Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

UK Musicians Back Watered-Down "Three-Strikes" Rule

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the strike-one-strike-two-walk dept.

Music 229

A brace of anonymous readers sent along coverage of UK musicians who have turned around to support three strikes, or a milder variant of it. What they suggest is more like "three strikes and you're hobbled" — after a third offense a downloader would be not disconnected, but rate-limited. The artists involved include Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw. The Guardian has more details. The final quote from the music industry, striking out at UK ISPs, is priceless: "BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That's not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalizes BT's many customers who use the Internet legally."

cancel ×

229 comments

Finally, some sense (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552523)

It's about time someone spoke truth to power.

Illegal downloads hurt all of us in bandwidth throughput, additional cost at the record store, and the total marring of the reputation of P2P technology.

Be that as it may (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552587)

Illegal downloads hurt all of us

So do laws which find the accused guilty based on the accusation alone.

It doesn't matter how mild the punishment is. Accusation alone, no matter how many there are, should never be sufficient to determine guilt or impose a sentence.

In any civilized society, the accused must have an opportunity to defend himself, and guilt must be determined by an impartial party.

The pillars of justice are more important than the profitability of business models built upon artificial scarcity.

And Be That As it May... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552845)

Certainly accusation should not be the end of the story, and everybody should have a chance to respond.

OTOH, accusation is sometimes enough to warrant corrective action. Which while it might be inconvenient, should not be so harmful that it can't be resolved afterwards, should the accused in fact be innocent.

Re:And Be That As it May... (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552875)

So a corporation should be able to declare me guilty to another corporation, but I shouldn't worry because they'd be gracious enough to give me a chance to prove my innocence?

Re:And Be That As it May... (5, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553095)

Guilty until proven innocent. I bet you think that is actually a unique idea. You clearly think it is a good one.

Sadly, it isn't far off from what we have now. There are too many crimes out there that are too heinous to be found innocent of; simple accusation warrants the worst punishment. The legal system may still be applied, but the minds of those in it, and those who make the laws, are too clouded by knee-jerking to actually think rationally. Innocence? You were accused; innocence is no excuse, and you will be punished.

Outcry has replaced justice, and pundits have replaced judge and jury. What the sparkly box with faces in it says is true cannot be argued with; what is written in Wikipedia must be fact; what the drudge report aggregates must be news. Welcome to the Information - or perhaps, Media - Age.

Re:And Be That As it May... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553207)

OTOH, accusation is sometimes enough to warrant corrective action. Which while it might be inconvenient, should not be so harmful that it can't be resolved afterwards, should the accused in fact be innocent.

You are a danger and a menace and should be removed from posting on Slashdot.

See how that works?

Re:And Be That As it May... (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29554005)

OTOH, accusation is sometimes enough to warrant corrective action. Which while it might be inconvenient, should not be so harmful that it can't be resolved afterwards, should the accused in fact be innocent.

How about "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty"?

And can you please tell me what's so bad about copyright infringement that warrants taking away our freedom?

Proportional response (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552589)

This is the most logical proposal I've heard yet, aside from ignoring the damn pirates. Considering what dickheads the suits in the music biz are, however, I'm sure that "cooler heads will prevail."

Re:Finally, some sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552595)

*sigh*, let the flaming begin....

An old business model...

Maybe if someone would just create a steam like system where users can download music from a central source without DRM, and pay a minimal fee to artists for their work? Oh wait, Itunes...

In response to your claims that Illegal downloads are hurting ISPs bandwidth, I would say, A: If a system similar to Itunes existed for movies and TV shows there would be a problem in the fucking first place, and B: If anything it is accelerating the rate of growth for ISPs, causing them to allocate more resources for their users.

And how can you say that a user is hurting it's ISP by consuming bandwidth that they are legally paying for?

Illegal downloading will always exist, but systems like itunes and band websites that allow streaming / download of their music and get money from the ads are still allowing artists to make a profit.

Let me restate a fact: PIRACY WILL ALWAYS EXIST IN ALL FORMS.

Drm won't work, this propaganda won't work.

The media industry needs to end this war on it's customers and find new alternative, and let's be honest, more effective ways of making money.

In short, they need to stop trying to live on an old business model.

Re:Finally, some sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552717)

Let me restate a fact: PIRACY WILL ALWAYS EXIST IN ALL FORMS.

And SHOPLIFTING WILL ALWAYS EXIST IN ALL FORMS.

Therefore merchants on main street need to find a 21st-century business model, one that doesn't treat "customers" who are shoplifters as common criminals!? Yeah, that'll work. I'm sure you have lots of practical experience running businesses to back up those kinds of solutions, right.

Re:Finally, some sense (5, Funny)

slashdotb0t (1645103) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553023)

Therefore merchants on main street need to find a 21st-century business model, one that doesn't treat "customers" who are shoplifters as common criminals!?

