大象传媒

I thought the government already favoured the commercial interests. That a pub may be able to show widescreen football for example without the need for the entertainment section but requires it for small group of people playing acoustic folk music together bears no resemblance to the relative safety (unless someone knows of fights being a feature of folk music) or of noise levels - the problems (which surely other laws dealt with anyway) the law was supposed to address.

While file sharing may well be a problem, the prs stance, at least last time I read, regarding traditional music does not encourage my support for artists' rights. Their view has been that any material must be the work of their members and therefore any public performance must attract a prs fee.

Arguments have raged over this and traditional music on the Internet. Where it is agreed the music is traditional, it is then assumed the arrangements must be the work of one of their members and is therefore chargeable.

At is daftest, I've even read that even if (as a session works) everything is made up on the spot with no idea who will be there, what instruments, what tunes, etc. and can only be "arranged" by the musicians at the time, the guitar player may still have "indavertently borrowed" a chord from the work of one of thier members so it is still chargeable just in case the guitar player strikes up a D chord in a tune in D!

Until I learn the prs has become more reasonable on this matter (I think that mostly traditional informal get togethers of musicians playing primarily for their own pleasure should be exempt even if the location is a public house but I would accept that no evening is likely to be 100% traditional and say a 5%-10% fee might be a fair compromise if it must be chargeable) and is prepared to charge for material that simply does not belong to their members, I'm going to suggest the music industry needs to get its own house in order regarding "theft" first.

That aside, how are the monies distributed? I'm not sure of this but I've read it suggested that where blanket fees rather than for example prs returns are applied that sort of 50% would go to Sir Paul, 49% would go to Sir Cliff and say Dave Richardson who's "Caliope House" I did actually play would see little, if any of the remaining 1%. I'd love some clarification on this.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In common (I suspect) with a lot of other readers, I immediately Googled for Spotify, and was disappointed to find that it is an invitation-only service at present. I know that part of Spotify's business model will be to give invitations to technology journalists so that you can provide them with advertising through blog posts, but I do think that you could have made it clear in this post that the rest of us will have to wait for a service that you are clearly recommending.

copyright kills creativity

the people who pirate music now will continue to do so, where there is a will, there is a way.

the record companies need to EMBRACE this instead of turning people into criminals at every given opportunity.

70 years, 90 years, 100 years, 200 years - whatever, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE PIRATES, as always, this will just affect the poor law abiding people.

Typical.

If you are interested in listening to free music legitimately last.fm already offer this service, and you don't need an invitation. All you have to do is to put in the name of an artist who you would like to listen to and you get free radio of artists who are fit this genre (ie enter De La Soul and listen to funky hiphop). Oh, the music is not interrupted by adverts

`copyright kills creativity` Comment 4.

It could be argued that copyright promotes creativity.
After all why go to the trouble of learning and honing skills (e.g. making music, singing) or investing in creating something (music, video games, photographs, film, writing etc) if anyone and everyone can rip it off and you earn nothing?
Why bother trying to turn your passion for something into a career?

I have noticed there`s very different attitudes between those that produce work and those that simply consume it.

I believe file sharing is a fact of the digital revolution and the content creators can't really do much to stop it. The proposed policing will work by filtering a certain type of traffic, but I really can't see how that could be implemented. ISPs will be aware of the high data transfers but they wouldn't know what the file being transferred is, so the only way to filter traffic would go through banning any present or future p2p network. That would be like banning cars because they may be used to transport drugs.

Rather than introducing new laws to stop piracy, the music industry needs a new economic paradigm. Sharing music and paying for music are two different concepts. One may decide to listen to a particular song and get it illegally, but that doesn't mean he/she would have paid for it if it wasn't available for free.

@badger_fruit "copyright kills creativity".

It has the potential to kill and assist. We do need to balance the interests of those who have chosen for example to make music as their living with freedoms to learn from, develop and adapt, etc. There needs to be a balance and, personally, I think the 70 years is reasonable and should not be extended.

Creativity itself comes from professionals and amateurs and people who have chosen to make their careers out of say music may well have learned a lot from and been influenced by material and skills that have been free to them. Again, interests need to be balanced.

On this subject, an interesting area to look into might be copy left and Creative Commons.

Fair pricing and fair treatment (see DVD region encoding or the cost of the same CD in the UK/US) would see a lot of piracy dissappear.

If you could get a CD in a shop for 拢15, or go to a market/dodgy guy/local organised crime outlet to get it for 拢5 (and plead ignorance), which would you do?

If media were more affordable, then this would also boost the sales of CDs as you'd be more likely to purchase music more often if CDs were 3 for 拢15 not 拢15 each.

I don't think that you will ever eradicate piracy, especially via file sharing as even if you shut down all the P2P networks today, tomorrow new ones would spring up in their place. Technology continually moves on and there are a lot of motivated people out there looking at the next way to beat copyright/distribute pirated material.

Many people use the illegal (download) route to evaluate music before purchase (due to the high cost) where an artist may not be know to the listener or an album may have received luke warm or mixed reviews.

IMHO, rather than burn money on lawyers/investigators, music/film companies should be looking at pricing the pirates out of the market, it might cost them less in the long run. Don't forget that each time a spotty teen or a hard up family are prosecuted by a big bad multinational the public mood swings further against them, and without the sympathy of the public they are never going to win the piracy war.

