Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban'- VM to Pilot Scheme

Greetings!

From my point of view, it is much better to let copyright holders and ISPs deal with the problem than let the state correct the problem with fines, prision time and criminal records penalties.

 

It doesn't matter, its not their position to be reprimanding the populace. I spent several minutes trying to come up with a flippant why don't we let x deal with y but it won't help. Copyright holders and ISPs have a vested interest in copyright enforcement, its the same reason we don't give family members an opinion in the sentencing of murder victims killers. The law must be impartial in both investigation and sentencing.

 

Greetings!

So what would be the impartial penalty given by the state to a P2P freeloader of an album/movie/comic/etc?

 

Again doesn't matter what matters is the correct agency is involved ie the POLICE not the local branch of the mpaa/riaa

In fact here is an excellent example of why private citizens should not be heavily involved in law enforcement/ sentencing i would say simple slap on the wrists and made to use Linux so they might better appreciate foss but i think many would find that cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Greetings!

If you let police institutions and courts handle this matter, you end up with the usual penalties: fines, prision time and criminal records.
The penalty must be adquate to the infraction, a broadbad ban seems adequate to a broadband abuse.

 

Only if copy right holders press the matter see my earlier post!

 

Greetings!

Arent we on a circular discussion?

 

Yes, yes we are.
I'll do the cop-out summary thing, instead of trying to redirect the flow: dealing with pirates is convoluted and barely worth while (if at all), and wastes everybody's time. We are still completely ignoring the actual perpetrators - the torrent host sites, the developers and distributors of p2p, the moles in the cinema industry who leak copies of reels onto the net, the marketplace traders who make and sell hundreds of poor-quality copies of the same film or album.

Instead, we insist on blaming the greedy idiot prole who gets bored and downloads or buys a copy. This is like hacking at the upper branches, when we should be going for the root. It's shooting the addicts and giving the dealer a pat on the back.

Why is nobody bothered by this imbalance? Why isn't anybody concerned with getting to the root of the problem?

Yeah, I steal stuff. But it's not like I masterminded a bank robbery; it's more like someone ransacked an HMV outlet and threw the spoils all over my lawn for me to pick up. Persecute me if you want, I know piracy is technically wrong, but please don't stop there - go on to tackle the situation that made it so easy for me to steal. Otherwise, you're not really acting out the proclaimed desire to tackle piracy.

 

Well said.
Trying to convince punters its 'baaad mkay' to download stuff obviously isn't working.
Stopping it at source so they don't have to make the choice between downloading and buying seems the only logical step.
Or lower prices and raise the quality of the originals so that the knocked-off version isn't any more appealing.

 

Greetings!

Survey: File-sharing Could Drop 70% if Pirates Received ISP Warnings

Results advocate enforcement by providers

7 out of 10 file sharers would cease pirating if they received a warning from their ISP, says UK law firm Wiggin in its soon-to-be-released 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey.
The survey presents compelling news for the world’s content owners, as it paints a telling picture against the resolve of digital pirates in the UK. In addition to the aforementioned findings, 66% of the survey’s respondents said they would “stop downloading completely” if they felt there was a higher chance they’d be caught.

 

See earlier posts about who is policing the web!

besides its always worth checking your source for confilcts of interests

These people probably make a small fortune for sending out the threatening letters that their report is advocating. They also seem to represent the bpi so they don't exactly rate as reputable since they actively support the sue your user base business model.

 

Greetings!

This thread wouldnt exist if there was someone actually policing the web.

 

If the government feel there is sufficient need to police the web they can spend the resources and direct the police force to do it. Not have the content owners sick lap lawyers on people.

At the end of the day the laws being broken are government laws not riaa laws. The content providers may be effected by the results of the breaking of these laws but they are not authorised to enforce them. If your brother is killed you may be effected by the breaking of the no murdering law but your are not authorised to exact punishment.

 

Greetings!

Steveo_mcg, I understand what you are saying, and from a point of full legality, I have to agree with you.
But this is a situation that if/when the state (police/courts/etc) gets involved the outcome can be very nasty.

 

nastier that suing everyone and everything in sight? even if they don't have a computer/internet or are dead.... and then don't give up making the family pay....

it is a criminal act, i agree, it is against the law, meaning that the organism responsible for the law is the one that gets to beat people around.... either that or put all legal decision in the hands of privates.... yeah right!

 

Greetings!

Were there lawsuits in the UK for P2P freeloading?

 

Greetings!

So it comes as a complete surprise when, at the end of our wide-ranging conversation, Kliavkoff [NBC Universal's Chief Digital Officer] drops a casual bombshell.

"We're coming up on an announcement of using some peer-to-peer technology for distribution of some of our own content," he says. "We generally think that peer-to-peer technologies are very useful for distributing large files, they can significantly reduce bandwidth costs, and generally they are technologies today without a business model. We think the distribution of legitimate content using that technology saves us a lot of costs and we're happy to share some of that savings."

I beg your pardon?

 

So how much is it going to cost. It's not exactly new the BBC and Channel 4 (in the uk) both have p2p based services they are both free and the both restrict you to using it on the one machine in heavily drm'ed files.

The fact they are using p2p is not to benefit us in any way it is a simple exercise in cost reduction, in stead of them paying the bandwidth bill we do so if you have a low cost broadband tariff you will end up paying twice once for your bandwidth, which you will blitz if iplayer is anything to go by, and once for the content, in the form of ads before the content or the licence fee.

So see my earlier post regarding half hearted attempts which the consumer isn't going to benefit from. The cynic in me says they do projects like this to fail then they can say "we tried" and continue to sue there customers.

Just to reiterate

____
Honestly how can you take a company seriously that claims NBC: Peer-to-peer costs corn farmers money

 

impar, i think it is to little and to late.... they should have jumped into the van when the van was in front of their faces.....

 

Greetings!

So? Someone who is freeloading also pays for the bandwidth. With these kind of solutions a consumer will also pay for the legitimate content. Makes sense.
Some advantages of having big players involved in P2P, is the investigation to optimize networks:
Verizon embraces P4P, a more efficient peer-to-peer tech
...
P4P, which stands for Proactive network Provider Participation for P2P, ultimately aims to decrease backbone traffic and bring down network operation costs by enabling service providers to communicate information about network conditions to client applications for the purpose of facilitating improved P2P file transfer performance. Instead of selecting peers at random, the P4P protocol leverages network topology data so that peers can be selected in a manner that increases routing efficiency.

Large organizations tend to be inertia-prone by nature. Too many layers of decision.