Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BPI Defends Anti-File-Sharing Partnership With Virgin Media

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the choosing-sides dept.

The Almighty Buck 98

MrSteveSD writes "The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has responded to criticism by Bill Thomson over its collusion with Virgin Media in targeting UK file sharers. BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor personally wrote to the BBC to set things straight, and he asserts that 'it's Mr Thompson, rather than music companies, who is stuck in the past.' Of course, Virgin Media customers who download music and TV legally often find their connections being turned down to unusable speeds due to Virgin's aggressive throttling policy." Mike also points out a blog entry that describes one of the letters received by a Virgin Media customer. In the letter were suggestions regarding the customer's router settings and anti-virus software.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Virgin" media (0, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800323)

As in Slashdotters, of coure.
now leave that basement and meet the world, fukkaz.

Time for anonymity. (-1, Offtopic)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801723)

Bill Thompson has an irritating tendency to almost see things:

At the moment it's hard to use BitTorrent anonymously, although since the service itself is entirely legal and legitimate there should be no need to do so.

As an innocent person who's been threatened, he should realize the time for anonymity was long ago. Anyone who believes in free speech understands that it's always time, that identification can always lead to punishment by the rich and powerful. You can "be good" and try to hide but people like the BPI will always come to get you because they want your money and will tolerate no dissent. I wonder what he thinks of Vista now [slashdot.org] .

Re:Time for anonymity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23802443)

This is nothing to do with Vista, you fucking moron.

Your point was sensible up until the final sentence, but you couldn't resist making an off-topic jab at 'Microdollaroft'.

Stupid cunt.

Re:Time for anonymity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23802579)

This account is part of the twitter Army [slashdot.org] . Please mod down.

Re:Time for anonymity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23803879)

Bill Thompson says in his article that he's not breaching copyright as he feels downloading a show is no different than recording it.

Fair enough - but he convienently doesn't mention that he's uploading it as well, as he said he uses BitTorrent. Whether you feel on the morality of it, he's being disingenuous.

thats what happens when (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800377)

you let a record company also run an isp.

there should be laws against running businesses cross fields.

Re:thats what happens when (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23800401)

you let a record company also run an isp.

The record label was sold off a long long time ago. The only thing that's the same is the name. But don't let that little fact bother you.

difference ? (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800453)

you are talking about a company that has its real roots in record business, all its corporate lore, connections, even high level executives formed in there. just as microsoft is still 80s microsoft despite it runs in a very different format now, virgin is still virgin in corporate culture.

Re:difference ? (5, Informative)

JPRelph (519032) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800769)

Not as much as you'd think. Virgin Media is basically NTL:Telewest with a new name. Basically after NTL and Telewest merged, they bought out Virgin Mobile (a cell provider with, again, very little connection to the original Virgin business in records). Richard Branson ended up with a pile of cash and a 10.7% stake in the new company because of that. That just added the mobile operator to the mix though, the bulk of Virgin Media is basically still NTL:Telewest, just with the Virgin brand attached to try and lose some of the smell that NTL and Telewest picked up over the years. It's not really working too well.

Re:difference ? (2, Insightful)

drharris (1100127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805751)

If Mr. Branson indeed owns 10.7% of the current incarnation of the corporation, that means there is ample motive to use his considerable influence over the board of directors to convince them to reel in more profits away from these "thieves".

In light of that, I would expect the connection to be just as deep as is surmised be previous posters.

Re:difference ? (1)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23810289)

It's in fact, basically NTL. As far as the board (and decision makers) are concerned, anyway. Telewest was a half-decent company before it was swallowed.

Re:difference ? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23801141)

I know the virgin company and it's takeover of NTL broadband quite well. I'm quite convinced you are 100% wrong and, rather, just posted your "+4, intereting" take on virgin based on "facts" that you completely pulled out of your backside. Still, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - please by all means tell us what you specifically KNOW, rather than are speculating wildly on, about "corporate lore, connections, even high level executives" at virgin broadband. Please - let us have an honest assessment of what you are actually bringing to the table here. Let's have it, please.

Re:difference ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805031)

Yeah, I know it too, 6000 jobs cut...

To sum it up:

Virgin Mobile = W*nkers

Virgin Media = C*nts

Branson = Opportunist, whatever the cost.

Re:thats what happens when (4, Informative)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800451)

There are laws against running businesses cross fields. They are called Anti-Trust laws in the USA ("trust" being an old word that approximately means monopoly).

Unfortunately the scope and enforcement of these laws is very narrow as punishing a successful company for being successful is viewed as a bad thing. Basically the only time the law will be enforced is if a monopoly power (e.g. Microsoft) in one area (e.g. operating systems) uses that power to get an unfair advantage in another area (e.g. web browsers).

(IANAL, YMMV, etc.)

Re:thats what happens when (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800497)

well.

you people are letting that happen in u.s.

lobbyists, corporate interests, 'donations' to senators, and they produce bills for their masters.

you need to take the reins back. and not listen to 'business should be free' bullshit from conservatives. for the freedom they speak of is only freedom for them to do whatever they want (to the extent of implanting workers with rfid chips for sake of 'security' - until california senate whacked them down) and get on top of the pile. theres no tolerance for competition in their view of life. so its pointless to lend an ear to them.

you need a new 'new deal' president like FDR. one seems to be coming up. grab him.

Re:thats what happens when (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801181)

you need a new 'new deal' president like FDR.

