The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176

Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.

A stone to stop a river?

That aside am I missing something here, why isn't BT included?

I thought BT got covered on a previous court ruling a couple of months ago?

Anyway, I agree. This is the most hideous court ruling I've read about in recent years.

Not that I condone file sharing but if you were to do this then there are plenty of very good private member sites that negates the need to use places that are open line Pirate Bay.

In reply to a post by mixt:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176

Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.

I haven't downloaded anything from TPB for must be over a year, not because the media companies or governments bs, but because searching for somethings there wasn't nothing new,

but for the likes of some of the bbc stuff such as the eastenders omnibus it has it's uses , as they the bbc don't keep there progs on the site too long, and insist on adding their DRM to anything you download, this means after a set time it will no longer play,
what do people pay for in the license for, no need to put DRM in already broadcasted content
Block this block that culture has begun it would seem, wish someone would block them from stealing our oxygen

In reply to a post by doleawg:

A stone to stop a river?

That aside am I missing something here, why isn't BT included?

Read the article

A sixth ISP, BT, requested "a few more weeks" to consider their position on blocking the site.

Because the rights they have for material that is broadcast often means it is only licensed for a certain period of time on iPlayer. Hence the other legal methods for getting the content, where a financial transaction takes place to pay the for the licence to play for X hours.

Or put it another way, if BBC say no to DRM, then many content makers would say no to appearing in the iPlayer . As it stands some programme makers so no to even the DRM content.

TPB was good for TV programmes, but as you say, there are plenty of private sites. When the government decides to make all torrents illegal, there's always usenet.

Hey, I've just had a great idea, if the government banned the internet that would prevent a lot of breach of copyright, anyone got Mr Cameron's telephone number?

If a 60 minute show was available without DRM for £1 would you buy it?

In reply to a post by everhopeful:

TPB was good for TV programmes, but as you say, there are plenty of private sites. When the government decides to make all torrents illegal, there's always usenet.

Hey, I've just had a great idea, if the government banned the internet that would prevent a lot of breach of copyright, anyone got Mr Cameron's telephone number?

http://www.davidcameron.com/2007/06/contact-david-ca...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/contact-us/

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 30-Apr-12 18:55:43)

It won't achieve anything, a quick type into google "newzbin ip" and open sesame!
i'm with BT by the way.
[IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/2janbls.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/356l1.jpg[/IMG]

You have to wonder, how have Cinema and DVD sales been impacted by torrents? And if that sum is great, is it because of the price of DVDs, or the cost of a hot dog in the cinema? (not to mention the lack of a nice beer, and the ability to smoke, if you do)

People wouldn't spend time and valuable bandwidth downloading stuff if it could be bought/seen for a reasonable price. I pay my license fee, why must I only watch a programme when it's broadcast? Sky doesn't seem to think it's necessary...

Your multi-millonaire film stars could do the same job for a lot less money.

People (film studios, the government) get greedy, people find a way around (piracy, buying stuff from Europe).

Just sayin' is all.....

Sky pays handsomely for many of the series, and there are things missing from their anytime+. so while larger than the BBC, you do pay Sky a lot more over the course of a year.

Most of the TV shows I download are shown in this country a couple of months after being aired in the US, I suppose I am just being impatient but would not be prepared to pay to watch them early. As for BBC programs that I download, they are available on the iplayer anyway, it's just that I would rather burn them to a RW disc and watch them on TV (I do not have a smart TV). My activities do not cause a loss of revenue to anyone as I see it.

In reply to a post by AndyPandy:

You have to wonder, how have Cinema and DVD sales been impacted by torrents? And if that sum is great, is it because of the price of DVDs, or the cost of a hot dog in the cinema? (not to mention the lack of a nice beer, and the ability to smoke, if you do)

People wouldn't spend time and valuable bandwidth downloading stuff if it could be bought/seen for a reasonable price. I pay my license fee, why must I only watch a programme when it's broadcast? Sky doesn't seem to think it's necessary...

Your multi-millonaire film stars could do the same job for a lot less money.

People (film studios, the government) get greedy, people find a way around (piracy, buying stuff from Europe).

Just sayin' is all.....

And in the U.S.A they have started or are going to Fit covert CCTV inside the cinema It is supposed to be able to detect the lenses of cameras and phones, Solely they say to stop people filming content with camcorders ect, Do people still do this? who wants to watch or download a cam when the DVD rip is normally available after a few weeks sometimes only days later

movie spy cameras attack the dying art of camcorder piracy

In reply to a post by everhopeful:

Most of the TV shows I download are shown in this country a couple of months after being aired in the US, I suppose I am just being impatient but would not be prepared to pay to watch them early. As for BBC programs that I download, they are available on the iplayer anyway, it's just that I would rather burn them to a RW disc and watch them on TV (I do not have a smart TV). My activities do not cause a loss of revenue to anyone as I see it.

