As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet

from the but-how-will-this-get-them-to-buy? dept

This should come as no surprise -- as it was pretty clearly a foregone conclusion after his dinner with David Geffen, but UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson (who prior to that dinner didn't seem to care about this issue at all) has decided to totally ignore the Digital Britain report, as well as the widespread outcry from individuals and ISPs, and will implement a plan to kick file sharers offline using a "three strikes" system. While he says there will be an appeals process, there's no indication that there will be a due process system that allows for innocence before guilt. Instead, it sounds like the other way around. It's pretty clear, of course, that Mandelson was simply blowing smoke when he claimed he was merely asking for feedback around such an idea, rather than definitely endorsing it.

In defending the new proposal, Mandelson continues to state things that just don't make sense. He claims that he was "shocked" to learn that only one in twenty downloads were authorized, but fails to note that stat has little basis in reality. Meanwhile, he again insists that downloading is "economically unsustainable," ignoring two recent studies (one from Harvard and one from the UK's own PRS) showing that the overall music industry is growing. How is that economically unsustainable?

But, honestly, the biggest issue is that he fails to address the huge question that I keep asking, and which no one wants to answer:
How will kicking people off the internet get them to buy more product?
That's because there is no answer. Will it make some people participate less in file sharing? Perhaps -- though, it's likely to just drive more people further underground. But just because they stop file sharing it doesn't mean that people will buy any more. In fact, continuing this war on music fans is only going to make people less interested in buying. This is exactly the opposite of what the music industry needs right now. Taking the war against consumers up a notch only ensures that they're even less interested in giving any money to the entertainment industry. Instead, they'll find those who treat them right and actually give them a reason to buy (rather than trying to limit them) to give their money to.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    yourrealname (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:13am

    great!

    I think this is pretty good as it will encourage even casual internet users to get better encryption technology. I also think such tech is about to become more abundant and simpler/more user friendly. I really hope more countries start adopting similar standards, it's going to make everyone more secure in the end.

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:23am

    Re: great!

    while encryption getting better is a natural progression, this is not the way to bring about such a change.

    Maybe someone can have Mandelson impeached or something? Does the UK have such a policy for morons like him?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:30am

    "How will kicking people off the internet get them to buy more product?"

    That is irrelevant since this is about establishing control. Once they have control they might think about expanding the business, but more likely they will just make the existing business more "efficient" -> lay off most of the workers and just have servers running download services but with no competition allowed and no innovation required. exactly what every American business person dreams of.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    RD, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:30am

    Would be nice

    "Maybe someone can have Mandelson impeached or something? Does the UK have such a policy for morons like him?"

    Would be nice, but recall that he was never elected to his position, he was appointed. He cant be voted out, impeached or any other similar proceeding. He would have to be removed by those who placed him, and fat chance of that happening anytime in our lifetime.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Alex Mercer, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:39am

    As mentioned above, this is about control, plain and simple. It'll catch a lot of people off guard, and drive them off the internet, and that'll be hailed as a 'great success'. But the real hardcore types, they'll adapt to it as these people always do. Hell, even the vaguely savvy types will more than likely be able to circumnavigate any and all blocks.

    This is just going to lead to a new surge in encryption technology, mark my words.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:41am

    He has "The Mandelson Plan"...

    We should introduce the "Masnick Plan" which is a plan to get kicked out of a role of Governance if someone is found in bed eating dinner with David Geffen.

    Taken literally, it's quite a sight. Let your imagination run wild.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    kingstu, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:42am

    "I think this is pretty good as it will encourage even casual internet users to get better encryption technology. I also think such tech is about to become more abundant and simpler/more user friendly. I really hope more countries start adopting similar standards, it's going to make everyone more secure in the end."

    If this is sarcasm...it's great. If this is simply a true statement...it's great. Wait until download speeds get so fast you can walk into an Internet café, insert a flash drive, start downloading, go get your coffee and when you get back…BAM…the Library of Congress on the flash drive.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:43am

    How will kicking people off the internet get them to buy more product?

    This is the easiest thing in the world to answer, but I find that the techdirt dittoheads don't want to hear it.