You mean one that whines and attempts to sidetrack the Supreme Court when it passes down a ruling he doesn't like? No thanks, we've got one kinda like that already, although thankfully he's only got enough time left to only do the whining.

reason is important (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801383)

if supreme court acts to protect corporate interests at the expense of the people, and 'interprets' law to that effect, i dont see any issues with a president trying to bypass supreme court.

lets remember that not only the law but also tradition of france was that 'ruling and privileges are aristocracy's god given rights', and in years leading up to 1789 all aristocrats were defending the 'law', and courts were deciding upon that law.

this example should make it clear that law is not always right. especially in a country like u.s. where corporate lobbyists can buy out laws as they please and make them pass through house and president by pressurizing them from different fronts.

yes, in short you really need a president like fdr now. for the balance is WAY off to the corporate side.

Re:reason is important (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801549)

if supreme court acts to protect corporate interests at the expense of the people, and 'interprets' law to that effect, i dont see any issues with a president trying to bypass supreme court.

No offense, but you really have no business voting then.

Re:reason is important (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801633)

just let me know whats your take on laws in 1789 france concerning 'aristocracy and its privileges and right to rule is god given right and tradition of france' then.

Re:reason is important (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805487)

I'll be happy to when you show how it's the least bit relevant to the "separation of powers" doctrine under discussion.

Re:reason is important (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23806353)

its quite straightforward.

democratical election and lawmaking process is very prune to exploitation by the rich. this issue is there since the roman times. not greek, because only landowners, rich aristocrats were able to vote in greece, whereas in early republic romans have given all kinds of rights to all citizens, with the tribune (public assembly, being able to pass laws that would bind both pleb (commoners) and the patricii (the elite) in addition to the long standing senate in which only elites would get elected and vote.

yet despite this, the election and lawmaking has remained the province of wealthy. regardless pleb or patricii you were, you were able to affect the going of matters if you had enough cash at hand.

this issue persists today. its especially rife in united states, with corporate donations, shady connections, and, in the extreme case, something called 'lobby' firms.

as was in the roman era, these people are able to influence all congress and senate elections and lawmaking as they want. they even can force presidents who are vetoing them by other means, through earmarking their stuff into bills that are very necessary to pass.

all these are the machinations of elitism, that is remnant of roman times.

the french revolution era example is to signify that law is not always righteous. in france, at that period, it was the long practiced law that aristocracy had god given rights to rule, govern, and be priviledged. this was the rule back then. with your logic, if there had been some king or prince that had made a decision to the benefit of the public, but high judges in france have overturned it citing the god given rights of aristocracy, we were supposed to accept that judges were right. (not that there were any kings or princes that would do so for that matter, but for the sake of example).

today its still the same. bills are passed through congress by sponsorship of interest groups still. they exclusively craft favorable conditions for their masters. this in the end makes judiciary just a tool under their hands, willingly or unwillingly. at this stage, a president like FDR, who would go around the high court's decision regarding stuff like we are talking about, would be a god given blessing.

in short, in an ideal world, you are right. however we are not in an ideal world yet, and we need FDRs.

Re:reason is important (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23807149)

however we are not in an ideal world yet, and we need FDRs.

Oh, you mean people that will just hand the future of the nation over to the banking industry?

they exclusively craft favorable conditions for their masters. this in the end makes judiciary just a tool under their hands, willingly or unwillingly

Yeah, whatever. You'd instead rather put *total* discretion in the hands of one man that, in the process of being elected President, accepted millions of dollars in special-interest money to get elected, and likely accepted millions before that in being elected to lower office, and then you think that somehow he won't be beholden to those interests, right? I appreciate the youthful idealism, but this is the real world we're dealing with.

Re:reason is important (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23810803)

Oh, you mean people that will just hand the future of the nation over to the banking industry?
why should he do that.

Yeah, whatever. You'd instead rather put *total* discretion in the hands of one man that, in the process of being elected President, accepted millions of dollars in special-interest money to get elected, and likely accepted millions before that in being elected to lower office, and then you think that somehow he won't be beholden to those interests, right? I appreciate the youthful idealism, but this is the real world we're dealing with
sadly im no longer idealistic, or can be deemed young.

buyer beware applies to elections as well as grocery shopping. if you elect caesar, you can expect a dictator. if you elect FDR, you can expect something else.

unfortunately the alternative to this is armed revolution as your constitution states, and its only legal if things REALLY get out of hand. but, things never go that out of hand, at least in appearance. they make things appear legal, so that option will be closed to you.

to elect someone you have to go with the best of the available flock. up the ante in every election by small bits, bring on change gradually. after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:thats what happens when (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 6 years ago | (#23806457)

Every time I see "you are letting it happen in the US"... bah.

We're letting it happen because we have no other choice. We can't stop corruption in the government, and we most certainly do not have any say over anything that matters.

you could (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23806641)

if enough of you people would just wake up and supported a candidate that's reasonable, even if s/he is not put forth by the dominant 2 parties.

Re:you could (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 6 years ago | (#23807879)

The likelyhood of that ever happening is, I assure you, absolutely 0. Not enough people care to change anything, and those who speak out loud and often are often branded as "nutjobs".

There is no way to change anything. We the People have lost, and, for lack of a better term, are simply the walking dead, with no chance of any control over what happens to us.

Re:you could (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23810811)

no more lost than being subjects and at the mercy of an absolute monarch in 1789 france.

