A final stab in the back...
Cressers
Posts: 1,329
0
Comments
-
Depends on whether you think uncontrolled file sharing is OK or not.0
-
SteveR_100Milers wrote:Depends on whether you think uncontrolled usage of photographers work, amongst others is OK or not.
"The DEB- For the media industry, by the media industry"
0 -
Artists, performers and writers have to be paid. So do the office workers and toilet cleaners who work for music industry companies.
Not everything can be free, for obvious reasons.0 -
Apparently your family photographs can be.
One rule for the corporations and one for the rest of us.0 -
Cressers wrote:
Oh no, they're tightening regulatory controls to make it more difficult to commit a crime!
It's the first time I've seen criticism of politicians, for their support of the law."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
Hmm, pushing through a bill that needs to be sujected to careful scrutiny to ensure that it won't be used heavy handedly, and will actually prevent what it is trying to prevent...sensible
IMO, it probably won't punish the very worst offenders, because they're clever enough to avoid being caught, it will catch others though.
Let's be honest, this bill wasn't drawn up for the benefit of bands and the suchlike, it was drawn up for the benefit of the record companies etc.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Er, copying/sharing movies, music etc. isn't actually a criminal offence. The copyright holder has a civil claim against the infringer. The copyright holders, however, believe that taxpayers money should be spent getting ISPs and the police to enforce their rights. Yes, our money should be used to protect the income of James Blunt and Simon Cowell.
The second problem with the bill is that there is no due process. Some people who work from home rely on their internet connections in order to be able to do their job. On the mere say-so of a BPI/RIA person, with nothing having been proven in a court of law, that person could have their livelihood taken away. There are plenty of instances of these companies making mistakes - pensioners being sent legal nastygrams for downloading porn when they don't even have a computer.
The final point is how you view ISPs. If I send drugs or kiddy porn through the post, is that the fault of the Post Office for not opening every single letter and checking the contents? Would you be happy with that happening?
Actually the real final point is that the people who break copy protection and share stuff on the internets are much cleverer than the people who are trying to stop them. This bill will end up p1ss1ng off average internet users, penalising us all with higher costs from ISPs and will do precisely nothing to prevent large-scale copyright infringement.0 -
Steppenherring, you seem to know a fair bit about the bill. Do you happen to know what the implications for community wi-fi will be? My local OWN (Open Wireless Network) is very concerned about what happens when someone downloads something they shouldn't using the community network rather than via their own ISP. It appears, on first view, that community-based wi-fi networks could be shut down for the acts of an individual0
-
Its good to see that the Government is putting so much effort into keeping record companies and film stars rich and not addressing more important issues facing the country at the moment
I don't agree with illegal downloads, used to do it myself but I am a reformed character. Had a scary letter from my ISP and the civil cases in the US were enough to put me off. I still begrudge paying so much for music and films.
Its a complete waste of taxpayers money, the civil process is more suited to this sort of offence.
£1.25 for sign up http://www.quidco.com/user/491172/42301
Cashback on wiggle,CRC,evans follow the link
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/MTBkarl0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:Steppenherring, you seem to know a fair bit about the bill. Do you happen to know what the implications for community wi-fi will be? My local OWN (Open Wireless Network) is very concerned about what happens when someone downloads something they shouldn't using the community network rather than via their own ISP. It appears, on first view, that community-based wi-fi networks could be shut down for the acts of an individual
Well, first I'd like to deny knowing a lot about it (this is the internet - you don't have to know about something to comment). I haven't read it in detail but I suspect that community WiFi might well fall foul of this. I have certainly heard of people being picked up on kiddy-porn charges after someone else has used their WiFi to download stuff. Google only gives me US cases but I think this has happened in the UK too.
Personal interest: I have been known to download a thing now and again. If I like it, I'll buy the thing, if not I'll delete it. However, I have a 17 year old stepdaughter in the house ....0 -
Thanks SH, I'll have to look into it some more, but that is how I understood it to work.0
-
Next they'll want to take away my driver's licence if I get caught speeding enough times!!0
-
I sell photographs and would be peed off if I found them in use without a) my consent and b) without paying to use them since I don't offer them for free. This is the principle I support, the trouble is when the profiteering middleman that is the record company gets involved and makes it a rather grey fuzzy picture as to what is ethically or morally 'correct'. Then again, how many minor band CDs would you own if such corporations didn't exist....0
-
Well I'll admit to a bit of filesharing now and again, and I couldn't care less if this becomes law since it's laughably easy to get around it - just as Jez Mon said (and I'm not particularly tech-savvy). Besides, I thought home taping killed the music industry in the eighties? Odd that since the explosion in illegal filesharing there's been absolutely no decline in the amount of new music being pumped out - it's as if the actual musicians are doing it for the love of it or something - weird.0
-
That analogy doesn't work.SteveR_100Milers wrote:I sell photographs and would be peed off if I found them in use without a) my consent and b) without paying to use them since I don't offer them for free.
