BT ordered to block pirate links

[jamesfed]

Yes, but you aren't lying by saying that magic happens.

 

As a proud ex-student of Physics and someone who is keenly interested in the world of science I take offense by anyone saying that 'magic happens' isn't lying when referring to the splitting of the atom by a neutron. lol!

[localzuk]

Oops, mistyped - I meant 'are' not aren't. lol

[jamesfed]

Oops, mistyped - I meant 'are' not aren't. lol

 

Oh well - As I said to be honist just using simple terms on a day during the holidays when I am working over Lync 2010 more than coming on here!

[CyberNerd]

now a precedent has been set:

 

A group of UK copyright lobbyists held confidential, closed-door meetings with Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries to discuss a plan to allow industry groups to censor the Internet in the UK. The proposal has leaked, and it reveals a plan to establish “expert bodies” that would decide which websites British people were allowed to see, to be approved by a judge using a “streamlined” procedure. The procedure will allow for “swift” blocking in order to shut down streaming of live events.

 

Public interest groups like the Open Rights Group asked to attend the meeting, but were shut out, presaging a regulatory process that’s likely to be a lopsided, industry-centric affair that doesn’t consider the public. The process is characterised as “voluntary,” but the proposal makes reference to the Digital Economy Act, which allows for mandatory web-blocking (thanks to the action of LibDem Lords who submitted a proposal written by a record industry lobbyist as an amendment to the DEA).

 

 

LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov’t to discuss national Web-censorship regime – Boing Boing

 

 

The Open Rights Group has a campaign to repeal the DEA that you can sign onto:

 

Open Rights Group | Ask your MP to support the United Nations report

[mavhc]

a) who could have predicted that a system to block child porn would eventually be used to block lots more things

b) doesn't matter, people will just route about the problem, maths always beats laws

[sted]

No, still wrong... If I go out and see someone waving their arm around and I duplicate that behaviour precisely, I have not suddenly stolen their arm waving. The 0s and 1s you talk of are still on the server exactly where they were before, except now there are 2 sets of them.

 

Its even difficult to say how much piracy actually loses the music/movie industry, as they use the overly simplistic method of '1 download = 1 lost sale', which is preposterous as every person you'll ever talk to who has pirated something will say that they wouldn't pay for it anyway, so no sale was lost.

 

and there are always people who download for a legit version say the cd cracked got lost covered in jam etc and wont play or they wanted to rip it to their phone but their pc dosent have a cd/dvd drive (yes i know fair use is again debatable but forcing people to buy a track twice is no good for anyone either just increases resentment towards "rich music corps")

 

As a proud ex-student of Physics and someone who is keenly interested in the world of science I take offense by anyone saying that 'magic happens' isn't lying when referring to the splitting of the atom by a neutron. lol!

 

but to 99% of people it is and may as well be magic. How many people here could explain exactly how you go from binary (so basically "a lot of fast switches" to call of duty you dont need to know) and as Arthur C Clarke said

any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

[Timmay2606]

Everybody on this thread so far has talked sense, but then that's not surprising given that the nature of posters is bent towards a techie point of view.

 

My main problem with this court ruling is that any tech savvy interpreter would clearly be able to see that this is neither a solution to piracy nor a benefit to the plaintiff. However the judge wasn't able to see this as they're expected to be a 'jack of all trades'.

 

Maybe the judicial system needs reviweing when it comes to cases that deal with new technology (and let's face it, anything connected with that t'internet thingy is still relatively new to most ancient judges) be reviewed and judged by somebody with a thorough understanding of the technical details.

 

To use a real world analogy, this is the same as saying Alan, who lives at the end of the street, knows a guy called Bob, who can get you some high quality knock off gear, and Alan is quite happy to tell you where Bob lives. This ruling is the same as telling the highways agency to close off the part of the street leading to Alan's house. It sets a dangerous precedent of impeding Alan's daily activity, stopping his mates or his gran coming round who just want a cuppa, and if Alan's neighbour, Charlie, also knows where Bob lives, he could also end up being fenced in.

