BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong

from the sorry,-that's-just-not-accurate dept

So, we recently wrote about how Geoff Taylor, head of BPI (the UK's equivalent of the RIAA) seemed to be going after British Telecom (BT) with a variety of highly questionable claims about how BT had some sort of obligation to stop file sharing on its network, and that BT was using unauthorized file sharing to prop up its own business model. Both claims are flat out ridiculous, but BPI apparently was quite upset with us pointing that out. Of course, rather than actually respond in the comments where we might have a conversation about it, they've been sending us a series of emails, taking issue with our statements and laying out their claims in more detail. In the interest of an open debate, I'll post BPI's comments here, with my responses mixed in (but of course):
It's unfortunate that in a piece which wrongly charges BPI with making things up, you have misrepresented what our Chief Executive said. He did not say that "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing", as you assert.
Hmm. Let's look at what he did say: "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business." Perhaps there's a way to interpret that, which doesn't imply that BT is breaking the law in not stopping illegal activity, but it seems like that is the rather clear implication of his statement. But, BPI goes on to say they actually just meant BT has a "social responsibility" to stop the illegal activity. Ah.
BT fosters a reputation as a socially responsible company. BPI has questioned whether it's appropriate for such a company to do nothing about 100,000 instances "a small sample" of the illegal behaviour that BT knows is occurring on its network. BT knows about this activity because BPI provides detailed weekly notifications enabling BT to verify each and every infringement. BPI's notifications are based upon robust copyright infringement detection techniques which have been accepted by the UK High Court in over 150 cases.
I see. Would that be the same "robust copyright infringement detection system" that a recent study in the UK found was accusing elderly couples of downloading gay porn, along with a significant number of other "false positives"? Furthermore, there's quite a difference between knowing that there is illegal activity on the network and being able to stop it. As we noted in one of our original posts, in a land with due process (the UK has that, right?), people aren't guilty upon accusation. It appears that BPI has leapfrogged beyond even the draconian "three strikes" proposals and is looking for something of a "one strike."

But this is a serious question for BPI: really, what would you have BT do? You are informing them of activity you claim is infringing, but BT has no way of verifying that is a fact. Secondly, by the time you've informed BT, the activity is over. So what is BT to do at that point? Finally, how is BT to determine what ongoing actions are actually legitimate? Plenty of smart content creators choose to give away their works on purpose. Plenty of the record labels represented by BPI, even, have long histories of sending out mp3s themselves for promotional purposes. BT has no way of knowing which content is legit and which is not. Pretending that BT can wave its magic wand and suddenly be all-knowing is just silly.

Oh yeah, as for the claim that BT "fosters a reputation as a socially responsible company," I would think that such would include not violating the civil liberties of its customers by spying on what they do online in an effort to prop up someone's obsolete business model. Wouldn't you?
We understand that BT employs very sophisticated traffic and network analysis technologies that allows it to see the proportion of network traffic that is P2P. We have never said that all P2P traffic is illegal, because not all of it is. But the weekly notifications we send to BT relate solely to music files which we know are being shared illegally.
Again, BPI assumes that BT can magically tell which content is infringing and which is not. Just recently, we pointed out that EMI -- in the UK -- was happily distributing infringing mixtapes from Lily Allen off of an EMI owned website. If someone is downloading such content, should BT stop them? How could it possibly know which content in real time is authorized and which is not? And, more importantly, why should that be BT's responsibility? Just because the folks at the labels that make up BPI haven't been able to adapt? If BPI believes that individuals are breaking the law, why is it not going after those individuals? Obviously, because it knows that it would be a public relations nightmare. But just because BPI has a PR issue, it doesn't mean that BT should have to spend a ton of money trying to fix BPI members' broken business models.
Since 2003, annual UK broadband revenues have increased from £0.6 billion to £2.7 billion (2008). Recorded music revenues have fallen every year in the same period, principally due to illegal filesharing. It is therefore not difficult to see that the growth of BT's consumer broadband business has been assisted by the increase in illegal filesharing.
Wow. I mean... wow. Talk about a logical somersault. Seriously? First off, just because one industry's revenue falls and another's grows, it does not mean the two are causal. I mean, this is really, really basic stuff. Correlation, causation, blah blah blah. But, even then, the link is so tenuous as to be laughable. First, the claim that recorded music revenue is falling. Well... be careful. As we've been pointing out, PRS in the UK has admitted that the music industry is actually growing, not shrinking. Apparently, the folks at BPI don't read the PRS economic reports. If they did, they'd know that the study found that the overall industry is growing, with a big shift in money going from recorded music to live music.

BPI, you're blaming the wrong culprit! It ain't the ISPs, it's the live venues! And those bands playing live shows! Why aren't you demanding that they cut it out! After all, wouldn't it be the "socially responsible" thing for them to stop gigging so that people would go back to buying CDs?

And, of course, the whole claim that the decline in recorded music sales is "principally due to illegal filesharing" is also flat out, ridiculously, laughably wrong. Study after study has shown that file sharers tend to buy more. Isn't it a lot more likely that the decline in recorded music revenues is due to a shift in the marketplace due to technology? That technology has taken away the monopoly on distribution that BPI members used to have. Whenever you lose a monopoly on distribution, it's to be expected that you lose monopoly rents and your revenue goes down. That's Econ 101 (or maybe 201, if we're talking monopoly rents... depends on your econ prof).

Besides, we spend a lot of time here working with and talking to and about musicians who have embraced file sharing, and put in place smart business models to take advantage of it. And, you know what? They're doing better than they did in the past. The problem isn't "illegal filesharing." It's bad and obsolete business models. Those who are embracing file sharing in combination with a good business model are doing better than in the past. That rules out "file sharing" as the problem, and suggests the real problem is BPI's resistance to smarter business models.
Other ISPs are recognising that it is not sustainable in the long-term for a high percentage of ISPs revenues to be based on the transmission of illegal data, and that in future they need to share in revenues from providing high quality entertainment services for their customers
This is again ridiculous. ISP revenues are not "based on the transmission of illegal data." ISP revenues are based on the fact that pretty much everyone needs an internet connection these days just to function. It's how people communicate, you know? Claiming that BT is making any more revenue because people file share is laughable. People are using the internet because it's useful for all sorts of things. Hell, we keep hearing ISPs saying that they need to break net neutrality because all this file sharing is filling up their network and costing them too much in network upgrades. How can they be making so much money off of file sharing if it's costing them so much?

Once again, this is typical entertainment industry drivel. They totally overestimate how much their own stuff is "worth" to the wider ecosystem, and then demand that everyone just pay up. Except... that's not the way the world works. The world works by having smart people with smart business models figuring out ways to make people want to give you money, not by sitting back and demanding others just hand over money.

So, thanks for the emails, BPI, but at least work on making your statements a little more believable next time. And, as always, our comments are wide open for you to reply to and interact directly with people here.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 10:59am

    Mike, admit it. You just interpreted what they said, got called out, and as you always do, you are being rude and insulting back rather than accepting that you, oh might guru of the internet, might be wrong.

    Big rant, in the end, trying very hard to hide the simple fact: you reported something that wasn't the truth, just your opinion, and tried to pass it off as truth.

    Keep up the good work Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Poster, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      Hi, Mr. BPI representative who's too cowardly to post under a real name!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:05am

      Re:

      The economy is rough these days. Could you please help me get a job as a corporate shill?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Designerfx (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re:

        damn. seconded. I'll work under an alias and sing praise all day of BPI's wonders and how this is all a travesty if you want to give me a 20 million dollar music career too. Oh, and I play cello, so I actually come with talent even!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          JB, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Designerfx,

          That's not the way to get hired. Look up their corporate ladder, yup not an inkling of talent (or common sense, but I digress). You must remember to promote yourself by giving out your resume as a web address that requires a subscription to view and includes fluffed statistics of your accomplishments. Also, have one of your relatives draft a report detailing how any industry you have participated in has increased dramatically due to the decreasing sheep stocks in Indonesia (what? I can't make bad correlations too?). Then, they might just blow the dust off their tome of Recording Executive Rites of Initiation, conjure up the Ghost of Business Past and invite you into their coven. Either way, it could be fun.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ben in TX (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      Either you believe sarcasm is automatically funny (it's not) or you are serious and a complete idiot.

      If Mike's wrong, please tell us exactly what he said that is wrong.

      I'm not surprised you didn't leave your name on your post. Coward.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      "Big rant, in the end, trying very hard to hide the simple fact: you reported something that wasn't the truth, just your opinion, and tried to pass it off as truth."

      Yeah, the thing is with something as ineffable as "intellectual property," opinion is all you have to go on. He's got his, you've got yours, and I've got mine (and you'd embrace his if you saw mine.) So what?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:02pm

      Re:

      Dang, how do I get your job & how much does it pay?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Bob Bunderfeld, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:35pm

      Name Please

      It's quite interesting when people attack Mike or other's here, they choose not to Identify themselves.

      While this is certainly your right to remain anonymous (at least for now), it's also our right to put your comments down to an undisclosed bias.

      I suggest that next time you want to make a point about what Mike is doing, you first consider that using your Name might actually give more cause to your believability.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Name Please

        "I suggest that next time you want to make a point about what Mike is doing, you first consider that using your Name might actually give more cause to your believability."

        Bob, your points are well articulated, but I ain't giving up the Helmet, mostly because everytime I look at the picture icon I have to try very hard not to burst out laughing....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:59pm

          Re: Re: Name Please

          Don't worry, a consistent anonymous identity is still far superior to being an Anonymous Coward.

          Or:

          DH > AC

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Killer_Tofu (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Name Please

            And I was going to mention this but ya beat me to it!
            At the very least it allows all others to see all of your thoughts. It allows them to get a better idea of how you feel about these topics and such.
            Imagine if everybody was an AC!
            You would never know who was saying what and could never get an idea of who you are arguing with.
            Any moniker we use is definitely far superior to AC.
            And besides, the guy listed his name as Bob Bunderfeld.
            I would consider that just as much a screen name as Dark Helmet. We have absolutely no way to verify that he is who he says he is. No clue what he does for a living.
            It is roughly equivalent to Dark Helmet it my eyes.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:30pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Name Please

              "It is roughly equivalent to Dark Helmet it my eyes."

              You know, Killer...that hurts, it really does. I put hours and HOURS of thought into just what would be the funniest moniker and image icon to post under, and you equate my choice to Bob Bunderfeld? What in the hell is a Bob Bunderfeld.

              It sounds like a guy named Bob who then stumbled and fell, but on German soil.

              Hanz: Guten Tag! Vat da hell happened to Bob? He's lying on zee ground!

              Franz: Bob Bunderfeld on his ass onto zee floor...