    Piracy is driven by a mob mentality. We do things as a mob that we wouldn't do on our own. Think of people in a riot looting stores and setting fire to police cars. It's something that none of us would normally do in a real life. But under the correct situation, we can get emboldened by the mob and do some seriously stupid things.

    Fire sharing has mob mentality all over it. It's people believing that they either (a) have some divine right, or (b) nobody will catch them. The mob protects them.

    So kicking someone off the internet won't make them buy anything else, but it might convince other less committed people that the mob isn't right, or that they aren't safe, or that they don't have some sort of divine right. It takes very few very public cases to make a difference.

    Heck, data reported here on Techdirt shows that P2P traffic is down 20%, following on judgements like Thomas and against the pirate bay. It's a process that convinces the general public that following the law is the right way, not just taking whatever you want without concern for rights.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    antimatter3009 (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:49am

    Finding Music

    You know, it just occurred to me that without the internet, I don't even know how I'd find music anymore. I don't even have tv, so no ads or shows there. I've hardly listened to the radio in forever (and don't generally like it when I do), so nothing there. I do all my music discovery (and purchasing, for that matter) online. I probably buy 5-10 albums a month, but without the resources online I don't think I'd ever actually buy music simply because I couldn't find stuff I liked.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:51am

    Brits are just worried...

    Worried about people sharing pictures of people who have had good dental care.

    You know, Dental Care is expensive. What if it became common knowledge that bad teeth could be cured? Hell, they may start demanding it. What if Susan Boyle had good teeth? She may have won.

    Revolution for Dental Coverage, man, and at £5,000 to £10,000 per commoner, that's way too expensive for The Precious Queen to front the bill for, instead, a return to the 1700s will make a little repeated quote popular again:

    OFF WITH THEIR INTERNET!

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 11:57am

    No trial, no evidence, just anony accusation = guilt and punishment?

    I hereby accuse Anymous Coward(1) of bespoke murder. Please report at once for your life imprisonment.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Chris (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:02pm

    From the article..

    It would mean that, for example, someone who has bought a CD would be able to copy it to their iPod or share it with family members without acting unlawfully.

    Is this supposed to be a joke? I swear this shit makes me swing back and forth between disgusted disbelief and apathetic amusement. Peter Mandelson cannot legislate that everyone be as vacant as he - laws that go against common sense are ignored by everyone with any sense.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Michael Long, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:06pm

    Music, music, music...

    "In fact, continuing this war on music fans is only going to make people less interested in buying."

    People download more than just music, you know. And music at least has a performance model, unlike, say, books or software.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    jj, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:10pm

    Re:

    Maybe that 20% just got better encryption making it harder/impossible for third party services to track the traffic.

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    dan, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:12pm

    Re:

    So we did get off on the wrong foot (by file sharing), but did it ever occur that even without the internet copying/sharing music has been part of what has made music so big. If a friend didn't lend me his Guns & Roses or Jane's Addiction tape so many years ago, I wouldn't have bought them myself or bought them, sold them, then bought them again later. Did that turn out bad for the music industry? No.
    kicking them off the Internet for file sharing is like telling people that have DUI's that they have to walk everywhere when they could use public transportation or ride with a friend. There are more uses for the Internet than just that. Just as you tell someone they can't do this and you smite them with your lawsuit papers, you haven't convinced them to do anything other than hate the system.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:17pm

    I guess I better start paying the extra $2 dollars for 256bit encryption UNS offers on their 3 day all you can download package.

    Good luck with kicking me off the Internet...

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Captain Kibble (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: great!

    "Maybe someone can have Mandelson impeached or something? Does the UK have such a policy for morons like him?"

    Like has already been mentioned he is appointed by the government so the public has no way if ousting him. Also Mandelson has been booted out of politics twice because of his dodgy dealings and twice has been bought back into the Labour party, at the first available opportunity. He is untouchable. The only thing that can realistically get rid of him is a Tory victory at the next general election.

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:22pm

    Re: You almost had me there...