Re:thats what happens when (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800727)

We have a Justice Department that is absolutely unwilling to prosecute any big corporations for anti-trust. It's been like this for the last 2 decades, and it's now the reason we have only a few oil companies, only a few airlines, only a few national telcos.

One great example is Boeing. They were allowed to buy up all the other airframe manufacturers in the US because they claimed they couldn't compete with Airbus otherwise. Boeing got fat and happy, getting all the big contracts, until Airbus ate their lunch by building better planes. Boeing stopped trying so hard because they had no domestic competition, and now they can't compete with Airbus.

The government of the United States has been completely co-opted by big business. We now have a person running for president (the old white guy) whose staff is entirely made up of paid representatives of big business, who have been paying his way for his entire 30-year political career. Some of them are also paid representatives of other countries, including Iran.

Re:thats what happens when (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801191)

Boeing can't compete with airbus? PUT DOWN THE CRACKPIPE.

To claim that boeing can't compete with airbus is just willful igorance of immature stupidity. boeing continues to be the world's most successful maker of large aircraft and its newest 787 series aircraft are seen to be a huge success while Airbus's A350 project flounders and the A380 seems set to be at best a modest financial success.

Re:thats what happens when (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23802867)

Boeing's Delayedliner is certainly not a success yet and now that Airbus have gotten the A380 problems behind them they can concentrate more on the A350 XWB (as it was renamed when they redesigned it significantly to compete better with the 787). The original A350 design was obsolete but the XWB certainly isn't so Boeing thus have customers that are getting more and more impatient due to the delays and a competitor whose offering is still on schedule and who can devote more resources to it now than before. Furthermore, I doubt that 787 customers will be as forgiving to Boeing as A380 customers were to Airbus since (1) Boeing's 747 offerings don't match the A380 anywhere near as closely as the A350 XWB matches the 787 and (2) each customer gets a lot of free publicity when they show just how they have outfitted the world's largest passenger jet (yes, being able to say that is valuable to airlines). Quite clear evidence of that is that the 747-800 Intercontinental has been ordered by a staggering total of one airlines - Boeing's most loyal customer, Lufthansa. Currently, Boeing can compete quite well but the weak dollar certainly plays a part and we shall see how long that lasts.

Oh, and it is way too early to say anything regarding the financial success of the A380. The fact that Airbus plan to extend it does, however, indicate what they believe (not that they necessarily are right).

Re:thats what happens when (1)

Wierdy1024 (902573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801245)

Great analysis, but Boeing is a bad example. They're now doing pretty well because their main competitor is suffering very heavy losses due to the weakness of the dollar, since their planes are made in dollars, but the labor paid for in Euros. TBH, it looks like without the support from the French Government, Airbus would've gone bankrupt in the last year. The government wont let it go bankrupt because it powers a large bit of the French Economy, and it would be very embarrassing to have it sold off to some non-French company.

Re:thats what happens when (3, Informative)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801255)

We have a Justice Department that is absolutely unwilling to prosecute any big corporations for anti-trust. It's been like this for the last 2 decades...

I agree that the current DoJ is very averse to anti-trust actions, but the "2 decades" part is provably false - Clinton's DoJ successfully pursued an anti-trust action, and the only reason MS got off scot-free was because of an idiot judge that couldn't keep his mouth closed, resulting in an appeal that spilled over into Dubya's term, at which time the new Bush DoJ decided to let MS off with a hand slap even though the appeals court upheld the original finding of MS's guilt.

Re:thats what happens when (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23808321)

See, you're right, but if I don't include Clinton, then all the fool Republicans here will just fill up the thread with "But Clinton did it too!" posts.

Although Clinton was pretty blind to the deregulation of brokerage houses and banks and didn't he let Boeing buy all their domestic competition?

Re:thats what happens when (3, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800819)

Unfortunately the scope and enforcement of these laws is very narrow as punishing a successful company for being successful is viewed as a bad thing.
And so it should be. I don't see a problem with a company being very successful to branch out in different fields. And what is a cross field, really? How about a bus company starting to run trains - is that cross field? If so why should it be illegal? A computer company producing both hardware and software, branching out in digital music players and mobile phones? Nothing wrong with that.

Basically the only time the law will be enforced is if a monopoly power (e.g. Microsoft) in one area (e.g. operating systems) uses that power to get an unfair advantage in another area (e.g. web browsers).

In case of Microsoft that was clearly abuse of monopoly power: forcing a web browser, media player, whatnot on users by installing it directly on the computer, and making it very very hard to remove.

Though the area gets quite grey in case there was no such thing as a web browser, before it is integrated with the particular OS. Imagine Microsoft had invented the iPod and iTunes, and given everyone an iTunes application through Windows Update. Still monopoly abuse, especially if they were to be the first with such an application? It is quite easy to find arguments both ways in such a situation.

Wouter.

Re:thats what happens when (1)

Electrawn (321224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23813313)

How about a bus company starting to run trains - is that cross field? If so why should it be illegal?
How about an automobile company (General Motors) using a front company (National City Lines) to rip up the light rail systems in major cities and replace them with ... automobiles and buses?

GMC was convicted of anti-trust violations, later reversed.

Google Trolley Conspiracy [google.com]
"Trolley Conspiracy" [evworld.com]

(make your own judgments)

Re:thats what happens when (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23804781)

Actually here in europe were pretty good with anti-trust laws, virgin ISP and virgin music, have pretty much only their name/brand and a major share holder in common.

Re:thats what happens when (2, Funny)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800771)

there should be laws against running businesses cross fields.