Congratulations <Anonymous Coward>, we at slashdot are happy to inform you that you're the one-millionth poster to blur the line between downloading music and stealing a physical object. Your prize, should you wish to accept it, is a one-week vacation in The Guantanamo Bay Hotel. Please reply within 48 hours to accept your prize.

Re:Finally, some sense (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553119)

Lets take the closest physical thing to the music industry, a book store. I can go into almost any book store and read the entire thing if I so please. Guess what? They don't come running over to you screaming "thief!" and press charges when you do that. In fact, many book stores actually -encourage- reading by providing comfortable chairs and tables for reading and having coffee shops so you can drink coffee while you read.

What about restaurants which pay their employees with tips? You don't -have- to tip (in most cases).

What about Red Hat which gives away their product (RHEL, yeah, theres some trademark crap so you pretty much have to download CentOS but its the same thing) and only charges for support? Or Canonical with Ubuntu? Or Mozilla with Firefox? Loads of software companies give away their product.

Re:Finally, some sense (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553493)

Dude, you're missing one big point.

Motley Crue sold like 40000 copies of "red white and crue", a compilation album. That alone netted a total income of about 7 million bucks.

Do you think they're going to give up the ability to make such a massive profit on a couple days' worth of work and tons of marketing? That's really their money machine, the marketing. It has nothing to do with the bands being good in alot of cases (Cases in point: Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, and a million others). They can just sell the bejesus out of their product.

Imagine what would happen if these dudes got shut down, anyway. The guys in their marketing departments would end up in other industries, and I imagine many companies would end up going bankrupt extremely quickly because of pure marketing destruction.

Re:Finally, some sense (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553171)

That's not power you're talking to there. We're talking about people who are so cheap they'll go out of their way to avoid paying a dollar for a song. It's a bunch of wannabe leaches.

Also, this isn't the time to do it. No matter how good the intent, we're talking about a law that is poorly written and will have bad side effects. Bring up the comment again on a more reasonable story.

Re:Finally, some sense (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553209)

So does 150 year+ copyrights, but i don't see them bitching about that.

To all those that think copyrights as they are is a good thing I have one sentence for you: Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been wormfood(or a Popsicle) for nearly a half a century, yet one of his FIRST works, made when airplanes were made of cloth and antibiotics were just a dream, is STILL under copyright. I think we can all agree that is pretty fucked up.

If we had SANE copyrights there would be no reason why I couldn't go and download Jimi, and Janis, the Buddy Holly collection, all the great music of the 50s and 60s, all free and easy. And musicians would be able to use these works to build new music. Instead we know have perpetual copyrights thanks to treasonous politicians taking bribes to have laws passed. That is also seriously fucked up.

So want the world to actually respect your copyrights? Then how about having terms that aren't legalized rape of the public domain. The US copyrights, which seem to be forced more and more down the throats of the rest of the world (sorry about that. we think they suck ass too) is a CONTRACT...nothing more. In return for a LIMITED copyright we, the people of the United States got a richer public domain. But the contract has been broken, and we have been robbed. So until We, The People actually have a seat at the bargaining table I say fuck them and the horse they rode in on. There is NO reason we should support illegal laws forced down our throats paid for in backroom deals by crooked politicians. We no longer have a say, the bribery wins every time. Until we get a vote I say let the pigs starve. I will support local artists by buying merchandise directly from them, and the rest? can kiss my proud southern ass.

Copyrights on software should be 7-10 years, music 10-15. We can argue about specific terms but I think we can ALL agree that 150+ year copyrights terms are no less than the complete hijacking of our culture by greedy pigs running multinational cartels and paid for with the corruption of our election process. i think we can all agree this shit needs to end.

Re:Finally, some sense (1)

Archades54 (925582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553977)

I don't have much problem with this cept as long as the new work differs quite a lot from the original, I'd be pissed if I had made something, and someone else made a profit from basically copy pasting my work into something and flogging it off without any real change. But for the public just downloading it I wouldn't care all that much.

This is not going to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553291)

I am worried.

I am not worried for the pirates, I am not worried for the artists, I am worried for the current RIAA/MPAA.

Bandwidth keeps increasing, BT and other file-sharing services keep getting more and more convenient, and we all know that it's not going to stop.

Let's look at examples where organizations distribute media online in a DRM-free format.

Games: Steam, valve's baby, it is a platform that allows me to sign in and re-download a game as many times as I want, as long as I bought the game. (Some third parties don't like this, but I am talking about valve's games.)

Music: Itunes. (Sort of anyway...) I don't actually use it but I understand that they removed most / all the DRM from their library, correct me if I am wrong, and I am not sure if you can redownload a song more then once but... It's a start.

Also in Music: Youtube! People play a video with a copyrighted song, an ad shows up showing where you can buy the song. But I am talking more along the lines of official videos that band's release on Youtube, I believe several record dealers have deals with Youtube, gaining money in exchange for their music being available to use on the site. (Without trying to take it down) Though I am not sure if this is on a per-listen basis or a yearly contract.