 

Sorry, bit of a long winded analogy, but it just smacks of ridiculous judiciary madness.

[synaesthesia]

It would appear the trouble with a great many things is having to have everything judged by a jack of all trades.

 

Education - built to suit the average person, not a person as an individual

Politics - built to suit the politicians, but they'll try and sell you their ideas on an average ideal.

Law - judged on what someone/some people who can't possibly know it all think is right.

[MK-2]

in an update to this today on the BBC:

BBC News - Government drops website blocking

[jamesfed]

Not that it will stop it but I guess its a good thing for the whole freedom of the web thing.

[SimpleSi]

hopefully it can stay on track!

 

And what track are you actually running on?

 

Does this action cause you legitimate problems? Is the site known for its philanthropist work and barring access will actually cause harm?

 

There are a lot of people who have the mindset that because stuff is lying around on the internet then its fair game to take it - does the same policy apply to belongings in an unlocked house?

 

Si

PS - I'll open the meeting - my name is Simon and I download stuff that doesn't belong to me.

 

In my defence its always stuff that's been already shown on free to air TV/will be coming next week on SKY 1 to which I already have a subscription but can't wait!

 

But its still illegal and I couldn't complain if my (and everyone elses) internet access was restricted to stop me doing it.

[MK-2]

And what track are you actually running on?

 

Does this action cause you legitimate problems? Is the site known for its philanthropist work and barring access will actually cause harm?

 

There are a lot of people who have the mindset that because stuff is lying around on the internet then its fair game to take it - does the same policy apply to belongings in an unlocked house?

 

Si

PS - I'll open the meeting - my name is Simon and I download stuff that doesn't belong to me.

 

In my defence its always stuff that's been already shown on free to air TV/will be coming next week on SKY 1 to which I already have a subscription but can't wait!

 

But its still illegal and I couldn't complain if my (and everyone elses) internet access was restricted to stop me doing it.

 

it isn't the specific action of that site, but if, for example, a court order declared that the edugeek site divulged hacking info and should be shut down, and a judge allowed it because they had no better judgement then you wouldn't be happy. it sets a precedence that any company who takes offence at something, legitimate or not, could push it through courts

[SimpleSi]

That's the trouble when citizen's flout the law - when the state finally tries to stop it - they go way over the top and the baby goes out with the bath water.

 

We've been "winning" for a few years now - time for the pain payback?

 

Si

[CyberNerd]

 

 

LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov’t to discuss national Web-censorship regime – Boing Boing

 

 

The Open Rights Group has a campaign to repeal the DEA that you can sign onto:

 

Open Rights Group | Ask your MP to support the United Nations report

 

I received a letter back from my MP.

 

The jist of it is that Ofcom have been reviewing "whether website blocking measures will be workable," and that the Government "Agrees with the individual right to freedom and uncensored access to the internet and that states should only interfere in exceptional circumstances". They are now considering the Ofcom review.

 

So we may or may not have more website blocking in the future.

[GrumbleDook]

This has been quite an interesting discussion and even after re-reading it I can't actually see anyone trying to explain an alternative business model which still adequately reimburses the creators and owners of the original product.

 

As for theft / copyright infringement argument ... that has been done to death. If you create a copy the copy effectively belongs to the person with the licence / ownership to publish it ... so it is still theft. It does not belong to the person who creates the copy or owns the original. Another important aspect of theft is that it is the "dishonest appropriation of property", and since we all know copying the item is illegal then we knowingly commit an dishonest act.

 

This is not a victimless crime, it can seriously affect artists, authors and musicians ... and trying to justify it by saying that some aspects of the entertainment industry is dodgy in itself is pure sophistry ... you might as well turn round and justify the death penalty for children who steal small amounts as it stops them from becoming adults who steal large amounts.

 

At the moment anyone who aids theft, copyright infringement, etc and does so knowing it is illegal gets what they deserve. If the law is to be changed then it has to be reasonable to those who produce the original material, it has to be reasonable to those who want to make music and video on the range of devices *they* own, it has to be reasonable to those who need to oversee it (including not having to rely on expensive or overly restrictive technical solutions which are likely to increase costs to people either through the initial purchase, the ongoing costs through ISPs or other add-ons) and it has to encourage people to stay within the law.