    For a minute I thought this was a reasonable explanation about how kicking people off the internet might get them to buy more product, but then I realized that it was really just staire about the Mob mentality of the music industry cleverly disguised to appear to be in support of the music industry.

    It was really the 3rd paragraph that gave it away:
    a) People believing they have some divine right - check, that's the MPAA/RIAA and the rest of the industry middle men described to a T. They feel they have a divine right to the same profit they have always received, even though the market and technology are constantly changing.
    b) People believing that nobody will catch them - check, that's the greedy politicians who flip sides after having a meal with the industry (and being fed their line of drivel) and think that nobody will catch them while they cash their fat bribe checks.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    william (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:27pm

    Phase 1. kick people off Internet
    Phase 2. ?
    Phase 3. Profit!

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:28pm

    Re:

    UNS? Wazzat?

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Simon, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re: great!

    Does the UK have such a policy for morons like him?
    Sadly yes, it's called promotion.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    This is the easiest thing in the world to answer, but I find that the techdirt dittoheads don't want to hear it.

    Willing to listen to any reasonable argument. Unfortunately, you never actually answer the question. Oops.

    Piracy is driven by a mob mentality. We do things as a mob that we wouldn't do on our own. Think of people in a riot looting stores and setting fire to police cars. It's something that none of us would normally do in a real life. But under the correct situation, we can get emboldened by the mob and do some seriously stupid things.

    I actually disagree with most of the premise of the above, but even granting that, all you've explained is how it might reduce file sharing, not how it increases sales.

    So kicking someone off the internet won't make them buy anything else, but it might convince other less committed people that the mob isn't right, or that they aren't safe, or that they don't have some sort of divine right. It takes very few very public cases to make a difference.

    Uh huh. You just admitted that you can't answer the question, because it "won't make them buy anything else." That's just three paragraphs after you said it was "the easiest question in the world to answer."

    All you've explained -- again, is how it might reduce file sharing, not how it increases sales for the industry.

    Heck, data reported here on Techdirt shows that P2P traffic is down 20%, following on judgements like Thomas and against the pirate bay. It's a process that convinces the general public that following the law is the right way, not just taking whatever you want without concern for rights.

    Again, you have not answered the question. You've explained how it might reduce file sharing, but not how it increases sales.

    So, let me ask again, how does kicking people offline make anyone want to buy? Please. If it's such a simple question to answer, do so. You keep saying it'll reduce file sharing, which it might. But reducing file sharing is not the same is getting people to buy stuff.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    Brian (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re:

    It really is a simple question to answer. Magic, once they have no connection with the internet the magic fairies that live inside your computer will force you, at gunpoint, to buy hundreds of CDs in the hopes that one day the mighty industry execs will take pity and let you and the fairies once again have access to some form of the interwebz.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    jonathan (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 1:10pm

    Re:

    This in itself is an oxymoron! This is the bloke that wants us all to pay extra so that 100% of the population gets broadband! c'mon now the speed issue is pathetic in this country anyway. The slowest and most expensive in Europe. I can see there being many lawsuits being filed against Lord Mandelssohn's proposals since half of his ideas are unenforceable and unforgivable and will cause outrage especially in driving forward to Digital Britain, which should have happened 10 years ago. Besides Isps could also find themselves partly to blame for this. There are many Legal loopholes that can be and have been exploited anyway so there aren't any winners in this. The OUTGOING government should realise this!

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: great!

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Re:

    I believe his argument was that the current generation is lost and will never buy music, but if you publicly beat them hard enough then future generations will be too afraid to pirate music and will therefore have to purchase it.

    Of course, he's wrong on two counts:

    1) There are many people, like myself, who do not engage in piracy but who also will never ever purchase RIAA label music because they are thoroughly disgusted with the corporate behavior. The more egregious they get, the more of these people there are and the lower the sales will be.

    2) Present pirates are also among the main purchasers of music. Get rid of them, and you're getting rid of paying customers.

    It's almost like the mainstream labels want to go out of business. I sure won't miss 'em.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    Steven (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Music, music, music...