I have long suspected that the entertainment industry have lost the plot when it comes to sensible enforcement of copyright in the digital age, but I have recently had it confirmed that they have completely and utterly lost the plot.

I have just built a home theatre PC, which runs a Linux OS. I considered equipping it with a Blu-Ray drive so that I could watch movies in HD. However, it wasn't clear to me whether this was possible.

I emailed Sony to ask them about this. The reply I got told me that it was a breach of copyright and therefore illegal to watch Blu-Ray disks on a Linux PC.

So in other words, here am I as a potential customer, interested in buying a vast collection of Blu-Ray disks. But they have told me they don't want me to.

Call me old fashioned, but I can't help thinking that telling your potential customers you don't want them to buy your product is not good business strategy.

Andy Burnham stated there is a moral case to extend the sound copyright protection to 70 years because 鈥渕ost people make their best work in their 20s and 30s鈥�. Although he does not provide evidence to support this point of view, nor does he explain what they were doing between their 30s and retirement and why they have not saved for their retirement like everyone else is expect to do.



Andrew Gowers has written in the FT that 鈥淐opyright is an economic instrument, not a moral one鈥� and Burnham鈥檚 鈥渕oral case鈥� that copyright should be extended because performers who recorded their best work in their 20s and 30s is 鈥減retty silly鈥�. Therefore using the same logic, sportspeople have 鈥渁 moral case to a pension at 30鈥�, because their best work were in their 20s and 30s.



Andy Burnham responded in an article for the FT about why the 鈥渕oral case鈥� for the extension is important, although he did not dispute any of Gowers鈥� other points against the copyright extension.



Burnham stated 鈥淪hould an artist who is a vegan, for example, have to put up with seeing their music used to promote fast food burgers? Or the music of an environmental campaigner being used to promote cars or airlines? I do not think so.鈥� At first glance, this is a powerful argument. If you start checking the facts, it becomes clear that this situation could not happen in the UK to a living individual for three reasons.

1) The defamation laws (libel) can be used against the advertiser and the ad agency, because the advert implies through the use of the music, that the performer backs what the advert is selling.

2) No company/ organisation would allow music to be used in their adverts, if there is the remotest possibility of bad publicity e.g. the performer campaigning outside their offices, AGMs and in the media.

3) The UK advertising codes already stops this. In the TV Advertising Standards Code, section 6.5 Protection of privacy and exploitation of the individual, states that 鈥溾�iving people must not be portrayed, caricatured or referred to in advertisements without their permission.鈥�
The recording refers to the performer, therefore can not be used in adverts even when it is in the public domain.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Andy Burnham should have known about the advertising code, as his department is responsible for the advertising industry.

His department is also responsible for sport, but he stated in response to Gowers鈥� sportspeople pension comment that "No one is going to profit from someone winning the 100 metres decades on from that victory". This comment is inaccurate. Footage of historical sporting events are very popular, especially football. Sporting footage have been used in television programmes, films and DVDs decades after the event. Payments are only made to the copyright holders (e,g, FIFA and the IOC), who do have strict control of the footage. The sportspeople do not receive a penny due to the copyright law, although all performers receive payment every time when a music recording is played in public.

So there is a very clearly no moral case to extend copyright length for sound recordings.

@DisgustedOfMitcham2

I'm not sure I'd ask Sony. Do you remember the BMG one?

The government should be teaching kids at schools what copyright means, people are growing up with the idea that if it is on the internet it must be free, that needs to change. Comment #6 is spot on though, it seems that the only people who respect copyright are those that produce copyrighted work, consumers just want everything for free.

It isn't only music and films that are copyrighted, it is also art, poems stories etc. The difference is the film/music companies have the money behind them to prosecute file sharers and protect their copyright.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#12:

Oh yes. I certainly remember that. That's one of the reasons why I had long suspected that the entertainment industry have lost the plot. But Sony are one of the main players behind Blu-Ray, so it seemed like they were the best people to ask.

Anyway, my new PC doesn't have a Blu-Ray drive. I thought it best to stay away from all that nonsense.

Firstly let me get this out of the way, Does anyone think that Andy Burnham has very strange eyes and eyebrows?

I don't think anyone would demand free music from a musician, art from an artist or a novel from a writer. Every one understands that hard work deserves to be rewarded and if I thought for a moment that every penny of that 拢15 cd was going straight to the writers, producers, audio techs and performers of the music I was going to listen to then I wouldn't think twice of joining the 'down with pirates' brigade, but it doesn't.

There are so many people who take thier cut that it just gets silly. And although there are a few of these who ARE neccesary for promoting artists ect much of the money goes to those who aren't really thinking about the artists and are instead involved in getting the shareholders thier returns.

And that is why P2P networks will continue to exist. People don't want to support these music factories any more. The output lately hasn't been great and they now have a choice in how they can consume thier music and apart from a select few online services these new streams cut out those angry little men in thier ivory towers and they aren't happy about it.

When we see more examples of successful artists supporting other newer talent outside of the grips of the Big boys then I think we will see more support in terms of cold hard cash, but until then I can't see anyone paying a record company and shop(Because that's where the money goes according to the beeb herself /radio1/onemusic/general/moneygoep01.shtml ) over getting something for nothing. They only have themselves to blame by not being quick enough to embrace this technology and every time they demonise the pirate yoof I can imagine the poor guy at Sony PR having a mild panic attack, he certainly earns his cut...

The music industry loves to point the finger at the public and the music pirates for their woes when it comes to record sales and the like, but there are a great many ways in which they cause their own problems.

