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!

Movie Industry Files Injunction Against UK ISP

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-should-do-it dept.

Piracy 165

daedae writes "The Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents studios including Twentieth Century Fox and Walt Disney, have filed suit in the UK against BT, Britain's largest ISP. The studios are asking for an injunction which would force BT to block access to Newzbin, on the grounds of massive losses to Usenet piracy."

cancel ×

165 comments

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

Hehe, so much for cooperating (3, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619838)

Awh, poor BT, after taking it up the ass for the content owners, they get it shoved up there again!

Remember that when dealing with the content industry, if you give them a finger, they bite of your head.

Once this motion passed, other motions will be easier and easier until the entire internet consist only of sites the content industry approves off. And politicians who are used to compromises let it all happen because they think the content industry will meet them half way. The problem with meeting someone half way is that if it is you who keeps doing this, sooner or later you are completely on the other side.

For those who can read dutch, read it and weep: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/75349/overheid-hollywood-staat-achter-onze-auteursrechtplannen.html [tweakers.net]

For those who can't read dutch: You poor wretch of a not quite human being. How can you face the dark void that is your miserable life each day?

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619862)

off!

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619904)

Should have written a proper fuck off in dutch now shouldn't ya

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619980)

They tried this in Australia. They lost. http://tinyurl.com/3nbvjfr

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619988)

Who needs dutch when you can read the superior language: french :)

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (4, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620102)

Dutch is just swamp German.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620118)

For those who can't read dutch: You poor wretch of a not quite human being. How can you face the dark void that is your miserable life each day?

Dutch, a language with less native speakers than other great winners like Tagalog or Hausa.

But don't worry, it's still almost five times more useful than Mandingo. :)

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

mattoo (909891) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621228)

Which is why native dutch speakers typically speak a lot of languages, so a native dutch speaker is probably able to communicate with a lot more people than a native english speaker!

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621278)

The main reason for that is actually on topic: the movie industry. Dutch TV contains a huge amount of foreign-language content, with subtitles. If you grow up listening to foreign languages and reading subtitles of the translations, it's hard to avoid learning at least a bit of a few other languages, and English has the advantage that everyone speaks it badly, especially native speakers...

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620206)

Just as bad is the fact that they want to use Cleanfeed, the system that silently and transparently blocks child porn sites. Talk about a slippery slope. We were assured that this system would not be abused for commercial reasons, it was purely for blocking the worst examples of child abuse.

BT has a history of screwing its customers. They throttle iPlayer and YouTube so you can't watch the high quality streams in the evenings, and heavily retard (or "manage" as they prefer) P2P traffic. They have data unlimits* too. They also conducted secret Phorm trials and somehow got away without anyone going to jail. Oh, and according to Ofcom their "up to 20Mb" service gets an average of about 7Mb.

* In ISP land "unlimited" now means the same thing as "limited", the only possible difference being that with unlimited sometimes the actual figure is a secret (e.g. Virgin's is 350GB/month but they don't publish it). I suppose it is a bit like flammable and inflammable. Therefore I am coining a new word: unlimit. It means the same thing as limit.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

TMW2N (157210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620408)

to be fair Virgin's "limit" is at peak times, when you're probably going to find things are a bit slow anyway. I'm on Virgin, and downlod more than that most months, mostly overnight, and I've never had their warning letter.
Virgin are pretty up front about their peak time monitoring, and afaict have only recently come up with a figure for triggering their sending of a letter.
(for disclosure reasons i work for a company who work for virgin, but have no interest in promoting their services, i'm just giving my experiences)

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621064)

There are two limits on Virgin, the daytime and evening STM limits where they throttle your connection down to below 20% normal speed, and the hidden 350GB monthly limit. If you pass the monthly limit they send you a nasty letter informing you that you are using their unlimited service too much and please try to stay within the unlimit in future.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620528)

Whats I didn't like about BT is that they lie about their throttling, I kept getting very slow speeds, a 8mb connection when I was certain I could get more (I live very close to the exchange) and very slow evening speeds, was told everything was fine on their end and it must be a wiring fault for which I was responsible to get fixed etc.