 

As much as I agree with those who shout and scream that the present system is broken ... why not also shout down those who say piracy is the answer. It isn't ... a change of law is ... and piracy is the wrong tool to try and force that change.

[CyberNerd]

As for theft / copyright infringement argument ... that has been done to death. If you create a copy the copy effectively belongs to the person with the licence / ownership to publish it ... so it is still theft.

 

I really don't agree with this, Copyright infringement may be dishonest and damage creative arts industries but it just isn't in the same league as theft. I can't equate the two.

 

I wouldn't steal a car, but would I download the plans and print them on my home 3D printing equipment, maybe. But no-one is loosing a car that I 'stole' and I wouldn't have had the money to buy a new one in the first place so no-one actually looses out in my hypothetical theft.

 

Copyright infringement just isn't the same as theft, and it is dishonest for publishers to equate the two.

[localzuk]

This has been quite an interesting discussion and even after re-reading it I can't actually see anyone trying to explain an alternative business model which still adequately reimburses the creators and owners of the original product.

 

The alternative model is a subscription one, or one which doesn't profiteer. Basically, the problem with the current system is that the 'label' rips off everyone - the customer and the talent. Just look at the fun way they do their accounting.

 

The alternative would be proper 'fair' pricing, relying on a much lower price to encourage a much higher volume of sales.

 

However, due to their steadfast stubborn nature, they are instead obsessed with maintaining the status quo, damaging artists, and alienating customers. So, what has happened is 2 things - 1. pirating has become 'the norm' amongst the younger generations who simply can't justify the prices demanded, and 2. artists are starting to go independent and self publishing and following a much fairer business model individually. This isn't happening in the movie industry yet, because very few people can stump up £50m+ to make a big ticket movie, but it will eventually.

 

As for theft / copyright infringement argument ... that has been done to death. If you create a copy the copy effectively belongs to the person with the licence / ownership to publish it ... so it is still theft. It does not belong to the person who creates the copy or owns the original. Another important aspect of theft is that it is the "dishonest appropriation of property", and since we all know copying the item is illegal then we knowingly commit an dishonest act.

 

I don't think many here would say copyright infringement is not wrong, there are many of us who ourselves are creators of various works (photographers, musicians, actors/actresses, programmers). But I am one of that group, and I still vehemently argue that copyright infringement is not theft. The 2 are very different things, it is not denying the owner anything in many cases - as they wouldn't have got the custom in the first place etc... It is much more complex than theft.

 

This is not a victimless crime, it can seriously affect artists, authors and musicians ... and trying to justify it by saying that some aspects of the entertainment industry is dodgy in itself is pure sophistry ... you might as well turn round and justify the death penalty for children who steal small amounts as it stops them from becoming adults who steal large amounts.

 

Indeed, it can seriously affect many people, however not to the extent trumpeted by the music and film industries, where they equate one download as one lost sale (more of that bizarre Hollywood accounting again?)

 

At the moment anyone who aids theft, copyright infringement, etc and does so knowing it is illegal gets what they deserve. If the law is to be changed then it has to be reasonable to those who produce the original material, it has to be reasonable to those who want to make music and video on the range of devices *they* own, it has to be reasonable to those who need to oversee it (including not having to rely on expensive or overly restrictive technical solutions which are likely to increase costs to people either through the initial purchase, the ongoing costs through ISPs or other add-ons) and it has to encourage people to stay within the law.

 

As much as I agree with those who shout and scream that the present system is broken ... why not also shout down those who say piracy is the answer. It isn't ... a change of law is ... and piracy is the wrong tool to try and force that change.

 

I don't think they do get 'what they deserve'. I think the system as it stands is unfair, like the industry itself. Any industry that can use scare tactics to threaten innocent people with court etc... is not an innocent one itself. (There have been hundreds of examples of this, and in the UK it has lead to several solicitors being remonstrated by their professional standards body).

