Have your say
Fill out the comments form to the left to have your say about the decisions.
Post your comments:
Polls
Loading ...
Loading ...Fill out the comments form to the left to have your say about the decisions.
Copyright law is illogical.
1.Every time anyone hears a bit of music, film it is encoded in the neurons of the brain, there by infringing copyright of the holders.
2.Money is used to distribute scarce resources. Information can be endlessly copy there by enriching everyone. It is not a scarce resource = it should and will be shared.
3.A copyright holder has more rights than a patent holder. A patent will last for 20 years. A copyright will last the life of the holder plus 70 years. Who has made the bigger contribution to society, the inventor of the electric motor or the Rolling Stone. EMI and co seem to think that it is Rolling Stone. As much as I like the Rolling Stone …
4.This law is not going to work. File shares will simply encrypt the files. If government finds a way to decrypt the files, cyder-criminals will copy them there by rendering the whole digital economy defunct anyway. (There will be no way to transmit sensitive credit card data).
5.When does someone own a bit of information. When it is 100% identical, 99.999% identical. 98% identical. 50% identical. 20% identical. Or just 0.0001% identical? To they own every bit of information in it. If the information is comprised of 0 and 1 when do these 0 and 1 become theirs? The answer they never do YOU CAN’T OWN INFORMATION.
If a law is stupid and corrupt it undermines by association all laws. This is just another stupid and corrupt law which will be widely ignored.
Personally I find the whole concept of this ridiculous. I’m not denying that piracy is an issue, but most, if not all, of these methods of combating it are breaking human rights, or are going against the concept of a democracy, which most of the people in our country find an important part of politics.
Clearly Mr Mandelson does not. He proposes to have a single, unelected man who can create laws, and enforce them with any penalty he wishes. The last time I checked, that wasn’t a democracy, that was a dictatorship.
Pete, let me start with no thanks to your sympathy. Don’t really need it from person who claims moral superiority because he “buys the software and music he listens to”. You may think it does, but picking a side doesn’t. You make yourself sound almost like you are from the current Iranian leadership.
Back to the point though. My wireless is secure enough I don’t want laws that will push people into seeking to break it and make me worry about it.
“illegal downloading” can be clearly attributed to those who hold the rights. Their market changed but they refused. Worst of it all is that they are continuing such trend throwing millions on lobbying and lawyers trying to slow down the horse that has already left the gates.
Who am i to say how it is? Nobody. It is certainly a monopolistic set of rules (haven’t got a problem with that) however the digitalisation of the content has transferred the market power to the other side. Too slow and too ignorant thinking has allowed the “illegal” download sector to grow to size where it operates very efficiently and allows effortless good quality products to be attained. What the consumer wanted but not the producer.
I am all in for paying for the work of other people. I am not ready to pay £1+ per song which really has almost no marginal cost. And then comes the question from looking at http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/, such price – is it funding those that are lobbying or those that are making the product? Again years back there was no alternative they had control over every distribution channel.
My point all along has been that creative industry has been completely ignorant of the desires of those like me (and as it seems there is plenty people alike – enough to warrant heavy lobbying and law pushing) and said action has the nasty backlash of creating a collective – pirates/illegal downloaders. It used to be a product led market however times have changed and it has shifted to market led market. (which I like to add is a very curious case innovation induced shift)
Conclusively, while your attitude is foul you are right that people should be accountable for their actions. However the system they have designed to be implemented will only force people to evolve even more (think encrypted vpn tunnelling which as it stands is 15 euro per 3months and can have far greater repercussions), will break human rights law there for a good reason and what i see ultimately is to serve only one purpose of making Mandelson’s bed when labour loses election. All of those would have been easier to swallow if there wasn’t a far better alternative. Who are we to say? We are the market in what is now a market led industry.
Next up, Mandelson bans access to Google for allowing voters access to information on other political parties.
Don’t even get me started on our government’s policy of presumed guilt.