Do you destroy those DVDs after the show has been removed from iPlayer? If not, how long do you keep them? Perhaps if you keep them indefinitely and watch them again some time later you are depriving them of selling the DVD or depriving rerun license payments? I am not saying I agree with how things currently are but there are many ways to couch the argument.

But I can record a BBC programme (or any other available on Freeview) on my recorder that will then burn it to DVD should I require. It can then be kept indefinitely and viewed as often and whenever I wish. I could even copy for a friend or would that break some rule or other?

We can do anything we want. It doesn't mean it's legal. Lots of people used to record TV programmes on video tape and time shift, which is legal. You need to delete the recording once watched though.

Agree with John's comments. The legal requirement for recordings from TV was that they would be deleted within a particular period of time (can't remember how long it is). It was not ever meant as a way of keeping an archive.

In reply to a post by Dick_B:

But I can record a BBC programme (or any other available on Freeview) on my recorder that will then burn it to DVD should I require. It can then be kept indefinitely and viewed as often and whenever I wish. I could even copy for a friend or would that break some rule or other?

You could upload it to a torrent site, or cyber locker ect too,

In reply to a post by ian72:

Agree with John's comments. The legal requirement for recordings from TV was that they would be deleted within a particular period of time (can't remember how long it is). It was not ever meant as a way of keeping an archive.

But it is un enforceable ,should someone decide that they want to collect content and store it , so it's is stupid to make a rule if such exists obliging people to delete what they have recorded
It's a bit like the other unreasonable rule about playing music be it from live radio or pre recorded in the workplace if it can be heard by the public when they visit your workplace, PRS expect companies to pay them for a license , just a rip off IMO
For those that pay up , The radio stations have to list every track they play, and pay royalties to the artists , The PRS unless i'm wrong is about the same thing

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 01-May-12 10:54:40)

I think a myth has either been created or crept into this thread.

I don't think there was/is any requirement to delete recordings made from live broadcasts onto tape or CD/DVD/PVR for personal use. Providing or copying those recordings to other people is illegal.

DRM is a different issue.

Music in the workplace or shops? Initially I would agree with you, but then why is it being played? In most cases it is being played so as to increase the profits of the player. Why shouldn't the creator of that resource take a cut? Either by sale of the recording or a small play-fee if it comes from broadcast or internet radio?

Exception possibly soothing music for dentists' waiting rooms .

You go to a concert. The promoter has to pay the PRS for everything played if the performer does not have the copyright of the music. Even non-programmed stuff played as an encore. You pay the PRS as part of the ticket price.

http://www.iplayerconverter.co.uk/articles/recording...

Hence the calls for carrot to go with the stick, i.e. give the UK better fair use.

No problem with carrot or stick. Just not convinced that copyright owners have ever justified their claims to losses. Certainly not convinced that copyright protection should exist beyond 30 years of creation. What is claimed nowadays?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Because the rights they have for material that is broadcast often means it is only licensed for a certain period of time on iPlayer. Hence the other legal methods for getting the content, where a financial transaction takes place to pay the for the licence to play for X hours.

Or put it another way, if BBC say no to DRM, then many content makers would say no to appearing in the iPlayer . As it stands some programme makers so no to even the DRM content.

since the bbc pay the content makers they should be dictating licensing terms not the other way round.

the media industry has so many things wrong with it, its unreal.

Keep things simple and stop the control urge.

no DRM.
lifetime license.
content free when no longer a market to sell it. (or rather copyright expiry).

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If a 60 minute show was available without DRM for £1 would you buy it?

no

because I have paid for it via the license fee and £1 is excessive for the costs of the distribution.

Its notable that the bbc's new service offering older shows for money has higher prices than dvd boxsets, exactly whats wrong with these prices.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Sky pays handsomely for many of the series, and there are things missing from their anytime+. so while larger than the BBC, you do pay Sky a lot more over the course of a year.

sky has more value content tho, and they take their money from less people. what is sky's turnover vs the bbc?

Two years ago Sky had a ARPU of £503 and some 9.7 million customers.

You paid for the show to shown live, and in some cases available via iPlayer for a number of days.
BBC doesn't even always pay for rights to repeat a series.

ITV will not be doing its Bond seasons anymore, those rights have now gone to Sky. So even though ITV paid millions they have no right to show them still.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You paid for the show to shown live, and in some cases available via iPlayer for a number of days.
BBC doesn't even always pay for rights to repeat a series.