Anyway, time to get to my point:
Why aren't there:

A) Any movie sites that allow DRM-less download.
B) More competitors to Itunes.

Let's be reasonable, if you could download an episode of your favorite show in HD for a minimal price and be able to keep it forever / use it on whatever medium you wanted to, and you knew the artists were getting paid (I'm not sure how much creators of shows usually make now for DVDs you buy), wouldn't you?

Who the fuck wouldn't?

What is the excuse for not having a system like this? Surely no one actually believes that it will lead to more piracy because of the lack of DRM.

And what is with DRM anyway? How much money the MPAA spend on bluray's encryption to have it cracked in the first few months? There is NO WAY that you can give someone information in a DRM form and not expect it to be broken, things always have to be stored in RAM decrypted, if you have a virtual machine you can analyze and crack anything.

So again, why is there no online distribution system like this? What could be the reasons? Is it greed? Is it stupidity? What is it?

Instead we get laws like the DMCA, which prevent competition / enforce a monopoly, prevent user's for executing their fair use rights, and have all sorts of consequences no one considered. (Like affecting the security industry world-wide, despite being an American law.)

And now for the end of my rant:

If something doesn't change, here is what is going to happen:

Bandwidth will improve. New and easier file-transferring protocols will emerge.
Everyone will pirate.

Hollywood as we know it would die.
The music industry as we know it would die.

And everyone would work totally independent, no big studios, no overlying organization. Directors and producers and singers and songwriters would all find each other on their own and all work on their projects without giant companies making demands.

Maybe even copyright law will change... Which is a shame, because I think it's generally a good idea.
If it were a bit saner.

Re:This is not going to stop. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553835)

"Hollywood as we know it would die.
The music industry as we know it would die."

Key words are "as we know it". Of course, you knew that, or you wouldn't have typed the words. ;^)

Allow me to say, that I'm ready for those deaths. Seriously, screw them. When they are dead, someone will inherit the assets, figure out how to make the assets work profitably, and the world will go on as it always does. No big deal. The world has survived the deaths of emperors, kings, prophets, monopolists, and corporations, as well as entire industries. Ask the monks who copied all those fancy bibles in centuries gone by.

Re:Finally, some sense (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553699)

Hi, I'm posting from the future. At first I thought, "Don't worry, be happy", but then it was more like, "It's gonna be a hard days night" and now it's pretty bad, almost "Heaven knows I'm miserable @#%^H!*( NO CARRIER

Re:Finally, some sense (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553793)

No matter how illegal, how immoral, how unethical a down loader's conduct might be - those people who wish to punish him need to go to court to punish him. The ISP has no authority to punish anyone, nor do the rights holders. Only the court has that authority. Attempting to delegate that authority to anyone other than the court for any reason undermines any claims of "justice". It's really that simple.

I will not change my mind for some argument of "Woe is me, I can't afford to file an injunction and a suit against everyone who "steals" my song!" To that, I say, "Tough shit, dude. Find another way to make money from your work, or find another line of work!"

That's fine, you just lie there and be ironical (4, Insightful)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552543)

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading."

Doesn't that pretty well describe the music industry to a T right now?

Re:That's fine, you just lie there and be ironical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552935)

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading."

Doesn't that pretty well describe the music industry to a T right now?

ahhh, you read the summary!

The final quote from the music industry, striking out at UK ISPs, is priceless: "BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading.

how +5 Insightful of you!

Why explain the joke? (-1, Redundant)

bazald (886779) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552965)

Explaining the joke shouldn't be +4 Insightful. It should be -1 Redundant.

Re:That's fine, you just lie there and be ironical (2, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553237)

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading."

Doesn't that pretty well describe the music industry to a T right now?

That, of course, is the joke, but I think even more silly is that the accusation doesn't make any sense in the case of BT. "Old business model"? Huh? If anything, it's the newest business model around.

One gets the impression that the music industry heard themselves accused of said offense, but are hoping to grab the initiative in the public eye.

I think it's actually a common propoganda technique: accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty of, and do it early, and often. If you're lucky, it will stick in the public eye, even if it doesn't make any sense; when the (uninformed) public hears your opponent making the same charge of you, they may think he's "just copying", and will dismiss the accusation, even if it actually makes sense in that case.

George Michael supports it? (4, Funny)

straponego (521991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552555)

...that's all you had to say! If we can't trust the judgment, decency, and foresight of George Michael, who can we trust? The man is a latter day Sodomon. Solomon. Whatever.

Re:George Michael supports it? (1)

fireball84513 (1632561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553017)

you mean Latter-Day Saint right? or do you just mean hes a pious god-fearing hypocrite? (if you say something like "same thing" believe me, i could see it coming a mile away)

Well it's better than (2, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552567)

trying to illegally download music and later discovering later you actually downloaded George Michaels stuff. Wham!