 

To get any law changed, there are several ways to do it, and this is visible throughout history:

 

1. Legal protest - demonstrations, posters, letters, etc...

2. Civil disobedience - sit ins, hunger strikes, small acts of vandalism etc... (Look at the suffragettes).

3. Violent disobedience. (This is pretty much guarenteed not to work, and to actually cause the opposite to the desired outcome to occur).

 

So, to gain success in any endeavour to change laws, you often see a mix of both 1 and 2 (or, in the case of animal rights, which has shot itself in the foot so many times, it has no feet left, all 3). You can, of course, try to take some form of moral high ground and denounce those engaging in civil disobedience but your morals will look questionable to many.

 

My question to you is this - why is the law now being looked at being changed? Is it because of all the nice people writing to their MPs and being ignored? Or is it because so many people were engaged in piracy that the government was forced to do a root and branch analysis of current copyright law and change it to reflect what the country actually wants and needs?

 

And now, after that rather long waffle, I shall go and hide in the dark as I have a headache.

[CyberNerd]

My question to you is this - why is the law now being looked at being changed? Is it because of all the nice people writing to their MPs and being ignored? Or is it because so many people were engaged in piracy that the government was forced to do a root and branch analysis of current copyright law and change it to reflect what the country actually wants and needs?

 

 

 

Suprisingly, according to my MP the Ofcom review "follows on from the public responses to the Deputy Prime Minister's 'Your Freedom' consultation which was designed to give people a chance to tell Government which laws and regulations they think should be amended or revoked"

[GrumbleDook]

@localzuk good response ... and I can understand why you don't equate copyright infringement to theft (remembering that both are not just terms in common usage but also legal terms) as the concept of duplicating and item and both items are owned / under the control of the originator has been hotly debated over the years (even going back to Socratic philosophy) and it usually takes someone in a position of authority to say "this is the way it is going to be". That has been done ... and the present stance is that it is still theft. Changes in law should sort that out and give a better definition.

 

One of the means of change you didn't include is actually the one by which most laws are created, changed or dropped ... lobbying. This is vastly different from legal protest and is frequently regarded as a bad thing ™ as it is the common method of approach by large organisations ... and it is very populist at the moment to see that anything done by a large organisation (erm ...perhaps someone like News International) is a bad thing ... yet it is also the method used by Unions, professional bodies, expert groups and voluntary groups across the country.

 

@CyberNerd ... this shows how misunderstood the whole idea of copyright infringement is ...

 

If you take the plans for a car ... which a person or company has put significant money and/or time into developing ... and then you make your version of it without reimbursing the originator in any form ... then it is truly not victimless. So many people loose out in this arrangement ... the Govt from taxes collected on the sale (taxes which pay for many things), the originator of the plans looses revenue (does it make a difference if they are a big company like Ford or a small firm that builds bespoke cars?), the companies which provide the materials to build the car (this is slightly off-set by the materials you use ... and it will be interesting to see how 3D printing changes this over time), the originator will be paying salaries to people ... ranging from the production line, the engineers, the designers, and so on ... the Govt looses taxes on all of this ... and whilst we can see that this creates a conflict because the Govt needs to get money in so how does it do that ... it could raise income tax, raise VAT on the materials you use for printing your car (raising the cost for others doing similar) ...

 

We may not like the way some of this runs right now ... but it is not victimless.

 

Being a community (as in the whole world is a community) and having things for free is all well and good, but someone has to pay some money somewhere otherwise people will loose out. Communism, Marxism and Capitalism all point out that someone has to be a consumer and someone a producer ... if you change the models of ownership and how items can be moved from one person to another (or the rights to ownership and usage) then it has to balance out eventually otherwise the other items needed to live (clothes, food, etc) will eventually run out to.

