yes, yes i can.
although, bands rarely ever rely on album sales to make money for themselves. if i'm gonna buy a CD, I buy it from the band themselves at a gig, that way there's more money going to the actual band. I go to gigs and I buy merch, that is where the bands get their money from. Plus, I tend to like smaller more unknown bands so there's no reviews of them so to listen to a full album, i can't go onto spotify and search for it, and their myspace only has two or three songs up. If I was to go buy their album and it turned out that all of it except the two on myspace were absolute balls, i'd want my money back.
I'd rather download the album, listen to it a few times and if I really like it, I'll go see them live, buy their merch + buy the CD at the gig, so there's no store making profits on it.

You didn't say store, you said record label. Record labels will get a cut from everything. Or most things at least.

Woodsey:

Dahni:

Woodsey:

Dahni:
I don't care if the record labels are making less money because of piracy - they're dicks. They're only interested in the money to be squeezed from bands and will make a band change their sound to suit what the mass majority want. Bands get a relatively small amount of money from CD sales and if the band I love isn't going to benefit much from me spending most of my weekly income on a CD (which is £30 right now), then I'm not going to buy the CD.

Can you even comprehend the irony in that?

yes, yes i can.
although, bands rarely ever rely on album sales to make money for themselves. if i'm gonna buy a CD, I buy it from the band themselves at a gig, that way there's more money going to the actual band. I go to gigs and I buy merch, that is where the bands get their money from. Plus, I tend to like smaller more unknown bands so there's no reviews of them so to listen to a full album, i can't go onto spotify and search for it, and their myspace only has two or three songs up. If I was to go buy their album and it turned out that all of it except the two on myspace were absolute balls, i'd want my money back.
I'd rather download the album, listen to it a few times and if I really like it, I'll go see them live, buy their merch + buy the CD at the gig, so there's no store making profits on it.

You didn't say store, you said record label. Record labels will get a cut from everything. Or most things at least.

i mean store in that particular sentence.
record labels get a cut of everything, i know that.
but if i was to buy the CD from HMV or somewhere like that, there's the label's cut, then the store's cut, then any variable costs due to production of the CD are covered, then whatever's left goes to covering the fixed costs associated with the making of the CD. Once there has been enough sales, fixed costs are covered so whatever is left that would have otherwise went towards fixed costs, gets paid to the band. & it usually ends up being a tiny proportion of whatever the CD was selling for. Which then get divided between the band so each member gets even less.

once you get on this slippery slope where you can silence people on the net where dose it stop first its the pirates and i suppose that is not so bad but then its those pesky religious cultists maybe not as bad we thought environmentalists who don't want baby whales to get killed maybe who wants to protect something we can exploit then its the free speech activists who are the real enemies once they are gone who can we censor next? i know those pesky media people who refuse to broadcast what we order them to

while piracy is a sensitive issue and both sides of the argument have merits being able to ban people from the net weather they can afford a connection or not is a very bad place to be the internet is a tool for information any restriction which gives some one the ability to cut people out for something that is not well defined in the law weather its sharing/"theft" of music films whatever or sharing ideas among others is asking for abuse this is not just about music pirating this is a wider issue of internet censorship

uppitycracker:
i'd be rather glad 7 million people are stealing the soap. the last thing i want is a used bar of soap when i stay at a hotel!

That is solid gold.

Aardvark:
Now imagine if 7 million people stole televisions from the Music industry...

well, its not like they would miss anything, everything on TV is crap right now [in AMERICA! /patriotism].

how about if they stole their instruments instead, would make more sense.

as for not getting banned form the internet, meh, even though I dont like pirates of the digital kind [a disgrace to pirates everywhere the lot of ya], I wouldnt want someone banned from the internet for downloading a Rick Ashley song to turn into one of the worlds stupidest pranks. Even some people download music simply because the artist hasnt made an album yet, those that do the downloader usually goes back and buys the CD, not all, but I know a few that do.

Well having worked Hotel Security for Casinos I'll say that losing bars of soap, bottles of shampoo, etc... is all considered. In fact we throw used bars of soap away (as a biohazard) if they are left behind simply because nobody wants to use the same bar of soap some other dude was using (and who knows what he did with it). That's all part of the business (as people have pointed out). Now if someone nicks a box of soap bars from an open housekeeping closet... well that's something else entirely.

As far as the music industry goes, I tend to chalk it up to "epic lulz" all around.

The reason being is that it seems to me that the music industry is both being unreasonably greedy, and also when it comes to some of the performers themselves a lot of them are basically washed up and after a pay day because they partied away all their cash and have nothing to live on.

I say this because sometimes I've sat down and thought about how many times I've ultimatly paid for the same song one way or another. Or even more dramatically how much my parents have paid for some of their favorite music from the 1960s and 1970s over the years, and ironically those are the guys who are crying the loudest it seems.

What's more I'm one of those people who look at things from the perspective of consumer rights as well, and tend not to be shy when I feel an industry is being unfair towards the rights of it's consumers.

It's like this, I'm all for paying for an Albumn, Cassette, CD, or whatever else. But once you've done so, I kind of feel you own the rights to that song. One of the issues for example I disagree with is that people scream if you say decide to transfer media on your own. For example if you want to take a CD you bought and transfer the music to a digital format for your digital players. The Music Industry will for example claim you should have to pay seperatly for each format (ie they can re-charge you every time tech increases) but by the same token in many cases I don't think users ever agreed to that, especially if you say follow something back to someone who purchused a song on Albumn or 8 Track or whatever before people even saw this kind of thing coming.

Now, when it comes to buying songs seperatly for a game like "Guitar Hero" I see things a bit differantly because your no longer just listening to the song, and are paying to basically "play" the song in your game which is a bit differant.

However when it comes to someone whining about how you bought a song and don't want to pay again to get the same song to play through your computer or iPod or whatever I am considerably less sympathetic. That's just pure greed. I'd even go so far as to say that with old music if someone is busted for DLing a pirate MP3 or whatever the ultimate defense would be like pulling out a copy of say the original Vinyl and making it clear that your one of the guys who made that bad successful to begin with (though this mostly applies to like my parents who generally won't admit anything is music unless it's at least like 25+ years old). :P

What's more even recently I look at games I've picked up like "Brutal Legend", or heck even "Saint's Row 2" or "Grand Theft Auto IV" or whatever. When I bought those games I don't remember even having gone through the pretensions of an EULA saying I wouldn't do anything with that music. I have no desire to, but say if I wanted to find a way to transfer the soundtrack from say Brutal Legend to direct aural interface technology whenever such a thing appears (ie next gen, whenever it appears), I'd actually feel I was fully within my rights.

Now yes, they are mostly after people who are burning copies of songs and selling them for money, but in general when you follow things to their logical conclusion they are basically defending the right to eventually start having the police kick doors open if you don't re-pay for the same songs in each new technological upgrade. To an extent I think that's just getting greedy.

Meh I don't give two fucks about most bands earning money, the popular ones make shit tons anyway, it's not like them not having enough money to buy diamond encrusted instruments because of piracy does fuck all to the rest of us.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.