I ended up switching to a popular slightly niche isp, paid slightly less each month, have a rock solid stable 17mb connection which I could probably get more out of if I fiddled with the master socket/bell wire), no cap and my choice of fastpath/interleaving and can even set my DB/SNR settings, so rock solid but slowly, very very fast but sometimes get a dropped line etc.

BT lied for months about slow speeds, especially in the evening being nothing to do with them, and they were not throttling.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621482)

Oh, so you're on BE now then ? :p

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620586)

CLeanfeed was already being abused... ORON was being blocked allegedly because some of the images being hosted there were kiddie porn, but the entire site was being blocked... it just so happens ORON is also a weblocker type company and was hosting content other than kiddie porn... the end result of blocking it for the few items of kiddie porn was that it was also being blocked for the pirated content it was hosting... I was wondering when Rapidshare and the other weblocker firms would fall foul of Cleanfeed... after all, it wouldn't be beyong the wit of the content industry to sneakily plant kiddie porn up there and get Cleanfeed to block them as well...

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620488)

And politicians who are used to compromises let it all happen because they think the content industry will meet them half way.

The original sin was to invent copyright in the first place. If you grand some rights to anybody or any entity, you can't expect that entity to compromise on it: they'll want it enforced, no matter what, because the moment you granted them that right, you've always sold the farm. All WE can do, is to heat up the pressure on the politicians to limit copyright again. But I highly doubt that I'll see this in my lifetime. Maybe a new generation, accustomed to file sharing will eventually, but it takes at least one generation to phase out the current breed of politicians. And even then, it's not sure we'll be there eventually: just look at current youngsters who keep parroting stuff like "sharing is stealing." They've took the RIAA/MPAA bait hook, line, and sinker. I'm not very optimistic.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620614)

The original sin was to invent copyright in the first place. If you grand some rights to anybody or any entity, you can't expect that entity to compromise on it:

There's nothing absolute about copyright any more than any other human right. It's all a question of what society agrees amongst itself is a good idea. So there is absolutely no reason not to hav reasonable copyright laws.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621060)

The original sin was to invent copyright in the first place.

The concept of copyright in itself is not such a bad thing. Firstly it is the cornerstone on top of which the GPL and a large amount of open source software is built:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html [gnu.org]

Without copyright a company could take open source software and utterly violate the GPL without the original author having any remedy what so ever.

Secondly, there are many of us who rely on producing content protected by copyright in order to put food in our mouths and pay the rent. Take the example of computer games, these take many man hours to produce initially from many different people but can be infinitely copied once they are a finished product. Without the concept of copyright you could buy a computer game, then sell it on as many times as you wanted without sharing any of the vast profits you made with the people who produced the product originally. Since you did not have the overheads of actually producing the game in the first place you could sell it far cheaper than the original authors and so more people would buy it from you than them. This would obviously not be any fairer than the current system.

Under a capitalist system without copyright law this is exactly what would happen too since the most ardent capitalists find any way they can of making as much money as possible. The only way to prevent this without some sort of copyright law is to remove money from the equation but that requires the people who made the game in the first place to not need money either and this would only be the case in a pure socialist society.

Since we are not living in a pure Socialist world with no money we need some sort of way to ensure that people can produce content like books, games, music and films and still some sort of reward. What's more, they need to be sure they will get a reward if they produce something popular in order to have an incentive to do it and the means to produce more after the first once is published.

The only argument is therefore if there should be exemptions to copyright law for certain things like books covering medicines and healing and how long copyright should be protected. I am not making any suggestions for either of these, just suggesting that it is not as easy as scrubbing all concepts of copyright from our law books, something you seem to be suggesting by calling copyright an original sin.