As you say 'using them' I assume you're referring to having them put in print, used in an advert etc, without your permission. In other words, someone physically profiting from your work. This is something different. No profit is made by the people using illegal downloads. A better analogy would be people looking at your photos without paying you, deciding if they're worth it, and then deciding whether to hire you. Most photographers I've seen have a portfolio on their website specifically to allow this to happen, so this doesn't really seem to be a problem for them...0 -
whyamihere wrote:
That analogy doesn't work.SteveR_100Milers wrote:I sell photographs and would be peed off if I found them in use without a) my consent and b) without paying to use them since I don't offer them for free.
As you say 'using them' I assume you're referring to having them put in print, used in an advert etc, without your permission. In other words, someone physically profiting from your work. This is something different. No profit is made by the people using illegal downloads. A better analogy would be people looking at your photos without paying you, deciding if they're worth it, and then deciding whether to hire you. Most photographers I've seen have a portfolio on their website specifically to allow this to happen, so this doesn't really seem to be a problem for them...
It does work if my images are printed and framed and hung on someones wall. I sell them as art (or try to anyway), and don't give it for free.0 -
Ok, that's fair enough. However, is it true that you offer probably lower resolution versions on your website for people to look at them before they buy in the way that most photographers I know do?SteveR_100Milers wrote:whyamihere wrote:
That analogy doesn't work.SteveR_100Milers wrote:I sell photographs and would be peed off if I found them in use without a) my consent and b) without paying to use them since I don't offer them for free.
As you say 'using them' I assume you're referring to having them put in print, used in an advert etc, without your permission. In other words, someone physically profiting from your work. This is something different. No profit is made by the people using illegal downloads. A better analogy would be people looking at your photos without paying you, deciding if they're worth it, and then deciding whether to hire you. Most photographers I've seen have a portfolio on their website specifically to allow this to happen, so this doesn't really seem to be a problem for them...
It does work if my images are printed and framed and hung on someones wall. I sell them as art (or try to anyway), and don't give it for free.
That's the problem with music. Until recently, if you heard of a new artist, in order to be legal, you had to spend money to hear anything they'd done. If you don't like it, that money's wasted.
Until last year, my new music discovery process went like this:
Hear about new band.
Go to a torrent site, get a load of their music, listen.
If I like the music, great! I'll buy a couple of CDs, and maybe go and see them in concert. In your case, the analogy would be seeing your pictures, liking it, and buying a print (which I have done too). If I don't like it, nobody's lost anything. I prefer not to buy things without trying them, so it's very unlikely I would buy music without hearing it first, and I don't end up annoyed at having to pay for crap.
Last year though, Spotify came out, which has made the amount of downloading I do drop through the floor. This is what will prevent file sharing. You can't sort it through legislation, because there's no way of making the legislation work. There are very very easy ways to evade any kind of detection. Legal ways to sample music before having to reach into your wallet is the way forward.0 -
As it happens, with music anyway personally I think being able to d/load music at a crapo bit rate but enough to assess whether you like it nor would be a god way forward - MP3 files at low bit rates would be OK, as most people would want to go and buy the CD / lossless quality files of music they wanted to own. I know from the what hi fi forums that many people want to actually still purchase CDs in the same way as owning LPs is more than just a disc of plastic.
However, I do agree that on demand services like Spotify are the way forward for sure, espcially as high quality DAC's are relatively cheap, and of course a PC can be used for more than just reproducing or relaying music.0 -
What I object to most about this act (as it was passed last night) is the arbitrary granting of power to disconnect people from the internet. Of course now the act is in place it won't be long before the law is tested and stretched to include non-commercial files that They don't want you to view...
Also included is the provision to switch off analogue radio signals in 2015 if digital radio listenership reaches 50%, which of course it will given the massive 'it's going to be switched-off so you'd better go digital' campaign bound to be run by Digital UK.
And the Tories supported it. So there goes any last fading hope that the Tories will be a more libertarian, less authoritarian administration than NuLab. Expect some backtracking on ID cards/the NIR soon...0
