Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Your Rights Online

UK Musicians Back Watered-Down "Three-Strikes" Rule 229

Posted by kdawson
from the strike-one-strike-two-walk dept.
A brace of anonymous readers sent along coverage of UK musicians who have turned around to support three strikes, or a milder variant of it. What they suggest is more like "three strikes and you're hobbled" — after a third offense a downloader would be not disconnected, but rate-limited. The artists involved include Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw. The Guardian has more details. The final quote from the music industry, striking out at UK ISPs, is priceless: "BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That's not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalizes BT's many customers who use the Internet legally."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Musicians Back Watered-Down "Three-Strikes" Rule

Comments Filter:
  • by schmidt349 (690948) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:59PM (#29552543)

    "BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading."

    Doesn't that pretty well describe the music industry to a T right now?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by macshit (157376)

      "BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading."

      Doesn't that pretty well describe the music industry to a T right now?

      That, of course, is the joke, but I think even more silly is that the accusation doesn't make any sense in the case of BT. "Old business model"? Huh? If anything, it's the newest business model around.

      One gets the impression that the music industry heard themselves accused of said offense, but are hoping to grab the initiative in the public eye.

      I think it's actually a common propoganda technique: accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty of, and do it early, and often. If you're lucky, it wil

    • by damburger (981828)
      No, BT are clinging to the outdated business model of 'not paying a subsidy to another industry with better political connections than you have'. They need to get with the times, or the FAC are going to come around and smash all their windows.
    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      "BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading."

      I miss the days when the Internet was only used by Universities, how I long for a day when only educated people had access.

  • by straponego (521991) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:00PM (#29552555)
    ...that's all you had to say! If we can't trust the judgment, decency, and foresight of George Michael, who can we trust? The man is a latter day Sodomon. Solomon. Whatever.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PinkyDead (862370)

      Yeah, very funny, make fun of poor old George.

      But don't forget many reputable artists support this - like... em.... Lily Allen.

      And what about Sandie Shaw? Downloads of "Puppet on a String" must be crippling her career.

  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:01PM (#29552567)
    trying to illegally download music and later discovering later you actually downloaded George Michaels stuff. Wham!

    Trust people George ... you've gotta have faith!
  • Dear Lily (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:03PM (#29552579)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

  • About Lily Allen (Score:5, Informative)

    by wigaloo (897600) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:03PM (#29552581)

    While stirring up this latest uproar, it turns out that Lily Allen was at the same time distributing illegal mix tapes [torrentfreak.com] on her Web site.

    Hypocrite.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:03PM (#29552583)

    http://www.pirateparty.org.uk

    • There is a Government consultation [berr.gov.uk], that is open for anyone to respond to. Please do - although it closes 29 September (Tuesday).

      Otherwise this law will be decided by the likes of Lily Allen and James "fat fuck" Allan, who have nothing useful to add to the debate, other than using their fame to get media attention on the matter (whilst being a filesharing hypocrite of a pirate herself, in the case of Lily Allen).

  • Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:21PM (#29552689)
    Boycott the artist and boycott the labels.. try to live without your badass niggas and your blonde sluts. You really don't need that shit! everything starts because you just cant stop drooling for that miserable class of lechers called "artists"
  • arg (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:39PM (#29552779) Journal

    If someone hasn't been convicted of breaking a law there can be no punishment. If they had anything of substance against someone they wouldn't be pursuing a three strikes law; they'd be in court. If the music industry doesn't want to follow the law but instead act on a hunch then I'd say the entirety of their limited monopoly should be done away with entirely. The law should not be used to intimidate; its purpose is to serve society not serve the greedy to the eclusion of all else.

    • Re:arg (Score:4, Informative)

      by Aerynvala (1109505) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:56PM (#29552905) Homepage
      What planet are you from and can I go there? Yes, all of that is in theory true. But in practice it just, sadly, isn't.
      • Well, they may be able to prove that someone did share the music. But good luck proving who it was over that WEP 802.11, with all the technical hurdles involved. And, without proving exactly who, when, where, how, and why, you shouldn't be able to successfully bring a suit against someone. It would almost be like charging someone with murder, and not knowing for sure who did it, what weapon they used, what time it occured, where it happened, how they did it, and why. This is what they are trying to do - get
  • by dcollins (135727) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:44PM (#29552803) Homepage

    That's all I've got.

  • by gweihir (88907) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:46PM (#29552823)

    And as allways before, the old technology will lose and be a historical footnote. So will the companies and artists that do not understand the new one or are unwilling to switch. No law will help. This has happened countless times before and the outcome was always the same.

    True, the times were you could get rich distributing creative works by others are over. Distribution is now extremely cheap. Also true the times of insanely richt musicians are likely over as well. Those that adapt will still be able to live very decently, as long as their product does apeal to a reasonable number of people. Examples exist. On the plus side, all those that had problems earning anything, now have the chance to distribute globally with very little cost. Getting a global small audience was pracitcally impossible before. And any audience contains a significant number of people that are willing to pay or donate. I do not see the music culture losing anything overall, just a few rich, lazy and inflexible peole that cling to the old status quo. I do see "big music" dying however.