[localzuk]

@localzuk good response ... and I can understand why you don't equate copyright infringement to theft (remembering that both are not just terms in common usage but also legal terms) as the concept of duplicating and item and both items are owned / under the control of the originator has been hotly debated over the years (even going back to Socratic philosophy) and it usually takes someone in a position of authority to say "this is the way it is going to be". That has been done ... and the present stance is that it is still theft. Changes in law should sort that out and give a better definition.

 

One of the means of change you didn't include is actually the one by which most laws are created, changed or dropped ... lobbying. This is vastly different from legal protest and is frequently regarded as a bad thing ™ as it is the common method of approach by large organisations ... and it is very populist at the moment to see that anything done by a large organisation (erm ...perhaps someone like News International) is a bad thing ... yet it is also the method used by Unions, professional bodies, expert groups and voluntary groups across the country.

 

Indeed, lobbying is one that I didn't mention, as I would've clumped it in with legal protest (as it is, in a roundabout way). And indeed, some of the current raft of copyright changes is coming about because of companies like Google lobbying the govt.

 

I dislike lobbying, it seems like legal bribery to me.

[featured_spectre]

Lobbying is a good method as it HAS to be transparent. Look at the lobbying that went to ban cigarette companies advertisement rights in the UK.

 

As for the record companies, they equate 1 lost sale as a %...so say 1 single is 0.000000003% of their profits (grossly overrated), say 1million people download the song illegally, they have lost 0.0001% of their profits, rinse and repeat for the songs on the market and there you go, the record labels lose out big time as do the artists they represent. Most artists that go independent with their own labels do so for the purpose to get more money, but they do it in a fairer way and make their songs fairly priced. I walked into HMV and found CDs (new songs) for less than £1 because they were independent, where as someone represented by Sony has a CD at £5...

 

Money makes the world go round and the bigger the label, the more is needed to upkeep the brand.

[GrumbleDook]

Indeed, lobbying is one that I didn't mention, as I would've clumped it in with legal protest (as it is, in a roundabout way). And indeed, some of the current raft of copyright changes is coming about because of companies like Google lobbying the govt.

 

I dislike lobbying, it seems like legal bribery to me.

 

And this is why I made a comment about people equating lobbying with being a bad thing ...

 

It isn't ... get onto your MP and see what they can do too.

[Guest Guest]

What will help to slow the problem of piracy (as you will never remove it completely) is to make the movies, music and games downloadable and at fair price, I'd bet that 50% of pirates will stop and download the legal content and support the creators.

 

Music and games I agree to an extent - personally I think things have gone too far now for there to be any going back to how it was pre 2000s. But movies, hell no! I've just sat down to watch a DVD with our lass, 15 minutes of bloody adverts, 15 minutes!!! before we could watch the film we have paid for. You could pay me £10 to watch the movie and, given the option, I would still rather choose the pirate copy without the adverts!

 

Same goes for the pictures. £30 give or take to watch a movie including popcorn and drinks, plus anywhere up to 40 minutes of trailers making you run out of popcorn before the actual movie starts, no thanks.

 

Again, same goes for TV, adverts every 5-10 minutes.

 

 

Personally I've given up on movies/TV. I simply don't have the concentration span to endure somewhere in the region of 30% adverts for everything I watch. It's pure greed.

[SimpleSi]

Copyright infringement may be dishonest and damage creative arts industries but it just isn't in the same league as theft. I can't equate the two.

And that's the problem for the music/film/game industry. They have the law to protect their income but a large amount of people don't believe in it.

 

Which other bits of the law don't you believe in (I don't go for dogmatic application of speed limits myself )

 

Si

[SimpleSi]

I simply don't have the concentration span to endure somewhere in the region of 30% adverts for everything I watch. It's pure greed.

Have you got a business idea/model for the companies to given them a similar total income?

 

Mine is to stop distribution of all physical media and just to pay for content on demand (similiar to Sky box office)

 

Now at the moment, Sky/HDMI encryption has stopped people copying content (AFAIK that is - PM me with details if you've broken them ) but I imagine once its the only way of nicking stuff it will get broken so that's the challenge for content providers.

 

Or, of course, make the content cheap enough to rent that most people can't be bothered to steal it (like metered water )

 

Si