    As a software developer here is my opinion:

    Just because competing in business is hard, and our products have a marginal cost of $0, doesn't mean we should get a governmental exception from the free market. There are just as many working business models for software development that don't rely on selling non-rivilrous goods as there are for music, and I'd bet the same applies for books and any other product you can imagine.

    Software will be free, just like music will be free (free as in cost that is). It will expand to all things with no marginal cost. It will happen. Much is already free. The only variables are how long it will take, and how much it will be fought against.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Re:

    So, let me ask again, how does kicking people offline make anyone want to buy?

    let me try this again.

    If people have a choice between paying and free, they will pick free, provided there is no downside to free. Mob mentality right now says there is no downside to copyright violation, it's just "sharing". However, in legal terms, it's violation of copyright, and as has been shown recently, can get very expensive.

    So, if enough people realize that parts of the "mob" are getting into legal issues, the "costs" of free music / movies / whatever may increase to the point that buying the music you want becomes a better option.

    The demand for music has never been higher before in history. All the huge memory ipods, mp3 players, and the like helps to create huge demand. If the free music isn't available under terms that people find acceptable (risk wise) then the demand will lead to more overall music sales. That may be Itunes sales, that may be other sales channels, but in the end,the demand is there.

    In supply and demand terms, as soon as people stop looking at the "infinite" free music and start looking at legal sources, the whole thing changes. Removing file sharers from the internet will make a difference, especially if they happen to hit larger scale seeders / rippers.

    Quite simple, if the demand is there, and there is no free option, they buy it or they don't. But at that point, the music industry isn't competing with pirates for the public's attention.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:


    If people have a choice between paying and free, they will pick free, provided there is no downside to free. Mob mentality right now says there is no downside to copyright violation, it's just "sharing". However, in legal terms, it's violation of copyright, and as has been shown recently, can get very expensive.


    This is the same argument that was made when the RIAA tried to sue tens of thousands of people.

    End result? Fewer music sales and more file sharing.

    Why will it be different this time?

    Quite simple, if the demand is there, and there is no free option, they buy it or they don't. But at that point, the music industry isn't competing with pirates for the public's attention.

    Again, identical argument was made to the lawsuits. And it didn't work. At all. In fact, it made things worse.

    So, we have empirical evidence that your argument doesn't work.

    So, again, let me ask, can you explain how this will make people buy more music? Because so far you have not.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Quite simple, if the demand is there, and there is no free option, they buy it or they don't. But at that point, the music industry isn't competing with pirates for the public's attention."

    You are missing a very significant fact. Even assuming that it was possible to stop *all* illegal file-sharing, there will still be free options.

    My MP3 player is full of completely free, legally downloaded songs on it. Jonathan Coulton. Nine Inch Nails. Machinae Supremacy. Dozens of others. I find new artists putting all of their music online for free regularly.

    If you kill all illegal file sharing, you've only killed the greatest advertising system for music from major music labels yet invented - while not doing a thing to compete with independent artists that are harnessing its power.

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "If people have a choice between paying and free, they will pick free, provided there is no downside to free."

    As a blanket statement, this is not true. Some will, some won't. People pay for things they can get for free (with no downside) every day. It's not a matter of downsides to free, it's a matter of upside to paying.

    Beside piracy with almost no consequences will always be an option. The only thing that can be done is to alter how the piracy is accomplished. It's not right, I don't condone it, but it is true.

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 3:53pm

    Re:

    "Heck, data reported here on techdirt shows that P2P traffic is down 20%"

    This proves what exactly? Do you really think that file sharing can't happen without P2P? If so, you have no clue how the internet works.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 5:38pm

    Re: Re: Music, music, music...

    As a software developer who's been in the business for 30 odd years, I agree. Even more than that, I embrace it. The only constant is change, and change brings opportunity.

    It's the folks who fight change tooth and nail (music, movie, news, and software industries, I'm looking at you) who will inevitably fail. It's only a matter of how much thrashing they will engage in before they die. When they die, they will leave a richer field of opportunity for us neophiles.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 5:38pm

    "Meanwhile, he again insists that downloading is "economically unsustainable,""

    The problem is that the Internet provides alternative avenues of entertainment (ie: techdirt) and competition is economically unsustainable for selfish monopolists who want to get paid and not do any work.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 5:44pm

    Re:

    "It's a process that convinces the general public that following the law is the right way, not just taking whatever you want without concern for rights."

