Internet control, Or yet another example of government control Options

[dannyboy]

Yes, but remember a lot of 1950s production cars would be struggling to get above 70 mph, something not 'factored in' at the planning stage for the motorways of those times. By the end of the decade, things were changing.There were always certain rules on the use of them though, e.g. no handcarts, cyclists, pedestrians, stopping at the side of the road, so not altogether 'other things which once had easy use & free access' . Also, remember one of the selling points of motorways was that they didn't need any lighting? Those were the days, even so

BTW - why don't they have speedlimits on autobahns yet - is it perhaps that they're all as good drivers as Dannyboy is (or claims to be?)

In the 1960's [ when speed limits were introduced ] a few cars could get above 70, and the owners of such cars took the piss on the M1. End result, a speed limit was set for all drivers which is still in force today. Seems to me to be a good example of something spoilt by the few which has an effect, still felt today on the many.

Btw - there are speed limits on the Autobahn.
And, yes I am a good driver , thanks.

[Iommi]

Btw - there are speed limits on the Autobahn.

I have read that there are speed advisories (80mph), but not general limits on German autobahns, other than at junctions and hazards.

Downloading films and music isn't the only problem for those who wish to control illegal file sharing. It is also easy to make copies from legitimate sources.

[user23]

I used to berate a friend of mine all the time for illegally downloading stuff, then Robbie Williams got an £80million contract from Sony and I wondered why artists like him should get so much based on what he might release. Incidentally he hasn't really done a lot musically since then.

It does make you wonder doesn't it. If file sharing is supposedly killing off the music industry then why are they still paying out such huge sums of money to their artists.

[On the edge]

It does make you wonder doesn't it. If file sharing is supposedly killing off the music industry then why are they still paying out such huge sums of money to their artists.

Quite so!

[Andy]

tut tut you assume all are doing illegal things?

No - That is the estimated figure for ILLEGAL file sharers

[dannyboy]

No - That is the estimated figure for ILLEGAL file sharers

Where are these figures from? I read an interview which contained the quote - The movie and music industry see the issue differently. The estimated 7 million UK filesharers cost the music industry £200m each year, according to figures from the BPI.

I read this as meaning there are 7 million internet users who share files. Of those 7 million, the ones illegally downloading copyrighted material costs the industry £200 million. If your reading is correct then it means on average, an illegal downloader is costing the film & music inustry about £28.00 per annum, or 1 DVD & 2 CDs.

[dannyboy]

I have read that there are speed advisories (80mph), but not general limits on German autobahns, other than at junctions and hazards.

Downloading films and music isn't the only problem for those who wish to control illegal file sharing. It is also easy to make copies from legitimate sources.

The advisory speed limit is 130 KPH, where there are no signs telling you otherwise. In my experience there are only short sections where you can drive as fast as you like, with much of the Autobahn controlled by illuminated signs - where the traffic is heavy, it is raining etc etc

[user23]

Quite so!

I've also sometimes wondered why should these artists expect to be paid. There are very few other industries that one has to buy the product before they can review it though this is slowly changing, with potential buyers being able to listen to albums online before they purchase them. Surely a better model would be to do what Radiohead did and let their fans decide how much their are willing to pay for their album.

Let's face it, you wouldn't pay a builder up front and then not complain and ask for your money back if there were sections of the work you didn't like, would you?

[Iommi]

I've also sometimes wondered why should these artists expect to be paid. There are very few other industries that one has to buy the product before they can review it though this is slowly changing, with potential buyers being able to listen to albums online before they purchase them.

There are very few industries where a persons work can be so easily facsimilated. Bare in mind also, there are engineers and others that need paying. Few people make big money out of album sales. It is merchandising that pays the money.

Surely a better model would be to do what Radiohead did and let their fans decide how much their are willing to pay for their album.

I read a third of people downloaded their last album for nothing. Notwithstanding most bands aren't as popular and therefore command a 'loyal' fan base such as Radiohead.

Let's face it, you wouldn't pay a builder up front and then not complain and ask for your money back if there were sections of the work you didn't like, would you?

This is a good point, but you wouldn't also expect to get something for nothing either and that is what is happening.

[user23]

This is a good point, but you wouldn't also expect to get something for nothing either and that is what is happening.

