News - Government can’t wait to start punishing file-sharers

[shaithis]

No thanks, I prefer our market system, so would the vast majority, hence the govt is acting for the majority.

I really do not think you can talk for the "vast majority".

I personally think that the vast majority probably either do not care or would prefer to carry on downloading what they want, when they want.....as most do not think about the ultimate outcome, nor care about developers/producers/etc.

Personally, I think this stinks but only because P2P is the tip of an iceberg and we will see ISPs charge more because they have to "police a doorway", even though all the windows have been left open anyway.

[Nelly.]

If it wasn't for P2P their would be alot more games produced on the PC, too much piracy involved in gaming now it's a damn shame because people who want to buy games are losing out on quality releases.

The offer that Microsoft has done for Windows 7 packages is a great attitude to take, if software is priced more reasonably to the customer in the first place then more people will want to buy it instead of using other means like P2P to aquire stuff ilegally.

Also over the last 5+ years look how cheap DVD's/CD's have become in highstreet shops, this is mostly because of online shopping but I'm sure the contribution of P2P has had a dramatic effect in the pricing, the cost to produce a CD is so cheap yet charging £13+ or whatever years ago was just pure greed & unfair.

To conclude, in my opinion the best way to beat piracy is to if possible lower pricing on games, software etc, when I was 8 years old I could buy a decent budget game on the Spectrum/Commodore/Amstrad for £1.99/£2.99 & the best games were only £9.99 at those prices even a kid with a paper round could afford to buy games, not anymore - £24.99+ for a game - not all parents can afford to pay these prices when on low income, alot of people earn the mininum wage & cost of living is more than ever.

[kalniel]

Point one. It was overturned in the EU and thus should NOT happen. ISPs are NOT libel for your actions (the old demon case in point). Same rationale as BT being held responsible for you phoning up bomb threats. Why is a CIVIL case being allowed to be treated as a CRIMINAL matter? Have the RIAA/MPIAA become a legal authority now?

Or the pirate bay being responsible for pirated content sharing.. oh wait a minute.. No, I understand that point, ISPs shouldn't be libel and I don't think they are going to be - they're just the chosen tool to implement policy for practical reasons.

Point two. Implys consistant monitoring of your line. (I believe a warrent is required for that.)

I don't believe a warrent is required for computer data provided by the ISP - you've already agreed in the terms and conditions that you won't be downloading or providing certain types of data and the ISPs need to be able to enforce their own T&Cs.

Point three. Piracy hurts the RIAA / MPIAA... NOT the artists. The artists havent got a penny out of these cases or any restitution. Cry me a river. If they did their job properly and actually supported their artists i'd have /some/ sympathy. As it is all i'm hearing is fatcats whining they dont have enough cash to buy their 3rd malibu beachhouse.

Complete fallacy. It's the artists that are hurt by this in the long term more than anyone else. If there is no market system for us to equate quality of product with money going to the person who created that product then there's nothing to separate a talented artist from jo-bob who just decides to collect the same wodge for drivel.

Point four. They had their chance to work with people and do a reasonable deal that would compensate the artists. They wanted fat profits instead. Now they are struggling to catch up and have no concept of a digital world. iTunes isnt perfect but its a good way to go. Personally i prefer my music in MP3 format without DRM. DRM is just a axe over your heads. Turn off the authentication and you have a pile of dead bits. MS's servers are a case in point. Sorry. I bought the file. If i want to play it via a can and string i will.

1) regarding MS you didn't buy the file, you bought a license to use the file in a particular manner. Like renting a car. 2) Artists don't want compensation - that would turn the market into a system where talent is treated the same as drivel. We need a system we the public can *choose* to pay or simply not use the product if not, based on whether they think a product is worth it. We've got music without DRM now (from the likes of Amazon, play etc.) so there shouldn't be any complaints there.

Point five. Treating your consumers as scum of the lowest order and hounding them isnt the most sensible way to go about cleaning up the gratuitous profiteering they have done for the past 10 years.

I don't think anyone is doing that.

Point six. Why in a GLOBAL trading economy have trade restrictions been allowed to be put in place. Region Encoding etc. There is ZERO technical reason for this. Its just Hollywoods wim.

I've not seen any regional encoding for music or PC games.

Short and sweet? ISP's shouldnt be allowed to kick you off for a CIVIL matter. Criminal matters are something else and existing laws cover that.

Isn't facilitating illegal copyright a criminal act?

[kalniel]

I really do not think you can talk for the "vast majority".

I personally think that the vast majority probably either do not care or would prefer to carry on downloading what they want, when they want.....as most do not think about the ultimate outcome, nor care about developers/producers/etc.