              Hanz: Wunderbar!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:31pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Name Please

              Difference: Dark Helmet has an account and profile, as do I and many other people here. You can click and see our history of comments, and you can actually be at least somewhat confident that we are the same people we were last time. I agree that Bob is only half practicing what he preaches.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jim J (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      "Keep up the good work Mike."

      Hey at least you said SOMETHING I can agree with. I give you a point for that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Another AC, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:08am

    This says it all...

    "Other ISPs are recognising that it is not sustainable in the long-term for a high percentage of ISPs revenues to be based on the transmission of illegal data, and that in future they need to share in revenues from providing high quality entertainment services for their customers"

    They are simply trying to position themselves to receive a handout from a company that is actually making money by working and innovating rather than sitting around waiting for checks to come in simply because they allegedly "Work for Artists"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:10am

      Re: This says it all...

      Misses the point: Mike made stuff up. That's the point.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Another AC, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re: This says it all...

        You my friend are an idiot...

        I was commenting on the particular quote, do get paid by the post? RIAA or is actually BPI, PRS maybe?

        Or have you formed a group to "Protect the interests of those who claim to protect the interests of content creators?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:19am

        Re: Re: This says it all...

        Mike made stuff up.


        Could you provide references to back up that claim, please? Links or even complete sentences might suffice.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:22am

        Re: Re: This says it all...

        "Misses the point: Mike made stuff up. That's the point."

        Arguable. More likely Taylor purposefully made an ambiguous statement that he knew would be interpreted a certain way but allowed him to fall back on the "Oh no, you just didn't understand what I MEANT!" argument. It's a common way of phrasing things when you're in the public eye, so that you can never have your feet held to the fire.

        That said, Mike's interpretation was his an interpretation. The problem is that Taylor's staement REQUIRES interpretation to figure out what the hell he's trying to say. Let's examine:

        "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business." - Geoff Taylor

        Okay, the immediate question that arises is: as opposed to what alternative. If ating to curtail what they are calling piracy is the "cost of doing business" and they don't pay that cost, what then? Typically in modern business, the answer to that question is either you pay a penalty, suffer criminal consequences, or go out of business.

        For instance, providing a clean and non-dangerous product is the cost of doing business for bottled water companies (which I don't think they do, but that's for another time). If they bottle water laden with ecoli (does that even make sense?), and they haven't paid the cost of doing business, what do you think is going to happen?

        So to me, the interpretation M&M put forth rings true, but it would be nice if these corporae jackasses would just speak clearly the first time.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Matt (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:43am

          Re: Re: Re: This says it all...

          Taylor's argument, that he meant this "cost of doing business" is imposed by the corporate ethics of a good corporate citizen, makes little sense. The quoted statement smells like an accusation of vicarious liability, which is what Mike identified.

          The fact is, there are competing rights at issue in this debate, and BT has chosen to pay the (lowest) cost to support one of those rights (the right of its customers to be free of intrusion). If Taylor _really_ meant what he suggests, that BT made the wrong moral choice, then his statement was vacuous. It was merely a statement of his ill-informed opinion.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          sceptic (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: This says it all...

          Dark Helmet, your comment is written better than mikes article. While I believe Mike is correct he has taken a low road with the tone of his post. A better response to BPI's emails would be to post the email here and consider the points without an arrogant tone and without calling their claims 'ridiculous' or 'drivel'. (Such as Dark Helmet has done -nice work). To be taken seriously you should not insult your opponent but instead

          "It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err"

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This says it all...

            But when someone genuinely believes something is "ridiculous" or "drivel", they do not want to validate it by treating it as a legitimate assertion. Especially not when they have made dozens of completely reasoned arguments about these exact things in the past, and yet are forced on an almost daily basis to respond to the same points over and over again.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: This says it all...

          "For instance, providing a clean and non-dangerous product is the cost of doing business for bottled water companies (which I don't think they do, but that's for another time). If they bottle water laden with ecoli (does that even make sense?), and they haven't paid the cost of doing business, what do you think is going to happen?"

          Well, there is a very simple way to test if water is pure. You use an ANALOG ohm meter (digital ones don't really work for some reason or it's too costly to actually get one that is helpful). Pure water does not conduct electricity. The tap water here makes the ohm water jump a LOT, almost half way, but the pure water bought from the stores barley moves the needle at all. That's how I know it's pretty much pure.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Eric, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:59am

        Re: Re: This says it all...

        Anon, quit trollin', people are on to you. How'z about backing up your accusation with some facts, hmm?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Planespotter, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Excellent article Michael, lets hope they read it and respond... although I doubt they'll have anything to offer than more sob stories.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:19am

    "BT knows"

    I just wanted to add about this: BT isn't allowed to inspect the connections of their customers, and are more than happy not to.

    Not only is it more costly to monitor people in such a way, but it's quite more dangerous. There are europe-wide and worldwide agreements not to inspect a normal consumers connection if there isn't a security/national risk at large. If I recall correctly it's in the realm of being considered either an act of war or violation of treaty to dig down into what is being transmitted, mostly because monitor of that fashion can actually give you details of the exact things being transmitted, not just "they're kazaa filesharing".

    So why would BT want to a: take that liability, or b: even care? They're perfectly happy being a dumb pipe as that = subscribers/money/cashflow.