We are not a dictator state, and should not have to answer as though we were. The World Wide Web is a vital and constructive communication tool, which we all have a right to; how can that possibly be “illegal”? LEAVE IT ALONE!!
The World Wide Web is, and always will a communication super highway, it should NOT be subjected to legislation of any kind, by any Government. We the people, do NOT WANT, or NEED a Nanny State, where we are told what we can do, when we can do it, or where we can do it. Leave the World Wide Web alone.
First the term “illegal downloading” is just plain wrong. Second do you remember the home taping is killing music campaign that the majors ran – sure killed music didn’t it.
Third If I invite a politician to stay at my luxury villa in the West Indies will he support me
Pete: you’re making a fundamental mistake though, it’s not any sort of theft at all. A better analogy is that of someone buying a newspaper and leaving it in a cafe; if a few other people then read that newspaper, that’s not theft. Nobody is being deprived of anything.
If someone starts renting out said newspapers (for example), then yes it would affect the industry, and indeed organised commercial piracy is a genuine problem that deserves full attention, but the majority of ‘pirates’ are just teenagers downloading music. They simply don’t have the money to pay extortionate prices for songs.
There is also an argument that it provides the artists with free publicity, and expands their audience to people who wouldn’t have otherwise been exposed to them. Adobe for example don’t mind casual piracy of photoshop, as those students who learn to use it are the same people who later buy proper licences later in life to use for business purposes.
Not going to be popular here. I don’t agree with you. There seems to be an idea that it is OK to ‘illegally download’ and fileshare content which you are not supposed to. Wake up, the hint is in the title “illegally”. When you, or someone, buys music or software or whatever, you agree to the licence conditions and if they say that you may not share the content, you have agreed to that. You may think that this is naiive but that just demonstrates a fundamental lack of trust or honesty in you. This initiative may promote the concept that you need to secure your wireless access point and, why not? You probably lock the front door of your house and don’t leave the keys in your car, why is that? You don’t need a trial if you are not convicted of an offence. I would also suggest that, if you believe that you have been wrongly disconnected, that you could appeal. This has nothing to do with ‘big brother’ (which I don’t support). Just in case you think that I have a vested interest, I don’t. I do buy the software I use and the music I listen too. I am just fed up with people spouting the **** that they are allowed to download music/films ete (illegally) because they can. I CAN break into someones house and steal their TV but that doesn’t make it right. Get some moral backbone people. If you didn’t cause the problem, there would be no excuse for the legislation, it is down to you. Your actions have consequences. You are doing this to yourselves and I have no sympathy.
I love how they say “only the most serious offenders” will be chased. How is that a consolation? The term most serious can be re-adjusted and abused. And we have all seen how the government likes to extend the use of laws – anti terror laws being used on Icelandic accounts and the family being monitored for 2 months by their local council(the former being used more for the greater good of Britain). In short the gov’t has only exhibited affinity to abuse of the laws and this is ignoring the fact that the whole legislation was pushed by “lobbying” which in my view is called corruption in other countries.
On another note how many official movies were officially released at 700mb avi standard? At any point of their life. I am sure if they do they will want to charge you for cinema ticket and dvd price all together since you may not want to go to the cinema for it.However cinemas offer unique sensory experience(now with 3D too) and social event. There will always be market for it.
It can easily be compared to Modern Warfare 2 (MW2). If they offered for example the single player for £10 and multiplayer for the rest of the money they will get mostly the full amount of money as the multiplayer offered unique experience. Also note that MW2 was released simultaneously and not leaving fans in different countries waiting for ages and being forced online to seek illegal copies.
People in power should perhaps examine new services like spotify. I would gladly pay annual subscription to access it on my mobile but it is not perfect and find the individual song price a bit dear. Hopefully in time they can achieve economies of scale and offer more feasible prices.
The Music industry has a misguided belief that cutting piracy would increase their sales. I beg to differ.