Music isn't valued the same way as it used to be. It has progressively become more disposable in its nature.

Any new trends that arise, the labels pick up and destroy by overcommertialising

We are force fed a showcase of human musical instruments and a few sob stories for 6 months just to achieve christmas #1,

There is shockingly little risk taking and diversity on radiostations in the mainstream anymore (aside from 6music maybe)

The push of new music devalues everything that any new bands built up in previous years by branding it all as uncool.

There is bound to be more. There is an arguement that only a small handful of acts keep up the profile of many acts that barely or dont break even but if you are so willing to outmarket everything else on just a few of them it is bound to happen.

We are in such a dire state of affairs that even music fans presume a lack of value in the industry. Having been in bands before, even selling CDs available in shops, the public sees more value in spending their 拢10 on 2 or 3 more beers that will last an evening, than a CD that will potentially last a lifetime. Music has basically been pushed by the labels to being as disposable as toilet paper and the people have little to no faith in it anymore.

Even the rise in festival attendances is misleading as it has taken on more of a social rite of passage/excuse for a party. If there really was such a sudden rise in the love of live music then why have gig attendances been going down so dramatically?

Ultimately this business model has been doomed to fail for a long time, I remember even back in 2002 my lecturers telling me "the music industry is going to collapse in the next few years" and although they have held on longer than expected, it is all far from unsurprising.

If anything, services like myspace (for unsigned artists), the reduced cost of recording equipment and the rise of digital distribution (legally or illegally) is the only thing that gives people with a passion for music the freedom they need. We are a people looking for a vehicle of unlimited access to anything and everything and we want something we are willing to invest in. Not a collection of watered down cover versions and songs with less sophistication then nursery rhymes. Maybe that will end up being a less profitable way of doing things and maybe the money will fall out of the music industry, but dare i say it, maybe that is the way it should be.

Still, I am glad that Leonard Cohen should be seeing a very rightly deserved percentage of all these cover versions this Christmas. Of course old music isnt cool, of course we need to spend 6 months and millions to make it happen. Repeat it like a mantra.

when i say "copyright kills creativity" i apologise, perhaps it wasn't so clear what i meant ...

for example, the linux community, it is pretty much free from copyright and look at the creativeness that pours from them - they do it for the love of doing it, not to make loadsa-money.

copyrighting would mean that they would produce the same ideas but get paid for it (if people buy it); problem is people who wish to expand the existing idea and turn it into something else, something better. However, they can't - for "Legal Reasons" = stifled creativity.

I have always believed music should be free and the artists should make their money from tours & gigs - if you make the CD free then more people will hear it and more people would like it and if it was really good, would pay money to see them perform it live.

This would serve another purpose and that is we would then see really good music coming back (instead of the dross that is literally pumped out week after week, all in the name of money).

This is to comment number 6, do you really see the "skill" and "talent" of which you write in todays charts? How many of these people play their own instruments or even come to think of it, in some cases, sing their own songs?

The music industry continues to try to turn the clock backwards. The reason they're having these problems is simple, it's not just because it's cheaper: it's A LOT EASIER to get music illegally than legally. (ohh and setting stuff up doesn't make things difficult, not everyone installs all programs on their computer themselves...)

While they're making some moves to sort the problem (including music on mobile phone contracts etc), these are only going to be available to a niche market - most people just use their mobiles for ringing and texting, very few actually bother with 3G services, even the "free" ones. The whole thing needs more marketing than it's worth in order to make an impact.

ISPs won't be able to make an impact either; it's already in their best interests to remove massive downloaders as they consume bandwidth which costs ISPs enough already. Besides the copyright violators will simply stay 1 step ahead; IP addresses are no longer as useful as evidence now as they're so commonly forged, and a lot of P2P stuff has encryption available already. Besides, if ISPs go around cutting off any old Joe Blogg's internet connection they'll be dealing with some seriously bad PR and probably legal proceedings too if they cut off access to the likes of ebay.

The best, and most obvious solution to this is, as Rory points out in this article, to set up free music websites funded by advertising, basically an MTV/music channel for the web, and allow people to sign up and pay a sub for unlimited downloads. This business model has been used for YEARS by free software download websites (open source and patch mirrors, etc), so why the music industry is only just starting to try it is anyone's guess.

Oh, and from now on, absolutely NO crippled DRM (how to make your own product practically useless in 1 simple step...), honestly, which genius thought this "copy protection" rubbish up? Stuff that'll only cause endless problems for ACTUAL customers, while the pirates just laugh as their copy contains no such thing?

I believe filesharing is no different to someone lending you a CD or tape (remember those).

No-one created hell when people were doing that, but because it's become worldwide and someone from across the other side of the world can share what he has purchased with millions, all of the entertainment industry starts whining.

I'd like to see figures from a totally independent body that supports the theory that online file sharing actually harms the entertainment industry, so far the only reports I've seen have been from people who could very well have been given a backhander by the very industry their looking at.

The music industry makes enough out of chart music and the sheep that buy into their "products", the same goes for the movie and video game industry.

I don't advocate piracy but the entertainment industry is just being greedy, as usual, and trying to criminalise everyone, just so they don't lose a single cent.

I will admit to having downloaded an album or two, but I have at a later date gone out and purchased said albums, either via iTunes or in a shop on CD, many people who use filesharing networks to obtain such material do so to see what they would be buying, and if they don't like it they get rid of the files or they go out and buy the original version. So filesharing can be a good thing.

Do you really see the `skill` and `talent` of which you write in today`s charts?

Whether you like or admire it or not is besides the point. If someone writes a song for a band, why shouldn`t they profit from it, whether they perform it or not?
If the band [or member of] writes a song, and some still do I understand, why shouldn`t they profit from it, whether they perform it or not? Think of Gary Jules hit version of Mad World, written by Roland Orzabal of Tears for Fears or Leonard Cohen`s Hallelujah, now in the charts but covered by different artists.

If session musicians, backing singers and sound mixers etc help produce or perform a record why shouldn`t they get paid for it?
There are so called `bedroom producers` such as Kate Walsh or Daniel Bedingfield who bought all the equipment needed to produce their first albums, why should they just give the results of their investment and work away?
Touring for most bands just breaks even, the aim is to promote sales of album CDs.

Looking further afield I can see why video game manufacturers want to protect their interests. Ditto photographers on Flickr, film makers, authors and the like.
There are those in the free software movement, producing Wikipedia etc that work for nothing; but that`s not for everyone and I imagine they have `real` jobs as well to fund voluntary activities. Wikipedia pay their staff.
I have published under Creative Commons / GNU Free Documentation License licences, but I`ve also sold some work and made money from royalties, we all have bills to pay - and aspirations.
Most professional website developers, network engineers etc expect to get paid (it take a lot of time and effort to develop skills).

There are those that will do things for altruistic reasons, but most people also expect to earn a living through their skills and expertise and for most its a mixture of both.
The Web has opened up new ways of marketing, distribution etc, but also new ways of ripping off other people. I think it unrealistic to think that everything can or should be free, but it should be up to the producer of the material to decide how their work is distributed and under what conditions.

It is interesting that in the `real world` no one argues that inventors shouldn`t take out patents, or that people work for no pay or that everything should (or could) be free, however nice that utopian thought is.

@ 21;
It's not about who deserves to be paid and who doesn't. The music industry has lost a "format war", trying to stick with CD sales despite them going obsolete, with people preferring to have music which can be stored on mobile phones and computers than plastic disks which are easily scratched. Instead of embracing the new format, they tried to have it outlawed; they still won't accept MP3s as a new format even now. They don't even like Itunes now, because they're worried about Apple having a complete monopoly over the entire industry.

Like the US car industry (inefficient cars), they've been trying to sell stuff too few people want (CDs). Then they're complaining to governments that they're not making as much money, and can they please fix it.

TV and movies are different; they lose out because of old "regional" ideas, ie. releasing TV shows and movies in the US first, sometimes MONTHS before releasing it anywhere else. If someone in the UK wants to see the latest episode of their favorite US TV show, they'll often have no other option than to download it from illegal sites, as the powers-that-be don't want them to see it yet. Likewise, shows such as Top Gear are often downloaded in the US; it's popular (largely because it's unbiased by commercial interests, and also because of excellent presenters) but it's only "officially" available via the 大象传媒, in the UK (although the 大象传媒 has the IPlayer, I think this is *supposed* to be region specific too due to rights issues?).

These problems need to be solved before trying to punish file-sharers, or they'll get no-where.

Solution: world-wide release via. websites. Anything less won't solve the problem. But the rights holders won't allow it.

How does one receive an invitation to join Spotify?

When will it be opened up to the masses?

ravenmorpheus said:

"I will admit to having downloaded an album or two, but I have at a later date gone out and purchased said albums, either via iTunes or in a shop on CD"

It is a fact, rarely admitted to by the music publishing industry, that those people who are prolific file-sharers are also major buyers of legitimate copies of the music they share.

It seems that having a large legitimate collection to share is an important factor in being an active part of the file-sharing community.

#20 You obviously are too young to remember "Home Taping Is Killing Music"!

Me and my three brothers had roughly similar tastes in music so we frequently taped each others records. As has been mentioned in other posts this system depended on someone buying the LP in the first place.

Just a comment on comment 22

MP3 is a universal (ISO) format. It took time for iTunes to develop a business model to distribute music in a way that appears to meet the wants of both consumers and producers.
I think TV and movies are starting to catch up with the idea of simultaneous (or within a week or so) worldwide release. Heroes on UK TV is shown almost simultaneous with it being shown in the USA, enough to satisfy fans like me that want to watch it and not just read about it months before hand.
I`m unconvinced that the solution is `world-wide release via websites` (pay per view maybe or real convergence, not just of technology but also world regions 鈥� but watch out for huge monopolies of content providers and distributors.) but it is about developing new business models that the majority on both sides of the fence can live with.

Spotify is only a semi new business model. Adverts between tracks, as with commercial radio, or subscribe to have it advert free (or make online playlists etc.). The personalisation is Web 2.0; I guess they`ll also provide links to where you can buy tracks you like.
Whichever way you consume, Spotify will have to pay royalties to the record companies for tracks played. Be interesting to see how successful it is in a crowded market place?

@Johnennaitch - Well ok, maybe I wasn't aware of that "campaign". Lets put it this way during the 80s I was between 3 and 13 so I wasn't exactly all that aware of political campaigns.

I see that did the trick though, killed off piracy didn't it.

Oh no it didn't and the music industry has gone bust.

No wait, I'm wrong again because the music industry did not go bust.