Trust people George ... you've gotta have faith!

Dear Lily (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552579)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

About Lily Allen (4, Informative)

wigaloo (897600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552581)

While stirring up this latest uproar, it turns out that Lily Allen was at the same time distributing illegal mix tapes [torrentfreak.com] on her Web site.

Hypocrite.

Re:About Lily Allen (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552723)

Metallica's bed-wetting cowardly lion of a frontman James Hettfield famously confessed that he used to crash on friends' couches and stay up all night copying his friends' tapes.

You know, the Metallica that helped kill the original Napster many years later?

Re:About Lily Allen (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552799)

One artist wrote a open-letter/song [youtube.com] on this. It's brilliant.

Re:About Lily Allen (4, Insightful)

cubone (533837) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552837)

Mod parent up. It's excellent.

Re:About Lily Allen (4, Funny)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552983)

Mod parent up. He's right.

Re:About Lily Allen (4, Funny)

PachmanP (881352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553435)

Mod me up! They're both right, and I'm a karma whore!

Re:About Lily Allen (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553891)

Mod parent down. He's right!

Re:About Lily Allen (2, Interesting)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552897)

Didn't Lilly Allen say she's dropping out of hte music biz due to the "hate" mail she's been getting about her Statements?

Who said crime does not pay.......^__^

Re:About Lily Allen (2, Interesting)

WNight (23683) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553157)

Report her to her ISP. That's one. Two more and we'll be rid of her!

Re:About Lily Allen (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553347)

She also copied an entire article off of TechDirt [techdirt.com] and posted it on her website without attribution. That's two.

Re:About Lily Allen (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553531)

Hrm, might we have 3 already? Wouldn't each of the 2 (IIRC) mixtapes uploaded count?

Re:About Lily Allen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553769)

Ooh, so now we have to slow her down... so she's sounds out of pitch? I'm sure that'll sell a lot of records *smirk*

Re:About Lily Allen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553543)

So is she volunteering to be subject to the consequences here for her past crimes? No? Oh they weren't crimes back then because she didn't know any better...

I'll just leave this here... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552583)

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk

George Michael says: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552617)

I support the 3 strikes law and, oh yeah, I love to suck dicks. Lots and lots of dicks. In fact, fistfuls of cocks. And, oh yeah, my music FUCKING SUCKS. Who in their right mind would actually buy that horrendous shite, much less download it illegally. Jesus H. Fuckng Christ. Don't people have any sodding taste in music these days?

And don't get me started on that talentless hack bitch, Lily Allen. I shit better music than that ugly, untalented cunt whore could ever possibly conceive of. Stupid fucking bint.

Sincerely,
George Michael

Lilly Allen quitting over this (1)

the_y_the (1158965) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552649)

She is really vehemently against filesharing technology. In fact she has quit from music [smh.com.au] apparently because of filesharing, citing that the days of being able to make money from music is over; and giving up her fight for the hasher 3 strike and you are out scheme.

Besides the obvious questions about being able to definitively identify the correct person responsible (IP addresses can be shared, spoofed, etc), won't this just increase the burden on ISP's and hence make things more expensive for their consumers? Such awesome artifical and abitrary restrictions...

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552693)

Never heard of her. But I have heard of Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Ravel.

Maybe it would be a good thing if the modern music business died.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552757)

Never heard of her. But I have heard of Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Ravel.

So have any of those three stated a position on this policy?

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552773)

What's your point? That they composed for the money? I seriously doubt that, if you love music you would know this to be true.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553107)

No, but they all have spoken to me about how short the period was that copyright applied to their work. Not only did their ghosts receive no money from royalties, it seems that much of their work passed out of copyright before they even died. That's why they all died in poverty, and nobody was haunted by their ghosts.

They might still be voting... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553527)

> So have any of those three stated a position on this policy?

I'm not sure that they've made any statements (unless they're still voting), but the RIAA seems to think that retroactively extending copyrights by 20 years every 20 years will incentivize them to produce more music...

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553935)

Considering that none of them ever tried to sell records of their music, they would be surprised to know that music industry in its current state is even possible.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552737)

Apparently, despite her repeated claims to the contrary, Ms. Allen really IS a whore.

Somebody should remind her that the other 99.9% of musicians who aren't "stars" haven't ever made a living at music, and do it because it's something they enjoy.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552893)

Apparently... Ms. Allen really IS a whore

Because she expected to be paid for her recordings? Please explain your use of the word. Mods, please explain why you modded up this post. Can anyone who expects to be paid for their work be dismissed in a similar derogatory fashion? What is the value of this forum.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552981)

I would like to get paid for my comments on slashdot. Doesn't give me the right to lobby congress to pass laws that force readers to pay me.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553151)

Doesn't give me the right to lobby congress to pass laws

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights? You can do that and not be arrested! Now, you might get called a whore on Slashdot, but this is not a real forum anyway because of the moderators' lack of responsibility. It has become an advocacy site, where only posts consistent with the viewpoints of the file sharers get presented for discussion.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553191)

Lobby is equivalent to bribing.
But please, continue...
Explain to me why Nabokov's book Lolita will be in copyright until 2060 despite its publish date (1955) and the author's death (1977)?