I love music and I’m one of a dying breed who buys DVDs and CDs at the record store on an almost weekly basis. However, if this proposal becomes law, I will not buy any more. Quite frankly, I refuse to financially support any industry that condones trampling over my human rights in such a way. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels like this and I predict that an almighty backlash and a mass boycott will ensue.
Rather than ensuring the future of the music industry, this unjust law will only hasten its deserved demise.
TalkTalk has gained a hell of a lot of respect from me for standing up on this controversial issue, the internet is a basic human right and should not be taken away just because some record company THINKS that someone MAY have stolen a few bits of music. Do we take away peoples radios because they may have recorded a song of them?
The dinosaurs in the music industry needs to stop using the government to bully people because they think every stolen copy of their precious so called artists records would have equalled a sale.
Look at iPlayers example or Radioheads recent releases where the content is provided fairly and at a level of quality that would make stealing it more hassle than its worth, the record and movie industries should be getting behind services like spotify 100% and learning how to monetise their content in the modern world.
Oh and when I buy a DVD why do I have to sit through an unskippable lecture on the evils of piracy funding terrorism?
Really, Mady try harder, we’re already preparing ourselves or are fully ready with protection for your breach of human rights, unless the industry changes and adapts and works with technology instead of trying to fight it, us ‘Pirates’ or ‘Illegal File Sharers’ are not going to stop. Get used to it.
Thank god for my WPA2 protection.
Inquisition anyone? And from what I read there is a loophole giving member of cabinet unlimited powers. This is not a solution to the problem – to start with solution needs to be global. Followed by the fact that nobody will follow by force thus shortly there will be another “popular” way to share. You can download software from famous downloading websites that will allow you to rip music completely undetected. The way information is shared through internet makes it impossible to stop piracy, when will they acknowledge that? If i can listen to latest dance song I can most definitely rip it. Are we going to listen to bad quality radios for example as protection against piracy or are we going to embrace technology and listen to crisp sounds.
Not going to mention that now my router better be secure cos whats stopping somebody to start googling find a weakness and exploit it on my account? And do you know what? I won’t say i am innocent. I will take their back sides to the european court and ask them what right do they have to ignore human rights of fair trial, government and record company?
The fact that record companies and the government are pushing for a way to punish people by monitoring upload/download activity flies directly in the face of the ideal that everyone in the UK has a basic right to access the internet. The fact that the music industry needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new age of technology is rediculous but the fact that the government is willing to suport such a backward ideal is even worse. Also the fact that Peter Mandleson thinks this will help emerging internet industries just shows he has no idea what he’s doing.
The current proposal allows ISPs to charge content providers up to £30 per letter they send – the physical cost of which is under £1. With such a mindboggling cash incentive for ISPs to send out warnings – cumilatively leading to disconnection – who is naive enough to believe that innocent users will not be affected? ISPs will use this to target the biggest bandwidth users (e.g. software developers and users of open-source operating systems, Skype users, etc.) by flagging heavy upload/download activity as potentially infringing data transfer. The content companies will pay through the nose for ‘policing’ that will terrorise innocent consumers in their name, whilst the quality of internet service will fall markedly across the country, as ISPs use ‘copyright protection’ as an excuse to progressively throttle connectivity to the point where only the most basic functionality will be accessible.
The real problem here is that they are making corporations judge, jury and executioner with passing of any bill remotely like this.
The primary argument shouldn’t even really be pro or con to filesharing, but should have more to do with giving these corporations free realm to be this all powerful entity that answers to no one. We already know that in the past they have sent lawsuits against everything from grandmothers to dead people to young children.
They can’t be trusted to preform the task in the first place.
That is the primary reason things like this shouldn’t be happening.
The legality and morality of filesharing have nothing to do with it.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The very fact that the government doesn’t want to get involved directly says to me they know there is no battle they can win here, and they want someone else to do the work and take the blame when it all goes wrong.
I posted the email I sent to my MP on my blog: http://blog.samstokes.co.uk/post/247434685/on-three-strikes-email-to-my-mp. Please feel free to use the text when contacting your own MP.
Neanderthals leading Neanderthals.
