Comments on: Labour MP: Disconnecting File-Sharers is Futile

By: Noxolo

Noxolo — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

It’s about time some labour politicians had an attack of common sense. Lets hope it’s contagious.

By: Helsa

Helsa — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

who is to blame for the fight against our privacy & the destruction of our right to innocent until proven guilty?The RIAA, MPAA lobby.lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA – RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** corporate globalist wankers from bad press.RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:# Sony BMG Music Entertainment# Warner Music Group# Universal Music Group# EMIMPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:# Sony Pictures# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)# The Walt Disney Company# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)====================================================================If Sony payola (google it) wasn’t bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm …"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn’t a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels’ music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA’s affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. ‘SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free … So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.’" dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132

By: Kagami

Kagami — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

Using the US example as though it’s applicable the world over is a bit silly, especially when commenting on an article about the UK.These agencies are pushing for government intervention exactly because they don’t have the same power in other countries to force payment without evidence as they have in the US. I’m not sure of the UK’s process, but in Australia for example, it’s virtually impossible to get a file sharing conviction because the law deems an IP address insufficient evidence to identify an individual and if you can’t identify the person to sue, you can’t sue!

By: Wilona

Wilona — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

They never made sure they could sue and win; most of their lawsuits crumbled once the defendants pushed back. They filed the suits with the flimsiest of evidence, counting on the fact that most people either had no idea what was going on, or didn’t want to bother with the courts and paid the "pre-settlement" fees. And only two people have actually lost suits to the music industry. A vast majority of those who didn’t settle ended up getting the suits dismissed, many of them winning court costs in the process.

By: Giona

Giona — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

Truth

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

I have written to my MP via email, asking him to support this Early Day Motion. I would suggest those of you who feel as strongly about this as I do, should do the same.I have also signed the petition that buddamus pointed out above.

By: Zeroun

Zeroun — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

This is the letter I have sent to my MPDear My MPIt has come to my attention that Tom Watson MP has tabled an Early Day Motion questioning government proposals to disconnect or throttle alleged file-sharers.As you know from my previous correspondence I am against these proposals as they will allow Big Content (movie studios, music distributors, television companies, et al.) to coerce people into paying for infringing copyright whilst preventing them from being able to protest their innocence in law. Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, the method used to harvest the infringers details is severely flawed and will lead to considerable hardship for the large number of people who will be falsely accused.I am therefore writing to you, as my member of parliament, to ask you to support this early day motion so that a sensible debate can take place on the issue.In relation to this general matter, I draw your attention to this article on Ars Technica – arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/10 …As can be seen, Big Content has been crying its own death for 100 years now. Perhaps it is time that, like a spoilt child, we stopped giving it attention to shut it up.Yours sincerely

By: Estevao

Estevao — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

tard

By: Risa

Risa — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

Agreed. It’s like the tiniest bit of text there needs to be sent here.I’ve got to the point where I bury torrentfreak as spam now.If they had genuinely interesting insights or some major update then fair enough, but most of these articles are only being posted for people to get off on getting a front-page story from the auto-diggs.Anyway, I’m sure this will be buried by a bunch of 17 year old kids, so I’ll leave it there…

By: Ottavia

Ottavia — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

They don’t get it. The purpose of suing or hassling file sharers, IMHO – is not so much to stop them all, rather it is to make pay for download schemes work. Scare the crap out of enough people and they will turn to iTunes etc. If there was no pressure on illegal file sharing, it would probably impact pay for tracks negatively.If you recall, the industry made sure they could sue and win, shutting down napster and also suing the crap out of individuals first. Then they had Apple and a few others drum up some DRM. then they set back and did nothing, whilst raking in profits on lossy files. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,The other beauty of using the legal system and clogging the courts, is that it does not cost the music industry, for example, any money to police scofflaws. In fact, they could make tons of money if they were to sue for what they can get per track . Then, the icing on the cake is the very same delivery system, the Internet, that empowers the sharing of digital files, also broadcasts endlessly how folks are sued senseless and lose. Free publicity for their jihad against the file sharer.