Sony is a good example. They have great electronics, but completely destroy it with DRM or rootkits.

What industry again? (5, Funny)

bablefisk (115988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800381)

I am willing to bet I'm not the only one who wondered why the British Porn Industry was partnering with Virgin, before rereading the first sentence.

Re:What industry again? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800613)

Indeed.

*replaces monocle*

Re:What industry again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23800755)

I did wonder what porn had to do with piracy? I figured there was some porn piracy on the Internet but there is enough free porn, I wondered how big a problem this could really be.

It also occurred to me that the porn industry did not have a very good moral leg to stand on.

All this in the one second before rereading.

Re:What industry again? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800907)

I'm not the only one who wondered why the British Porn Industry was partnering with Virgin

Well, not specifically the British Pornographic Industry, but there's a strong [easygals.com] relation [easygals.com] .

Re:What industry again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23801041)

Hmm.. Whenever the BPI is mentioned on /. we usually get a few more posts in before someone trots out a variant on 'am I the only one who read that as...'

 

Defence (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800397)

That's okay, I will not give any money the two-faced Virgin ISP or any two-faced UK record company. How do they feel about the loss of my money as a possible subscriber / music listener?

Re:Defence (5, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800457)

ow do they feel about the loss of my money as a possible subscriber / music listener?
I'm sure they give about two shits worth of thought to you. But then again that's the problem =)

Re:Defence (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 6 years ago | (#23803011)

The only way to hurt an entity like this is through their pocket, so switching to a competitor _does_ make a difference.... but only in the same way a vote does. So not actually that much on an individual level, but collectively it *does* matter and therefore you [as in existing Virgin Media customers] should vote with their wallets if disagree.

On a related note, was it not the newly installed head of Virgin Media who said that he though un-throttled broadband was "a load of bollocks" only a month or so ago? I can't help thinking they're sending out some kind of message....

Re:Defence (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23809751)

That's exactly the problem. We are ineffectual individually.
 
However, it sounds like there's now two of us who have stopped giving the BPI and Virgin our money. I'm willing to bet there are more. All we need is to drop them a line explaining why. I suggest doing it from the email address provided by your new ISP.

Re:Defence (2, Interesting)

You ain't seen me! (1237346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800795)

I've got hi-speed cable broadband and will almost definitely be getting one of their 'we like you, but piss off' letters. As I will no longer have any need for the hi-speed I use, I am at this very moment looking at a standard ASDL package as a replacement.

I guess I can cut my monthly bill back from 60GBP($120)/month to around 20GBP/month.

Virgin-media might not give a shit if I leave - but they've definitely given me the impetuous to save 40GBP/month.

TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23800419)

It then went on to list some measures I might use to "make sure that these files aren't downloaded or shared from your Virgin Media internet connection in future" such as securing my wireless network (even though I leave my network open for a couple of reasons - we have three different operating systems running on about six computers in the house, so it's easier to do it this way.
Hmmmmm... it's possible that this guy is entirely insane.

The "letter" (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800427)

I actually read the letter this guy got and this comment stood out:

"But, when I do, it does mean that traffic from other machines could be dropping out through my pipe because my laptopâ(TM)s configured as a Tor exit."

Sorry guy, but you are responsible for any traffic that comes thru your connection. its part of the contract. You violate the contract you can be cut off. Take it like a man.

We can debate all day long if there is such a thing as IP rights, if throttling is ok or the letters are proper ( i happen to think they should go suck an egg personally and don't believe in IP rights ) but using the argument 'it wasn't my PC' is pretty flimsy when you are running a proxy drain point intentionally.

Yet another reason we should all be using freenet.. you cant pin the 'act' down on anyone in particular. All they can do is bitch that you are using too much bandwidth.

Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23801111)

The letter is just the least scary stuff in that blog post.

This guy leaves his wireless network wide open because "it's easier to do it this way", says he doesn't need antivirus because "I'm a Linux user so it's not exactly necessary".

At the same time he runs Tor and plans to install a home server as a Tor node. If you're using Tor, that's probably to protect your privacy: would you feel comfortable with your packets passing through a setup like that?

Re:The "letter" (3, Interesting)

rlk (1089) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801607)

Not to mention deliberately leaving his wireless network open for "convenience" (although securing a wireless network isn't all that hard in Linux) and so that he can share connections with neighbors. Deliberately running an open endpoint should mean having to take at least some responsibility for what flows through it, unless you're a common carrier and really are in the business of supplying pure bandwidth to your customers.

I wonder if this person would appreciate being spammed through someone else's open relay.

Re:The "letter" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23803807)

Could you show where that quote came from? I'm not saying it's made up, just that I can't find it.

Let the industry die (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800521)

You know, I don't think I would mind too much if the movie/music industry were to go the way of the buggy whip makers.

Yeah sure there are some mega-hit songs and some blockbuster movies I would have to go without, but there are other things in life. In fact it might be better for the art of music and movies as every work would have to be an indie work.

The movie/music industries need to stop thinking they are entitled to exist.

Re:Let the industry die (4, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800707)

there are some mega-hit songs and some blockbuster movies I would have to go without

Try the following experiment: compare this movie [btjunkie.org] with this one [btjunkie.org] . Then compare this film [btjunkie.org] with this one [btjunkie.org] .


I have a feeling that modern "blockbuster" movies are a giant step backwards. We had much more fun when films were done with shorter budgets and more imagination. Fx are OK for a while, but they can't make a bad film good.