I really do not understand why the government is getting involved at all. The whole problem is to do with big media’s inability to monetize their products online. They have, historically, attempted to thwart anything that they see as a threat to their 1960’s business model (think Tape, VCR’s, blank CD & DVD’s), their response has always been to petition for legislation to either give them a “tax” return (charge on blank media) or to courts to close the stable door (Napster et al) instead of attempting to bring their business model into the 21st Century. The government, and Mandelsson in particular (as the ex EU Trade Commissioner), should know better by now not be in the position of propping up inefficient businesses by legislating, arbitrarily, against their own citizenry.
Unfortunately, if file sharing is stopped then the recoding industry will get more income which will result in the government receiving more in taxes. It’s a win win situation for them.
I would like to know how America is dealing with it or even the rest of Europe.
Mandys law will mean we are punished for alleged filesharing on the say so of rightsholders like the BPI. It will be just their say so, no court case where they need to prove lawbreaking and the accused has a chance to argue their case, and so breaks principles of innocent until proved guilty that go back centuries. It gives rightholders the right to say we’re guilty, end of debate.
Have to say to david that i think you are out of touch. Yes ok it might technically be stealing.
I have downloaded things in the past then gone out to buy them, items i certainly wouldnt have purchased prior to that!
If the govenment is going to take some of the cost we will only be paying it anyway. Twice in fact as the ISPs are not going to take a hit on profits for a govenment scheme they do not agree with.
The govenment might as well give the money to BMI etc themselves and cut out us as the middlemen.
The guys who are complaining they wont be able to afford the new bentley when it comes out. Sorry guys but i would rather download music and put food in the fridge then make it so you can afford another car that is extremley overpriced.
Granted it might not be legal, so lets go down the tradional route as we do in the uk.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
@David – maybe you’re right and downloading music is as bad as stealing. other people disagree. but that’s not the point. the point is that mandelson wants to disconnect people based on nothing more than an allegation (what happened to innocent until proven guilty?), and worse still they would also disconnect all the other users of that internet connection.
how would you feel if the government took away your car because a very similar car had been seen going through a red light?
So the ISPs will not pay the whole bill, but whatever chunk of it they get – it will most likely be passed on to customers; the rest will be paid by the government (like we needed more expenses on the budget right now). And where will the government get that money from? Taxpayer. So summing up the costs, its coming from us the public. Siphoning more money from the public to make rich people even richer.
Then there is the technological case. Countries like Sweden are light years ahead of us in terms of internet speed. How is government ever going to achieve their modest target for broadband internet when they keep piling on the costs? The end result being that the people of Britain having to put up with tertiary broadband technology. And why? Because some rich folk(who probably dont even live in britain) is reluctant to embrace the evolution in information exchange the internet has brought, so their weight in money means they will drag us with them. There are many cases of people trying to fight the change internet has brought (Dixons comes to mind) and all of them have failed – simply because it is not feasible.
This will end up the same – even if they somehow manage to crack down on one way of sharing information(downloading a song) there will be 2 new ways that will be discovered.
So in the end I have been certainly been put off voting labour on the next election, perhaps its time to stop Mandelson wasting our time and money(making his bed for when they lose the election), not saying others will be better but we have seen what this government thinks is appropriate, and it is not.
P.S. Do they seriously think that the timing of his U turn with his visit on that villa and then denying it is going to fool anyone? Do they think they are in charge of a nursery?
Downloading music illegally makes you nothing more than a thief. If you do it don’t glorify or justify it just live with the fact you are a common criminal and a leech on society. Also people do get banned from shops or places for behaviour ie asbos so this is no different and the internet isn’t a basic human right.
These are the people who have been fiddling their expenses and getting away with it. Who are they to say what wrong. Lets prosecute them and make them pay
Just don’t get caught?
Jordan you are clearly an idiot.
‘we take advantage of a service (Downloading Music Illegally) Which yes is wrong however it’s there to use so why not use it?!’
oh dear.