    Jeez BPI, leave BT the hell alone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PopeHilarius (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:20am

    You can argue the actual content of the article without resorting to "Mike lied!" If you disagree with the points raised, argue those. Silly attacks are not needed. Besides:

    Mike summary: "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing"

    Actually said: "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business."

    C'mon now. There's no "Mike made stuff up".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ben in TX (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:21am

    When will these people figure it out?

    You know, it just mystifies me that these recording industry people read Techdirt but don't understand a single word of it.

    Their business model is dead. What's so hard about adapting to new technology with a business model update? It's just plain common sense, and they've had TEN YEARS.

    I continue my boycott of RIAA labels. Wake up, recording industry execs. You're all colossal failures.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Designerfx (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:32am

      Re: When will these people figure it out?

      oh they read it, they understand it, but they don't want to have to move out of the old business model.

      in hollywood circles per family I have that are entrenched deep in media (mpaa/riaa/etc), it's easier money using this method than the hard work to make the change, so they don't want to do it. Not in the way you think, but that by making filesharing "evil" everyone does it and drives more growth. You know, like when your parents tell you XYZ thing is bad and you do it for that specific reason.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:38am

        Re: Re: When will these people figure it out?

        Are you saying that the antipiracy stance, 3 strikes law, etc. are all carefully contrived attempts to get MORE infringing filesharing happening?

        Man, I love a sound conspiracy theory, but I don't know about that one....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Designerfx (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:43am

          Re: Re: Re: When will these people figure it out?

          conspiracy? dude, I'm not a conspiracy guy. They are making serious cash off of people thinking it's "bad". Any artist that decries it as a bad thing gets humongous amounts of publicity and increased sales. They use big artists to begin with for this as it's less risk. You think that's an accident?

          not everything are attempts to get more filesharing, they are attempts to garner more business without having to do it through alternative channels which are well known.

          The 3 strikes stuff is an attempt to stuff the genie back in the bottle, we all know how stupid that is.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When will these people figure it out?

            I'm not sure I follow. They are trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle, but have it grant them a few wishes first?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When will these people figure it out?

            I don't know? Has Metallica sold their later albums with great success compared to their old stuff? I know I wouldn't touch it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Jari Winberg (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When will these people figure it out?

              Metallica is doing great. They sell out stadiums and Death Magnetic got to #1 in 27 charts. Some of the older fans might not have forgiven them about Napster but there are so many new kids around who probably haven't even heard about Napster.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:57am

      Re: When will these people figure it out?

      "Their business model is dead. What's so hard about adapting to new technology with a business model update? It's just plain common sense, and they've had TEN YEARS."

      Your point is sound, but its been more like twenty years. Crap, Mattel was taking down B&D Barbie images in what? 1992?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:31am

    I Believe it has Started

    Hey Mike,

    Looks like you finally got their attention.

    Your constant drumbeat of "business model", "business model", "business model", year after year after year appears to have finally been noticed by the people who actually need to hear it.

    You've mentioned in the past that you get your share of cease-and-desist letters, but I think this might be the first crack in the RI/MP/AA BPI armor if they actually start responding to you on your fairly solid points and allow themselves to be pulled into a discussion based on facts.

    Congratulations.

    Or, they can pull a Lily Allen, I guess, and just pretend like they never heard of you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:04pm

      Re: I Believe it has Started

      "Your constant drumbeat of "business model", "business model", "business model", year after year after year appears to have finally been noticed by the people who actually need to hear it."

      The people who need to hear it have done so. What you're seeing is a rearguard retreat from the institutional operators. Don't worry, they've got golden parachutes. They'll be fine.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      GeneralEmergency (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:29pm

      Re: I Believe it has Started

      Gandhi once said:

      "First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight with you, then you win."

      Welcome to stage three Mike.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:54pm

        Re: Re: I Believe it has Started

        Sorry, it's: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          GeneralEmergency (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: I Believe it has Started

          I had copied it off of a quotation site and after a look around I found another version of it as well:

          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. "

          But I agree, your version make more logical sense.

          One less thing I can trust now in life: The Internet.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mklinker (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:33am

    "They totally overestimate how much their own stuff is "worth" to the wider ecosystem, and then demand that everyone just pay up. Except... that's not the way the world works. The world works by having smart people with smart business models figuring out ways to make people want to give you money, not by sitting back and demanding others just hand over money. "

    Actually - I counter that IS the way the world works... as screwed up as it is >

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:01pm

      Re:

      No, I think Mike has it right. You can't make people give you money, but you can make them *want* to give you money. I don't think he's claiming that every successful product is actually beneficial, or that people only buy what they truly need - but every successful product does have to be wanted by consumers.

      There doesn't have to be a *Good* Reason to Buy (nobody really needs a tshirt with a slogan on it), but there does have to be reason, and the consumer has to agree.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Pitabred (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:51pm

        Re: Re:

        The government makes me give them money all the time. If I don't pay my taxes, I get thrown in jail. The recording industry is lobbying for and getting laws that enshrine their business model into the code of our society. It is the way the world works... just because it's morally wrong and asinine doesn't make it incorrect.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I see your point, but the majority of the broader business world does not rely on government-granted monopolies to survive and thrive. It can happen, and sometimes it does happen, but usually if a business can't make people want its product, it fails. I would hardly call government protections for failing industries "the way the world works"

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:38am

    Some people are driving drunk, so we should shut down all the streets

    In the US, one in six drivers are under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol (The number is commonly cited, although it may be bogus. But the principle is the same whether the number is one in six or one in fifty). This is clearly illegal activity. Therefore does the government have an obligation to shut down all streets and highways. If they don't are they are condoning the illegal activity?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      batch, Oct 3rd, 2009 @ 10:45am

      Re: Some people are driving drunk, so we should shut down all the streets

      According to BPI's logic, the answer is a resounding "YES!"