Re:Let the industry die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23802023)

+100

Re:Let the industry die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23806649)

The irony here being that if you tried to download all those films you linked in 1 sitting, Virgin Media would gimp your connection to 1/4 of the speed for which you're paying for the rest of the day.

I'm looking for something better but I can't be arsed to switch to DSL.

Re:Let the industry die (2, Insightful)

Tankko (911999) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800857)

Yeah sure there are some mega-hit songs and some blockbuster movies I would have to go without, but there are other things in life. In fact it might be better for the art of music and movies as every work would have to be an indie work.

Those two things are not unconnected. A lot of Indie films get made (financed) because of the profits of block busters. Hollywood is very good at farming new talent through Indie films. This isn't to say that no Indie films would get made, but I bet that several of your favorite films would not have.

Be thankful for the sheep-masses, they help fund the good stuff you and I like.

Re:Let the industry die (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23800873)

Ohh god no... Then the only movies we would have is the crap that win academy awards. I can only take so many gay tragedy's, lost love, and black and white gay romance movies before I want to shoot myself. We need at least one well regulated movie studio to produce new original action and comedy movies.

The problem is the well regulated part. The studio has no control of the movie once it leaves theaters. There needs to be a sequel ban. Only one sequel allowed and no prequels allowed And the single most important part, NO MORE FULL FRONTAL MALE NUDITY, ITS NOT FUNNY DON'T DO IT!!!

Re:Let the industry die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23802971)

I can only take so many gay tragedy's, lost love, and black and white gay romance movies before I want to shoot myself.
Well, in that case I am sure we are all in favour of them making more of these, and ridding hte world of a useless troll.

I hope I get one (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23800531)

Then I can get out of the last nine months of my cable contract with Virgin and move to Freesat :-)
Go ahead Virgin, make my day!!

Re:I hope I get one (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23800593)

I can get out of the last nine months of my cable contract with Virgin

Dude, I have some bad news for you. It's exactly nine months after your contact with a virgin that your troubles really begin...

Re:I hope I get one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23801999)

Go ahead Virgin, make my day!!
...That's what she said.

Ropey (1)

symes (835608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800595)

I'm on Virgin and I can confirm that the service they offer, at least in our city, is ropey. No, it's beyond ropey. The connection regularly drops, the cable tv service they offer freezes, broadband speeds are about 25% of advertised. And so on. Customer Service's advice? Switch eveything off and on. Great. Anyhow - given their vague service I really don't think I could tell whether they are throttling my connection or whether it's service as usual - but if one of those letters lands on my mat I will switch ISP. Even if it means going back to a dial up service. And for the record, their trains are no better.

Rip-off Britain - till better than other providers (1)

Master Of Ninja (521917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800715)

I do criticise Virgin Media, and their service has gone downhill since they were cabletel/ntl (and at the ntl era their service was already going downhill) but they are still better than any other provider that I can think of. I needed to get a broadband deal, and they offered me 2mb with phone for £15.50, with unlimited downloads. Consider if you go with BT the best you can get is with Talk Talk (40GB download limit) for a similar price, but BT love their £100 connection fee for getting you onto the network. I was not happy, and most of the providers are the same. Rip-off Britain where we get screwed and pay out of the nose for it.

Re:Ropey (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23803895)


"Our city" isn't useful. Tell us where abouts you are. I may change my ISP soon (as I'm with Pipex who recently got taken over by the Tiscali monster) and looking for a decent provider.

Re:Ropey (1)

master811 (874700) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805009)

Be Un Limited is the best ISP in the UK. Its fast, cheap and unlimited, and you cannot go wrong with them, the router they supply is a bit temperamental at times (but firmware updates have seemed to have helped).

Faulty assumption (4, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800639)

FTA: "Independent research has shown time after time that people who download illegally generally spend less on music than people that don't, which undermines investment in new music."


Well, I suppose deaf people spend even less in buying music. The error, as always, is assuming buying would be an option for people who download illegally.


I recently downloaded an old movie from a torrent. I would have paid, maybe $1, for that movie. It's on sale at Amazon for $14.95. If I didn't have the option of an illegal download, I simply wouldn't have watched it. There's no way I'll pay $15 for something that's worth at most $1 to me.


What truly undermines that market aren't illegal downloads. Until the industry learns how to calculate pricing according to market rules, they'll have to live with it.

Re:Faulty assumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23801201)

No duh.. People who download illegally spend less on music because they would not buy the music in the first place!!

People like myself, although I personally would never download music illegally (clears throat), don't want to pay 15 to 30 dollars for a CD when its likely I only wanted one song to begin with.

Your right about pricing, however I think your on the wrong end of the problem, I have paid $15 a CD for pink martini CD's because so far they only have two songs on three CD's I don't like.

The problem is not the price but the crap thats being pumped out into the market. Britney Spears? Nsync? Jonas Brothers? Nelly? Coldplay? Every snare drum beating 'Alternitive' band? Any female singer hotter than your average 20 something Dutch woman? Madonna? Any song with "ft." or "feat." in the title? Any raper? Any song with god, Jesus, allah, Saviour, Christian, or praise, in it. Any song that includes references to mom, horses, prison, pickup trucks, trains, dogs, or children. Need I go on?

The point is the music today is simply crap and there is no excuse for it. Would I download Britny spears for free? Sure.. Would I EVER spend a single penny to buy it.. Hell no. The prices are fine, the music is crap.

Re:Faulty assumption (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 6 years ago | (#23802379)

The prices are fine, the music is crap.
If crap was priced at the market price of crap they might sell more copies.

