read all about it! BPI sues uk online web pirates!

[luvvbuzz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3722428.stm

any body want to share their thoughts on this?

[pacmania_2001]

Don't upload music and you'll be fine.

[luvvbuzz]

but download and your ok??

[bazooka]

but download and your ok??

Yep.

The media is stupid and does not know the difference between upload and download.

Downloading is not illegal.

If it was, then computers would be illegal too.

[luvvbuzz]

what do you mean, downloading in the uk is not illegal, or downloading in the usa is its not illegal? or downloading in another country is not illegal?
but only uploading is illegal? where does that leave bit torrent?

[bazooka]

what do you mean, downloading in the uk is not illegal, or downloading in the usa is its not illegal? or downloading in another country is not illegal?
but only uploading is illegal? where does that leave bit torrent?

Uploading is not illegal either, although the media would like you to believe it is.

If uploading was illegal, we would not have servers.

[luvvbuzz]

sorry but could you be more specific, like where did you get that information from? has anybody ever been successfully sued by a music industry, in case where they have not reached a settlement out of court?
this is a new one on me.

[bazooka]

sorry but could you be more specific, like where did you get that information from? has anybody ever been successfully sued by a music industry, in case where they have not reached a settlement out of court?
this is a new one on me.

Not one case has gone to court.

[Ironballs]

Uploading, downloading. It's a matter of perspective.

Say I have my legit music files on my PC and it's networked. Now is that in itself illegal? No surely not. Now someone comes along and copies my files. Who's at fault? Me for having a networked PC or the person that copied my files? Is this situation any differene if someone physically stole my cd collection? what I'm saying is just by having my files visible shouldn't make me a criminal if someone else takes them.

In the UK, If I find money on the street and pocket it. I would be guilty of theft by finding. So if someone took my mp3s (because i hadn't locked my pc), surely they are the gulity party. Are the BPI chasing them? Nope they're looking at what people have stored on their PCs

So, my defence, if I got bubbled, would be " sure I have a ton of legal music on my pc, its all these mothers that are stealing it off me!

OK not explained it all too well, but tried to throw my bit into the pot

[thecoalman]

So, my defence, if I got bubbled, would be " sure I have a ton of legal music on my pc, its all these mothers that are stealing it off me!

If I was the judge I'd buy it.

[Ironballs]

Cheer Coalman, you can be my defence laywer!

[bazooka]

Their strategy of saying downloading or uploading is erronius as long as they are being nonspecific.

The uploading of copyrighted material without the owners consent is another matter entirely.

[luvvbuzz]

Their strategy of saying downloading or uploading is erronius as long as they are being nonspecific.

The uploading of copyrighted material without the owners consent is another matter entirely.

but they are being specific really, they are saying they will be targeting people who upload lots of music, i.e copyrighted music, thats really what the news story was about.

[flaninacupboard]

Uploading, downloading. It's a matter of perspective.

Say I have my legit music files on my PC and it's networked. Now is that in itself illegal? No surely not. Now someone comes along and copies my files. Who's at fault? Me for having a networked PC or the person that copied my files? Is this situation any differene if someone physically stole my cd collection? what I'm saying is just by having my files visible shouldn't make me a criminal if someone else takes them.

In the UK, If I find money on the street and pocket it. I would be guilty of theft by finding. So if someone took my mp3s (because i hadn't locked my pc), surely they are the gulity party. Are the BPI chasing them? Nope they're looking at what people have stored on their PCs

So, my defence, if I got bubbled, would be " sure I have a ton of legal music on my pc, its all these mothers that are stealing it off me!

OK not explained it all too well, but tried to throw my bit into the pot

I think they take the view that by allowing file sharing on a network, or by running a filesharing client you are effectively sitting with a pile of cds, and when someone says "can i borrow that?" you say "sure" and they make a copy. it would be illegal to do that, but i don't think anyone would ever get arrested over it.

Someone stealing your cds would be more analguos to someone hacking your machine, downloading the files and leaving an evil virus behind to eat them. then you've done no wrong, but the hacker has caused damage and infringed copyright.

[sacajaweeda]

Running a file sharing client sorta defeats the "I was just networked and somebody came along and stole my files!" defense, I would imagine.

[bazooka]

Running a file sharing client sorta defeats the "I was just networked and somebody came along and stole my files!" defense, I would imagine.

Yes but a file sharing client is not illegal within itself.

It is what you are doing with it that counts.

They are trying to get the general public to believe that sharing files and uploading and downloading is illegal, which is wrong.

P2P networking has been in effect since the early days of operating systems and computers.

[sacajaweeda]

I will concede that there are a lots of genralizations and blanket statements made regularly in the news (Re: file sharing) but I don't believe they are actually trying to convince people that sharing files in general is illegal. In most of the stuff I've read it's pretty well spelled out that they are after people infringing on copyrights of others with what they are sharing.

Yes there are legit uses for P2P software, but users have to specify what to share with a file sharing client. Some of them have the option to scan your system and automatically share certain file types, but all of them can be configured manually by the user. If the user gets caught sharing something copyrighted, it's his own fault as far as I'm concerned, and as they say, ignorance is no excuse.

That said, I don't like this new angle of theirs -- the legislation they've been trying to push lately (Re: Senator Hatch's INDUCE Act). That targets the enablers -- Re: the people who develop, code and distribute the software, and those who use it to run the actual networks & servers. That's swinging at gnats with a sledgehammer and is just the completely wrong approach, IMO. The industry which is backing this legislation has been bleeding for some time now, and they're getting desperate.

[bazooka]

They are now before the supreme court trying to overturn a previous decision which denied that the p2p developers were at fault.

This is the same song and dance when the player piano was protested, and radio and dual tape deck recorders and vcr's were protested.

They are trying to prop up a extinct business model and kill innovation.

[sacajaweeda]

They're just trying to stop the bleeding. They balked at the suggestion of revamping their archaic business model a few years back when they were "making an example" out of Napster, and now that they have watched the whole thing spin completely out of control, they are in a full blown panic.

And I for one think it's hilarious.

[RabidDog]

"publishing" copyrighted music to the internet, without permission, is whats illegal.
Downloading, Uploading per se, are not, nor is sharing uncopyrighted files

Whos that breaking down the door?

[bazooka]

"publishing" copyrighted music to the internet, without permission, is whats illegal.
Downloading, Uploading per se, are not, nor is sharing uncopyrighted files

Whos that breaking down the door?

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

But, they are saying that downloading is illegal in some statements, which is a lie.

There has been evidence and reports that contradict their falsehood that they are losing money.

In numerous reports, sales have been up, not down as they are stating.

Uploading in general is not illegal either, and that is what they are referring to by ignorantly saying downloading.

They are saying they are losing billions, which is a lie, because not every download is a lost sale.

There have been numerous solutions and they have shot down each one.

It is not about the artist, but about money they think they should have and the control of the consumer, which they lost.

Not to mention, the industry has been found to be guilty of price fixing and overcharging the customers for years.

Now who do you think is guilty?