It may or may not have any relevance to the law abiding citizens who patronise this forum , but the recent ruling regarding illegal downloading on the Internet has a hidden agenda .

Personally I wouldn't have a clue how to download a film or music disc , but I do know that the technology exists to prevent it happening without the control that the IP'S have suggested .

This leads me to the conclusion that the government wish to control what we use the Internet for and what we actually do with it in both sound and vision .

Forgive me for sounding paranoid , but I can foresee tears at bed time over this one .

Isn't it more to do with the big boys - the music and film companies and what have you - howling long and loud that they are being ripped off, rather than any sinister government motive?

Again, no affect on me as I haven't a clue how to download diddleysquat either

The internet is like anything which has easy public use & no regulation.

whilst the many use it legally & positively there are always a few who prefer to see what they can get out of it & what they can make.

selectively stopping the few bad apples is to difficult & costly, which results in draconian measure effecting us all.

Having said that, Governments are not interested in a few pirated movies & mp3's. keeping tabs on the population is their aim. And very good at they are too. Keeping an ear to telecommunication has been going on since the 1950's. Very easy when you remember that until the 1980's BT was a Government Agency.

But isn't that just it? There is nothing like it which has easy public use and no regulation, or have I missed something?

I know that the Internet companies have said it is another step towards Big Brother.... and there is that fear that governments are trying to control information.

exactly - public misuse of other things which once had easy use & free access have had that access limited & regulated.

Yeah - such as, assuming you only rate the internet as 'other things'? Get real

There is estimated to be around six million file-sharers in the UK, that's a hell of a lot of apples!!!

There already are. There are currently several thousand people, including pensioners being accused of illegally downloading games and even hardcore gay pronography. The evidence? An IP address captured by a company in Switzerland. They are being sent letters demanding £600+ in 'damages' or face a court appearnce where the amount could "reach many thousands".

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092
warning: very long thread.

To say nothing of those, and we all probably know of somebody, sacked for having dodgy stuff on their computer. Real tears in some cases. Not so many years ago, I was chatting with the area organiser for our union about how things have changed over the years and he told me that he now spent a considerable time defending members on discipline cases regarding emails etc.

I don't think there's any hidden agenda here, it's the same as this



except it's now much easier to catch people doing it.

having trouble understanding today?

Speed limits were only introduced on the motorways because folk began taking the piss.

tut tut you assume all are doing illegal things?

Have trouble understanding how on earth you can post some of your responses, that's all

easy - log in & type.

Presume you were around at the time, Dannyboy? If so, you will recall that they were originally part of the Post Office so, if we go along with your theory, the Royal Mail, still state owned (a much better term than 'government agency', don't you think - unless you want to be a be a bit of drama queen?) is passively colluding with HMG in tampering with our mail? As I say, get real - I'll just carry on enjoying life in the meanwhile

This is true. Car manufacturers used to test new models on the M1 because there were no speed limits on it.

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?)

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.

Just shows what little you know. Nice to see that you can't help yourself & try & score a few cheap points.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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?

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.


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.


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.

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......

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.

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

No it isn't.

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

"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.

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?

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

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.

the quote about there being 7 million file sharers costing the industry £200 million came from the BFI, and I notice they don't say 7 million illegal file sharers....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technolo...000/8103540.stm

Last paragraph

thought to be most important, that. Probably means the journo got his data from the BFI.