If I were to wait for it to fall into public domain before reading it, I would be old and gray, if not dead.

And of course, copyright might very well have been extended by then unto perpetuity.

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553239)

Lobby is equivalent to bribing.

This is the caliber post that gets modded up Insightful here.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553327)

It's called copyright. You're free to post your comments regarding slashdot in some venue where you can get paid, and would retain the right to restrict access, due to the existing laws regarding intellectual property.

I'm not saying it's a good business model, but it is at least supported by existing laws.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (2, Funny)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553369)

I would like to get paid for my comments on slashdot.

I'm sure the RIAA, MPAA or Microsoft could help you out there.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553669)

Doesn't give me the right to lobby congress to pass laws that force readers to pay me.

Yeah it does. Doesn't mean they should listen to you is all. A little donation here and there should get them listening though. Then you're looking at lifetime+70 odd years for your slashdot comments, plus anyone who quotes it without royalty payment gets disc&*$1XE%W NO CARRIER

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553029)

That's rubbish. I know several musicians who only play pub gigs and sell CDs out of the back of their station wagons, and they're still very much alive. Perhaps they aren't living la dolce vita, but the fact is that they're alive. Imagine if Lily Allen adopted this model - are you suggesting that she would perish from malnutrition, unlike my musician friends? The fact is that just because these "chart-toppers" have gotten used to being paid squillions for stringing together a few songs, doesn't mean they deserve to continue to receive squillions. Times are changing. Modern computers enable people to produce music for a fraction of a percent of what they used to cost. If they were really in it just to make music (as they claim they are), then why would piracy be a problem? Pubs will always need musicians to play gigs, and that's a liveable wage if you're halfway talented.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553975)

"Pubs will always need musicians to play gigs, and that's a liveable wage if you're halfway talented."

That's the real problem. A bunch of lazy oafs who happen to be photogenic are herded into a studio, where a crew of technicians make synthesized music, and dub voices where appropriate get used to an artificial lifestyle. While the industry is making billions, they sprinkle a few millions on the lazy oafs, which convinces them that they must be talented.

How many popular "artists" today actually worked their way up from Bourbon Street, or Bakersfield, or some smoky bar in Backwoods, Nowhere? Precious few.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553311)

Apparently... Ms. Allen really IS a whore

Because she expected to be paid for her recordings? Please explain your use of the word. Mods, please explain why you modded up this post. Can anyone who expects to be paid for their work be dismissed in a similar derogatory fashion? What is the value of this forum.

No, she's a whore because when faced with the possibility that she might make slightly less money due to piracy, she QUIT. That implies that her primary, if not ONLY, motivation for making music was money.

Note that there's nothing wrong with being paid for works - but when that crosses the line to expecting the entire legal system to bend itself into a pretzel to create a new kind of "law" just to protect your profits, it become WHORING.

Think about it - the regulation the UK majors are asking for is unprecedented - it's like preventing somebody from driving because 3 people told a special "not court" entity that they might have seen them breaking a traffic law once.

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552745)

Perhaps she had to downgrade to a Gulfstream 3 instead of a Gulfstream 4. You know, the Gulfstream 3 doesn't even have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system! :-O

Re:Lilly Allen quitting over this (1, Interesting)

belmolis (702863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552763)

Hmm. I wonder if no one has told her that many musicians earn a perfectly good income by means of live performances, as all musicians did not all that long ago. Earning vast sums from recordings is by no means the only business model for music.

Solution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552689)

Boycott the artist and boycott the labels.. try to live without your badass niggas and your blonde sluts. You really don't need that shit! everything starts because you just cant stop drooling for that miserable class of lechers called "artists"

Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29552705)

^ who the fuck are these people?

Re:Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553271)

Some random musicians the music industry could bribe/fool into supporting their position publicly.

Ok, George Michael used to be quite famous for his permanent five-o'clock shadow...

arg (3, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552779)

If someone hasn't been convicted of breaking a law there can be no punishment. If they had anything of substance against someone they wouldn't be pursuing a three strikes law; they'd be in court. If the music industry doesn't want to follow the law but instead act on a hunch then I'd say the entirety of their limited monopoly should be done away with entirely. The law should not be used to intimidate; its purpose is to serve society not serve the greedy to the eclusion of all else.

Re:arg (3, Informative)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552905)

What planet are you from and can I go there? Yes, all of that is in theory true. But in practice it just, sadly, isn't.

Re:arg (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553555)

Well, they may be able to prove that someone did share the music. But good luck proving who it was over that WEP 802.11, with all the technical hurdles involved. And, without proving exactly who, when, where, how, and why, you shouldn't be able to successfully bring a suit against someone. It would almost be like charging someone with murder, and not knowing for sure who did it, what weapon they used, what time it occured, where it happened, how they did it, and why. This is what they are trying to do - get regulation passed so they can enforce their policies without any due process.

Re:arg (3, Insightful)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553681)

They don't even have to successfully bring a suit against someone. The corporations are able to throw that money at lawyers and bankrupt the regular people they suspect are guilty. Win or lose the court case, the labels win.

Free Speech is worth more than Profitable Music (3, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552803)

That's all I've got.

It is basically just old technology against new (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552823)

And as allways before, the old technology will lose and be a historical footnote. So will the companies and artists that do not understand the new one or are unwilling to switch. No law will help. This has happened countless times before and the outcome was always the same.

True, the times were you could get rich distributing creative works by others are over. Distribution is now extremely cheap. Also true the times of insanely richt musicians are likely over as well. Those that adapt will still be able to live very decently, as long as their product does apeal to a reasonable number of people. Examples exist. On the plus side, all those that had problems earning anything, now have the chance to distribute globally with very little cost. Getting a global small audience was pracitcally impossible before. And any audience contains a significant number of people that are willing to pay or donate. I do not see the music culture losing anything overall, just a few rich, lazy and inflexible peole that cling to the old status quo. I do see "big music" dying however.

What counts as "a strike"? (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552829)

Y'know, I have one major point against ideas like this (okay, I have a lot of points against it, but one that really bothers me, as beyond my personal control)...

What counts as a "strike"?

I know the obvious smartass response of "anything the RIAA/MPAA wants", but in practice... Let's even say, for the sake of argument, that "they" can 100% reliably detect when I download something copyrighted. We then have a problem in that everything (in the past 75 or so years, varying a bit by country) has a copyright on it. When I visit the totally legit New York Times website, I have downloaded copyrighted material. When I buy a song on iTunes, I have downloaded copyrighted material.

So now we need the qualifier of "unauthorized", which becomes much more subjective. Who can authorize me? If I have Trent Reznor in my office and he tells me to grab a copy of his latest unreleased album off Kazaa, then I have "authorization" from the artist himself. Yet my ISP has no way of knowing that.

Okay, too unrealisitc? How about MySpace, which Ms. "Can't even write her own anti-piracy rant and has to steal it" Allen used to great effect to promote her own career... Any moron can upload tracks there, even under the band's name (if the band didn't already think to make an account). How can the ISP ever know which count as legit and which don't? For that matter, how can we know the difference?


So yeah, I have a problem with effectively taking away my primary means of communication with the rest of the world, by force of a law that I can't accurately know whether or not I've violated.

Call it overly dramatic, but I don't think the courts realize yet that for anyone under 40, depriving them of internet access amounts to a "dead to our entire peer group" sentence. Just wait, we will see people going on mass killing sprees over this.

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553069)

For that matter, how can we know the difference?

You get a copyright infringement notice:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I, the person whose name is stated below, issue this notice for the purposes of condition 3 of item 4 of the table in subsection 116AH(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 and regulation 20I of the Copyright Regulations 1969.

I am the agent of the owner of the copyright in the copyright material specified in the Schedule, being copyright material residing on your system or network.

I believe, in good faith, that the storage of the specified copyright material on your system or network is not authorised by the copyright owner or a licensee of the copyright owner, or the Copyright Act 1968, and is therefore an infringement of the copyright in the material.

I have taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information and statements in this notice are accurate.
----------------
Regards,

Tarun Sawney,
Senior Director- Anti Piracy, Asia Pacific
BSA
URL: http://www.bsa.org/ [bsa.org]
E-mail: bsa@copyright-compliance.com
Address: 300 Beach Road, The Concourse #25-08 , Singapore 199555
Telephone no: +65-62922072
Fax no: +65-62926369

So then you visit the website provided, and explain yourself and remove the offending music/movie/software. If they don't accept the explanation, then you are classified as a bad person. If you keep doing it, then you are a recidivist and now it's 2 strikes against your name. One more and you're off the net.

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553503)

So then you visit the website provided, and explain yourself and remove the offending music/movie/software. If they don't accept the explanation, then you are classified as a bad person. If you keep doing it, then you are a recidivist and now it's 2 strikes against your name. One more and you're off the net.

You didn't answer the question. The question isn't, how do you know when someone has accused you of copyright infringement? The question is, how do you know what copyright infringement is so you can avoid doing it? How do you know whether a song was put there by the copyright holder or someone unauthorized? How do you know, without a court telling you, whether something is fair use or fair dealing? How do you know if something is in the public domain or licensed under a redistribution permissive license? How do you even know what something is, before you download it?

It seems like what you're suggesting is to say just never download anything because you can assume it's copyrighted, but that's so ridiculous as to be an affront to basic human rights: Followed strictly it would mean closing the Internet because no one could ever download anything. Even if you disqualify the obviously insane examples such as "never visit a web page since it could have an infringing picture" you still end up with a human rights problem because fair use is necessary to reconcile copyright with free speech. If I make a political parody of your work and you send strikes against everyone who views it then you're violating my right to political speech and my audience's right to receive it, regardless that I created a derivative of your work. This proposal has so many fundamental problems that the fact it is even being considered as something other than the subject of ridicule is a testament to the lobbying might of the content industries.

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553561)

Just give the Nigerian scammers something legitimate to imitate, why don't ya....

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553073)

If you're too stupid to know whether you're breaking the law or not when you go download something off a random website that you know you'd usually have to pay for at a store, you deserve to have your internet taken away regardless of whetger you actualy broke the law or not.

So Trent Reznor gave you authorization to download is music? BFD, have Trent contact your ISP and get your strike revoked. Oh, whoops! That won't work for half his music, the ones he willingly signed away the rights to so he could instantly cash in and now has no right to let people download.

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553127)

agreed with most of your post..
actually, not really, as most of it is pretty far fetched, but I wouldn't put it past 'the industry' to go for these things.

But 'what counts' should at least be clarified in both letter and spirit. Spirit because as soon as the letter is written down, thousands of people will write up (contrived) work-arounds that don't go against the letter of the legislation; even though it would likely be against the spirit.

That said, then...

So yeah, I have a problem with effectively taking away my primary means of communication with the rest of the world [...] for anyone under 40, depriving them of internet access amounts

tfs and tfa are talking about bandwidth restrictions. So you can still be totally social with your friends on Facebook, MySpace, watch YouTube videos, etc. You may not be able to discuss the series premiere of FlashForward with them because you didn't watch it 'live' nor did you TiVo it, and because of your constricted bandwidth your FlashForward torrent looks like it'll be taking another 2 weeks to finish, but it's hardly as severe as taking away your interwebz.

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553137)

I hope this doesn't affect people who share videos as well. How am I supposed to get my Doctor Who fix if [MM] is unable to post torrents?

Re:What counts as "a strike"? (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553227)

Just wait, we will see people going on mass killing sprees over this.

Or just steal their technophobic neighbour's broadband... until they get three strikes for their neighbour too :D

Re. your main point, maybe CPU's may be modifed as for the TPM [wikipedia.org] to incorporate download-authorization awareness (DAA). All software which uses TCP/IP will similarly need DAA to obtain a licence?

illegal downloading is hard to stop (1, Informative)

msutchmk2 (1644577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552957)

Yes, downloading music pieces illegally has long been a issue that bothers the whole music industry. In some countries, nearly everybody downloads music from online resources illegally. However, it is hard or we can say impossible to stop them from doing that, because everybody loves free stuff. If you can download music for free, why bother purchase it from itunes? However, I do think the "Three-Strike" Rule should help reduce the illegal downloading from online. But as I have mentioned, it will take a VERY LONG TIME to eliminate illegal downloading and actually, it might take forever.

Re:illegal downloading is hard to stop (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553049)

If you can download music for free, why bother purchase it from itunes?

The problem has gone far beyond that. When the *AA wants Apple to pay for each 30 second sound sample, when they try to remove all independent internet radio stations, and remove YouTube videos with music on them, that is too far. Seriously, how many songs has anyone bought without knowing them? No one buys songs without at least knowing the artist or at least hearing some of their other songs. If I can't even hear what the artist sounds like why am I going to buy the album?

Re:illegal downloading is hard to stop (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553603)

Yes, downloading music pieces illegally has long been a issue that bothers the whole music publishing industry.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:illegal downloading is hard to stop (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553671)

If you can download music for free, why bother purchase it from itunes? However,

Because in Canada every time I burnt a distro or backed up my own photos some musician rights group got the levy I paid on the cd's. And they wonder why I don't buy ANY new music besides being shit. They're greedy enough to make me pay to use cd for things other then music, well I'll just download all I can for free.

Re:illegal downloading is hard to stop (2, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29554025)

Most musicians (notice the use of "most", not "all) make very little money from records, if in fact not leaving them with a debt to the record company. They get their money from live appearances and t-shirts and such.

Laws that limit the number of people listening to their music are likely to limit their income.

