[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:24 PM, paul sutton wrote: > 1. the recording industry argument is that if you share this material on > file sharing sites, then neither the company or artist get anything for > it, and you are hurting the industry, which is a fair argument until > you realise how that money is distributed and it starts to unravel. > The fact I can share a track illegally and that person then perhaps goes > out and buys that album anyway is probably never taken into account. So > its a sort of underground promotion ( as you said in what you wrote above) This happens but this doesn't make up the losses in revenues for the music industry, which are huge. You can accuse the industry of many things, but not of not having done the maths. What we don't know is how much this is because of file-sharing, and how much because of other reasons (people making cd-to-cd copies, changing in lifestyle, etc.). > 2 the thing people for get is that the pirate bay i guess is the same as > megaupload, it is used to share more then just a copyrighted material,. > there could be (or in the case of mega upload) stuff on there that can > be legally shared, e.g documents, music from independent artists who > used it to promote their work, heck there are probably isos of Linux on > there too. all legally you shut down pirate bay and you hurt everyone > involved., and deny those independent artists money, oh by sharing > their own content, creating their own music lables the are hurting the > profits of these huge music companies, so it could be a way to force > them on to big labels so they can grab a huge slice of the revenue. I am rather sympathetic towards this argument. However, while I don't know much about the cases against TPB, in the case of Megaupload it wasn't the fact that their site was used for hosting illegal content (which isn't illegal in itself, as long as you don't encourage it and take it down once you've been made aware of it), but that there was evidence that the people behind MU actively encouraged the use of their service for illegal content. > its a shame that we can't put as much effort in to finding and punishing > people that peddle child porn on line, (you seem to get longer (upt o 5 > years AIUI for copying tracks online) than for copying and making child > porn, but then many of the child protection groups are charities > without huge funds to put into party funds, (see SOPA) as they put > their money where it is needed front line action, shame the music > industry can't learn and put more money in the hands of artists. I don't believe there have been cases under the same legislation where someone copying (not to mention making) child pornography was given a lighter _sentence_ than someone sharing/downloading copyrighted material. I don't know how much funds the child protection charities have, but they have a _lot_ of sympathy among a lot of people (and rightly so -- as long as they don't start going all Daily Mail and want ISPs to block all porn) and can get their stories published easily. > it is like this argument on blocking children from accessing porn > sites, google seems to argue that it is UP TO PARENTS to take control > and acually PARENT their kids rather than being lazy and letting someone > else do it for them and moan when it goes wrong. I agree with google. > on this it is up to PARENTS to do this, install filters not expect > others to do it for them. We agree on this. :-) Also, if my ISP were to block pornographic images they would have to inspect all my traffic. Which wouldn't be possibly if I were to visit a pornography website using an ssh proxy, or via https. Martijn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq