Read more.Quote:
Charles Dunstone says BPI demand for three strikes and you're out disconnection is 'unreasonable and unworkable.'
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Charles Dunstone says BPI demand for three strikes and you're out disconnection is 'unreasonable and unworkable.'
wass'up with the odd chars?
I think talk talk need to make this case - especially given they hand our wireless routers to their customers with NO encryption enabled AT ALL on them. I'm surrounded but 'free' internet where I live.
Odd chars corrected - technical issue - Steve? :)
I think TalkTalk have got their position 100% spot on, it isn't up to private companies to make their own laws, if the BPI feel their information is accurate, bring a criminal or civil case against the culprits. We have courts for a reason!
The BPI wants to avoid the expense of courts, or even the cold reality of having to provide evidence. It's much simpler for them to "say" someone did "x" and not have to back it up.
TalkTalk just went up in my estimation. Their spot on imo.
How are they going to be able to tell if downloading a track or film has come from an illegal download or say a paid service? The overheads for the ISP will be huge and push up broadband prices as we will have to foot the bill.
If anything ISP's should pour resources into catching people downloading child porn and not downloading the top bloody 10.
You've missed the point - your ISP won't be monitoring or filtering your connection (any more than usual anyway). What will happen is the BPI will say "we reckon user xxx on your network has done this" and your ISP's job will be to warn you. And then the third time they pull the plug on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by slypie
I agree it isn't the job of ISPs to police connection - be it for illegal downloads OR child porn. The latter will be hard to swallow but that remains the domain of the police (it's a criminal offence). If I speed I break the law, the police are in charge of arresting me not the highways agency who maintain the road network.
Fair point I did miss the point in the role that ISP's are to play but there still will be overheads from them in admin costs, lost revenue in closing accounts etc. Who is going to foot the bill? (probably the consumer).Quote:
Originally Posted by dangel
Slypie is right, another bit of intervention from our "legislation happy" government which does nothing but add complication and cost.
Ultimately - yes. This whole thing will benefit nobody - not artists, not ISPs and definitely not the consumer. I'm not sure who's more thick - the BPI for thinking this will make one iota of difference or the government (and opposition) for believing it (and thinking it's some higher cause).Quote:
Originally Posted by slypie
Once again the fat-cats are totally missing the point, with regards to the existence of a black market. The truth is that there have been too many people making too much money out of other people's music for too long. This was only a matter of time.
Technology has granted us (the paying public) an opportunity to bypass this black hole of greed and the said fat-cats, in trying to preserve their totally unjustified and over-inflated profits, are trying to use force, very 20th century of them.
If musicians have to wait 5 minutes longer to become millionaires, it is purely the fault of the labels. With any luck they will go under and I'll love every minute of it. How funny to try and oblige another industry to damage their own profits, in order to preserve those of the music industry!!! Bless...
kudos to TalkTalk in my opinion there are way more genres and other medium of entertainments such as PS, XBOX, PC games, Blurays etc. just way more distractions compared to the past when people have less choices. So I dont believe that their projections are justified!
thats talk talk for you, they are always voted way down in the happiness voting