    So if the laws say thou shalt murder thy son then following the laws is the right way? Just because the laws are enforceable?

    The fact is that intellectual property rights last way too long and intellectual property laws are entirely one sided.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 7:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is the same argument that was made when the RIAA tried to sue tens of thousands of people.

    End result? Fewer music sales and more file sharing.


    Not a very good comparison. The "threat" of lawsuits, is nothing, the actual results of them (like Thomas) is important. Having people three-strike their way off the internet would likely be enough to dissuade at least some people.

    Again, identical argument was made to the lawsuits. And it didn't work. At all. In fact, it made things worse.

    So, we have empirical evidence that your argument doesn't work.


    Since I have just shown that your theory "threats" versus my theory "people paying settlements or actually removed from the net" is not the same, you have empirical proof of nothing, except perhaps that you are trying to change the course of the discussion.

    How would you think a parent would react when they get a notice of a "first strike", and it turns out to be on of their kids downloading stuff? Guess what... one less file sharer, and perhaps a kid who learns a lesson about right and wrong.

    Three strikes, and anyone could be out. If it starts happening in reasonable levels, people will be less likely to leave their P2P programs on, less likely to seed, less likely to share, at least not in the clear.

    Will it sell more music? The answer is "who knows?" There is no studies to prove it will. But it will almost certainly put at least a minor crimp in file sharing in the UK.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 7:09pm

    With regard to the question "How will kicking people off the internet get them to buy more product?", maybe you might be able to convince people more easily if you asked a question they could answer. From my smattering of psychology knowledge, asking a question that cannot be answered, or would result in a logical 'false', will often result in the questionee simply ignoring the question entirely. This is not conducive to an effective argument. My advice - ask questions that can be answered.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    zenasprime, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 7:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm still not going to buy dog shit, even if it's the only thing available.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 7:45pm

    Re:

    Mike only asks those types of questions when he wants the dittoheads to parrot the techdirt line. The detractors are held to a much higher standard, of having to answer hypotheticals with completed research data.

    It's the "How long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?" question. No matter which way you answer it, you either confirm something bad, or deny a rumor that will stay a rumor. It's 100% classic guru action. It's just surprising that the astute readers of techdirt don't catch it.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 7:49pm

    Cheap date

    "a foregone conclusion after his dinner with David Geffen, "

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 9:17pm

    Just my opinion, but I am a bit surprised at the number of persons who seem to assume that rights holders are ignorant of economic theories espoused on this site. At a macro level it is hard to argue with basic economic theory, but I do have to wonder if there are circumstances wherein seemingly counterintuitive economic approaches might actually make sense and have a measure of validity for companies that pursue such approaches?

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    Jari Winberg (profile), Oct 28th, 2009 @ 10:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How would you think a parent would react when they get a notice of a "first strike", and it turns out to be on of their kids downloading stuff?

    He would start using a darknet to make sure his own downloading wouldn't be affected.

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 12:55am

    Re:

    Just my opinion, but I am a bit surprised at the number of persons who seem to assume that rights holders are ignorant of economic theories espoused on this site.

    Why? Lots of people have trouble with very basic economics -- especially since some concepts, at a first glance, may be counterintuitive. Things like marginal cost, zero-sum games, economic growth, sunk costs and other concepts aren't all that natural for some people to understand.

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    The Idiot, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 1:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're talking bollocks again. From my psych degree, free is rarely an incentive to obtain. More importantly, how do you differentiate between Amanda Palmer and Rosa Cruz? How do you differentiate Fahrenheit 451 and Up!

    Also, your 'Education' programme could be more honestly written by my daughter; she's 3 and can't type.

    Also, the Lord of the Bribes struck again; apparengtly, he's suing the Guardian for libel after they pointed out his dinner with Mr. Geffen.