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (1)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621116)

The concept of copyright in itself is not such a bad thing. Firstly it is the cornerstone on top of which the GPL and a large amount of open source software is built:

The GPL wouldn't need to exist if we didn't have copyrights.

That said, I will agree with your first point - The granting of extremely limited exclusive rights for a single-digit number of years after creation quite likely does encourage people to create; Allowing the enforcement of copyrights for so long that the original vanishes into obscurity long before anyone has the right to archive it, however (a huge problem with source code, where after even 25 years we have more complete works from ancient Greece than we do from smaller mid-80s dev houses), does not serve the goal of adding to the common stock of our culture.

you dont understand the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621148)

the reason that GPL software even exists is due to actual copyright extremes and such. if there was not copyrights then it would not exist windows would not dominate and thre would be no need nor have been a linux. BUT you force windows on us and other crap and this is what happens you make a safe spot inside the system and with the GPL it is protected.

there hope that tells you something.and why is my right click spell checker no longer workign?

Re:Hehe, so much for cooperating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621210)

or use Google Translate (automatic in chrome, my fav browser).... pft who needs to learn dutch.....

Would it really have hurt.... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619840)

to have given an accurate summary? They are not asking for an injunction again Newzbin, that site was sued into oblivion. They are asking for an injunction against Newzbin2 which has arisen to take its place. TFA you submitted says just that.

Actually I can't hold you to that, the article is horridly written.

"The Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents studios including Twentieth Century Fox and Walt Disney, is urging a judge to grant an order forcing telecoms group BT to cut off access to the Newzbin website."

"The MPA won a court battle against Newzbin last year and the site was taken offline."

"But it reopened abroad under the name "Newzbin2" and is run by anonymous operators, compelling the MPA to take the unusual step of trying to force BT to block the site."

This is why you hire editor's to proof these things children. Someone should have slapped this writer for contradicting himself within his own story.

So friggin' what! (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619956)

Kill Newsbin2 and Newsbin3 will take it's place, kill Niewsbin3 and along comes Newsbin4. Will the MPAA never accept that there is no winning this battle and concentrate it's energies on producing products that people are actually willing to buy instead of trying to continue their failing business model that assumes people will pay for whatever crap they choose to market? Make good movies and people will pay you to make more good movies, make crap and try to market it as gold and people will through shit back in your face.

Re:So friggin' what! (3, Insightful)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620190)

This is an attempt to put a precedent into law. The next step will be massive numbers of lawsuits against everything under the sun, clogging up the legal system to the point where they can say "Look, put in a DCMA-style takedown system and we won't have to bother you anymore". Some judge tired of hearing these cases will start the ball rolling. At that point we may as well just hand UK internet over to the MPA.

Re:So friggin' what! (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621484)

until it hits the highest courts in the UK that is, which would maybe strike this down - or it could go to the EU, in which case it probably would be struck down.

Re:Would it really have hurt.... (1)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621512)

This is why you hire editor's to proof these things children.

Oh dear, Muphry's Law [wikipedia.org] strikes again.

Would otherwise have purchased them? (3, Interesting)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619854)

Because all those using usenet to get movies would otherwise have purchased them? I doubt it.

Is this not the same as suing gun manufacturers for making lethal tools?

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620050)

No, it's like suing Wal-Mart for selling them.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (5, Insightful)

hawkinspeter (831501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620080)

No, it's more like forcing pavement (sidewalk for you american-english speakers) makers to rip up the street to prevent you from going to a gun shop.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620616)

THAT'S IT!
Replace all the walkways and roads with lava!
Nobody will be able to get anything! Problem solved.

Contacting MPA, I'm sure they will love this new discovery.
Although they will have quite a challenge replacing the internet with lava, but I am sure they will manage it given they live in The Zone.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620434)

Is this not the same as suing gun manufacturers for making lethal tools?