  • by pla (258480) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:47PM (#29552829) Journal
    Y'know, I have one major point against ideas like this (okay, I have a lot of points against it, but one that really bothers me, as beyond my personal control)...

    What counts as a "strike"?

    I know the obvious smartass response of "anything the RIAA/MPAA wants", but in practice... Let's even say, for the sake of argument, that "they" can 100% reliably detect when I download something copyrighted. We then have a problem in that everything (in the past 75 or so years, varying a bit by country) has a copyright on it. When I visit the totally legit New York Times website, I have downloaded copyrighted material. When I buy a song on iTunes, I have downloaded copyrighted material.

    So now we need the qualifier of "unauthorized", which becomes much more subjective. Who can authorize me? If I have Trent Reznor in my office and he tells me to grab a copy of his latest unreleased album off Kazaa, then I have "authorization" from the artist himself. Yet my ISP has no way of knowing that.

    Okay, too unrealisitc? How about MySpace, which Ms. "Can't even write her own anti-piracy rant and has to steal it" Allen used to great effect to promote her own career... Any moron can upload tracks there, even under the band's name (if the band didn't already think to make an account). How can the ISP ever know which count as legit and which don't? For that matter, how can we know the difference?


    So yeah, I have a problem with effectively taking away my primary means of communication with the rest of the world, by force of a law that I can't accurately know whether or not I've violated.

    Call it overly dramatic, but I don't think the courts realize yet that for anyone under 40, depriving them of internet access amounts to a "dead to our entire peer group" sentence. Just wait, we will see people going on mass killing sprees over this.
    • agreed with most of your post..
      actually, not really, as most of it is pretty far fetched, but I wouldn't put it past 'the industry' to go for these things.

      But 'what counts' should at least be clarified in both letter and spirit. Spirit because as soon as the letter is written down, thousands of people will write up (contrived) work-arounds that don't go against the letter of the legislation; even though it would likely be against the spirit.

      That said, then...

      So yeah, I have a problem with effectively takin

    • I hope this doesn't affect people who share videos as well. How am I supposed to get my Doctor Who fix if [MM] is unable to post torrents?
  • You pay anyway (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Whiteox (919863) <htcstech AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday September 26, 2009 @11:11PM (#29552989) Journal

    Well if you think about it, you pay the isp, not the music industry or copyright holders. The music industry quote is a bit of a wakeup call on the concept of 'free file-sharing'.
    If you are a p2p downloader, then work out how much you've spent on hardware/software, your time and skill (pro-rata if you desire) and regular payments to whomever to keep the services running. It amounts to a significant recurring charge. Also what about the down-time when you are not P2P-ing? That's wasted bandwith and capacity that you're paying for.
    The point being is that it is not free and if the RIAA/MPAA or local equivalent is upset about that, then it's the ISP who will be faced with some form of tax or levy because presently there is no other way around it. The entertainment industry hasn't monitarised copyrighted P2P - I don't think it can. It's expensive to sue infringers, as downloading seems to be legal but uploading (the sharing bit) is illegal, so it's the P2P software at fault here and government intervention by lobbyists is restrictive to personal freedom and the 'free net' philosophy.

    Lily Allen is still going to complete her tour, but states that she won't release another track. This is very interesting as tours and tour promotion can go ahead without the arm of the RIAA. Live performances may be the key in all of this. No more digital tracks to download, just go to the live performance instead. If you are an existing band or new band/singer then YouTube/Radio/FTA/Web is the way to promote your goods and make money by touring, wholesale video tracks to Apple and put up with crappy YouTube video of bits of your live concerts.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770)

      The point being is that it is not free and if the RIAA/MPAA or local equivalent is upset about that, then it's the ISP who will be faced with some form of tax or levy because presently there is no other way around it.

      They know that's the road to hell paved with dubious intentions. Once you introduce a tax or levy, people feel entitled to download since why else are they paying? If you don't try to meter it, chances are people will download everything because it's a sunk cost and kill sales. If they try to raise the levy to a point that matches sales income, it'll be absurdly high and everyone not interested will cause a huge backlash. If they make the levy variable they're back to the impossible task of monitoring all f

  • Propaganda much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightfire-unique (253895) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @11:31PM (#29553109)

    From the title: UK Musicians Back Watered-Down "Three-Strikes" Rule

    From the summary: The artists involved include Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw.

    This is a classic example of the subtle lie.

    This title suggests that ALL UK musicians back this absurd law, when in fact it's a very small number of musicians; the summary mentions three.

    The title is correct: this story is about UK musicians that back the "watered-down" three-strikes rule. It's not factually inaccurate. But it is worded so perfectly (and precisely) to be subconsciously misleading. This is the new wave in media, and Fox News, defined.

    T'is truly a brave new world.

    • The point of the title is to provide an accurate description of the article in as few words as possible and to entice the reader to read. Lets see here, UK tells us the setting, musicians basically tell us who are supporting the bill, watered-down "three strikes rule" tells us what they are supporting. I don't know who Lily Allen, George Michael, and Sandie Shaw are. I don't think the average /.er does. I do know where the UK is and what the "three strikes rule" is. Therefore the title would lead me to read
      • by Tim C (15259)

        What would be a better title?