      By BPI's super-valid logic, you or I even being aware of such a thing and not stopping it means we're condoning it.

      I know serial killers exist, but because I choose not to become a vigilante and try to stop them same as the police, I'm condoning it. Its a pretty clear line in responsibility!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 3rd, 2009 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re: Some people are driving drunk, so we should shut down all the streets

        So everyone should become a vigilante and actively suppress serial killers. GREAT IDEA. I'll become like Dexter on Showtime.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Reverend Dak, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:56am

    I was going to use the same analogy...

    ... but using cars instead. It's like suing (or blaming) the car industry for making vehicles that can be used as get-away cars (i.e. crimes.)

    Hey BPI (and RIAA/MPAA for that matter) UR DUING IT WRONG.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:56am

    When will these idiots learn? The internet and file-sharing aren't going away. Ever. They can't be stopped, slowed, stifled or sytmied. They can't be banned, blocked or filtered, and no amount of legislation will ever change that. It is the inevitable progress of technology, and to fight it is futile. It's like John Hammond trying to control the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park - ain't gonna happen, as Ian Malcolm pointed out. Life - and in this case, technology - finds a way. Always.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jari Winberg (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:10pm

    Why do they even try?

    I would say If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business. != BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing. But the If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business doesn't make any sense. The Internet service BT offers is mainly used legally. And there are lot of goods and services that can be used illegally but know one goes after the manufacturers or service providers. Things like guns, cars and phones to name a few. Intellectual property industry must think that they are so special.

    The more the IP industry tries to explain their position, the more I dislike them. All they do is alienate people. Do they believe that they are on the right track with their actions? Can they really be so stupid or is it just a desperate fight for existence in a world where technology has made them obsolete? Probably both.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Kaze (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 3:53pm

      Re: Why do they even try?

      Things like guns, cars and phones to name a few. Intellectual property industry must think that they are so special.

      Guns are a bad analogy there. To be completely honest, gun manufacturers have had many lawsuits against them because the weapon they manufactured was used in a crime. While I cannot find the news articles dating back to the lawsuits, I did find this law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which states:

      An Act
      To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bas (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:19pm

    Strange...

    Strange claims... Especially since BPI Chairman Wadsworth recently had the following to say in an interview:

    According to Wadsworth, the future business model of this industry might not be based on transactional music sales for much longer. In the space of a year, the proportion of income derived from other sources – live gigs, merchandising, advertising, digital licensing, broadcast – has grown from £121.6m (11.4% of total revenues in 2007) to £195m (18% of the total in 2008).

    "The industry is moving from a transaction based business to a usage and licensing business," says Wadsworth.


    Taken from here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/the-music-industrys-future-may-not-depend-on-charging -for-songs-1794161.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Paul (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:23pm

    Mike IS lying

    Obviously Mike is lying, is making stuff up. And I can back this claim with details that prove this.

    1) Mike said that Taylor was "suggesting that BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing: ".

    2) And Mike was called on that, and I quote, "He did not say that "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing", as you assert. "

    Obviously saying that someone "suggested" something is against the law is the same as asserting they claimed something is against the law.

    Who can argue with that? Obviously Mike misstated what..., er..., I mean.....

    Hmmmm....

    Never mind. It is clearly BMI misstated Mike... Mike only said Taylor's statements *suggested* something. A far cry from *asserting* Taylor *said* something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:08pm

      Re: Mike IS lying

      1) Mike said that Taylor was "suggesting that BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing: ".

      "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business."

      Fuck you, police your own shit. Or be prepared to police mine. (my interjection.)

      2) And Mike was called on that, and I quote, "He did not say that "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing", as you assert. "

      What the fuck does that even mean? Y'know what? Go figure how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin, and we'll just keep going with this technology and shit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: Mike IS lying

        Church, read the end of his/her post....I do believe your sarcasm detector needs adjustment. You see, you point it AWAY from you, not towards you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Mike IS lying

          Paul,

          Nice catch. Mike might have made an interpretation of the Taylor insinuation, but the BPA wants to paint itself the victim, so they re-work Mike's words.

          I love the BPA and RIAA's hubris. They go to ISPs with a naughty list, and ask for confidential info or corrective action from the ISP. If the police or FBI went to the ISPs with the same request, they should be told to "F off or come back with a warrant." The recording industry goons are neither law enforcement officials, nor do they bring a warrant. So they should take their list of IP addresses, and use their 'talent' to write a sad song about it.

          Church, Church, Church.

          I had you at +18 on my scoresheet. And Tucker (although I don't know him) at -18. I just take a point off him ever tim e you go FTW. Why do you hate him so?

          I'll leave you at +18, but I'm giving Tucker +2 because I bet he caught the sarcasm. F@# - my scoresheet is getting complicated.

          Keep up the [mostly] good work.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 5:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Mike IS lying

          "Church, read the end of his/her post....I do believe your sarcasm detector needs adjustment."

          Gorram it! This thing is a menace. I'm going to sue the manufacturer!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Simon, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:27pm

    Media Shift

    They blame downloading, but the problem is their baseline for how much money they should be making is all wrong.

    In the past, medium shifts (Vinyl -> Tape -> CD's) have typically meant that people have paid over and over for the same content - with a huge mark-up for the labels. Now the current mainstream media - MP3 - allows CD's to be easily converted with no extra cost to the consumer.

    Labels: You've not got it bad now, you just had it too good for too long. Illegally so, as the CD price fixing cases have illustrated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Bunderfeld, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:45pm

    I don't understand

    What I don't understand about BPI and RIAA is why they report crimes to ISP's and not the Police?

    Do these organizations NOT understand that the Police are there to enforce the Laws and arrest those that break those laws. ISP's, at least the last time I checked, aren't sworn to uphole these laws.

    I suppose BPI and RIAA don't understand the basics of Law and Law Enforcement. Perhaps that's the reason why they haven't been able to actually PROVE anyone is breaking the law; which is probably why they are trying to get ISP's to do something, since they have no real proof that any laws are being broken.

    Maybe the BPI and RIAA should go back to Grade School and take a refresher course on how laws and the enforcement of those laws work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:55pm

    Are you still wondering why they preferred sending out emails than posting in the comments? Just read up...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:07pm

      Re:

      You mean that they might have to face questions and criticism, and then defend their position beyond their initial circumlocutory statements?

      Or that they would have to come face-to-face with the fact that the average person dislikes them and does not agree that they have a moral high ground?

      Or simply that they might face the wrath of Dark Helmet?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darren, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 12:55pm

    "Since 2003, annual UK broadband revenues have increased from £0.6 billion to £2.7 billion (2008). Recorded music revenues have fallen every year in the same period, principally due to illegal filesharing. It is therefore not difficult to see that the growth of BT's consumer broadband business has been assisted by the increase in illegal filesharing."

    Ha ha ha, I read this half an hour ago and I'm still laughing.

    I'm done with the industry, all the money I spend on music from now on will be spent on artists working outside the industry. If I desperately want a major label cd I'll buy it second hand so no money gets back to these jokers. Unfortunately this means no money gets back to the artist either which is not what I want but it gets to the point when complaining isn't enough and you have to do something, no matter how small.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 5:50pm

      Welcome

      Welcome to the Good Side. I did this over a decade ago and haven't regretted it.

      Quite the opposite -- I have learned of, purchased, and enjoyed higher quality music in greater variety than I ever would have discovered if I didn't start boycotting RIAA member labels. Basically, I've started seeking out music rather than letting the "industry" suggest it to me. It's made a tremendous difference.

      I know many people who experienced the same effect, although nobody believes this happens until they do it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    WammerJammer (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:20pm

    BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong

    Gee I wonder why recorded music revenues have been falling continuously every year. HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE NEW MUSIC CRAP THAT IS ON THE RADIO. It's boring and even lame. It all has the same beat and is what homogenized crap. Why would I buy that. The only good stations left are the oldie stations.
    I mean garbage is what I hear on 80% of the Radio Stations and then you got your religious music disguised as hard rock. The only thing hard about it is a bad boys dream.
    Really they need to produce something we want to listen to.
    Not rehashes of all the old stuff.
    This battle is a joke and the last gasps of a dying industry that has been ripping off artists as long as I can remember.
    It's called Instant Karma.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bas (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:27pm

    Do you guys still know what you're arguing about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      Uh, who has the best TechDirt handle, obviously. Isn't that what the article was about?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Derek Kerton (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm still waiting for someone to take advantage of the fact that "(profile)" appears after each handle.

        I'm waiting for:
        low
        racial
        in
        (cuts an impressive)
        profile

        and such...

        And I think there is room for a Dark Mall to fill in when Dark Helmet can't get it done. I think you can picture the avatar, yes?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I honestly can't follow word one of what in the world you're trying to say. I was going to read through it a third time, but have decided to instead issue this ultimatum: either speak plainly or I will force you to work for BMI as the CEO, since he can't talk no good either....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Derek Kerton (profile), Oct 5th, 2009 @ 3:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            example:
            Some dude's profile is "low"

            Beside their avatar for each comment they post, it will show:

            low (profile)

            BTW, new idea for handle: "Keep a low"

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 3:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't know what DH is taking about - I think your "(profile)" idea is inspired!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Some Anonymous Jerk, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:42pm

    ""If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business.""

    I am totally missing how this is interpreted as " BT is breaking the law"...

    They are saying that taking responsible steps is a cost of doing business, not a legal requirement of doing business. Paying for insurance benefits is a responsible cost of doing business...but it is far from illegal to choose not to offer insurance benefits.

    That said, BT is, I am sure, taking responsible steps. I am sure they respond to take-down notices on user-generated sites. But really...how far can you take that on P2P? By the time the letter is received, as you say, mike, it's over.

    So perhaps there was some misinterpretation of the statement on your part. That doesn't really make the rest of it any less amusing, though. ;)

    And all you retards calling out he First Poster who pointed out the same thing (somewhat less eloquently): I know not everyone can be as clear and concise as I, so kindly....get the hell off my internet. No, don't have a nice day, either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      "I am totally missing how this is interpreted as " BT is breaking the law"...

      They are saying that taking responsible steps is a cost of doing business, not a legal requirement of doing business. Paying for insurance benefits is a responsible cost of doing business...but it is far from illegal to choose not to offer insurance benefits."

