Page 1 of 4
UK filesharing : ban rule coming April 2010 to the UK
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:54 am
by seckle
sept 29th is the day we find out. if it goes through in the uk with gov backing, the US will probably follow. banning people from broadband, is going to have repercussions. crazy days.
UK MUSIC LOBBY wrote:
"Asked about the broadband suspension issue, he said: "UK Music have agreed a position on it and will reveal it on the 29th."
"We are affirming to the industry and to the outside world that we do have a clear view of our future and how we achieve that."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... c-industry
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:24 am
by Pada
Do people think there should be no sanctions at all for filesharing? Is it not possible to just ban these people from p2p shit? all though I do realise not all illegal downloading is p2p!
Some at my college has been fined £700 by Scooter for downloading one of his tracks.... considering I'm at music college i don't know why he was downloading that in the first place...
It kind of worries me about how far they might take it though - and would I be banned from the internet because somebody in my house hold downloaded some tunes? And should the government really have the right to block somebody from the internet!
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:25 am
by ed teach
Yup, unless you use the internet as a glorified shopping mall you're off.
The "age of information", what where we thinking?
x 6,500,000,000
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:31 am
by seckle
adisize wrote:Is it not possible to just ban these people from p2p shit? all though I do realise not all illegal downloading is p2p!
Some at my college has been fined £700 by Scooter for downloading one of his tracks.... considering I'm at music college i don't know why he was downloading that in the first place...
its possible to choke internet traffic by using filtering and firewalls. many libraries/universities/corporations/hotels do this. torrents are easy to block now, because the filtering software gets smarter all the time, and there are companies that provide daily updated p2p ban lists for their subscribers. its impossible to stop completely, but it would make your broadband connection feel like 14.4k dialup. SLOWWWW.
it won't work unless the government backs it. what i want to know is how they plan on dealing with megaupload/sendspace/filesspace/soundcloud and all the other traffic that's basically private. will be interested to see how the UK handles it.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:35 am
by computer rock
If this goes through I bet someone will appeal on the grounds that it violates human rights.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:47 am
by spiderman
oh fuck that.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:49 am
by shamwow
SSH Tunnel to France -> can't ban me I'm the ginger bread man.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:54 am
by ed teach
Shamwow wrote:SSH Tunnel to France -> can't ban me I'm the ginger bread man.
Thinking ahead there - I like it.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:29 am
by collige
People will circumvent this within hours. This is basically the domestic equivalent of the Iraq War (i.e. trying to fight an ideological battle with pure force).
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:08 pm
by seckle
Matt3r wrote:begg can be my spokesperson
Major labels and the bodies that represent them, such as the BPI in the UK and the RIAA in the USA would have us believe that sharing music is destroying music and the musicians that create it. We contend that the truth is, this cartel of major record companies, distributors and publishers have been systematically fucking musicians and the people that love and buy music for about 50 years. Creating, amongst other things, huge profits for shareholders, a rigorous, brutally industrialised method of music production, Hannah Montana and an inherently average, uninspiring, mainstream music scene. This traditional industry model is so close to death that we dare not entertain it here. Instead we leave it up to you to help determine how far this E.P. travels
http://www.sibegg.com/24bit/
the only thing i'll agree with there is that they made it uninspiring. the rest is a bit over the top. musicians need to eat and pay rent.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:23 pm
by seckle
already backlash against any big musicians speaking out against this...incredible.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200909 ... 6186.shtml
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:29 pm
by collige
Matt3r wrote:begg can be my spokesperson
Major labels and the bodies that represent them, such as the BPI in the UK and the RIAA in the USA would have us believe that sharing music is destroying music and the musicians that create it. We contend that the truth is, this cartel of major record companies, distributors and publishers have been systematically fucking musicians and the people that love and buy music for about 50 years. Creating, amongst other things, huge profits for shareholders, a rigorous, brutally industrialised method of music production, Hannah Montana and an inherently average, uninspiring, mainstream music scene. This traditional industry model is so close to death that we dare not entertain it here. Instead we leave it up to you to help determine how far this E.P. travels
QFT
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:31 pm
by jiggamanjoe
Seems a bit OTT
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:46 pm
by 86.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 pm
by intoccabile
^^^^
Really cool article you posted !
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:01 am
by bandshell
Apparently this is is from Matt Bellamy.
My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.
Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:05 am
by collige
bandshell wrote:
The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).
[/quote]
This will never happen. ISPs currently make tons more charging people for bandwidth they don't use.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:31 am
by tranquera
If approved in UK... US will follow?
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 am
by 86.
Tranquera wrote:If approved in UK... US will follow?
great sig