What's your take on the ISP/BPI piracy deal?

[chriswickett]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7522334.stm

Hey all,

Have you heard the news? Is there another thread on this on the forums?

MusicRadar is working up it's news story on this and we want your opinion. Good for music? Bad for music? Does it matter?

I'm undecided personally... interesting though.

Chris W

[Lixarto]

To cut through a complex issue: property is theft, so intellectual property is brain stealing.
Which makes us zombies.

Zap

[Snap]

This whole file sharing argument is simple really.

Copyrighted material can't legally be copied. That's to protect the ownership of the material. If you create something that people will pay for, then it should be the owner of the material that gets the money, not other people who have no ownership of said material.

That "owner" could be the creator, publisher, whatever. But they are the owners.

File sharing is just like stealing something from someone and flogging it down the pub.

As for ISPs taking a role in preventing it - well that's up to them isn't it? They provide a service. If they choose to run it in different ways and the customers don't like it, choose another service.

[Sporky_McGuffin]

Dunno. It seems a bit heavy-handed, but then again all the file-sharers knew they were breaking the law but assumed it was ok because they could get away with it. I don't feel any significant sympathy for them.

[fretmeister]

Theft is theft.

However - the ISP's will have to be careful - they will need an acceptance of amended T&Cs to allow usage to be passed on - other wise they will breach the Data Protection Act

[frankus]

Do we sue county councils when stolen cars are driven on their roads?

[sfocata]

I just think the industry is having another "toys out of the pram" moment and lashing out indiscriminately. They don't seem to know what they're actually fighting (is it piracy? is it file-sharing? if the latter, is it P2P, mp3 blogs, bit torrent?) and they don't seem to have any real understanding of how to engage with the market.

Feargal Sharkey blathered on R4 this morning about how there could be subscription download services ("a couple of pounds for a fixed amount or a higher fee for total access to the database") but without any attempt to address the negative aspects of *existing* legit download services (low-grade mp3s, albums at almost shop price, major labels refusing access to their catalogues).

Oh, and no one mentioned the artists. It's no wonder people have such a carefree attitude to illegal downloading when they perceive their "victim" as being a faceless profiteering industry.

[frankus]

Originally Posted by sfocata

Oh, and no one mentioned the artists. It's no wonder people have such a carefree attitude to illegal downloading when they perceive their "victim" as being a faceless profiteering industry.

To be fair they'd be right for 97% of the album price though wouldn't they?

[manicguitarist2]

The argument put forward on Radio4 this morning that cutting of folks from t'interweb is disproportionate (sp?) as other people will be using the web access is very spurious.

So - to summarise -

Theft is illegal. Theiving of brains leads to zombie infestation. This might be a good thing for some, but generally not. The people pleading the case for the theives need to get better spokes-people.

[RadioElectric]

Originally Posted by fretmeister

Theft is theft.

Aren't you a lawyer?

I'm not saying it's legal but it isn't "theft", it's "copyright infringement", isn't it?

I buy dozens of CDs each year out of a naiive desire to support the artists that make the music, but it's too expensive! I can't afford to buy all of the music I want to listen to. I certainly wouldn't feel I was cheating the artist out of any money if they're dead. Though obviously buying their CDs can put money towards things they felt were important and increase their sales.