“For god’s sake you have nothing to fear really with these three stikes if you dont download illegally. ” – AC @ 1:20 pm November 2009
To AC
You propose that all accused persons do not deserve a trial because us innocent people have nothing to fear?
False accusations happen, and we have a legal system that intends to guarantee that all people get a fair hearing. This is not even about the legitimacy of copyright, but the upholding of civil rights.
So there taking trying to take our service we PAY for, Because we take advantage of a service (Downloading Music Illegally) Which yes is wrong however it’s there to use so why not use it?! There are a lot of ways the government could of proposed rather than this silly proposal how would they feel if i went to there house and took there desk because they’re using a stolen pen?! they wouldn’t be very nice about it – I can guarantee if this happens this’ll kill every ISP provider our there. Good on TalkTalk for making the stand!
Testing this form
For god’s sake you have nothing to fear really with these three stikes if you dont download illegally. If you do, shame on you! I will come round your house and steal your food. Have some respect for the hard work and sacrifice that goes into making music. Music industry should sort out it’s prices yes, and people should get a conscience. End of. Some talented artists will simply stop making music as they cannot feed their children or dedicate their life to making beautiful music. Why, because some stingy gits can’t shell out 99p or less for their song they put their heart and weeks of their time into. Disconnect the crims! This website is just thinking of its fat TT pockets ; )
Will the music industry require the Royal Mail to monitor every letter or National Express to monitor every bus passenger in case they are carrying something the music industry disapproves of, surely not. So why should ISPs be treated differently? The cost of the extra mointoring is nothing more or less than a tax on behalf of a commercial organisation.
However I do think creative people should get a just reward for their efforts and skills. Illegal copying is theft. I would propose that, if the music industry wants detailed monitoring of Internet traffic, they should foot the bill for the extra costs imposed on ISPs. Internet users, such as many small businesses, should not have to pay for the commercial interests of a group in whose products they may well have no interest whatsoever.
Copyright law desperately needs rebalancing so that it benefits the people it is meant to – the general public. Copyright is a gift given by the government, on behalf of the public, to give people more of an incentive to be creative. If the general public decides that the cost of giving that gift has becomes too high, they have every right to scale it back and they certainly have no obligation to give ever greater gifts to reflect a misguided sense of entitlement held by some copyright holders.
I run a small independent label and my business has been devastated by people taking our releases and giving them away for free over the internet. My artists and I have the right to have our work protected. Music and Film isn’t free unless the owners decide to give it away. People who ignore this are criminalising themselves and it has to be dealt with. These measures are the first steps to bringing stability back to a business that barely makes me or my artists a living. I’ve seen lots of “advice” from the people who frequent these discussions on how I should change my business model to accomodate the theft that is already rife on the internet. My answer is sorry I don’t have to do that – I have the law on my side and if people continue to steal what is not theirs then there will be some consequences (pretty minor ones to be honest revolving around broadband speeds and disconnections but consequences nonetheless).
Virgin came up with the perfect system earlier this year. An “all you can eat” service where for £20 a month, fans could legally download whatever music they wanted, not be criminalised and the artists would be paid.
It was an excellent idea. Trouble is, certain record companies refused to take part and the project was killed before it began. Consequently, I find it hard to feel any sympathy for the music industry’s current predicament. Fans are crying out for a legal “all you can eat” service. Where is it?
The music industry at the moment are the equivalent of a horse and cart owner, blissfully unaware that people have been using motorcars for 10 years.
Disconnecting people from the net is not the answer. If anything, it will only make people resent the industry more. I’ll certainly boycott buying CDs and DVDs in the future if this draconian policy becomes law.
Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” experiment is proof that people are willing to pay for quality content despite a free option being available.
Filesharing exists. Nothing can stop it. Adapt or die.