This "we must stop internet piracy" campaign, has very little basis on real figures that actually affect anyone lower down the food chain in the music/entertainment industry.

And if piracy was capable of killing off the music industry it would have already done so.

Yes people have to make money to live, but at the end of the day we all know that the push to stop piracy online will only benefit the execs, because the session artists, the sound engineers etc. won't seen an extra penny at all.

And maybe if the music industry in particular made their "products" more available and less expensive there would be less piracy (a point many others have already mentioned but I'm going to cite a few examples).

For example I recently wanted to purchase the Forty Licks album by the Rolling Stones. I couldn't because it wasn't on iTunes and it apparently is no longer available on the high street due to being out of print. And I couldn't find it second hand on ebay or similar sites so I had only one other option, I think we all know what that is, I didn't take that option though as I wasn't all that bothered about it.

Here in the UK an album if you listen to bands such as Iron Maiden cost 拢15GBP (while the rubbish that is Britney Spears and other "mainstream music"is often under 10GBP, over in the US though an album is cheaper, why?

And when your not exactly flush with disposable income (as many people here in the UK are not) and paying 拢15 for an album you don't want to waste that 拢15 so you download an illegal copy first to see if it's any good.

Half the reason there is piracy is because albums are overpriced in certain territories.

If there was a global price for albums that was the same worldwide I am fairly sure it would cut piracy in half.

Again I don't advocate piracy of music or any other entertainment but I do see the reasons behind it and unlike the music industry I don't go accusing people of being criminals just because they are using the internet as a means of "testing the water" when it comes to making a purchase.

Entertainment shouldn't only be for the priveliged minority who can afford it, but it is becoming that way and the music industry trying to clamp down on file sharing and piracy only makes it worse imo.

I used to download a lot of TV and movies from the likes of Piratebay etc., but now I find I am steaming a load of content from sites like OVGuide, but I must admit not knowing if this is classed as illegal or not, I just find it much easier and quicker than P2P downloads, although the quality can be very poor for movies, the quality of TV programs like Heroes and Family Guy are much better

I'd like to know what the difference is between :-

1. downloading the latest episode of say Prison Break or Heroes or whatever through Piratebay/A.N.Other torrent site is

and

2. recording the same episode on Sky+ or old-school VCR?

I ask because someone on freecycle once was after a missed episode which I happened to have as an AVI file, I offered it to them but they reported me to the moderators as "offering pirate material"

I just don't buy music any more. I borrow CD's from friends and just mas a collection on my MP3 player. CD's are too expensive and pointless as within seconds of getting home I burn them to the PC and the CD is never used again as everything in my house is linked through the PC.

The last time I wanted to get a single songI tried the I-pod shop thing. By the time I'd signed up, hunted down the song and decided to buy it... I didn't realise it wouldn't play on my samsung unless I selected a certain more expensive download that would convert it to MP3 format... Considering it was my first time ever buying music online it was riduculous. I don't claim be me amazingly tech savvy, But I shop entirely online and do nearly everything via my PC and at the end of that I was frustrated and tired.

Not that I use things like Limewire which people have suggested to me, its apparently incredibly easy. I just gave up in the end, I just listened to it on Last fm.

And Steaming TV shows were always baffling to me.. as they can't be that illegal as you can find them on google Vids and Youtube ?? People download a lot of TV shows as the quality can be great, you watch it when you want and you don't have to wait for English TV's to catch up with american TV Schedules...

badger fruit - the offence lies in the distribution of copyrighted material in that case.

@31 thanks, I did wonder!

so downloading for PERSONAL use would be OK? Surely that would be the same as recording onto Sky+ for watching later?

Same old, same old.
Those who pirate will continue to pirate, and those who don't will get punished by the people they are spending legitimate cash on, for a legitimate purchase, in order to have their right to use a product they purchase as they wish, curtailed.

And once again big business and the Government kiss up to each other, without thinking of the consumer in the middle. Great surprise.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@Mighty Morfa Power Ranger - hmm interesting attack plan.

Problem is that not all traffic via torrents is illegal. A lot of P2P networks are used for legitemate file sharing.

Your solution is like nuking the entirety of Afghanistan and the surrounding area in order to kill Bin Laden.

peej2k6 has it spot on when he says the consumer is not considered. All that is considered is the $ involved and the fact that the entertainment industry might not make as much extra profit (not that they'll lose money or lose the base of profits they already make) as they would without piracy.

Granted there are a hardcore of "pirates" who only pirate because they don't wish to pay for what they download but the majority of suspected "pirates" are just people using the internet as a means of test driving a product, be it a film, tv show, video game or music before they shell out their hard earned cash for it in the shops, the same as you can do when purchasing an automobile.

Video games on PC are a prime examplen of this - you used to be able to download a demo version to see if the game would run on your PC (the recommended specs listed for games are notoriously unreliable), these days companies are issuing demos less and less. So where does that leave people who are unsure whether they can run a game or not? Wasting money on a PC game they may not be able to play, or buying an overpriced console version of the game, if there is one, or downloading the full game illegally before purchasing it? I know which option I would choose.

When the entertainment industry stop criminalising everybody and start paying proper attention to how people want to access entertainment media and the reasons most people pirate stuff then maybe the majority of piracy will stop.

The hardcore of pirates who don't wish to pay for stuff will always be there but they are in the minority and won't impact greatly on the money the entertainment industry makes, which at the end of the day is all it boils down to - $.