ITV will not be doing its Bond seasons anymore, those rights have now gone to Sky. So even though ITV paid millions they have no right to show them still.

not the same thing.

itv didnt make the bond or fund its production.

the bbc is funding production of shows, I can tell you now if I funded a show I would immediatly withdraw funding if they tried to tell me I didnt have unlimited rights to distribute the content as I seen fit.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Two years ago Sky had a ARPU of £503 and some 9.7 million customers.

ok since im lazy will assume average of £500 for 10 million which makes about 5 billion revenue.

in 2009-2010 bbc had
£3,446.8 million in licence fees collected from householders;
£888.3 million from BBC Commercial Businesses;
£293 million from government grants;
£112.9 million from other income, such as providing content to overseas broadcasters and concert ticket sales;

so a bit less but not too much, yet in my view there is a lot more quality on sky owned channels.

quite as to why something getting 3.4billion in license fees needs 300million of grants for is concerning.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 01-May-12 19:05:06)

The BBC also provide many radio stations, whether you like them or not, they are funded out of the licence fee.

Edit: typo

Edited by cheshire_man (Tue 01-May-12 19:07:05)

Sky might have just a small [cough] advertising revenue as well? The 5 billion is only what the customers are paying. And do you think yhey don't get anything for feeds and sales to other broadcasters?

They dwarf the Beeb.

Before the internet we had the good old VCR and a record button on our radio cassette players did we not? It was as simple as set a timer on the VCR to record your selection or waiting by the radio until your desired track came on so you could press play and record at the same time. Hell, there were double deck cassette players or the use of 2 VCR's for piracy of pre recorded media. These days we have CD players/DVD players etc but they can essentially do the same thing can they not?

How is the internet any different then? (other than the fact that it is far more accessable in the grand scheme of things)

Simple; there is a way that they can 'attempt' to stop it/regulate it. The government would struggle to stop people doing what they like in their own homes without some serious law enforcement and invasion of privacy, so they're going to attempt to stop us even though it is just as futile as trying to stop people pre-internet. They can block sites, shut down programs, change every law they like... but there's always a way around it that some clever individual will find and share with the rest of us.

Essentially there is very little they can do short of restricting our download capacity on a monthly basis, and even then.... what ISP is going to do that to their customers already paying over the odds for a good connection and unlimited traffic? They would lose custom to any competitor offering a better deal.

Good point here, I remember the arguments over VCR tapes and the first writable CDs. The music industry was greatly exercised and tried to get a levy on all blank tapes/CDs because they might be used for recording their stuff.

Don't remember if they ever got the levy. But I still have my VCR and a few great performances going back 12 years, better not say more in case I find the police at my front door

If piracy is killing music how come Adele has managed to outsell Thriller in 2 years?

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Music/2012/05/...

In reply to a post by doleawg:

If piracy is killing music how come Adele has managed to outsell Thriller in 2 years?

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Music/2012/05/...

because it isnt killing music

the real reason they hate torrents is they dont like not having control over distribution.

In reply to a post by Malwaremike:

Good point here, I remember the arguments over VCR tapes and the first writable CDs. The music industry was greatly exercised and tried to get a levy on all blank tapes/CDs because they might be used for recording their stuff.

Don't remember if they ever got the levy. But I still have my VCR and a few great performances going back 12 years, better not say more in case I find the police at my front door

Many countries did impose a levy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

Post deleted by billford

Advertising is not permitted

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Music in the workplace or shops? Initially I would agree with you, but then why is it being played? In most cases it is being played so as to increase the profits of the player. Why shouldn't the creator of that resource take a cut?

Well they already have had that royalties payment from the purchase of the DVD or from the radio station that played /broadcasted it, they pay the prs too, so why should those thieving music industries get the payment twice ? as that is what they clearly want, the music isn't being played within a lot of business premises to entertain the public who may visit that premises on business from time to time but is played solely for the benefit of the owner and employee's if they have any one working for them, where as your supermarket the situation is different ,and probably why the likes of Asda have their own radio station

I know a local garage owner who was visited by the PRS they heard the radio playing in the background and told him that a license was needed for him to listen to the radio, so his solution was to unplug the radio and cut off it's plug, in front of the PRS guy, and then said do i still need a license now then? PRS guy just left,

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 08-May-12 17:46:46)

The reason you have to pay the royalties is because that is the way the law is structured. Changing that law would require canvassing MPs and getting support for your way of thinking.

There are many laws that we disagree with but as a member of society you abide by those laws until there is a sufficient level of support to get them changed.

(I don't know much about how royalties work so am assuming it is a law through parliament, I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)

I would have thought royalties was thro' a commercial contract between performers & publishers. i.e. a civil law.

Copyright is thro' a law passed in Parliament.

I believe the copyright gives you the legal recourse to claim royalties. So, unless you change copyright first then I don't see how you could easily change royalties. And, I don't have a contract to play music but if I started playing it to the public then I am sure they would be after me to pay the royalties - so is the contract implied by the fact I listen to the radio?