The problem is they don't provide proper instructions for wart removal... Brit man shoots off own finger to remove 'painful' wart [deccanchronicle.com]

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620712)

Because all those using usenet to get movies would otherwise have purchased them? I doubt it.

I think if you can be bothered to download a movie from usenet (which is not as straightforward as just pressing "play" on your TV recorder), you are probably quite interested in that movie, and there is indeed quite a good chance you would have paid something to see it.
So, no, not everyone would otherwise have purchased it, but an unknown percentage would.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620732)

Because all those using usenet to get movies would otherwise have purchased them? I doubt it.

I think if you can be bothered to download a movie from usenet (which is not as straightforward as just pressing "play" on your TV recorder), you are probably quite interested in that movie, and there is indeed quite a good chance you would have paid something to see it.

So, no, not everyone would otherwise have purchased it, but an unknown percentage would.

I think it's the other way around: Since downloading from usenet requires a certain amount of interest and work, it would be a helluva lot easier for them just to buy it in the first place. Since they are actually investing a lot of work in pirating it, it seems plausible that they never would have bought it.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621250)

HOLY EMBARASSING LOGIC FAILURE, BATMAN! Think about the previous poster's hypothetical; then think about your response; then ask yourself: "Why am I so freaking dumb?"

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620738)

is usenet more complex than torrents?

cause with torrents and magnet, i can just go to tpb, search, click on the magnet sign, and the movie on my disk in a few hours

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621066)

In my experience easier, more reliable and always fills my pipe. ymmv.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621192)

Even easier is subscribing to an rss feed of latest movies / episodes torrents.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621092)

So, no, not everyone would otherwise have purchased it, but an unknown percentage would.

I think I can narrow it down to somewhere between 0 and 100.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621174)

It may be more effort the first time (and maybe that is more effort than getting Netflix maybe not - depends on having a credit card, etc). Internationally it may be the easiest/only way to access this content After that it's just a browsing exercise.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621542)

It's not much more complex. The point of newzbin seems to be to provide indexes of usenet groups, providing files that instruct clients which posts they need to download to get a particular movie and how to assemble them. Presumably you just go to their web site, pick the thing you want to download, click on a link to the file describing it, and then your usenet client grabs the files, assembles them and presents them for you to play.

The more interesting thing to note is that the number of users willing to pay to access binary newsgroups expressly for the purpose of downloading this kind of content. If the MPAA had any brains, then they'd realise that these people have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for quickly delivered DRM-free movies, and would spend some time working out how to get them to pay the copyright holders, rather than intermediates who don't pay them anything.

Re: Would otherwise have purchased them? (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621188)

This has always been a bullshit argument offered up by people who are desperate to convince themselves (and others) that they're not stealing (which they are).

What happened to HRA 1998, ECHR Article 10? (2)

kasnol (210803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619858)

Right... And i thought such injunction is inconsistent with HRA 1998 / ECHR Article 10, freedom of expression. You shouldn't block the public access to information...

Re:What happened to HRA 1998, ECHR Article 10? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620216)

I hope they get counter-sued for tortious interference in a contract between two other parties (BT and their consumers).

Re:What happened to HRA 1998, ECHR Article 10? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621392)

Generally, the act allegedly constituting tortious interference must have been illegal or at least improper in some way; hence the word "tortious".

So in other words, No.

-Legal Troll (censored and unable to post due to unpopularity of opinions)

Re:What happened to HRA 1998, ECHR Article 10? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620384)

Right... And i thought such injunction is inconsistent with HRA 1998 / ECHR Article 10, freedom of expression. You shouldn't block the public access to information...

Unless that information is copyrighted, or patented, or a trade secret, or immoral, or a matter of national security, or ...

Re:What happened to HRA 1998, ECHR Article 10? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620684)

The human rights act soesn't say you have a right to all information in the world for free.

Re:What happened to HRA 1998, ECHR Article 10? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620784)

It's not an absolute right unfortunately:

Under Article 10, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema.”

The Convention continues; “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for the maintaining of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

It would fall under "prevention of disorder or crime" in this case.

Moster beats by Dr.Dre solo hd (-1, Offtopic)

shenzhen1234 (2324524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619866)

Hi ,this is shenzhenelectronic. Our website is www.shenzhenwholesale.com we have some electronics ,for example Microsoft Xbox360 Live card 10000 US PointsMoster beats by Dr.Dre solo hdMoster beats Dr.Dre pro and so on. Welcome to visit our website Moster beats by Dr.Dre solo hd http://www.shenzhenelectronic.com/monster-beats-by-dr-dre-solo-hd-headphones-black-red-white-hot-sell_p53915.html [shenzhenelectronic.com] Moster beats Dr.Dre pro http://www.shenzhenelectronic.com/brand-new-monster-beats-by-dre-pro-headphones-in-white-black-5pcslot-hot-selling_p53932.html [shenzhenelectronic.com]

Dear American MPA Idiots, (1)

omfg-no (1848750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619876)

Go somewhere else and fornicate Yours Sincerely UK

Re:Dear American MPA Idiots, (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619972)

Go somewhere else and fornicate Yours Sincerely UK

Yes, they are so gay.

Re:Dear American MPA Idiots, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620224)

Go somewhere else and fornicate Yours Sincerely Everyone

Fixed that for you

Again??? (2)

sirnobicus (1595021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619886)

Why is this news worthy, Every second day the MPA, xxAA is going after some one due to massive losses.

Re:Again??? (2)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619930)

An American association is trying to force a British ISP to censor the internet, and you consider this non news worthy?

Re:Again??? (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619944)

The American movie industry has been trying to censor the entire world's internet, in case you hadn't noticed. It being the UK this time is nothing special.

Re:Again??? (1)

The Bringer (653232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620958)

It's because America's economy has little of value outside their intellectual property. Relatively speaking of course.

Re:Again??? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620482)

MPA != MPAA

Re:Again??? (3, Insightful)

ashkante (1714490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620062)

Maybe their "losses" wouldn't be so massive if they weren't spending all their money on lawyers?

Re:Again??? (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620074)

They are most definitely not suffering massive losses. Massive copyright infringement does not necessarily mean massive losses, the two have never been connected in any meaningful way. It's merely speculation, fuzzy math, and fear-mongering from big business.

Exactly because... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620170)

...they go after someone every other day.

Have you noticed that YOU are already conditioned to consider that to be perfectly normal?

Re:Again??? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620282)

You forgot to put massive losses in quotes (and with a [sic] after it), viz: "massive losses"[sic]

Fun quote (5, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619924)

"The applicants and others have been making huge efforts, not only against the Newzbin website, but against piracy in general and yet the industries are still suffering huge losses to piracy," Richard Spearman, representing the MPA, told the court.

I guess this is as close we'll ever get to hearing them say "Over the past 10 years we've spent a lot of our members' cash trying to kill off sharing sites, yet we've ultimately proven ineffective."

Apple, Amazon, Spotify, and others have affected piracy far more than the RIAA/MPAA/etc. ever will.

Re:Fun quote (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620248)

The MAFIAA should take a look at usenet service providers. They charge a flat monthly fee for all-you-can-download or you can buy so many gigabytes of data allowance. If they offered something like that with music in FLAC format and a good selection of TV and movies I'd probably take them up.

Re:Fun quote (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620400)

I suppose we'll eventually see a package deal with movies, TV, and music all for one monthly price. I doubt we'll ever see lossless included in that, but we can dream ;).

It's not a subscription service, but FLAC has been gaining more and more speed online.

Topspin [topspinmedia.com] handles a lot of big names (I see Beastie Boys, The Doors, Linkin Park, Lady Gaga, and Paul McCartney on their front page. Lots more deeper in.) as well as a ton of awesome indie bands (The Whigs [thewhigs.com] are great, check them out!).

Bandcamp [bandcamp.com] focuses on indie bands. I've recently bought albums from Young Beautiful in a Hurry [bandcamp.com] , Beast Make Bomb [beastmakebomb.com] , and Andrew Figueroa Chiang and the Blazing Rays of the Sun [bandcamp.com] through them. You can usually stream entire albums (not just previews) for free as much as you want before you buy, so it makes for a really nice experience.

Both usually have MP3, AAC, FLAC, ALAC, and sometimes even audiophile quality 24bit/96kHz FLAC (if bands provide).

Re:Fun quote (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620728)

The MAFIAA should take a look at usenet service providers. They charge a flat monthly fee for all-you-can-download or you can buy so many gigabytes of data allowance. If they offered something like that with music in FLAC format and a good selection of TV and movies I'd probably take them up.

Or, to put it another way, these usenet service providers are making money out of copyright infringement, which I thought we didn't agree with here, as it will be perfectly obvious from which groups are being accessed whether people are downloading Linux ISOs or the latest Transformers pile of crap.

Re:Fun quote (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621048)

Or, to put it another way, these usenet service providers are making money out of copyright infringement, which I thought we didn't agree with here, as it will be perfectly obvious from which groups are being accessed whether people are downloading Linux ISOs or the latest Transformers pile of crap.

What I meant was that there is a market for such a service, and as rights holders the MAFIAA are in a position to provide one legally. In fact that is pretty much what Spotify, Hulu and Netflix do, right? Flat monthly fee, consume as much as you like.

That's what happens (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619950)

That's what happens when you make censorship legal, like the UK recently did. People are going to start expecting you to enforce it

Re:That's what happens (1)

buglista (1967502) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620108)

what, when? It's always been awkward with the libel laws, and public interest immunity certificates, D-notices and the like. But what's got worse recently?

(e.g. see Simon Singh vs. BCA)

PS. RSF - Reporters Without Borders - place UK and USA at #19 and #20 respectively in the Press Freedom Index. ( http://www.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2011/GB/C_GENERAL_GB.pdf [rsf.org] )

Re:That's what happens (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620322)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010 [wikipedia.org]

Censorship in the name of fighting copyright infringement is still censorship.

And it's still censorship when done by corps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620496)

And it's still censorship when done by other than the government.

Yet you'll never hear of an american fundamentalist complain of it.

Re:That's what happens (2)

buglista (1967502) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620766)

yeah. that was a half-baked POS bill if ever there was one. I'd forgotten about that for the moment - though I did write to my MP about it at the time.

Re:That's what happens (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620840)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010 [wikipedia.org]

Censorship in the name of fighting copyright infringement is still censorship.

No, it's not. Censorship means that the government makes it illegal to distribute or own a piece of work at all. Censoring would be applied to the distributors of films, not consumers.

Re:That's what happens (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620776)

That's what happens when you make censorship legal, like the UK recently did. People are going to start expecting you to enforce it

Preventing people from downloading free versions of copyrighted material is not censorship. If I want to see Fast and Furious 5 (or whatever) I can go to the cinema, get it on DVD, watch it on Sky or whatever. I do not have a human right to be able to downloaded it for no cost at my convenience.
Calling this censorship is trivialising real censorship, such as executing journalists or placing artists under house arrest.

Re:That's what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621534)

No, you're right it isn't... but when you give an opening that can be abused (like the UK has)... you open up the door to massive abuse by people who really do want to restrict what you can and cannot see. (Whether it be because of money or "that they know best" doesn't really come into play here.)

It's rather like twisting a law to get at your political opponent or business rival... the UK just made it easier to twist their law's intent. That's not to say the US doesn't have the same problem, either. Besides, why WOULD you want to see Fasterrer and Furiouserrer 5? :) 99% of movies aren't worth paying to see even at matinee prices... I can't fathom why people waste bandwidth downloading them.