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 2:21am

    P2P (maybe) down, One-Click-Hosters WAY up

    Heck, data reported here on Techdirt shows that P2P traffic is down 20%, following on judgements like Thomas and against the pirate bay.

    Right, they are now all downloading from One-Click-Hosters like Rapidshare with similar speed and no risk of getting their IPs exposed. Well done, industry!

     

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

  46.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 2:28am

    Hilarious!

    What a bullshit comparison.

    By stating the obvious (though not to the idustry of course) fact, that the question can't be answered, Mike is simply stressing the fact that kicking people off the Internet WON'T make them buy product.

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 2:29am

    Re:

    Thing is, selling less product is the rational for going after sharers in the first place. Therefore, it is important that we somehow establish whether or not people will buy if there is no way to get the content for free. If they wouldn't then going after filesharers is a complete waste of time.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    catullusrl, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 5:50am

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 6:44am

    Re:

    Maybe you should take a look at this.

    http://www.musically.com/theleadingquestion/downloads/tlq_midem_09_show.pdf




    So if I am to understand this "literature" correctly, the industry is counting on the fear of file-sharing copyrighted works that might be generated by coercing governments to allow collection societies to terminate individuals internet accounts based on accusation. One might derive that the creators assume that if people are afraid to download, they will purchase CDs. You never know, that might happen.... there just isn't any correlative information in the document to back that up.

    But to my point... the contributors should look a little closer at the data they have generated here. The numbers do not look good for them.

    By the data presented, it appears that the French are now more fearful of being kicked off of the Internet for filesharing, as is lauded in the breakout box on page 11. This correlates with reality as France has been the proving grounds for creating a penal information society with their 3 strikes law.

    However, notice that the French are now less likely to stop file sharing if they were to receive a warning from their ISP (page 12) and even less likely under threat of disconnection (page 13) to stop file sharing. The willingness for the French to continue to file-share is very apropos, as they have been the proving ground for government involvement with this business problem.

    So the data you point to (I assume) in hopes of explaining why more people would buy by implementing a plan of surreptitious disconnection, is actually reaffirming the opposite and perhaps foretelling a more palpable and imminent doom for the music industry:

    By creating fear you are creating civil disobedience. End game? Geffen loses his ass and might be lucky to keep his head.

    On the whole though, that was a sweet bedtime story in large, colorful fonts. Thank you.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 6:53am

    Re: Re:

    yet remarkably, when they do get removed from the net, their file sharing stops altogether! AMAZING!

    Most importantly, when they disappear off the net, that is one less peer, one less potential seeder, one less person enabling others to take what isn't rightfully theirs.

    That's the point.

    Virtual shoplifting is still shoplifting. The sooner the general public clues back in to what they are actually doing, the quicker piracy becomes a nuisance rather than a death sentence for music and movies.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    Rabbit80 (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 7:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Most importantly, when they disappear off the net, that is one less peer, one less potential seeder, one less person enabling others to take what isn't rightfully theirs."

    It's also potentially 1 more consumer who will NEVER buy any of the content. Actually, its potentially a lot more than 1 consumer - I can't imagine many of their friends / family would wish to support big content either!

    Also, there are plenty of ways for that person to get back on the internet.. 3G prepay options are becoming cheaper and easier than ever and are very difficult to trace when paid for in cash!

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 7:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    yet remarkably, when they do get removed from the net, their file sharing stops altogether! AMAZING!

    Most importantly, when they disappear off the net, that is one less peer, one less potential seeder, one less person enabling others to take what isn't rightfully theirs.

    That's the point.

    Virtual shoplifting is still shoplifting. The sooner the general public clues back in to what they are actually doing, the quicker piracy becomes a nuisance rather than a death sentence for music and movies.


    OK if that is your point, sure, disconnecting people will temporarily stop that individual's filesharing (assuming they are using a method that can be monitored and have not set up another account or share another account).

    But back to the point. How does creating civil disobedience positively affect the bottom line of the music industry?

    What I see gives me the impression there will be much more lost by alienating the people at large, both from the music industry and from their governments, with such public cronyism.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    catullusrl, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 7:17am

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Virtual shoplifting is still shoplifting."

