http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/n...EZFEyZOJUTJEDK

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:46:16 -0000, ·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.· wrote:

You forgot an important word in your subject, 'illegal'.
--
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
FreeBSD: Are you guys coming or what?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:46:16 -0000, "·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.·"
<·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.·@shotmail.com> wrote:

It would seem that "what happened to their integrity as an ISP" is
that they got some.

Integrity does NOT mean protecting any of your customers you know are
breaking the law. In fact it means exactly the opposite.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Neurotic: Self-taut person.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
I'm on Demon and I have first-hand experience of their policies regarding
illegal filesharing.

A few months back, Universal caught me sharing a TS of Bruce Almighty. They
emailed Demon, who opened an Abuse ticket about me, asked me politely to
stop sharing it and forwarded the original Universal email to me. I deleted
the file, informed them and Universal that I'd done it and everything was
fine.

It seems like Demon's basically doing the same thing they've been doing
previously, but saving themselves work by passing on the email address of
the offender instead of doing the work themselves.

Taking action against users for illegal filesharing is just upholding the
terms of their AUP.

I don't have a problem with Demons' decision and I'm not worried -
especially as the organisations doing the complaining have no legal rights
in the UK. They are also increasingly unsupported by EU law, the economical
reality, and their own people.

And why am I not surprised AOL is getting all gung-ho? AOL TIME WARNER, that
big entertainment conglomerate. Can't work that one out at all

--
Somebody sneaked in here and committed a neatness!
----------------------------------------

If you don`t mind me asking, what method were you using to share it ?

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Colin Wilson wrote:
Kazaa

--
Somebody sneaked in here and committed a neatness!
----------------------------------------

Cheers - I think I tried it once and forgot about it again quickly :-]

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Kazaa users can be easily traced by there IP address back to there ISP,by
the RIAA and there port tracking software that interrogates P2P programs but
Kazaa +++ Lite has the ports the RIAA use for tracking blocked so they cant
track you.

I had a similar letter passed to me by my ISP via the RIAA stating I had
downloaded and was sharing T3, the laugh of it was it was, was the file was
called terminator 3 but the actual film turned out to be Fight Club, so they
are still pissing in the wind and don't really know what you have on your PC
to share, you could call it what you like and share it and they don't know
because they cant open the files to find out.

Read some of the convictions they screwed up, like the MAC user accused of
downloading and sharing files on Kazaa .................. there isn't a
version of Kazaa that will run on a MAC ................ just a bunch of
suites given a PC and told what to do they haven't got a clue.

Is the RIAA going to convict the Russian Government for example there all
running pirated XP software.


"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a76783a730049b898a0d9@news.individual.ne t...

"Danny Horne" <danny@clifftop.net> wrote in message
news:29fdc9a1sh5k$.dlg@clifftop.net...
-snip-

Gary

"Alex Heney" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tqam00hph54t71qskrcthnqhaijvkaqiau@4ax.com...
-snip-
innocent, until, proven, guilty, assumption and legitimate ;-)

Gary

In article <400c712d$0$242$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>, "\"intolerance
\"" <riddler@joker.pllus.ccom> says...
I seriously doubt that rights holders are going to go out of their way
to track down legitimate file sharers. As such, I doubt very much that
Thus will be "shopping" any.

There is no assumption and the insertion of illegal does further define
the subject line.

--
Alan LeHun

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:07:03 -0000, "\"intolerance\""
<riddler@joker.pllus.ccom> wrote:

Perhaps *YOU* should try reading what this was about then.

Since you obviously do not have a clue.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm busier than a one-eyed cat watching two mouseholes.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

Alan LeHun wrote:
The rights holders, apart from vociferous exceptions like Metallica,
couldn't give a toss. Filesharing accounts for a miniscule portion of
overall global piracy and most people in the industry tend to ignore it or
accept it as part of the business. The RIAA is losing signatory members hand
over fist. It is also a purely American organisation and as such has no
legal standing in this country.

In fact, once legitimate filesharing takes off, some reports are predicting
something like a 15% increase in sales. So I can't see too many people
making too much of an effort to put us all off doing it, legitimate or
otherwise.

--
Somebody sneaked in here and committed a neatness!
----------------------------------------

nwsy said...

You don't know that. I'm not saying I know otherwise, and I'm sure
even I could think of examples that don't give a toss, but such a
sweeping statement is almost certainly flat wrong.

How are you measuring piracy, and the proportion of filesharing? What
part of the world are you talking about?

I strongly dispute your use of the world `miniscule' unless you can
actually cite some convincing data on this. Because in the sample of
`people I know', filesharing is a massive portion of piracy. I'd say
there are at least 5000 illegal MP3s to every broken Microsoft EULA in
my circle of friends. I have encountered no other type of piracy.
I buy all my books in charity shops, if that counts.