New Javascript on Slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619990)

Ok, before (right after the latest "big" css / javascript change) it was a bit annoying, if I wanted to visit a link that was in a post, I would click on it and it would instead open the GP comment until all comments were open in that thread and then I was able to click on the link and it would go.

Now! I come in today and I can no longer click on links in the comments. No right click - does nothing. No left click - does nothing. WTF!?

No, I am not using some crazy unknown browser on some obscure OS. I am running windows 7 with the latest Firefox. How in the world can you not fucking test on that?

Not the only one (1)

Jimmythekey (2034376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620014)

There are far far more indexing sites than newzbin, and better ones at that!

BAN the MPAA from the network (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620056)

One way to stop this, is to re-write the ISP TOS that if you work for the MPAA, you can't use the connection for business. This way the moment they file a lawsuit, a counter suit is filed for breaking the TOS and denying any crap found using the connection.

Re:BAN the MPAA from the network (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620414)

I had a similar thought when I saw this story yesterday. BT and the other ISPs in the UK should just kick the MPAA off the internet - cut any service they have in the UK and block all their sites hosted abroad. There's no reason why ISPs should be forced to do business with them.

Re:BAN the MPAA from the network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620556)

So Are you for or against net neutrality?

Re:BAN the MPAA from the network (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620666)

Contract freedom still trumps net neutrality. Try again.

What outcome to expect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620086)

I keep smashing ants with sledge hammer.

Somehow, there are always more ants, and my house is wrecked. What is going on?

The problem with massively distorting piracy figures is that everyone becomes the enemy ...

I suspect they now think that they just make movie cause they want too, as no one is paying to see them ...

Oh, what the hell. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620112)

Come on guys - who talked about Usenet Club?!?!

"massive losses" == Boycott? (4, Interesting)

malsbert (456063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620158)

How many here has boycotted the xxAA members?

I have, and that makes me a little worried when i see the xxAA use claims of "massive losses" to justify their continuous lawsuit, i mean; When i no longer go to, or rent movies, the xxAA suffers losses, that is after all the point of boycotting them :) BUT, if all the xxAA has to do, is to make the claim; if i am not buying their "content" then i must be stealing it! where does that leave me and my little boycott? is there any point to a boycott, if it can be dismissed so easily? should i just forget it, and start pirating?

Re:"massive losses" == Boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620694)

If they had it their way, they'd sue people just for not consuming their content (after all not buying their valuable trite is evidence for piracy!)

Re:"massive losses" == Boycott? (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620952)

is there any point to a boycott, if it can be dismissed so easily? should i just forget it, and start pirating?

Boycotts do not work. Not against an adversary of the MAFIAA's financial might. Assassinating their officials, murdering their lawyers, bombing their offices and targeting their assets with wholesale destruction, however, will work. The sweet money your masters pay you ain't so sweet anymore if the price for it is being pumped full of red-hot lead at your workplace or being beheaded in front of your employees.

Re:"massive losses" == Boycott? (1)

malsbert (456063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621442)

Damn Jock, What did the MAFIAA do to you?!? Impound your Pron collection?

I mean; if they did, I see were your coming from, those thing takes Years to build up!

Genie is out the bottle (3, Insightful)

Stu101 (1031686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620262)

At the end of the day, file sharing wont go away. It may well change forms and maybe even go back to sneaker net or "swap meets" but no matter what they do, they won't be able to get back to the 80s revenue streams. (It doesn't help that the music is more crap these days, but thats another argument)

At the end of the day, the world of file sharing has been changed forever by the internet. We can get offshore encrypted proxies for as little as $5.

The other major difference the net has made is that people are better connected and tend to gravitate to like minded people. In the world of instant communication, encryption and dropbox et all, sharing will just mutate into other forms, and groups with similar interests will create their own file sharing platforms and darknets.

Also in my area at least (or my interests) there are more artists giving stuff for free.