Re:Faulty assumption (2, Insightful)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23803885)

While I agree to some degree, and in all honesty sometimes operate under the same guidelines, there's a little hand-waving going on here.

The implicit agreement of the market is something to the effect of "if you don't like the price, don't buy it". But an assumption built into "don't buy it" is that you're not going to have the same benefits as having bought it, either. The high ground here is to just not watch the movie.

But you did, because you were willing to spend the time to get it illegally. Let's say it was $1. Does that mean that the movie should be sold for $1? Only if that would cause about 14X more people to buy it, and that is also a faulty assumption. Here's a fairly sound assumption: if it was trivially easy for everyone to get a free version that was just as good as the pay version, there would be no pay version. Luckily for us, it takes some extra effort to get a free version and it's usually not quite as good, thus enough people keep paying into the system.

Incidentally, in some ways the free version is superior to the pay versions as they stand now: instant gratification (as compared to amazon), easier storage (as compared to a DVD), more flexible playback (as compared to iTunes), etc. And I think these things are as much to blame for piracy as the near-zero-cost.

In the end, I don't believe it is right to download stuff you haven't paid for, though I don't think it cuts into sales nearly as much as businesses claim. It's still fairly amoral, by which I mean it eventually has some negative indirect effects.

I do think that if some company got the instant gratification, storage, quality, flexibility, and pricing right, they'd be able to re-capture a lot of the pirate market and make at least a bit more money than they do now by whining. So I don't have a lot of sympathy either.

Cheers

Re:Faulty assumption (2, Insightful)

pbhj (607776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23804463)

[...] in some ways the free version is superior to the pay versions as they stand now: instant gratification (as compared to amazon), easier storage (as compared to a DVD), more flexible playback (as compared to iTunes), etc. [...]
You can buy the DVD to pay for the right to watch the movie, then download it. Seems completely legit to me, may not be legal but it's certainly morally right and you get the benefits you thought you were losing.

How much is a judge going to award against you when you show that for those 10's of movies on your hard drives you have DVDs telling you your licensed to view the contents?

YMMV, the law isn't this logical, IA-most-definitely-NAL

Re:Faulty assumption (1)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805021)

You can buy the DVD to pay for the right to watch the movie, then download it

Heh, that seems quite fair to me. Several times I've bought a physical CD I didn't actually want because I wanted the music and wanted to support the artist. I wish I could have just said "keep the CD", so it wouldn't clutter up my place and waste them money.

Re:Faulty assumption (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 6 years ago | (#23813587)

The implicit agreement of the market is something to the effect of "if you don't like the price, don't buy it". But an assumption built into "don't buy it" is that you're not going to have the same benefits as having bought it, either.

That's not entirely accurate. There's nothing in the "market rules" that prevents you from getting the same "benefits" some other way. The actual rule is that you don't deprive someone else of the use of their property without their permission. Despite the whole "IP" misnomer, copyright infringement doesn't deprive anyone of their property, or involve any other form of coercion; ergo, it represents a perfectly legitimate alternative to buying a copy from the official distributor(s).

Re:Faulty assumption (1)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816587)

I don't know man, that doesn't sound entirely honest to me. While I think that the music and film industries are terribly inefficient and the product overpriced, it's just not right to make use of someone elses work if they request payment for it and you refuse. In that case you just don't make use of their product.

Sure, you can get the "benefits" some other way -- say by finding artists who give music away freely, or by writing songs yourself. And then hey, you could give your songs away. A good model for this is open source software. I have a lot more respect for Stallman, Torvalds, de Icaza, and Wall than I do for random kids throwing up crackz on pirate bay. I think it's fairly obvious who is retaining the moral high ground.

    I understand that copyright infringement is not theft, but that doesn't mean that copyright infringement is good. Let's say the record companies and movie studios went away. And you were dealing directly with the people who spent their time creating stuff. Would you still look in their face and say you weren't willing to pay for their stuff but you were going to use it anyway? Would you say this to a friend? Do you expect that if this attitude was widespread that it would encourage the useful arts and sciences?

Think about it. Cheers.

Tor Node: Who is liable ? (3, Insightful)

ehack (115197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800657)

I disagree with Virgin - but this guy doesn't quite realize what he's been doing?

He's running a net anonymizer - and he was logged as having downloaded a Winehouse song. He says he ain't done it, but maybe someone on the net running Tor did - maybe he doesn't quite get it ?

If I lend my house to some idiot, and there is a report of someone having brought stolen property into my house, that doesn't make me a thief, but it doesn't mean the report is baseless either.

Edmund

Re:Tor Node: Who is liable ? (2, Informative)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801175)

If I lend my house to some idiot, and there is a report of someone having brought stolen property into my house, that doesn't make me a thief
Unfortunately, it can make you lose your house anyway: Asset forfeiture [wikipedia.org] .

What about free speech & Privacy ? (1)

coretx (529515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800677)

You can not have both freespeech&Privacy AND copyright enforcement. Since therefore, all communications need to be monitored. Good by last "free" medium.

It doesn't matter really .... (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800691)

whether this is in England or North America. Cable companies and large ISPs in general have the same problem in most places.

They did not invest in infrastructure of the future at any point in the past. That is to say that they have never done what was needed to build a network that would support heavy usage.