That's true. I do a lot of legal downloading and the music is often fairly obscure. I'm quite happy to pay £1.30 or similar as the people producing it are often doing it off their own back. I can also listen to a couple of minutes before hand any only buy the tracks I like. If I wanted to illegally download this music I would probably not be able to as some of it is so obscure.

In some ways larger artists have become a victim of their own success as the more popular something becomes the easier it might be to find on the various methods of file sharing.

[dannyboy]

That's true. I do a lot of legal downloading and the music is often fairly obscure. I'm quite happy to pay £1.30 or similar as the people producing it are often doing it off their own back. I can also listen to a couple of minutes before hand any only buy the tracks I like. If I wanted to illegally download this music I would probably not be able to as some of it is so obscure.

In some ways larger artists have become a victim of their own success as the more popular something becomes the easier it might be to find on the various methods of file sharing.

there is also the risk, when downloading illegally, that what you are actually copying onto your computer is a harmful file of one sort or another......

[Darren]

It's a case of technology leaving the media companies behind. The media industry needs to take a long, hard look at how they operate in the 21st century.

No longer are viewers prepared to wait for the new series of say, The Simpsons to appear on terrestrial TV, 18 months after first being shown in the US. They can see it in less than 5 hours by P2P. Classic films that rarely appear on TV along with TV series from the 60's, 70's and 80's that have not been released on DVD yet but can be seen with a little know-how.

These companies have a huge back-catalogue but because the projected sales are too low, they won't release them or convert to a digital format to allow legal downloads. It falls to people to record them when they are shown on TV and make available illegally.

[Andy]

Where are these figures from? I read an interview which contained the quote - The movie and music industry see the issue differently. The estimated 7 million UK filesharers cost the music industry £200m each year, according to figures from the BPI.

I read this as meaning there are 7 million internet users who share files. Of those 7 million, the ones illegally downloading copyrighted material costs the industry £200 million. If your reading is correct then it means on average, an illegal downloader is costing the film & music inustry about £28.00 per annum, or 1 DVD & 2 CDs.

You believe there are illegal file shares within the 7 million, but as all file sharing is currently illegal, your figures are correct and that the 7 million figure refers to all. Most is small time, but nonetheless it all adds up especially as there are a hell of a lot of films, albums and software issued per annum

[Strafin]

......but as all file sharing is currently illegal, your figures are correct and that the 7 million figure refers to all.

No it isn't.

[Andy]

No it isn't.

yes it is, unless you have express permission to do so.

[Strafin]

"all file sharing is illegal"

"unless you have express permission"

Contradiction. It's not all illegal as you first said. Also it's only illegal where copyright infrigement is involved, I could share as many video, sound or text files with you as I like via P2P if I am the creator, if there is no copyright on them, or they are freeware.

[user23]

"all file sharing is illegal"

"unless you have express permission"

Contradiction. It's not all illegal as you first said. Also it's only illegal where copyright infrigement is involved, I could share as many video, sound or text files with you as I like via P2P if I am the creator, if there is no copyright on them, or they are freeware.

Very true, in fact it's better to say that file sharing is legal unless the file is copywritten.

[dannyboy]

You believe there are illegal file shares within the 7 million, but as all file sharing is currently illegal, your figures are correct and that the 7 million figure refers to all. Most is small time, but nonetheless it all adds up especially as there are a hell of a lot of films, albums and software issued per annum

So I send you a word document I've written & it is illegal? I compose some music & send it to a music website? Radiohead let me download for free? I download from a shareware site?

[Andy]

"all file sharing is illegal"

"unless you have express permission"

Contradiction. It's not all illegal as you first said. Also it's only illegal where copyright infringement is involved, I could share as many video, sound or text files with you as I like via P2P if I am the creator, if there is no copyright on them, or they are freeware.

You picking ridiculous holes in what I've said, as we are not talking about what you or any other private individual would make though are we, so please stop twatting around as you know full well I'm referring to illegal file sharers and copyrighted material as per the subject of the thread

[Strafin]

The point you made is completely wrong, and as you said that the thread was wrong and tried to pick hole that weren't there in someone else point, I felt that you should be corrected. The thread is about file sharing and the music and film industry's reaction to the illegal side of it. You said it was all illegal, and in fact two others have questioned this. It was not an error, it was a misrepresentation of fact. A rare one though so let's leave it there.