The UK (and maybe everywhere else?) corporate music people have a lot of very old industry insiders who think music can't be produced without studios (they "provide value," after all), think the internet is a fad, and think all real music should be sold on physical media.
Exactly. They don't realize that though. I was at a talk with some UK IFPI execs last year who just didn't understand computers or the internet or online self-promotional distribution. It was kinda astounding. He kept harping on the point that "you just can't get quality" unless you're backed by a studio belonging to his organization.
So, the police should only be getting involved in copyright infringement when done as trade, right? right? They seem to be keeping that bit quiet.
See section 198 of the relevant law, which is clear about the need for business to be involved for a criminal offence. (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf)
Absolutely. It's an enormous market in parts of the world. Worldwide, I suspect more people are pirating things on physical media than downloading direct from the Internet.
I think common sense applies in drawing the line. A kid who burns the occasional DVD and sells it in the school playground to cover his costs, probably not worth pursuing. An organized group importing counterfeit DVDs by the container-load and distributing them through an established distribution network, probably worth pursuing.
I don't like the BPI, they investigated me and made me take my website down (they came to my house, it was a fun day).
However, I must credit them as they warn people before taking them to court. So, if you're a website owner in the UK. I'm just giving you a heads up to say that if you're being investigated, they will probably contact you in person.
I do think the BPI have definately gone too far, they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.
> they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.
Grooveshark is a company that profits off of content that they have no rights to. They hide behind the DMCA and are complete scumbags who pretend to engage in fair business practices and then turn around and renege on agreements, all the while people defend them as if they're making some form of moral stand against the oppressive music industry, when in reality they're choosing to make money on the back of the hard work of others.
Spotify is a fantastic alternative to Grooveshark that has a wealth of music in their library, they're compliant with labels and the law and have millions of users, I don't see the BPI trying to shut them down. Maybe, just maybe, there can be an instance where the "music industry" is in the right. Grooveshark is a shameful business.
I look forward to the day that Grooveshark shuts down. I'm all for revolutionising the music industry and changing the world, but there is a serious line crossed when a company consistently uses others work to profit, without permission. Spotify is doing it legally.
The only reason Spotify doesn't have too much competition is because few are those willing to waste so much money on such a low margin business, not because they have a ground breaking technology or business model. The fact that they now have to compete with rdio, pandora, apple and google streaming will probably deepen their losses.
A fantastic company in this field will be one that will print money like it streams music.
The CEO of Spotify has stated that they are choosing to forego profits at present so that they can invest in the long term success of the service, however they could be profitable if they needed to be. The comments on that article you linked to provide a valuable example of the value of what Spotify are doing: Amazon.
I'm already aware of Grooveshark being gray-area, however, the law is the law. They are not breaking the laws in the UK or the USA, as far as I am aware. Spotify is good, I continue to use Grooveshark because Spotify has only popular musicians, I listen to underground music. If Grooveshark gets closed down I will switch to YouTube. The reason I use Grooveshark over YouTube at the moment is purely because of the 'Now Playing' lists.
If the BPI is unhappy with Grooveshark because of their music being on it, either make a deal with them or DMCA all the artists. If they block the whole site, they're only making it harder for me to listen to the type of music I want to listen to. As I said, it's a monopoly.
> That's all well and good, but when I need to stream music instantly Grooveshark has my back--no fee, no sign-in, no bullshit.
You're completely missing the point. It's irrelevant that you can get music for free, because it's not produced for free. It costs money to produce music and to arrange it to be available on Amazon or iTunes or where ever.
It's not unreasonable to expect you to pay for music. I don't mean to imply anything about "stealing", but you wouldn't walk into a supermarket expecting to just take stuff either. It's about someone producing something of value that you want.
And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.
Look, I'll happily debate intellectual property structures and incentives and all the rest, but the thing--the big elephant in the room--is that everybody just wants to be able to push a button and get music.
At the end of the day, the core relationship is between the artist and the listener--everything else, be it recording or ticketing or distribution or whatever, is secondary fluff.
Grooveshark offers the most compelling experience to the user right now, regardless of how scummy (and I do mean scummy!) their business practices are.
> And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.
I do realize that people are selfish and just want everything for free, and that computers & the Internet enable them to circumvent having to pay for music.
That doesn't change anything about my point, though.
Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced? Again, it costs money to produce music and to make it available for purchase. I've downloaded music, just like everyone else, but as a genuine music lover, I've also happily paid for some 200 - 300 CDs back in the day, and those comprise roughly 95% of all the music I listen to.
Do you get it? It's alright to pay for music. It's downright expected by anyone producing it. There is no free lunch. There aren't many things of real value that you can expect to get for free. Open-source software is a rare exception, but that doesn't really apply on the desktop, so.. yeah. Think about this stuff. You need to see beyond yourself.
> The unit will also be focused on influencing online behaviour by site owners, service providers and consumers through education, prevention and enforcement activity, and providing offenders where appropriate with opportunities to accept restorative justice.
Er... is that implying that a police unit is being given judicial powers?
They already have them.. with fines and cautions. You can take those judgements to the judicial branch for appeal, but the initial power lies with the police.
If you disagree with a penalty issued by the police, you can appeal to the judicial branch.
Allowing the police to deal with certain minor infractions themselves is far more efficient than the alternative; ordering every offender to appear before a magistrates' court even for the most minor infraction, such as a speeding ticket.
You'd think but the two penalties I've been issued by the police which were speeding and talking on a phone whilst driving were wrong. I wasn't doing either. The first one was trickery by the officer who persuaded me to admit to it as it's be easier. The second, i was actually scratching my head after chicken pox.
Both of those i had to appeal and won instantly when talking to the magistrate.
Allowing these morons to issue fines and penalties for more complicated issues such as in this case is a very bad idea.
If you disagree with a penalty issued by the police, you can appeal to the judicial branch.
This is a fine principle provided that someone innocent who defends themselves successfully in court will then be compensated so they don't lose out in any way. The reality appears to be that for things like minor traffic offences, you can wind up spending more time and far more money travelling to have your day in court than you would have lost if you just paid up under protest, and you might also be risking a higher penalty if the court does find you guilty of exactly what you were previously charged with.
With motoring offences there is also the points system to consider, so it might be worth going to court for that reason. However, generally someone prosecuted but found not guilty in the UK doesn't seem to get any sort of compensation for even actual financial losses they incur defending themselves, never mind the value of their lost time or anything to make up for the obvious distress for an extended period that going to court in these cases is likely to cause.
It's rather like the small claims track. In principle, it's a worthy public service. In practice, for a professional with a full time job and family commitments who is working without expert advice because the point is to avoid involving expensive lawyers in low-value cases, the time just to figure out how to file against someone without jeopardizing your case before it's even started is prohibitive.
Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Defending yourself against an accusation will always be costly.
I take comfort in the fact that the authorities very rarely make completely baseless accusations. There are certainly cases in which officers were mistaken, there are mitigating circumstances, or you can avoid punishment on a technicality, but I can't think of any instances in which authorities have been caught issuing vexatious fixed penalty notices.
Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Defending yourself against an accusation will always be costly.
Why must it always be costly? It is a perfectly rational alternative policy to bring a smaller number of prosecutions, and to compensate defendants for their costs, wasted time and distress, if a prosecution fails.
I take comfort in the fact that the authorities very rarely make completely baseless accusations.
You might like to look up some of the published data about the proportion of appeals that succeed against things like local-authority-issued parking tickets and ANPR-based congestion charges. It happens all the time, and erroneous charges aren't even close to the kind of isolated incidents you seem to believe they are.
As a matter of fact, there have been plenty of stories of deliberate policies to issue penalties aggressively (and sometimes outright unlawfully), but this doesn't really matter to the victims anyway. Whether it was malicious on the part of the authorities or their enforcement people just got duped as in the cloning case you mentioned makes no difference at all to an innocent third party who gets slapped with a penalty notice they didn't deserve.
The City of London has a unique legal position that lets type of thing happen. If you look into this corporation's history it will make much more sense.
Pretty hilarious, given that this just came up on the BBC also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24094435 - using fonts without permission ("The Home Office said it was trying to contact the copyright owner to reach an agreement.").
The first link concerns a small group protesting against increased automation...this has happened in practically every place that has had manufacturing...
The second concerns road safety acts, although they sound ludicrous by todays standards, served as an important step in the transition from horses to automobiles - in a country which had been relying on horses for transport for atleast 1000 years prior.
Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage
The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.
The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.