      I'm not sure that follows. Cost of doing business is a term used to describe the costs to properly bring a product or service to market. I'm not sure that specific optional choices regarding employee compensation fall under that category. Whether you can get by with employees that don't require those benefits is a function of the job market, not a cost of providing the service/product. Using BT as an example, they need to figure in computing technology into their cost of doing business, because they aboslutely can't operate without that technology.

      Again, as I stated before, I think it follows that, in one way or another, if a company does not pay their "cost of doing busines", they're going to be in legal trouble (legal suits for malpractce/negligence/etc., bankruptcy, improperly licensed use of another's IP). Providing a safe prodcut/service, having enough capital to be viable, and not having a product or service trods on another illegaly are all costs of doing business.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Some Anonymous Jerk, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re:

        "having enough capital to be viable"

        This is illegal? Missed that bill. Got a link? ;)

        OK: Snark out of the way....

        There are far more costs of doing business. Optional, responsible, intrinsic, required by law, etc...

        Benefits are but one example, but a good one. That is one interpretation of a "cost of doing business". Sure it is not "required by law", but for anyone running a business that pays benefits, you can bet that this will be on the top of their lists regarding the "cost of doing business"...and it's getting worse.

        It can be taken many ways, largely based on the background (read: bias) of the reader. My first correlation upon reading that quote was, in fact, my example. Mike's was different, largely colored by his "schadenfreude" at yet another opportunity to dance on the bullet-hole riddled feet of the Communications Industry. (I am guilty of this as well, but perhaps not to such an awe inspiring (read: psychotic) degree)

        What makes his interpretation more valued (wrong or right) than mine? What would make it the opposite? Nothing. Both are merely opinions, not fact. There is no Right or Wrong. (Woah... Hold up. I am always right, so that must be wrong...)

        So calling someone out over an interpretation is pretty amusing, really. I love it, of course, being a jerk and all. But can't help (again, being a jerk) pointing out the fallacy of an "I am right, you are wrong" mentality when it comes to a question of interpretations. (not that it's a bad thing. Perfectly acceptable when I do it, for instance)

        Now go away.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Your overuse of parentheses makes Lord Helmet cry...

          That aside, my chief point wasn't that your interpretation was any less valid. It was that the kind of ambiguous almost-speak these assclowns like to utilize REQUIRES an interpretation, meaning that they are either constructing their speech that way on purpose or else haven't the proper wherewithal to eloquently put forth a complete thought with pretty words like me....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 3:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "dance on the bullet-hole riddled feet"

          ...what?

          That is one of the worst metaphors I have ever heard.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Derek Kerton (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:47pm

      Re:

      Mike used the word "suggesting", as in "[Taylor was] suggesting that BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing".

      Mikes original words mean that Taylor was trying to paint BT with the same brush as the law-breakers. Taylor's was a sort of "part of the solution, or part of the problem" statement. And the statement was quite suggestive. And quite possibly a deliberate effort.

      Taylor didn't say that BT broke the law...he just put that suggestion out there. Mike might have stretched his interpretation, but not by much.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 9:54pm

        Re: Re:

        The difference is significant. The original quote is ""If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business." There is no suggestion that BT is breaking the law, only the suggestion that assuring that their network is free of people who are breaking the law.

        There is nothing in there that even suggests that BT is breaking the law. Mike made that up out of whole cloth.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 11:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

          Did cowardly anonymize:

          The difference is significant. The original quote is ""If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business." There is no suggestion that BT is breaking the law, only the suggestion that assuring that their network is free of people who are breaking the law.

          There is nothing in there that even suggests that BT is breaking the law. Mike made that up out of whole cloth.

          Is there not the suggestion that BT is not paying this “cost of doing business”, and that they should be forced to? Otherwise, what is the point of the statement?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          The Idiot, Oct 3rd, 2009 @ 1:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          'The difference is significant. The original quote is ""If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business." There is no suggestion that BT is breaking the law, only the suggestion that assuring that their network is free of people who are breaking the law.'

          Yes, and how do you propose we do that? OH, wiat, let's hack people's computers. That's perfectly legal.

          'There is nothing in there that even suggests that BT is breaking the law. Mike made that up out of whole cloth.'

          That's just bollocks. The original statement (made earlier this week) actually implied that BT is breaking the law by turning round and saying to the BPI that they can't really do anything because there's no proof for the police to get involved.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    speeder, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:15pm

    BPI are public clowns

    Using the same analogy as the BPI use:-

    The Highways Agency knows that (some) people speed - they are a socially responsible outfit - their revenues gave increased whilst those of milkpersons have decrease - therefore they close all the roads and then no-one would speed and milkpeople would make more money ...

    Case Proven by a bunch of intellectual cretins

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:20pm

    It's profoundly stupid to yammer on about how the tone of the conversation isn't constructive when the fact is that the conversation itself isn't constructive. Time spent pretending that these last desperate arguments of a waning economic age matter is time that could be spent taking advantage of the opportunities of the current age. That's annoying. It gets the tone it deserves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 2:38pm

    Just curious if emails were exchanged with the expectation that they would remain as a private conversation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 3:33pm

      Re:

      I highly doubt that. The only reason they would send this response would be in the hopes that Mike would publicly withdraw his statements / apologize.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 3:17pm

    Wait, I thought that....

    If I'm not mistaken, arent copywrites created with the idea that if you dont enforce them YOURSELF, you lose them. I am fairly sure thats how it works (or at least in the USA). They have to enforce it themselves.