The days of mega money from media are gone. All this is akin to trying to put toothpaste back in the tube, it's not going to work.

Re:Genie is out the bottle (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620292)

When I was a student most other students had twin tape decks and shelves full of cassette tapes. Strangely enough, the "80s revenue streams" happened after that.

Re:Genie is out the bottle (0)

nullcodes (2325500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620866)

When I was a student most other students had twin tape decks and shelves full of cassette tapes. Strangely enough, the "80s revenue streams" happened after that.

thanhkyous you for nullcodes

Re:Genie is out the bottle (0)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620902)

When you grow up you will realise that the relatively small amount of money that adults spend on music/movies/games or whatever is really not an issue to them, and they'd rather spend ten quid on a DVD than hours downloading and reassembling it from usenet.
Once you're working, you don't really have the time or inclinaion to watch two or three movies a day anyway.

Re:Genie is out the bottle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621318)

Price check on a TV series boxed set.

Out of scope much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620300)

Next they'll sue the electricity companies for providing people with the electrons they need to download copyrighted material. Then come the cars. The cars allow people to drive to markets where they can buy counterfeit goods. The cars must be redesigned so this is not allowed or WE WILL SUE!!

Douchebags.

Re:Out of scope much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620376)

Problem is that BT and other ISPs have already shown themselves prepared to censor sites on the Internet Watch Foundation blacklist in the name of combating child porn, so surely it's only a small step to start blocking sites on the MPA's blacklist too in the name of combating copyright infringement. Slippery slope, people... slippery slope.

Films can be download for free? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620440)

Sorry, but with the current state of the film industry, I would only watch films if they paid me - paid me an awful lot to watch their awful crap.

Re:Films can be download for free? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620940)

Sorry, but with the current state of the film industry, I would only watch films if they paid me - paid me an awful lot to watch their awful crap.

No one is forcing you to watch their awful crap, you know, any more than you have to listen to their horrible music.

The first rule of usenet (2)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620658)

Usenet? Preposterous--no one's used that fossil internets relic since 1990. The MPAA would be smarter to go after newer technology, like that Napster stuff.

Re:The first rule of usenet (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621274)

Would clients like bintube fall under usenet?

I don't get it. Why do they not sue the American (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620824)

Why do they not sue the American NNTP providers
    Registrant:
            Easynews Holdings, Inc.
            Inc. Easynews Holdings
            PO Box 1286
            Winter Park, FL 32789
            US
            Email: admin@easynews.com

      Domain Name: SUPERNEWS.COM
      Registrar: TUCOWS.COM CO.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
      Name Server: NS1.SUPERNEWS.COM
      Name Server: NS2.SUPERNEWS.COM
      Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Status: clientUpdateProhibited
      Updated Date: 09-oct-2010
      Creation Date: 17-apr-1996
      Expiration Date: 08-oct-2020

That's horrible! (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620864)

A potential loss of potential profit. Of course, using their superior intellect, they are able to transform that into a situation where they are certainly losing money that already belongs to them!

I bet BT agreed to this action beforehand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621444)

Hey, we really really want to go after our users but could end up at the wrong end of a lawsuit unless we can show compelling reason. I know, how about you get an injunction to force us. Don't worry, we won't fight the injunction too vigorously, then we can give our users hell and there won't be anything they can do about it.

Sorted!

Enough BS (1)

Evtim (1022085) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621550)

OK, it is time for reckoning. Does anyone believe anymore that money loss is the prime drive of the media distributors? I don't. It is impossible that all of them are fools and do not see that they can only loose.

So, what is the deal? What do they want?

I don't know but my speculation is that it is about control of the internet. They just got a good deal with governments. Our Overlords use false, unprovable claim of money loss, the distributors play along. G'ment installs total control banging the drum (reinforced by the terrorist threat and protection of the kids) . After the scam is executed the scammers give each other favors.

Can anybody think of other possibilities (again I say they can't be all idiots)?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?