Exactly my point - most don't care about the ultimate outcome or the developers etc. - that's why we have a goverment to look after the bigger picture and ensure that we actually have something that's ultimately better for us even if we don't see it at the time.

On a purely selfish level what's wrong with just stealing clothes instead of buying them? Seems to be win for me.. but the law exists to prevent that because in the long run it's actually better for me as part of society if people aren't allowed to steal clothes.

So it's in the interests of the vast majority to address illegal file sharing.

[Arthran]

mercyground i couldnt agree more.

Most people see the situation as this:
File sharing bad, must be stopped!

Those of us who read about this allot realise that really the situation is this:
Old Industry dictating to us and not innovating bad, government trying to legislate to support these industries bad, innovation good!

[kalniel]

Those of us who read about this allot realise that really the situation is this:
Old Industry dictating to us and not innovating bad, government trying to legislate to support these industries bad, innovation good!

Sorry, but that's complete rubbish- govenment is legislating to support innovative indepentants as much as anything - they get pirated at least as much as estabilished industry. Lack of innovation can't be the drive behind file-sharing, as it ultimately creates even less innovation due to destruction of market forces. In acting to support market forces the govt is acting to increase innovation.

[Arthran]

We need a system we the public can *choose* to pay or simply not use the product if not, based on whether they think a product is worth it.

But surely thats what the system IS. And already report after report have shown that file sharing INCREASES revenue for the music industry. Sure the sales of plastic disks is hurt, but the music industry as a whole is benefitting. Its also been shown time and again that file sharer's buy MORE music than non sharers. Know why? its because they download tracks from an artist, if they like it they will buy it, if they dont, well then the delete or ignore it. The current situation is causing alot more try before you buy in the music industry and is also allowing alot of artists to connect to fans easier. Yes people are buying less cd's, but they are buying more merch and going to more gigs, and THAT is where the artists benefit. Most artists see little money from CD sales, and make more from gig's etc.

For all those strict anti file sharing people, i suggest you read techdirt, the guy on that website manages to make the points much better than i possibly can, and proves time and again that the problem isn't with file sharing, but with the industries.

Also as a disclaimer i am in no way endorsing ILLEGAL file sharing or making money from other people's works. I feel the market and industry needs to change, but i think the content creators need to be fairly paid for their work and that middlemen organisations like the RIAA and MPAA need to gtfo as they benefit nobody.

[Arthran]

Sorry, but that's complete rubbish- govenment is legislating to support innovative indepentants as much as anything - they get pirated at least as much as estabilished industry. Lack of innovation can't be the drive behind file-sharing, as it ultimately creates even less innovation due to destruction of market forces. In acting to support market forces the govt is acting to increase innovation.

No, the government is acting to support OLD market forces, without thinking of the NEW markets that are coming from innovation.

Simply put the government should butt out, should market evolution take its course and show that those who adapt to new markets are strong and survive, those who cling to old ways should die out.

[Arthran]

Also, please try to make your point without telling people their opinions or knowledge is complete rubbish. I may not agree with you but im not going to insult you, and i'd expect the same courtesy here on hexus

[kalniel]

No, the government is acting to support OLD market forces, without thinking of the NEW markets that are coming from innovation.

Simply put the government should butt out, should market evolution take its course and show that those who adapt to new markets are strong and survive, those who cling to old ways should die out.

So you'd rather we return to a lawless society where whoever has the most firepower gets the resources?

Also, please try to make your point without telling people their opinions or knowledge is complete rubbish. I may not agree with you but im not going to insult you, and i'd expect the same courtesy here on hexus

Apologies, I get tired of hearing the old 'industry' argument which seems to have little bearing in reality.

But surely thats what the system IS. And already report after report have shown that file sharing INCREASES revenue for the music industry. Sure the sales of plastic disks is hurt, but the music industry as a whole is benefitting.

That's not been shown - it's true that there's an increase in digital purchasing, but there's no correlation between that and increased piracy - it may well have happened anyway. It's also far from the case for say the games industry, where all revenue is vastly lower since piracy increased.

Its also been shown time and again that file sharer's buy MORE music than non sharers. Know why? its because they download tracks from an artist, if they like it they will buy it, if they dont, well then the delete or ignore it. The current situation is causing alot more try before you buy in the music industry and is also allowing alot of artists to connect to fans easier.

But it's not in the film and game industries.

Yes people are buying less cd's, but they are buying more merch and going to more gigs, and THAT is where the artists benefit. Most artists see little money from CD sales, and make more from gig's etc.

Theatre revenue is down, and I've never seen a live PC game gig

Also as a disclaimer i am in no way endorsing ILLEGAL file sharing or making money from other people's works. I feel the market and industry needs to change, but i think the content creators need to be fairly paid for their work and that middlemen organisations like the RIAA and MPAA need to gtfo as they benefit nobody.