You pay anyway (2, Interesting)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29552989)

Well if you think about it, you pay the isp, not the music industry or copyright holders. The music industry quote is a bit of a wakeup call on the concept of 'free file-sharing'.
If you are a p2p downloader, then work out how much you've spent on hardware/software, your time and skill (pro-rata if you desire) and regular payments to whomever to keep the services running. It amounts to a significant recurring charge. Also what about the down-time when you are not P2P-ing? That's wasted bandwith and capacity that you're paying for.
The point being is that it is not free and if the RIAA/MPAA or local equivalent is upset about that, then it's the ISP who will be faced with some form of tax or levy because presently there is no other way around it. The entertainment industry hasn't monitarised copyrighted P2P - I don't think it can. It's expensive to sue infringers, as downloading seems to be legal but uploading (the sharing bit) is illegal, so it's the P2P software at fault here and government intervention by lobbyists is restrictive to personal freedom and the 'free net' philosophy.

Lily Allen is still going to complete her tour, but states that she won't release another track. This is very interesting as tours and tour promotion can go ahead without the arm of the RIAA. Live performances may be the key in all of this. No more digital tracks to download, just go to the live performance instead. If you are an existing band or new band/singer then YouTube/Radio/FTA/Web is the way to promote your goods and make money by touring, wholesale video tracks to Apple and put up with crappy YouTube video of bits of your live concerts.

Re:You pay anyway (1)

Loomismeister (1589505) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553911)

If i can't listen to quality music from my computer I'd just never listen to that artist.

Propaganda much? (4, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553109)

From the title: UK Musicians Back Watered-Down "Three-Strikes" Rule

From the summary: The artists involved include Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw.

This is a classic example of the subtle lie.

This title suggests that ALL UK musicians back this absurd law, when in fact it's a very small number of musicians; the summary mentions three.

The title is correct: this story is about UK musicians that back the "watered-down" three-strikes rule. It's not factually inaccurate. But it is worded so perfectly (and precisely) to be subconsciously misleading. This is the new wave in media, and Fox News, defined.

T'is truly a brave new world.

Re:Propaganda much? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553167)

The point of the title is to provide an accurate description of the article in as few words as possible and to entice the reader to read. Lets see here, UK tells us the setting, musicians basically tell us who are supporting the bill, watered-down "three strikes rule" tells us what they are supporting. I don't know who Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw are. I don't think the average /.er does. I do know where the UK is and what the "three strikes rule" is. Therefore the title would lead me to read the summary and possibly the article. That is the point of the title. What would be a better title? Oh and if you read the article you find that it is The Featured Artists Coalition so that is chances are more than just 3 artists. Because most people don't know who the crap The Featured Artists Coalition are, saying that UK artists support it makes a lot more sense.

Re:Propaganda much? (1)

Spewns (1599743) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553223)

Who gives a damn about "Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw" in the first place? Who are they? I can walk outside if I want to hear random nobodies waving their arms and yelling about god knows what for attention - why are we even discussing this? If all the MAFIAA can get are three random no-names to back a watered-down version of an evil piece of legislation, it tells me they're not only losing their war, but they're becoming more and more desperate as well.

Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553247)

Don't buy their music, if you're dumb enough to do so to begin with.

Musicians aren't the only people who create things (2, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553391)

Programmers create software and software gets pirated. Why are all these new laws structured as if the "music industry" and "movie industry" are the only ones capable of producing copyrighted material? I guess they just have the most lobbyists. They certainly don't have the most money (the game industry alone exceeds the movie industry in revenue), I guess they are the ones willing to resort to abusive legislative tactics, while the software industry is satisfied with abusive anti-piracy measures.

It's hard for me to be sympathetic when most of the music coming out is very derivative and it all sounds the same and is composed of roughly the same rock and blues and R&B riffs.

Piracy (1)

skullzorz (1645101) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553431)

It's good to see some artists trying to reach a "compromise" of sorts with the idea of piracy instead of trying to strike down anyone who's ever downloaded something copyrighted, but it won't really work because people will always find ways to get what they want over the internet no matter what

easy workarounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553601)

how do they catch people doing this? could not the file sharing community simply zip the album and generate a random filename before upload/download?

Lilly Allen is a self confessed drug dealer (3, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553653)

...and now she wants legal protection for the business model that screws artists because she's one of the few that profit by it. You want the law enforced. Fine. Go fucking hand your skanky mockney arse in and stand trial for fucking up kids lives with your drug dealing you filthy two bit self congratulatory self important piece of human trash. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't see a problem with a law that means the mere accusation of a person is enough to prove guilt when it's convenient for you. It's because we live in a world where people like your worthless self are treated like gods. What the fuck is she afraid of anyway? That one day her lifestyle of running around with other skanks like Linsay Lohan might be limited to one million per fucking trip instead of two. Boo fucking hoo.

Re:Lilly Allen is a self confessed drug dealer (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553999)

Look man, obtaining drugs to sell on the street isn't cheap.

Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553967)

I thought you said "musicians".

+cocK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29553979)

numbers co8tinue

penalizes BT customers (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29553983)

[...] penalizes BT's many customers who use the Internet legally.

How exactly are BT's "legal" customers penalized by downloaders?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...