An example of this is the cable company that I have to use (there are no options. Satellite is not a viable option for broadband IMO). I have three cable boxes on digital cable. If I rent a movie in the living room I can't move to the bedroom to watch it without having to pay twice. This means there is NO infrastructure built to know I have two boxes and which they are so that I can rent a movie once and watch anywhere in the house. This is not just ignorant of the capabilities of technology, it is blatantly ignoring them at the cost of value to the consumer.

There are a few people that would defend this situation with various excuses, but they won't work IMO because of the complaints that ISPs make regarding network usage, and the balance of guilt when you see what they were given as incentives to build a viable, usable network already.

Their business plan has been designed to steal as much money from the user's pockets and the government as possible. They have done nothing less.

This business of throttling traffic because of bandwidth usage is criminal in nature. If you rented a car to drive to your aunt's house but found that you weren't able to drive the expected speeds on all roads because of crippling by the rental company, would you sue? would you rent from them again? would you complain to the appropriate regulatory agency?

Go ahead, tell me about the fine print in the contract. meh. I pay for xyz MBits/second and I have more than reasonable expectation that this is what I'll be able to get regardless of protocol, end destination, or content.

The fact that I can't and that ISPs are throttling the service that I paid for is criminal. Their business model is broken. period. They have oversold their network to steal money from you and I, and now they got caught. It is convenient for them to blame the BPI and **AA, and there may indeed be collusion, but the fact remains that they did NOT use the money they were given to produce a usable network and are now trying, AGAIN, to get the users or government to pay them extra to build one.

Why, yes, I do have a solution. I'm glad you asked. The last mile should never belong to a private enterprise. It should belong to co-operatives or the local council or some group that is directly responsible to the local public. By responsible, I mean by order of a vote, they can be replaced and the performance of the cooperative is judged on whether they keep their jobs in a way similar to how AT&T boardmembers are responsible to the share holders.

Yes, all that AT&T, Virgin, Verizon, Comcast et all can do is provide network services. They can only hook up their big pipes to the local WAN and provide backbone network services. You can subscribe to their email etc. or you can subscribe to someone else's email and home page portal. You would be able to access Google via any of them network service packages. Like emergency services, email services would be possible without having long distance.

Once network services are separated from last mile and provisioning services, their worth will be seen in the correct light, and all this throttling will become a thing of the past, a memory of bad times when criminals ran the board meetings and made marketing decisions for cable companies.

When consumers have the right to choose and can do so with a phone call, then the market place will work as it should.

In short, Fuck Virgin! and all their warlord comrades around the world.

Re:It doesn't matter really .... (3, Insightful)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801199)

Slight problem with the first few paragraphs of your argument. Comcast, Verizon, and the lot were given billions of TAXPAYER DOLALRS to build that infrastructure so that things like throttling and bandwidth caps never happened. They clearly did not live up to their end of the bargain, and now are playing the "victim" card and expecting us to understand. I would love to gee the GAO do a full audit on these companies to find out exactly where those billions of dollars went. But I fully agree with the rest of your statements.

Re:It doesn't matter really .... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23806955)

This business of throttling traffic because of bandwidth usage is criminal in nature.
Not necessarily so. The sizing of their channels depends on a statistical model. Usually that model is right, but if for whatever reason it isn't, the customers must compete for whatever bandwidth is available...

If you rented a car to drive to your aunt's house but found that you weren't able to drive the expected speeds on all roads because of crippling by the rental company, would you sue? would you rent from them again? would you complain to the appropriate regulatory agency?
Try a different car analogy: If you took a toll road, and suddenly you encountered a traffic jam, would you ask for your money back? No, you'd just blame it on bad luck.

Re:It doesn't matter really .... (1)

Steven Firth (1253714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23808655)

I totally agree ... if a plane has 200 seats you dont sell 220 tickets and hope not everyone wants to sit down

BPI has no customers. We are just consumers. (3, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800749)

I think it would help greatly if BPI and the other record industry associations would stop talking about "consumers". We are their CUSTOMERS. Major difference. A consumer is an anonymous, generalised person that has the sole purpose of spending money. A customer however is someone you have a business relationship with.
In TFA, the BPI is talking about "consumers" when talking about people that are enjoying music and other recordings, but "customers" when they are talking about the ISP. BPI doesn't have customers, obviously. So no wonder they don't care about what the people want. And the people don't care about the record companies either: they are just consumers, supposed to just consume whatever is recorded.
Not that I fully agree with the original column, the reply by PBI is particularly sickening. The attitude they present is so high-hearted, as if they are God and the consumers exist only to serve them. I do understand the record companies have a big problem on their hand, but the last thing any reasonable business should do is sue their own customers. Oh well, they don't have customers, there are just consumers. And who cares about consumers, because they will consume anyway.

Re:BPI has no customers. We are just consumers. (1)

billthom (599863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23803485)

It's also the case that the BPI doesn't represent the whole music industry so their ability to speak for all musicians should be questioned. I was disappointed with their response to my article, I have to say - they just don't seem to have a clue what they are going to do, and are flailing around aimlessly. Ah well, their time has passed...

I've said it before... (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800781)

But it's naive at best to think licensed music services can prosper without action being taken against illegal downloading.
It's even more naive to think that any amount of cracking down on piracy is going to solve this, at least without massive collateral damage.

Music companies are radically re-inventing their business models in response to changes in how music fans want to access music online.
Amazingly, they haven't figured it out yet.

Independent research has shown time after time that people who download illegally generally spend less on music than people that don't, which undermines investment in new music.
I'd like to see those studies. I've found that I actually spend more on music than I otherwise would.