Perhaps, but those organisations don't really exist in the PC world, yet that's been hit even harder.

[oolon]

Lack of innovation can't be the drive behind file-sharing, as it ultimately creates even less innovation due to destruction of market forces. In acting to support market forces the govt is acting to increase innovation.

There should be a trade off though, copyright extension also removes the need for innovation as well, personally I believe stricter shorter copyright (15 years) should do the trick. For example... loop my work... I should get a cut. Why should someone do one good thing then live off it for there lifetime? Keep them innovating and producing new content. The music industry seems to want to become a toll keeper, collecting money from everything passing through, good or bad. I think this is wrong, reward to good, punish the bad.

[kalniel]

There should be a trade off though, copyright extension also removes the need for innovation as well, personally I believe stricter shorter copyright (15 years) should do the trick. For example... loop my work... I should get a cut. Why should someone do one good thing then live off it for there lifetime? Keep them innovating and producing new content.

I'm not sure I agree - if your product is good enough for people to want to keep using(listening to) it at a particular cost then why shouldn't you still get a cut? Unless there's a monopoly then people should be able to have choice in choosing what they spend their money on so you will always have to innovate to beat the competition. If you go too far the other way then we'll never see products designed to last (complex, high production works or whatever the artistic equivalent is) - would we ever see something someone had spent half their lifetime working on (as sometimes happens in classical composition) again?

[Arthran]

I largely forget that people on Hexus are fighting on the side of the Games Industry, which probably does need love, where as i'm busy fighting against the Music and movie industries who are the ones with lobbying power who keep interfering, thus most of my arguments are probably pretty moot when referring to the Games Industry.

Mandelson influenced link:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...11135888.shtml

[GaryRW]

Until copyright and IP is fixed, people will look at things like TV shows and say:
"why is it that if i miss a show on TV, then download it on my pc to watch later, im suddenly a criminal. That show is available on my tv, i should be able to download and watch it on my pc"

The way I see it, there is presumably a massive market here that's not being seized upon. People want that content. There's obviously issues around premium channels and subscription, but taking the Voyager example, why on earth isn't that on a website somewhere, that plays adverts as it would on a tv, and that you can just watch it rather than download illegally. Yes, you can buy the box set, but I think the reality of the market is that many people would never consider paying out for those.

Would I like to go back and watch all of DS9 from start to finish - yes. Am I going to pay the shed load of money to buy the boxed set - no. Now if that was on a website, I'd probably watch it, and they would get a revenue from the advertising. As it is, they get no revenue from me at all (because I won't buy the box set) and they get no revenue from the pirates (who probably wouldn't have bought the box set either).

I guess my point is that the pirates will not be beaten. BUT, at the moment the whole industry seems to have it's mindset 20 years behind technology. Things like iplayer and 4OD show it's possible, and it can be done pretty well. They could get some revenue from me, but seems they don't want it. Maybe the profit they make from the box sets is so extreme they don't want to do anything to risk it....

EDIT: since I started typing, the discussion seems to have moved mainly to PC games. Different issues entirely, so apologies if the above is going off on a tangent

[Arthran]

I'm not sure I agree - if your product is good enough for people to want to keep using(listening to) it at a particular cost then why shouldn't you still get a cut? Unless there's a monopoly then people should be able to have choice in choosing what they spend their money on so you will always have to innovate to beat the competition. If you go too far the other way then we'll never see products designed to last (complex, high production works or whatever the artistic equivalent is) - would we ever see something someone had spent half their lifetime working on (as sometimes happens in classical composition) again?

Simply put:
Most people create NOT for money, but because its what they want to do. So yes if copyright was scrapped today, people would still create new works, like they have done for thousands of years before copyright existed.

If i go to work, and write a manual on how to do something. Should my company pay me for that manual even once i've left the company and they are still using it? No.
If i write a song or make a movie. Should i profit from all the sales etc for a reasonable frame of time, or should i be able to cream off it for the rest of my life?

Artists are the same as us, they have a working career, and if they are going to get paid for their work years after they have stopped working, well what incentive is there to work? Make 1 thing and cream off it. No, the system imo should be strong but short term copyright, so that artists have to keep working for a living like the rest of us and dont keep getting paid once they have lost all relevance and semblance of a real working career, LIKE THE REST OF US.

[oolon]

I'm not sure I agree - if your product is good enough for people to want to keep using(listening to) it at a particular cost then why shouldn't you still get a cut?

Very understandable and reasonable thought, however I want to drive someone who has produced a good product to want/need to produce another good product. After all if they have done one, the likelihood is they have the ability to produce another, and I want them to produce another. That way the creative commons is richer. 99 years copyright makes people sit back and go... well I have done my bit... now give me the money.