I think it is a disgrace that this option is even being considered at the moment. With all the publicity surrounding the obvious lack of evidence in most cases against alleged copyright infringement, where numerous people have been contacted and criminalised by companies that have absolutely no legal right to be doing so, even when these inocent people have never used a p2p program or in some cases have never even heard of a torrent. The fact that people like that, people like me, could be disconnected on the word of a music/movie industry fatcat is a disgrace. They are fighting a losing battle against the Internet, the best source of information/media that the world has ever seen.
All they need to do is provide a viable alternative to the consumers but instead they decide not to, so that THEY can make more money, not the artists that actually deserve it. Music/movies etc would be available to the general public at a much cheaper rate if it was available via the Internet as it would remove the cost of the cd’s/dvd’s, all the printing of the album art/dvd covers and the cost of actually printing the dvd’s. That alone would reduce the overall cost massively, however that would put alot of the “top guys” out of a job, hence their reluctance to move forward. Reducing the cost of media will help the consumers, especially during this tough time with the recession, and also help the artists get there wares out there for the masses to enjoy. Don’t get pushed around by the money grabbers at the top, fight for the people who actually matter, the UK population, the people who pay your wages.
The UK is behind almost all of the developed world in regards to the Internet, let’s lead the way for a change and help improve the entertainment industry for everyone, consumers AND artists.
And let’s not forget why the Internet was originally create – it was built to share, let’s use it.
I understand, Mr Mandelson, that you want to deter casual files sharers with these bold threats, but how are you going to deal with those who download copyright content behind stealthed and encrypted connections that sell what they have downloaded at car boot sales and markets?
Are you going to disconnect a few thousand innocent internet users simply to catch a few hundred casual file sharers?
I suspect Mr Mandlenson, you are paying lip service to your corporate masters and the electorate is fully aware of your intention to criminalise them without due process.
Go after the real criminals, not the small fish. Or get off the stage.
Although, that would cost a substantial amount of money, whilst spending nowt to prosecute an “alleged” criminal or an innocent internet user would cost absolutely nothing. You just have to be a bully.
I think the term “cop out” fits this scenario perfectly.
If I go to a shop and buy a USB hard drive and then copy my friend’s iTunes library onto it, we both infringe copyright, Should I be therefore banned fro shopping? Should my friend be banned from allowing me to his house?
Copyrights holders are acting like the own the entire internet and that saying that an infringement in one area of it should result in exclusion from all of it.
If I infringe copyright, then the copyright holder has recourse to pursue me in court. That is their right. They should not have the right to cut me off from other aspects of my life.
Plus, if illegal downloads are such a big issue, then why has 2009 seen record levels of paid-for single downloads? 117 million. Three times what they were 5 years ago.
I think this issue reaches far beyond any politicion’s scope. This is about the future of the web as a viable platform for free speech and creativity.
I understand that there is pressure from recod companies, but of course there is, they are obselete! they are trying to cripple the future for their own needs. I bet horse breeders were annoyed when Henry Ford made the first affordable car.
Stop (at best) being bullied by Record labels or (at worst) being dictatorial. Destroying the record companies would be a great stride in the human endeavour.
It is a cultural shame that 90% of airtime is dedicated to artists like “Take That” when there are thousands of talented artists producing music for reasons orther than profit that no-one hears of beause Beyonce (and her Father!) are in the way.
Would we have Mozart today boyzone had been around when he was? Yes, because word would have spread about Mozart the genius.
So why can’t we go back to the way things were BEFORE records were invented – i.ei artists get paid for playing concerts, amd if people hear about them through any other medium they should be greatful that there is now demand for them the otherside of the world, rather than complaining that new fans didn’t pay to hear their music even though they’ll spend £20 on a concert ticket and take nothing but memories with them. Any artist should be greatfule for coverage in the hope that they will be able to perform more gigs, produce more music and spread any message they might have.
“If you do something wrong, you should be held accountable in some way” True, but what about those who get cut off because they MIGHT have been downloading illegally, without a trial, its just been decided by someone 100 miles away they were downloading illegally.? The fact is when the automated system they’re talking about comes into place, I imagine there’s going to be a huge amount of false positives. Don’t believe me? Then why hasn’t the RIAA/MPAA put any foolproof method into effect in America already? There have been far too many times where innocent people have been charged with downloading copyrighted files. Look at the Davenport Lyons absolute cockup of trying to shake down random people for money claiming, in the vast majority of cases incorrectly, they had downloaded games.