    Except that there's no such thing as "virtual shoplifting," and continuing to claim there is won't make it so.

    Also, it's very far from clear that piracy is killing music.

    The general public understands both of these points rather well, I think.

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I killed lots of people playing Borderlands last night on my XBox. Is virtual murder still murder?

    Nice try though.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 10:03am

    Re:

    """
    This is the easiest thing in the world to answer, but I find that the techdirt dittoheads don't want to hear it.

    Piracy is driven by a mob mentality. We do things as a mob that we wouldn't do on our own. --- Fire sharing has mob mentality all over it.
    """

    Actually, I think that file-sharing has "convenience" written all over it.

    Also, you're a stoopid-head.

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If people have a choice between paying and free, they will pick free, provided there is no downside to free.

    Really? I guess I don't qualify as "people." My local library got a donation copy yesterday of Cory Doctorow's new novel "Makers" from me after I had already downloaded the book from the author's own website for free. The UPside of "free" is it gave me a reason to buy.

     

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

  58.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    """
    The demand for music has never been higher before in history. All the huge memory ipods, mp3 players, and the like helps to create huge demand. If the free music isn't available under terms that people find acceptable (risk wise) then the demand will lead to more overall music sales. That may be Itunes sales, that may be other sales channels, but in the end,the demand is there.
    """

    Good point about the demand. However, do you really believe that a 14 year old kid that just got an 8GB iPod for his birthday is going to spend thousands of dollars to fill that iPod? Yes I wrote thousands of dollars, even at $.99 a pop. I submit to you that not only will he not, he can't even if he wanted to, because he doesn't have that kind of money. But I tell you what he *will* do: he will fill up that iPod. Kicking him (or more accurately his parents) off the internet will accomplish exactly nothing. Oh, and he'll still find a way to fill up that iPod.

     

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

  59.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    Maybe you should take a look at this.

    Heh. That presentation was given directly before my presentation at Midem last year, so I'm quite familiar with it.

    But all that shows is that people *say* file sharing would decline. It says nothing about increased sales.

    Still waiting...

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 11:43am

    Re:

    Maybe you should take a look at this too.

    Have you looked at the more recent data? You should.

    Besides, again, all that shows is decreased file sharing. Not increased sales.

    Help me out again. What about this makes people buy more?

     

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

  61.  
    icon
    wvhillbilly (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 7:23pm

    Kicking file sharers off the Internet

    Taking the war against consumers up a notch only ensures that they're even less interested in giving any money to the entertainment industry.

    Well said. Though I have never engaged in illegal downloading I have determined I will never buy anything with an RIAA label on it. Not just because of their war on file sharers (including the dead and people with no computers at all) but because most of their music is just plain garbage. I have even written emails to them suggesting they could make a mint licensing filesharing, but apparently they are too set in their ways to consider the obvious.

     

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

  62.  
    identicon
    catullusrl, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 4:16am

    Is Masnick illiterate?

    http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/07/15/report:-swedish-file-sharing-down-wake-p2p-law

    Internatio nal record label trade group IFPI also reported that record sales in Sweden are up 14% in the first half of 2009, adding that Internet sales are up 57%

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 9:46pm

    Re: Is Masnick illiterate?

    Correlation without causation means nothing. Where is the proof that the increase in sales is directly related to the drop in file sharing? For that matter, how do you accurately measure illegal downloads to begin with? It's not like all files are seen by anyone monitoring the net, so how do you go about telling the legal from the illegal?

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    catullusrl, Oct 31st, 2009 @ 7:10am

    Re: Is Masnick illiterate?

    Correlation without causation means nothing

    You freetards make me laugh.I didn't hear you say this about Radiohead or Trent Reznor free giveaway.

     

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

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2009 @ 4:10pm

    Re: Re: Is Masnick illiterate?

    Because I never commented on that story. I just care about the facts sir. And the fact is there are plenty of ways to transfer file undetected.

    Also, calling someone 'freetard' is in itself retarded.

     

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


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