If a company's selling music online, why would it want to put you off
buying it?

I can see many people putting in plenty of effort to put us all off
doing it illegally (Microsoft, RIAA, no?).

But anyway... it doesn't seem like there's anything that can be done
either way. Time to bite the bullet and come up with a new business
model. Unless the government starts subsidising record companies like
it does farmers. Gits.


-- thom.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:34:14 -0000, "nwsy" <realnwsy@hotmail.com>
wrote:

In the above, you make a series of assertions, some of which are
provably wrong, others of which are dubious to say the least. You
probably ought to cite some references. By the way, you're sadly
mistaken if you think that most rights holders don't care - you
obviously don't work in the rights industry.

And you're missing what I think was Alan's point, which was that Thus
can't "shop" legitimate file shareers because they're, er, legit.

Quite possibly, but irrelevant.

And obviously, once legitimate whiskey-making takes off, sales will
increase, so I can't see the Revenue making much effort to stamp out
illigimate stills.

Thom Lawrence wrote:
The whole world, as pointed out in this report on the BBC website a while
back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3283463.stm

In a nutshell, an independant report predicts a half-billion pound global
downturn in CD sales this year, which amounts to 3% of global sales. Now
this takes in all factors, economic downturns, natural trends, and piracy -
which in a global market is not limited to filesharing. Indeed, filesharing
would amount to a tiny proportion of that small drop in profits. Another
report I can't find now mentioned that for everyone that's using a
filesharing client, only 1% at any one time is downloading a movie. This was
a quote by a movie industry executive, going on record that Hollywood
doesn't care too much about movie filesharing.

Found it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3222646.stm

I've recently been to a website that catalogues the labels that the RIAA
incorrectly lists as "members".
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/news.asp

Actually the RIAA's own site is rather telling, with their news section:
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/default.asp
detailing their actions against third world countries and flea markets. Good
going guys!

The IFPI (RIAA's European affiliate) Has published figures on global Piracy
in 2003 which doesn't include Online piracy. If it was such a massive
problem, wouldn't it be included?
http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/ant...iracy2003.html

There's more info out there, but from the official sites I'd say that their
focus was on illegal CD's and their distribution in latin america and the
far east, not joebloggs@kazaa and all his mates. Indeed, the RIAA news site
only mentions the *failed* Verizon action and their condemnation of the
verdict.

Depends on your definition of "massive" doesn't it? I share over 5000 mp3's
and I'm smallfry. I also highly doubt that you've encountered no other forms
of piracy. You've never been to a car boot sale, never surfed Ebay, never
seen those guys down the pub flogging dodgy cd's/dvd's/VHS's?

By prosecuting, or at least trying to get P2P users prosecuted willy nilly.
It surely puts as many legitimate users off - the "don't want to be put in
the same category as them" effect.

Again, depends on your definition of "many". If you look at the numbers
involved, it's a vociferous effort being made by a few organisations who
have the media in their pocket.

Bloody hell, if they start treating the Recording industry the same as
they're treating the farmers, there'll be no money left in the industry in
two years' time!

Which would be a blessing when it comes to most of the stuff in the charts
over the last ten years or so.

I suggest you do some googling on the subject, then doing some maths with
the results this turns up. You'll see like I did when I did this that
filesharing really isn't the vast problem it's made out to be by the shouty
minority. Remember, take with a pinch of salt everything you read from
biased media sources like Virgin, MSNBC, AOL Time Warner and the like.

--
Somebody sneaked in here and committed a neatness!
----------------------------------------

Mark McIntyre wrote:
For quotes from both sources, see my reply to Thom.

Hold your horses there bucko...

Wait for the context...

There ya go: *"Legitimate or otherwise"*. Answering the point made by Alan,
and agreeing in fact.

Irrelevant sarcasm. The whiskey-making industry *has* taken off, something
like 300 years ago, so it's hardly a good comparison to a market that's only
just in its most infant stages is it?

--
Somebody sneaked in here and committed a neatness!
----------------------------------------

On the Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:46:16 -0000, ·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.· uttered
forth the following...
copyright theft and other such illegal activities.

On the Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:54:07 -0000, nwsy uttered forth the
following...
admitted you are nothing more then a thieving pikey! Instead of
downloading that next album, why don't you go into your local
supermarket/record shop and just pinch it from the shelf! Oh but that
would be theft wouldn't it! It amazes me how the likes of yourself try
and justify theft by saying that it's OK, what I steal is only a small
proportion of the profits, so it must be OK.

Sean wrote:
You know, I wrote a long, reasoned response to this, but now I don't see the
point wasting my time.

It must be hard to type with your head that far up your backside.

--
Somebody sneaked in here and committed a neatness!
----------------------------------------