#34 your ignorance astounds me; p2p is not used ONLY for illegal content; what about linux distros, they're > 4gb and to ease server loads they are often put on p2p?

as for a virus to physically destroy someone's computer?! HAHAHAAHAHAHA you are quite insane. Not only are you promoting destruction of property but you also believe that this would stop piracy?

What you're saying is equivalent to "i will break the rungs of a ladder, it will stop cat-burglars overnight as they all fall to their deaths" ... it won't stop anything, you'll also injure a MASSIVE number of legitimate users.

The second massive flaw in your post is saying uTorrent is a p2p "network" - WRONG, it's a CLIENT NOT A NETWORK.

The third MASSIVE FLAW in your master plan is that people would have to download your virus and seed it to spread it, how can they do that if you've burnt their CPU out?

Fourth massive flaw - there are already viruses (viri?) on p2p networks, hard-core pirates will make sure they have

a) an OS not prone to the majority of Viruses (eg Linux or Mac)

b) fully up to date spyware, AV and so on

FIFTH massive flaw; what if little jonny downloads your super-virus but leaves the torrent overnight, your virus burns the cpu out and starts a fire in the pc; this fire gets out of control (nobody is there to look at the pc all the time), the house burns down killing little jonny, his mum, dad and baby sister. Nice work. The virus would be traced to you and you would spend a LONG time rotting in jail.

My my sir, if you consider yourself an expert in IT, remind me never to ask you for PC advice.

I also wonder if you have even considered WHY people pirate things? I seriously doubt it.

Like #33 said, this will do NOTHING to impact on pirates, just more stupid restrictions on what legitimate consumers can do with their music.

As for the artists getting paid, I'd rather my work be given free to reach a wider audience then it would normally and charge for people to come see me perform live.

This has the effect of not only getting rid of no talent "bands" that the reality TV shows pump out but also immediately killing piracy; afterall, there is nothing lost if 10 or 100 people make a copy of the track, the more the merrier. But that would mean that the people in suits in their ivory towers would have to give them up and find a real job. Can't have that can we?

Time for an add-on to the TV licence for Internet material too?

@jayfurneaux "MP3 is a universal (ISO) format"

mp3 is a mess of patent and copyright confusion. It is a format some Linux distributions do not support (at least in their standard distributions) because of legal worries. Perhaps an example of copyright ownership and consumer ignorance (making it popular) gone mad?



(Ogg Vorbis) is an open "equivilant".

@bager-fruit (I think I'll direct it his way)...

I seem to notice comparisons drawn between open source software and sharing commercial media files. I'm sure I'm being more than a little unfair here (so please no-one take it personally) but it strikes me that one key difference is this:

The "heart" of the open source community are people with the skills and desire to give at least some of their abilities for free. This perhaps even passes down to I don't know, say someone being willing just to help someone out as maybe lets say they read mp3 wasn't working for someone in OpenSuse had they had already solved it. Others (like me most of the time) maybe doing no more than saying "this is all a great idea!" but I think it still can contribute.

The "heart" of some (certainly not whether peer sharing should be monitored in case the usage is illegal - my opinion, but I don't support spying, blocking in case, etc.) of this seems more like saying "hey MS has a great product, lets treat it as if it is open source" than looking for or contributing towards open source projects.

OK, musically, I'm one of an odd bunch, those that still have fond memories of the 大象传媒 Schools Radio programme Singing Together, one who at 48 could still stand beside the piano at home and run through a few songs from say the old News Chronicle songbook with my mother playing, piano one without real skill on his (mandolin/tenor banjo) instruments but can contribute in certain settings. But one who hasn't forgotten how to entertain himself musically and one who loves the joys of contributing with others.

As such (and this is not to say I did not have my fair share of T Rex, Slade to whatever to a sort of Pink Floyd phase to where did I go next? or didn't enjoy it or still don't enjoy it) sometimes, I do wonder "Why be bound to (I assume just) the commercial offerings to such a degree?"

Hmm... I find the CDs are too expensive argument daft, especially since they've pretty much halved in price in the past decade (more if you take inflation into account)

Don't you think its pitiful that all the big Music Biz's attempts at "Stamping out Piracy" only amounts to revealing the majority of users behind P2P are only children trying to fill their own Ipod christmas presents etc.

When Ipods are sold with tens of Gig capacity you would have to spend 30,000 UKP on legitimately filling up an Ipod...

Hmm I cant see children being given this much pocket money so its little wonder why P2P is so popular.

REAL Pirates do this for 'profit' not personal use and generally ruin sales by trading cheap inferior discs at computer fairs, car boot sales etc.

Children are not selling the music at car boot sales etc so why pursue this avenue so vigourously with legal action? It is amounting to nothing but embarassment for the Music and Movie Biz.

I have said time and time again on forums, the movie/music biz would be better adding 拢3-拢5 a month on everyones internet connection fee so that multimedia content can start to be 'paid for'

Why is this such a no-no for everyone? It would open up to a bigger, better and maybe faster internet for all due to the funding?

I think that in general there shouldn't be so much money in music. Why do people need to make millions of pounds? They don't.

As an architect, I won't get paid every time someone uses my buildings. So why should both artists and music companies get paid every time a song is played?

What this comes down to is greed and as always, the greedy party has an MP in their pocket.

Why not let people pay musicians for live music, and let recorded music be distributed for free? That way, the musicians get paid for their performances, and everyone can then enjoy their recordings afterwards.