    If they can see every time someone shares their file, then they ought to go after the person, not the ISP.

    Hey sir, I heard there might be some boats in your water actin all like pirates. You had better drain the lake and find em or else!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 3:35pm

      Re: Wait, I thought that....

      Sadly, any fact about copyright that uses the words "created with the idea" is almost certainly obsolete in today's world.

      And, equally sadly, any statement about copyright that includes the words "how it works" but is less than 100 pages long is almost certainly oversimplified.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 4:23pm

    BT fosters a reputation as a socially responsible company. BPI has questioned whether it's appropriate for such a company to do nothing about 100,000 instances "a small sample" of the illegal behaviour that BT knows is occurring on its network. BT knows about this activity because BPI provides detailed weekly notifications enabling BT to verify each and every infringement. BPI's notifications are based upon robust copyright infringement detection techniques which have been accepted by the UK High Court in over 150 cases.

    Some news.

    Socially responsible is not necessarily well correlated with legality. You can be very socially irresponsible whilst remaining legally impeccable. Similarly being socially responsible might involve breaking the law - because the law itself is not necessarily socially responsible.

    Therefore when you complain about illegal activity it is reasonable to assume that you are demanding a response that is mandated by law not by social responsibility.

    If you are asking for social responsibility then you first have a duty to prove that the behaviour that you condemn is socially irresponsible not just that it is illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    HolaJohnny (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 6:23pm

    I always know my day will get better when a Techdirt article's comments break 60... Thanks guys! Except the AC's... If your here even occasionally and comment get a damned account people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Oct 2nd, 2009 @ 7:29pm

    By This Reasoning....

    Since 2003, annual UK broadband revenues have increased from £0.6 billion to £2.7 billion (2008). Recorded music revenues have fallen every year in the same period, principally due to illegal filesharing. It is therefore not difficult to see that the growth of BT's consumer broadband business has been assisted by the increase in illegal filesharing.
    Babies Kill People! As the birth rate increases so does the death toll. Therefore, babies kill people. We should act now and completely stop all procreation. Then we would never die.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 3rd, 2009 @ 2:53pm

    dude posting the links off subject, you are an idiot. a blowhard koolwanna be

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Philip (profile), Oct 4th, 2009 @ 7:57am

    Again, BPI assumes that BT can magically tell which content is infringing and which is not. Just recently, we pointed out that EMI -- in the UK -- was happily distributing infringing mixtapes from Lily Allen off of an EMI owned website.

    Mike, you missed one thing here. They said "But the weekly notifications we send to BT relate solely to music files which we know are being shared illegally" which would imply they expect BT to assume BPI is giving them a legitimate list. Your reply would only graze over that, if you read it a certain way. So, here, BPI is not saying the expect BT to magically tell what's infringing; BPI is saying they expect BT to use the list they supplied to BT.

    On a personal note, I still disagree with BPI. Having one company take another company's word for who's "illegal" or not is a violation of civil rights. BT has to be able to verify those claims, which often aren't provable, as you've pointed out Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 5th, 2009 @ 1:09am

      Re:

      Mike, you missed one thing here. They said "But the weekly notifications we send to BT relate solely to music files which we know are being shared illegally" which would imply they expect BT to assume BPI is giving them a legitimate list.

      I actually addressed that elsewhere in the post...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Oct 5th, 2009 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      "Mike, you missed one thing here. They said "But the weekly notifications we send to BT relate solely to music files which we know are being shared illegally" which would imply they expect BT to assume BPI is giving them a legitimate list."

      BT cannot assume that the list is legitimate. They don't have the resources - but more importantly they shouldn't need to have them. Just like the Australian ISP in other articles said,

      "They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'."

      That is the exact position BT is in. If BPI wants something done, they need to first get a legal order for BT to reveal who the user is by presenting convincing evidence. They then need to take that individual to court for damages, again by presenting convincing evidence of that damage. That's called due process of law. Now, whether that's something BPI *should* do is entirely a different question (with a pretty obvious answer of no from anyone who bothers to think about it).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Oct 7th, 2009 @ 11:26pm

    no, sorry... the idea that "because you know your stuff is being used in illegal activities" means you should suffer the sole burden to stop it in order to prop up someone elses business structure is not a logical thought to begin with.

    Roads are used every day in every country to conduct illegal activity.
    Phones are used in every country every day to conduct illegal activity.
    Email...check
    legal guns that were legally obtained? check.
    legally obtained prescription medications? check.

    the problem is that you can not simply wave your arms and point while you jump up and down like a baboon hooting and flinging your excrement of "hey, they allow illegal activity!!" and expect that the world is just going to say "oh my god.... youre RIGHT!!!" and then shut them down or make them subsidize you. especially on something that is closer to communications infrastructure these days than the guns and prescription meds are.

    the point i make is, bad things happen in the world and illegal activities are part of those bad things. while i am certainly not in favor of illegal activity running amok unchecked, im also not a huge fan of shutting down every road in the country OR passing along higher taxes to subsidize the bank simply because a bank robber used one for a getaway yesterday.

    Quite honestly, if the record companies spent as time and money in R&D as they do trying to sue the world out of existence, this would not have been a problem to begin with since they would have been on the forefront of technology rather than pulling a broken down little red wagon with three wheels as a business model.

    thank you for reading all the way to the bottom of my first registered post. if you made it this far, you deserve a cookie (i said deserve one... didnt say you were gonna get one however)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This