As a self-confessed illegal downloader, Bill may not know there are already hundreds of licensed online and mobile services (carrying more than six million tracks) from which to choose where and how to access music legally.
Ten that I know of, but let's find out which ones they mention...

iTunes (paid-for a la carte downloads), Napster and eMusic (monthly subscription), We7 (free to consumer, ad-supported), last.fm (interactive web radio), YouTube, Yahoo (streamed video on-demand) and Nokia's Comes With Music (music as part of a subscription) are just some of the many digital business models that record labels are supporting.
Let's run through that, shall we? iTunes, while not always DRM'd, still requires the iTunes client. Napster relies on DRM, and you lose your music if they go out of business. We7 and last.fm actually have a shot at competing with piracy. YouTube doesn't provide any revenue to publishers, that I know of.

Oh, by the way, there's also Azureus Vuze, among others, who rely on filesharing to work, even as they allow for-pay downloads.

We believe that ISPs, far from being a simple pipe, can become significant distributors of digital media, and share in the tremendous value that would be unleashed if more music were accessed legally online.
Ah, now their true colors come out. To everyone who pointed out that BPI is no longer the same company as the music label, it looks as though they still want a piece of the pie.

But despite the proliferation of licensed services, most music is still downloaded from unlicensed services - a problem that cannot be addressed through new models alone.
Ok, one, how is that a problem? It's a problem if they aren't using your model -- not that they're getting music illegally. A download is not necessarily a lost sale.

And two, if it can't be addressed through new models alone, it can't be addressed -- again, without significant collateral damage.

The real meat of this is here: (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23804845)

But despite the proliferation of licensed services, most music is still downloaded from unlicensed services
Sounds like the "licensed services" are not being allowed to deliver what people actually want.

- a problem that cannot be addressed through new models alone.
If the RIAA/IFPI/etc had bought out napster and assumed the helm instead of trying to stamp it out.. or ANY of the following p2p technologies, they could have leveraged the business models used by those p2p companies to gain revenue (E.G. ADVERTISING).

  they chose not to and still refuse to do so.

Lies by omission are still lies. Keep lying to everyone, but nobody outside your payrolls is buying it.

Anyone else read... (2, Funny)

strawberryutopia (1301435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800967)

"British Pornographic Industry". Tell me I'm not the only one who read that first time round.

Go ahead, defend all you want (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801073)

BPI Defends Anti-File-Sharing Partnership With Virgin Media

You're still a bunch of assholes.

BPI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23801269)

Anyone else read that as British PORNographic Industry?

Blog stupidity (2, Interesting)

honeyp0t (1166499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23801901)

The blog entry is full of stupidity. He refuses to secure his wifi network because he has 6 pcs and 'finds it easier' without a key. Well Einstein, don't be surprised if you get more letters from Virgin and the BPI. /rant

Re:Blog stupidity (2, Insightful)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23802609)

I agree. The blogger is quite clearly stupid and just has a crappy attitude. He should consider himself lucky that it was only an Amy Whinemouse track that got downloaded through his open wi-fi.

My ISP's TSA (2, Informative)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23802387)

explicitly forbids open WiFi routers and they actually go around in trucks looking for them.

Re:My ISP's TSA (1)

strawberryutopia (1301435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23803701)

which ISP is that? or is that mild exageration?

What scares me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23803257)

...is that they actually know and list the specific songs (Amy Winehouse).

They should at least try to give the impression that they're not spying so much by simply saying that the connection's been used in a way that violates the terms.

Am I remembering incorrectly? (2, Funny)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23803787)

This problem is not going to be solved simply by adding bandwidth to the network, any more than the problem of slow web page loading was solved that way in the late 90's

As far as I remember, the problem of slow web page loading _was_ solved by adding bandwidth in the late nineties. I had dialup, then I got DSL, and I no longer worried about slow page loading.

Cheers.

yawnfest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23804111)

Big money sucking off big money... Who woulda thunk it...

Letter right back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23807885)

Virgin is my ISP. I don't use torrents, not often anyways, normally for downloading distros.

If I ever recieve such a letter I shall write back asking for more specifics on their monitoring processes and how they legally comply with RIPA (a criminal law) for the benefit of them protecting a 3rd party's IP rights (a civil matter).

VM - listen to your customers' they are more important to you than a political loby group.

An Idea (1)

i.kazmi (977642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816057)

well folks, heres the thing, i got a 20mbps broadband connection from virgin media...

now, i know that downloading music and movies and all can be illegal if i dont pay for it but heres a few things that one can do and there would be nothing at all illegal about them and people can consume the bandwidth they are paying for...

A) start downloading:
1- linux distributions (choose any, download it from that nice torrent and IF you have any time, install it in a vm or through xen (if u dont have time today, you can always delete it and download it again tomorow)) (this is a recursive process with the base condition bein virgin media stoppin bandwidth policing)
2- download alpha, beta and final versions of open source softwares like open office, xen, umbrello, qt, compiz, open arena, alien arena, glest etc, who knows, you might bump into some new software that you never tried before and you totally fall in love with it...(try glest, its a real time strategy game and the graphics are pretty extremely neat)
B) youtube is legal then why do we need to download our music in the first place (A)?
C) start playing open source fps games like alien arena and open arena online....

id like to see virgin stop me from doin this, theres nothin at all illegal about any of this and if virgin does not want me to do this.... so bad for them! i m goin to try my best to claim my moneys worth by utilizing the 20mbps that im paying for!!!!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?