My wife once bought me a Dark Side of the Moon CD, and HMV said it was 拢17!!! That is just disgusting -- I already have the LP. It is because of that sort of greedy attitude that the music industry is now suffering as badly as it is.

Note that the music industry will not go away, but it will be significantly restructured. It may take another 10-20 years, as the older generation who would pay for music fall away, but the die is cast -- the cat is out of the bag and the younger generation will not pay for music -- ever!

@paulloydjonhnson.

That's an interesting question. I tend to think the dividing line should be where "real" (I mean even that's not simple to me, eg. if we are playing mostly [it is nice to think that a few in a pub might enjoy the music but really, that is a secondary interest] to entertain ourselves and, as can happen in some places and not in others, a landlord decides to get a round of drinks in for the musicians, have we suddenly become commercial?) money is involved but you throw another spanner in the works!

Every time customers buy drinks in the pub you designed, why shouldn't you get your cut? It's an odd one. I feel there is a difference but I can't actually explain why. I suppose I could suggest that if I was for example a pub player with my backing tracks singing covers or perhaps a DJ say (I honestly haven't a clue as to a reasonable suggestion of fee) 拢100 a night, I might feel that it would be morally right that those who have enabled me via their material get a little of my rewards. But it's sort of fuzzy. All I can suggest there perhaps is "fair play" and also could be greed from either side.

(as a side comment on greed, how's about music shops being charged a performance fee because say a customer might just try out a few bars of "Smoke On The Water" when evaluating a guitar for purchase? I read a report concerning that and one shop a year or so back but I'm pretty sure the person(s) or organisation did back down when the shop said "no way".)

As for money in music, I'd guess it's relatively few who get "mega rich". Certainly in my main area of interest, folk, I imagine those doing it professionally are in it largely for love (and sort of if I can earn a reasonable living doing what I love, all well and good - I might earn more as a [insert trade or profession] but this is where my heart is - a career choice of course but not one of aiming for "stardom") rather than big money.

Moving on a little and reading #41 As per my first post, I wonder how #41's proposal would work out.

I (perhaps wrongly) would imagine the big recording studios would get their cut. My wild guess is the money due to artists would be calculated along the lines of which works are most popular.

Looking at my PC, I see there are currently 2 downloaded media files (and I don't have an Ipod) both from Youtube. One is Sharon Shannon, Jim Murray, Gerry O'Connor, Aly Bain, etc. playing the Swedish Jig and another tune whose title I don't know) and the other, the late Sean Maguire (in full speed mode!)

Would my 拢3-拢5 per month actually benefit the people (in one case, deceased) who's 2 tracks of music I do have here for now or would it be contributing to those who I'd either rarely or never listen to, unlikely ever to download to keep even for a short while and may well be rich.

I could also ask how much would be reaching the "impoverished session musicians". If (I've no idea) say star makes 拢1 million on a track and the guy who made the guitar sound good makes 拢500, wouldn't a root problem be exploitation within the industry.? Would there be any reason to believe my 拢3-拢5 contribution per month would not (if it all went to the one track) be divided 2000:1 or that the inequality (assuming it exists) would be evened in any way?

For the person with the idea of infecting p2p networks you are several years too late. Certain media distributers have been doing this for along time on the eMule/Limewire p2p sharing networks by hiring specialists to host and share popular media which are infact corrupted files in order to frustrate pirates. This was the main reason that bittorrents became so hugely popular within the past 5 years.

As for the best online music streaming website. It is a very simple answer: last.fm
You can set it to track what music you listen to for many music players including iTunes, Windows media player, etc, so you can then listen to this music again anywhere simply by accessing last.fm's website. If you have an iPhone you can even download the free app and stream your music collection via your iPhone. Plus there are no audio adverts, it's 100% legal, and has some great social networking features. It also has some very useful and accurate methods of recommending new music you might like based on your music collection, which I've used to find music I now love but had never previously heard of.

This is the type of business model that is viable for both producers and consumers, instead of the other restrictive or 1 sided methods services.

Spotify is invite only, and not available in all countries. Which highlights a problem with the current music distribution method - if you're not living in the right country then you can't buy the music for any reasonable price.

@36

I know all that stuff you talk about, just because I didn't post a 50,000 word blog post to explain it all doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. This is a blog, not an essay.

Now, just to open your eyes... what I said is 100% correct while not having an impact on legitmate p2p users who if they are doing legitimate work then I can assure you... they would not be using uTorrent to share their research.

The virus CAN be tailored to work only on the pirate infested p2p's like uTorrent and BitTorrent, leaving Berkeley Universities own torrent system unaffected.

Destroying their pirates computer is not even morally in question in my opinion. If they pirate, they can esxpect to be stopped by any means necessary. I would like to see the kid explain to mammy and daddy why their PC won't turn on anymore, and if liek you wrote it caught fire... then I would recmommend to that person they never tried making their own motherboards from scratch out of cardboard or whatever!!!!

I work on these machines everyday.... I don't need advice from some little boy who doesn't want his free illegally acquired music taken away from him (that's you by the way).

I see a lot of people attempting to justify music piracy in this discussion, yet none of it is very convincing to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, I have no great love for the fat greedy record companies who are peddling an out-dated model.

But the truth is that all of us who download music illegally know exactly what we are doing.

Personally I would do it a lot less if the record companies offered better value for money and greater flexibility (without regard to DRM rights etc).