        'Some UK Musicians Back Watered-Down "Three Strikes" Rule'?

    • I wouldn't describe Fox News as "not factually inaccurate" but "subconsciously misleading". From what I've seen they don't even bother to pretend they have that modicum of respect for their audience.
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Sunday September 27, 2009 @12:21AM (#29553391) Homepage Journal

    Programmers create software and software gets pirated. Why are all these new laws structured as if the "music industry" and "movie industry" are the only ones capable of producing copyrighted material? I guess they just have the most lobbyists. They certainly don't have the most money (the game industry alone exceeds the movie industry in revenue), I guess they are the ones willing to resort to abusive legislative tactics, while the software industry is satisfied with abusive anti-piracy measures.

    It's hard for me to be sympathetic when most of the music coming out is very derivative and it all sounds the same and is composed of roughly the same rock and blues and R&B riffs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Idiomatick (976696)
      Software costs thousands sometimes 10s of thousands time more money to create. Yet they manage to whine less, it is quite amazing really. I think it is that the RIAA is closer to being useless. Software companies often distribute files directly to people or through just one middle man, stores. In the music industry they are realizing that if musicians distribute things by themselves then the RIAA has no place anymore. They are in deaththroes, whereas the software 'riaa' is far less important to begin with.
  • by syousef (465911) on Sunday September 27, 2009 @01:19AM (#29553653) Journal

    ...and now she wants legal protection for the business model that screws artists because she's one of the few that profit by it. You want the law enforced. Fine. Go fucking hand your skanky mockney arse in and stand trial for fucking up kids lives with your drug dealing you filthy two bit self congratulatory self important piece of human trash. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't see a problem with a law that means the mere accusation of a person is enough to prove guilt when it's convenient for you. It's because we live in a world where people like your worthless self are treated like gods. What the fuck is she afraid of anyway? That one day her lifestyle of running around with other skanks like Linsay Lohan might be limited to one million per fucking trip instead of two. Boo fucking hoo.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27, 2009 @02:32AM (#29553967)

    I thought you said "musicians".

  • [...] penalizes BT's many customers who use the Internet legally.

    How exactly are BT's "legal" customers penalized by downloaders?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by slim (1652)

      How exactly are BT's "legal" customers penalized by downloaders?

      <devil's advocate>

      Bandwidth on contentious ADSL connections, used up by the neighbour's Bittorrent.

      </devil's advocate>

  • Total crap, It's easy enough to torrent 3 albums illegally, only using small amounts of bandwidth. It's also possible to transfer huge amounts of completely legal data. It pisses me off that ISPs are trying to say that all heavy users are the same as pirates. The whole 'it's the user's fault' is rediculous. The fact they can't take the data through the network isn't a sign the users are using too much, it's a sign they need to upgrade their network. Instead, they are passing the buck to the user, and then
    • by Stevecrox (962208)
      For anecdotal evidence, for me the average size of a ripped album at 192kbps is around 90MB's.

      In the last couple of weeks I've downloaded a Sony PS3 update (about 400MB's) followed by a 90MB Singstar update, followed by buying 8 singstar tracks (approximately 70MB's each). Re-installed Steam on my PC and downloaded my games collection (20GB). When you put all that together I'd have to download 289 albums this month to match my completely legitimate use of bandwidth. While Steam has knocked up my download
  • Lily Allen. Isn't that the girl/woman who sings songs with naughty words in it in a baby's voice ? And she's against it ? Well then it must be good. Or something.

  • Artist should also be subject to "three strikes", where all their works enter the public domain if they are caught three times snorting coke or doing whatever other criminal activities it seems the well-paid lawyers of the music industries get them very lenient punishments for.

    "Yes, your Honor, my client did take drugs but sine he is an important celebrity he should spend three months at Betty Ford (paid by the record sales) instead of six months in jail."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by zotz (3951)

      "Artist should also be subject to "three strikes", where all their works enter the public domain if they are caught three times snorting coke or doing whatever other criminal activities it seems the well-paid lawyers of the music industries get them very lenient punishments for."

      Surely mean if they are accused, not if they are caught.

      all the best,

      drew

  • Does that matter if speed rate are limited ?I don#t think so. 1 kilobyte per second is still 85 megabyte a day, it is still 2.5 giga a month. 1 kb per second is hardly a good speed to surf, but if you leave your PC 24/7 switched on, it is a speed good enough to download anything on P2P.
  • bullshit. we the people are not interestes in this kind of laws.
    but we the big corporations ARE interested in this kind of laws.

    question remains: why do we the people vote and what do we vote for?
    we vote for companies to run our countries?

  • If any UK citizens wish to protest this, feel free to take a look at my petition to legalise filesharing [number10.gov.uk]. Thanks.

  • by funkatron (912521) on Sunday September 27, 2009 @07:46AM (#29554999)
    ... albeit an amateur British musician, can I just say, no I fucking well do NOT support this.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...