In response to Sick of the whingers, you seem to have completely overlooked the argument. Your definition of “wrong” is not an absolute fact, personally I feel that bigotry is “wrong” and I would be happy for a 3 strikes and policy to punish such behaviour.
Their are a lot of sensible and resonable arguments (which are easily available) as to why this policy is flawed, which you have completely ignored, I would give you the links but since they won’t fit in with your nice little “in a box” plain and simple world view I doubt that you would consider them.
The sheer stupidity and lack of technological understanding of both the current government and the music industry would make me smile, if it weren’t so worrying. I am intending to work in the creative industry and many of the software i use is classed as “open-source”, aka FREE. If I am penalised for using what is legally classed as free then this government has really bent over and allowed the music industry to give it one up the rear end.
There was an article recently regarding the effectiveness of the French attempt at this; it stated that only 2-3 out of 10 were being detected, and even then they had no idea what was actually being downloaded.
If David Cameron enters No.10 I hope he will have the sense to abolish this draconian law and serve the people, not the megacorporations that currently use Brown and Mandelson as rent boys for their own desires.
I am personally sick and tired of people condoning what is ostensibly stealing and am completely in favour of this 3 strikes rule. I am tired of arguments of ‘infringing on one’s rights’ and ‘invasion of privacy’. If you do something wrong, you should be held accountable in some way. Plain and simple. Music and film give us so much pleasure as people and yet there are some idiots out there who think we can simply take it for free and some companies (Internet service providers, blog sites, podcasters) that profit from this theft with no money going back to the creators. It’s bollocks really and I think 2 warnings is more than enough for persistent serial downloaders to change their behaviour before their accounts are switched off. This form of deterrent is not particular to the UK, but something that governments across Europe are looking at seriously to end this scourge. I personally pray that this 3 strikes rule eventually becomes legislated. The sooner the better.
Please think carefully and vote out these muppets in the next general election!
This is yet another invasion of our privacy by this government, the worst government of the 20th/21st century. This plan is ridiculous. In many houses the internet connection is shared through a router. Who can prove who has downloaded what? And any one with a bit of sense will use the same measures to protect themselves and their computers that have to be used in all totalitarian countries. Peter Meddlesome needs removing from government right away, as do most of his colleagues. Talk about rotten apples.
“I still can’t believe that these are the people who run the country, the people who are selected and responsible of all the UK citizens.”
This is being pushed by Mandelson. Who was NOT in any way elected by UK citizens, but instead was previously ousted from government for his criminal actions AGAINST the country… Nice to see you can’t teach an old dog new tricks…
@A.R – Spotify is the new soulseek. Users listen to adverts which in turn pays the artists for their work. They also have options to buy individual tracks
While i can see your point people will continue to download artists work illegally and this is why i feel services like spotify could work. It is sad that the music industry is suffering so badly but Mandelsons approach is flawed to and savy pc user. People who Hack wifi, use torrents, use rapidshare, use newsgroups etc will alway keep one step ahead of any plans the goverment come up with. Perhaps it is time to work at new ways to distribute content which keeps everybody happy.
Stopped buying cd’s years ago, most of my music I get for free and legal from http://www.jamendo.com. If the government want to restrict my choices, then time to get vpn, already use usenet for s small amount of music…
vpn’s are encrypted, how will the government know what I am using the vpn for ?
Another problem with this is what is illegal and what isn’t.
For example on youtube you can view bbc clips, downing street videos and ‘webcameron’ but from the same website you can also watch music videos without payment, clips from tv shows without the copyright holders permission and see leaked footage from upcoming games.
So by clicking on a link you can easily go from watching the prime ministers latest video to infringing on an artists copyright, which to an average user can seem fairly legitimate.