The record companies can never win the war against piracy in the way they are fighting it. They've been trying to scare people away from copying music for the past 30 years.

They have forever told us, since the days of the cassette tape, that piracy is killing the industry.

Well it didn't kill it then and it won't kill it now. The challenge for the record companies is to make us want to buy their product.

Mighty Morfa Power Ranger - You're really not fooling anybody.......

Why should session musicians get anything other than their session fees in the first place?

As a computer programmer and web designer I contribute as much to the success of our products as any session musician ever would to a single recording, yet I get nothing other than my wage for it.

If these people are aging and impoverished it is because they were not good enough at their job to find work.

Fair enough if they write the track but otherwise tell them to sling their hook.

Now, just to open your eyes... what I said is 100% correct while not having an impact on legitmate p2p users who if they are doing legitimate work then I can assure you... they would not be using uTorrent to share their research.

----------

Sorry but many linux distributions, games updates, patches and public domain material IS shared over all P2P networks.

A lot of us dont have access to Berkley so we use whatever torrent trackers are out there.

Besides for me it is not the P2P networks that are a problem, they are often used by the sort of people who will either buy the record later (if they like it) or wouldnt have in the first place.

For me the real war with piracy is still with the lazy sod down the car boot sale who is selling fake DVDs/CDs to mums who don't know any better for 100% profit, probably not paying tax and making the rest of us pay for his lifestyle.

MIXTAPE, Inc - The definitive film on the Mixtape business, culture and music.

There's nothing that sell music like music

(Buy the DVD)

Notice of the Court.
The following activity is prohibited:
Open and Notorious Sale of Trademark Counterfeit Merchandise

- NOTICE -
Mutilation or Removal of this notice of the Court Order upon which it is based is punishable.

When are the government going to get it through their heads? Introducing or amending laws is not going to work for a vast array of things for one smiple reason - Criminals break the law. It's a kind of prerequisite really. All the government is doing here, and all they have done for 11 years of creating laws on so many insignificant things, is create more criminals.

The most infuriating thing is that this government (and, in truth, every government in today's world) is much more interested in pursuing money than in preserving livelihoods.

I suggest that if musicians and actors want to earn money from their undoubted talent then they should perform in front of live audiences more often and charge them, rather than making cash from off the back of endless "best of" cds that cost 拢2.50 per unit to make (when all costs have been included) and 拢10 to buy, or relying on repeated shows on TV for a monetary contract worth more money than the average person makes in a year (yes Auntie, I'm looking at you!!)

Something else to take into consideration - market forces dictate what people buy. If there wasn't a demand for cheaper music/video then pirates wouldn't exist. Before looking at the pirates for your consternation, try looking at how to cut costs, therefore make music and video cheaper - much of it would include dropping the extortionate wage demands of "stars"!

#50

"If these people are aging and impoverished it is because they were not good enough at their job to find work."

I stand to be corrected on this, but it is my belief that these "no good" session musicians and back up singers are often doing what the stars themselves can not do. Ask to do the job of sing/play a line and I guess the (studio - there is a different meaning of session in my '1 post) session players are often more able than at least many stars. But I'd guess "comptetent musicians" and singers are easier to find than "marketable people"???

As for the rest of this thread, the most striking things to me is simply this:

If even if I played all my own material or arranged it from works that is in the public domain, the prs would probably ask the venue for a licence for the live playing of material that does not belong to their members. ..

Apparently (by lack of response), nobody here would see anything wrong in that charge to the venue or persons.

If I decided I would take for free some work that someone had written, performed and recorded , put a commercial value on it and asked for a fee (eg. for a music download).

Many here would justify what might otherwise (although I do have some sympathies) be seen as a form of theft.

Worse than that, they will even say we should play live..

Perverse world, isn't it?

@49 Petra L'ead

It was never my intention to fool anyone. It was intention to say that there is a simple solution that nobody is wlling to take, including myself because as already explained I am not intersted in destroying anybody else's property.

Music/Video Piracy through P2P can be stopped within months by disabling the culprit computers perminently.

@ 56

I know how to stop all speeding, stop all parking fines, car accidents...OVERNIGHT!

All we need to do is destroy every car, van, truck, bus and motorbike in the world...

your right about your solution though, its a bit simple..

If anyone's interested - there is a link knocking around that enables you to register without an invitation. It's . I have seen this link posted on a few blogs recently.

You're legally allowed to make a backup of something you already own right? CDs, DVDs, Games etc in case you're legally bought legal copy packs in...

Something like Sky+ allows you to keep any show or film you tape on your machine for an unlimited amount of time to be viewed as many times as you chose right?

So if I'm paying Sky for the right to be able to watch pretty much every TV show or film currently in syndication whenever I want as many times as I want, then I've legally bought the rights to view that show yes?

So what difference, really, if I chose to watch that show/film - that I am legally paying to be able to watch as and when I want - on my computer, via a download from the internet?

Surely I've already paid all the money that the company who produces the show ask?

Why then should somebody have the right to interfere with my machine/completely cut off my internet?

In NZ a rather appalling copyright law is about to come into action.

Internet users across New Zealand, including about 2700 artists who this law claims to protect, are protesting by going black. So far prominent supporters are Stephen Fry and Leo Laporte.

The #blackout went viral on Monday night, hitting the no. 1 spot on Twitter trend. Along with setting their avatars to black, participants are encouraged to sign a petition and write to their MP.

You can read more about it here: