Record Labels Angry That Hadopi Isn't Kicking People Off The Internet Fast Enough
from the pick-up-the-pace dept
A few months back, we noted that Hadopi, the French bureaucracy in charge of sending out “you’re an infringer” notices and then kicking people off the internet under that country’s three strikes plan, was receiving 25,000 notices from record labels per day (there was some confusion on that story, as I originally believed Hadopi was sending out 25,000 notices, but it was only receiving that many). Only a few months later, and the labels have now ramped it up to 50,000 per day, which was the target amount that they had set back in September. However, it appears that the record labels are upset that, while they’re sending Hadopi 50,000 notices per day, Hadopi is only sending out notices on about 2,000 per day. The industry wants Hadopi to just do what I had thought they were doing originally and rubber-stamp all their notices and pass them on. It hopes to get up to 10,000, but the industry is still pushing for 50,000 per day, which is insane when you think about it.
Think about how many mistakes are being made when you’re sending 50,000 notices per day. Over the course of about five years, the RIAA apparently sued less than 20,000 people — and still made a lot of mistakes. US Copyright Group got a lot of attention for accusing a few thousand people of file sharing particular movies — and also appears to have made a lot of mistakes. Yet, here, with Hadopi, the labels are accusing 50,000 people per day, and are upset that Hadopi isn’t just rubber stamping all the notices? It appears that the record labels don’t care at all about what happens if they accuse totally innocent people.
Filed Under: france, hadopi, labels, three strikes
Comments on “Record Labels Angry That Hadopi Isn't Kicking People Off The Internet Fast Enough”
Kick 'em all off!
Hell, at that rate, the entire French population could be forced offline in a little under three and a half years. Then Hadopi wouldn’t even need to exist!
Re: Kick 'em all off!
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/12/bpi-12-billion-illegal-music-downloads-in-2010-a-record.ars
In a study done for BPI by Harris Interactive and UKOM/Nielsen, it has been found that UK illegal music downloads will total 1.2 billion in 2010.
Anyone that thinks this is going to continue unchecked is out of their f*cking mind.
Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!
Hey, that’s weird? Where are the links to the actual study?
Re: Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!
You will never see the source from BPI or the RIAA that is not their modus operandi.
Re: Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!
http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/new-bpi-report-shows-illegal-downloading-remains-serious-threat-to-britains-digital-music-future.aspx
In September 2010 BPI commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct an in-depth online survey into the awareness, usage and attitudes towards both legal and illegal acquisition of digital music. Respondents were aged between 16 and 54 and of the 5,393 surveyed, 29% were engaged in some form of unauthorised music downloading.
Harris Interactive looked at the four main sources of illegal music downloads – P2P, links via forums and blogs to cyberlockers, MP3 search engines and overseas pay sites.
23% of all respondents are using P2P to acquire music illegally, the same percentage recorded as research carried out by Harris in February and November 2009. 13% of internet users were using links on blogs, boards or forums to access music illegally from cyberlockers, and 12% using MP3 search engines. Nearly four out of five illegal downloaders still use P2P as their main way of acquiring music illegally.
More people are regularly using illegal sources to access music than some of the biggest legal music services on the internet ? usage figures show Spotify (18%), Last.fm (15%) and we7 (8%) have many fewer regular users than P2P.
In the survey, those who use illegal sources admitted to having used each of the four methods to acquire music illegally more, not less, during the last six months. P2P use recorded a net increase of +7%, whilst astonishing rises in use were found for overseas MP3 pay sites (+36%), MP3 search engines (+28%) and cyberlockers (+15%).
Huge numbers of tracks being downloaded illegally
By volume, P2P accounts for 46% of all tracks illegally acquired across the four main sources, compared to 25% for links to cyberlockers, 18% for MP3 search engines and 11% for overseas search engines.
Harris Interactive calculate that the total number of people in the UK illegally downloading music on a regular basis is 7.7m. It is likely to be even larger given other methods by which music can be illegally obtained, such as e-mail, instant messaging and newsgroups.
In total, Harris conservatively estimates that 1.2bn tracks will be illegally downloaded in 2010 ? equivalent to a stack of CDs some 74 miles high stretching well into space. Illegal downloads represent three quarters of all music obtained digitally, when set against BPI?s prediction of 370m tracks in total across singles and albums bought legally by the end of this year.
UKOM/Nielsen confirm P2P levels stable while non-P2P rising
UKOM/Nielsen monitors the actual website and application usage of more than 35,000 people in the UK, tracking online behavior both at home and work. Participants opt-in, knowing that their behavior is being observed, and therefore the panel is not likely to under-represent individuals engaged in heavy illegal downloading.
However, UKOM/Nielsen found that 6.1m people had used at least one P2P or non-P2P site or application in August 2010 alone, with 4.4m using P2P. The UKOM/Nielsen research also confirmed that levels of P2P use have remained fairly consistent. In the last year, tracking of just eight P2P applications shows average users consistently around the 4m level.
The popularity of sites hosting illegal material has risen dramatically in twelve months. According to UKOM/Nielsen, visitors to the five most popular hosting sites – Megaupload, Filestube, Rapidshare, Mediafire and Hotfile – have increased by 45% from 1.6m in September 2009 to 2.3m in September 2010.
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
Piracy is over!
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
“As usual the BPI only represents one side of the argument, which often makes the mistake of assuming that everything downloaded unlawfully is equal to a similar level of lost sales. However a teenager who downloads 500 music tracks is highly unlikely to ever have brought that many in the first place (no money).
Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group UK, said:
“The BPI are whinging that massive growth in their profits in the middle of a recession isn’t good enough. But they claim that this isn’t good enough, and argue for measures that would curtail innocent people’s human rights in order to increase their profits. That is immorral.”
The survey also casts doubt on the effectiveness of unlawful file sharing deterrents. Just 12% of people who had stopped filesharing cited worries over being “caught”. A substantial proportion of unlawful P2P downloader’s also claim not to realise that their actions are wrong (44%). This rises to 56% for people downloading via direct website links and cyberlockers.”
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/12/16/uk-bpi-claims-7-7-million-broadband-isp-customers-illegally-download-music.html
———————————————————–
Yaaawwwn… just another one sided biased study paid for by the industry, for the industry, with only a minimal reflection of reality. Even the GAO and some judges in the US have said industry numbers are bogus.
On a related note… things are about to get interesting in the Limewire damages trial regarding industry claims…
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/file-sharing-cost-record-companies-60837
“The case is about to move to a jury trial that will determine what damages are owed by Lime Wire to the labels, but before that happens, record companies are going to experience some pain, thanks to a decision on Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.
In the lawsuit, the music companies are seeking more than $1 billion in statutory damages, so Lime Wire asked the judge to make the labels prove lost profits.
In response, the labels offered to show “gross revenue” on the infringing works.
That’s not enough, said Lime Wire. The company insisted the plaintiffs should show actual damages, which to it means record companies should be ordered to produce information on costs such as royalty payments on the musical works alleged to have been infringed.
That request didn’t go over too well with the plaintiffs, who argued in a letter to the judge last month that it would impose a “crushing burden” on them.
On Tuesday, Judge Freeman said tough noogies, with some interesting language written in the margins of a court-endorsed memo to the parties. She scribbled — barely legible — that Lime Wire should enjoy enough discovery to mount a defense on the damages issue.”
Re: Re: Re:3 Kick 'em all off!
And when we find out about the billions of actual damages to the recording industry because of Lime Wire then the pirate massacre can begin!
Piracy is over!
Re: Re: Re:4 Kick 'em all off!
Now you’re just being silly. Actual damages can never be proven. Can you prove someone didn’t already own a CD by an IP address? Can you prove the CD wasn’t purchased after the fact by an IP address?
As for piracy being over, never going to happen.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/11/2010111035515450904.html
“Pirates off the coast of Somalia are keeping ahead of attempts by international authorities to stop them, capturing ever more hostages and bounty, a UN official has said.
B Lynn Pascoe, the UN undersecretary-general for political affairs, said on Tuesday that more viable economic alternatives are needed to prevent the migration of young Somalis into piracy.
More than 438 crew and passengers and 20 ships are currently being held hostage at sea near Somalia, according to latest International Maritime Organization figures.”
The genie that is file sharing won’t be put back into the bottle either. The recording industry could learn a little from B Lynn Pascoe:)
Re: Re: Re:5 Kick 'em all off!
The genie is out of the bottle alright…
Unfortunately for you it’s wearing a badge.
Re: Re: Re:6 Kick 'em all off!
Unfortunately for you that comment didn’t even border on intelligent.
Re: Re: Re:6 Kick 'em all off!
Yeah! Less carrot and more stick! That’ll learn ’em.
Re: Re: Re:7 Kick 'em all off!
I hate carrots and sticks, so I’ll take neither. Thanks anyway!
Re: Re: Re:3 Kick 'em all off!
Jill’s really helping her pirate cause with that spelling…
Harris and Nielsen are longstanding impartial research and poll-takers. I imagine that’s why BPI used them. Separate studies no less.
Harris’ sample size was more than adequate. And Nielsen’s was 35,000.
It’s hilarious that you guys have been reduced to trying to argue that the problem isn’t really that bad; like that would somehow make it more moral or legal. And yet you’re still rolling epic fail…
Re: Re: Re:4 Kick 'em all off!
Who’s Jill? If you meant Jim than your spelling isn’t helping your cause either:)
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
Somehow I doubt the numbers in this report. They surveyed just under 6,000 people and used that tiny, tiny number to calculate that 15% (7.7m of 51.1m) are illegally downloading music. Somehow I don’t think that’s a large enough sample group. They only cite age as a criteria, but surely they had a narrower sampling than just age when they sent out these surveys.
Re: Re: Re:3 Kick 'em all off!
“Somehow I doubt the numbers in this report. They surveyed just under 6,000 people and used that tiny, tiny number to calculate that 15% (7.7m of 51.1m) are illegally downloading music.”
A sample size of just over 1,000 may be sufficient for the entire world’s population depending on what you’re doing statistically.
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
“…equivalent to a stack of CDs some 74 miles high stretching well into space.”
Mother Nature says “Thank-you.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
“…equivalent to a stack of CDs some 74 miles high stretching well into space.”
Mother Nature says “Thank-you.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
I must have missed the part that shows how this is all going to stop.
Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!
If that was radio air time they would be jumping up and down.
How much music on radio was aired in comparison?
On the good news front people are starting to realize how bad those companies really are and are moving on to legal free alternatives at a faster pace which in time could force those same companies to give it for free anyways LoL
Oh the irony.
The more they push, the more people push harder.
Jamendo we love you.
Re: Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!
“On the good news front people are starting to realize how bad those companies really are and are moving on to legal free alternatives at a faster pace which in time could force those same companies to give it for free anyways LoL”
Its going to be fun to watch as reality slaps them in the face and they have to compete with free. With all content free to the consumer, their catalogs become worthless.
Re: Re: Re:2 Kick 'em all off!
What always funny is people claiming to move over to “free legal alternatives”, and then cranking up pirates System of a Down tunes on their Ipod.
Very few people live without the products. They just say nasty things and enjoy the pirated tunes.
Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!
BTW! it is not only going to continue it will expand.
Did you ever see that trend go down?
Wait, are you sure that’s 50k notices/day from the labels alone? If that’s the case, I wonder how many notices/day there are in total!
Today's Algebra lesson
Assuming a safe level of overlap in finding the same person multiple times, how long will it take to kick all of France off of the internet?
Re: Today's Algebra lesson
It could just be one, lone Albanian teenager living in Paris utilizing an IP spoofer. There are most certainly duplicates in these notices, which is why this entire story doesn’t really mean anything. It’s just “let’s see how many notices we can send to let everyone know how bad file sharing is.”
Also, can you imagine how many people you’d have to employ to research and send out 50,000 notices per day at the ISP level? Who’s paying for that?
Re: Re: Today's Algebra lesson
Also, can you imagine how many people you’d have to employ to research and send out 50,000 notices per day at the ISP level?
They’re probably doing very little research on these lists.
Hum… assuming that each notice goes to one (unique) person:
50,000 people infringing per day = 1,500,000 people infringing per month (30 day month). That’s around 2% of the French population (according to wikipedia) committing copyright infringement every month.
How can these number be accurate? But, if they are, doesn’t that show that there might be something wrong with the law (that may be too broad, too ambiguous or just completely wrong) or its enforcement/reporting mechanisms (that are causing too many false positives)?
Even copyright supporters must agree that there is something wrong with this picture.
Re: Re:
They need three notices before they are booted offline.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and I’d imagine that’s why there are so many notices. Plus, I’m guessing a notice is sent for each act of infringement; probably easier than aggregating infringers.
Re: Re:
I would think that if you can identify 50,000 people per day for 3 months that are doing something, then whatever that something is probably shouldn’t be illegal anymore. But I guess I come from the Aristotle school of government, where laws are made based on community standards, rather than the other way around.
Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. It means that after 10 years of zero enforcement the problem has gotten out of control. That’s why gov had to step in.
Too bad those kids couldn’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe is the other way around.
The record companies are trying to keep their hands on the cookie jar and people are slaping them around.
A decade from now people will still be sharing the difference may be that people will move on to greener places and let those people behind.
Something popular is what they name suggest, is where the population is.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“zero enforcement”
Were you asleep during the last decade or just upset that draconian measures made on nothing more than founded allegations weren’t tried before?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Ooo, sounds very dramatic… WTF are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Maybe he meant zero effective enforcement. Which of course will continue apace.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m confused by what you’re saying here. You say that the government had to step in because there was zero enforcement. If there was zero enforcement then it was the government’s own fault as they are the enforcers of the law. If they weren’t enforcing it then I guess they didn’t consider it to be that worthy of a law to enforce. If that’s the case, they should have just repealed the law and moved on.
If on the other hand, enforcement has to be done by the rights holders then either you’re crazy to say there has been zero enforcement (~20,000 people sued by the RIAA alone, Grokster, Napster and countless others shutdown, etc) or the rights holders didn’t think it was worth enforcing. If the former then you are the one mistaken. If the latter then there’s no problem.
In all cases, what I originally said still stands. Once a significant percentage of the population is breaking/ignoring a law, then most likely that law needs to go away.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too bad it won’t make any difference.
The Answer
Bored at work and have wikipedia at hand.
France has an initial population of 65,447,374, in 2004 they had 140,033 legal immigrants, in 2006 they had 299,800 more births than deaths. Assuming 11,669 people immigrate arrive every month and the original population grows by 25,000 per month then Hadopi would have to send notices for 4910 months -> or just about 410 years at the rate of 50,000 notices per month assuming no increase in immigration rate or change in the birth/death ratio.
Re: The Answer
62,616,488 – 2009
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators
Many of which do not use the Internet because they are too old or too young. Also you have families with an average of 2 children so 4 people.
Re: The Answer
It’s 50,000 per day, not month and it take 3 notices to eliminate. So roughly 500,000 can be kicked off a month.
Then you have to take into account if a spouse can have a seperate internet connection or is the whole house suddenly banned.
If a whole family can be eliminaed, then divide by 2 at the least, and maybe 3.5 (is the average 1.5 kids these days?)
so potentially in 7-10 years the media cartels could regain the full contol of information they once held.
That is the purpose of the law is it not?
Re: The Answer
>> … or just about 410 years at the rate of 50,000 notices per month assuming no increase in immigration rate or change in the birth/death ratio.
interesting yet erroneous insight 🙂 first, there should be three notices per person which brings the number of years to 410×3=1.230 ;
second, notices are sent to the owner of internet connection and since the whole household (i.e. several persons) uses the same internet connection, this number (1.230) has to be divided by the household/internet connections ratio 🙂
Re: Re: The Answer
🙁
“Only a few months later, and the labels have now ramped it up to 50,000 per day…”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/01430612298/record-labels-angry-that-hadopi-isnt-kicking-people-off-internet-fast-enough.shtml#c1151
Per day.
Per day.
Per day.
Per day.
They could kick off half the population of France in 5 years at that rate.
Or about 6 Million people a year.
50,000 angry voters per day?
So the record labels are wanting to create 50,000 angry voters per day? They are disappointed that they are only creating 2000?
At some point voters may have a Hadopi backlash. If the labels are lucky at that point the backlash will only be a repeal of the Hadopi law. However, if the anti-RIAA lobby really gets rolling it is very possible the law will swing the other direction and make file sharing legal.
Re: 50,000 angry voters per day?
“If the labels are lucky at that point the backlash will only be a repeal of the Hadopi law. However, if the anti-RIAA lobby really gets rolling it is very possible the law will swing the other direction and make file sharing legal.”
Or it could force a look at if copyright is needed at all. Up until this point not to many people thought about copyright. With Hadopi that is going to change. It will move copyright into the public view. With this many people being affected, it doesn’t matter if this is on the nightly news or not. Worst thing the copyright maximalists could have done is hadopi.
Good on them …
Maths anyone?
You know, 5 of the 8 commenters above me try to pull numbers out of their ass.
Might I suggest you use the number of internet users in France? Jeez, you can LOOK IT UP!
Re: Maths anyone?
France flag France
Internet Usage Stats and Telecom Reports
http://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/fr.htm
Internet Usage Statistics:
44,625,300 Internet users as of June/10, 68.9% of the population, according to ITU.
NOTE: This is users not internet connections.
Re: Maths anyone?
By that metric it would take just under two and a half years to disconnect all current subscribers (44,630,000/50,000=893 days=2.44 years). That’s still an overestimation, however, as multiple internet users would, in many cases, share the same connection. The average French household contains 2.5 people. Assuming this ratio also works for internet users/internet connections, it would take less than a year to disconnect all internet connections (44,630,000/(50,000*2.5)=357 days=0.978 years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_ave_siz_of_hou-people-average-size-of-households
Assuming, however, that el_segfaulto’s value for the rate of change of the population is correct and constant at an increase of 25,000 people per month and the proliferation of internet usage remains constant (and that all internet connections may be detected by Hadopi), it will take just under 153 years to disconnect all internet connections.
Someone want to check my working to make sure I haven’t stuffed up somewhere?
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AllmFR1j-8TPdFZRLUoyYTdja1d1ekFBYk9wb0VvLXc&hl=en_GB&authkey=CJrV0fgC
Re: Re: Maths anyone?
Ah. The AC above me’s source says the statistic giving the number of internet users is from June, while I’ve assumed it’s from January (Wikipedia just said 2010). This means my spreadsheet will slightly overestimate the time reqired.
Re: Re: Maths anyone?
I’m also a complete twit who can’t read. It’s 50,000/day. Not 50,000/month. Should be corrected now (including the date of the number of internet users statistic), giving just over 3 years. Duh.
Let this be a lesson to me to actually check stuff before I post it! >.
“the industry is still pushing for 50,000 per day, which is insane when you think about it. “
Yeah, imagine, 50,000 infringements a day just in France. Anyone wonder why the music business is in the crapper?
Re: Re:
50,000 *accusations* of infringment a day, rather.
Re: Re:
s/music business/business of selling records/
alternatively:
s/music business/business of selling infinite goods/
No. It’s no wonder at all. Similarly, no one is surprised that the lady in Spain who claimed ownership of the Sun and will charge people for its use hasn’t quit her day job.
http://booya.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/torent_vs_ddl.jpg
hadopi not gonna work anyway.
why? you can not spy on someone without some kind of proof, yet these proofs can only be obtained by spying. If they are obtained through unfair means (read : illegal) then these proofs are void. that’s how the french rights work for the most part.
i think this trend will keep up and since on ddl, you do not display publicly your ip, even if the government does get your ip, they have no right to use it.
Hadopi is a failure.
Oh yes, France also has something called “diffamation” which means you best be proving what you say, else you’re in for a trial.
Re: Re:
you can not spy on someone without some kind of proof, yet these proofs can only be obtained by spying. If they are obtained through unfair means (read : illegal) then these proofs are void. that’s how the french rights work for the most part.
Well, that’s what the HADOPI came in for. In facts, it’s not the HADOPI nor the copyright holders that records infringements and collects IP addresses, but some private companies which are allowed to do so by the CNIL (a French administrative authority), which then give them to the copyright holders, which then asks the HADOPI to punish the pirates.
What is important here, is that it’s an authorized “spying”, if even it’s really spying (in a legal sense) : these companies uses file sharing software and shares illegal content with other peers. If someone downloads these files, they record their IP address (public information). It’s like using the speedometer of the police cars as a radar by driving at the same speed as other cars. With a law that allows the police to infringe the traffic code for that particular purpose. And the police not doing that, but rather asking private “security” companies to do it.
So, in France you can “spy” on someone without some kind of proof, since the companies spying were allowed to use illegal means to obtain proofs.
Don’t misread me, I’m not in favor of HADOPI, I’m just trying to explain how it works.
Re: Re: Re:
> these companies use file sharing software and
> shares illegal content with other peers. If someone
> downloads these files, they record their IP address
If the companies (copyright owners) are purposely putting their own stuff out there on P2P networks, then they are no longer unauthorized copies, by definition, and therefore not illegal content.
Re: Re: Re:
So you are admitting that this is entrapment (put on by a ‘private company’) and that you are totally fine with that?
So based on your explanation, HADOPI works by fraudulently accusing individuals of downloading ‘infringing’ material, when that material is actually perfectly legal material available to be downloaded. If the company private company ‘uses file sharing software and shares ‘content’, they are by default sharing LEGAL content that they have the rights to distribute (or they would themselves be guilty of copyright infringement, correct?). If they have the legal rights to distribute the software, and they do so, how can anyone downloading their ‘legal’ software be guilty of copyright infringement. Sounds like HADOPI should be the ones who are guilty of entrapment and copyright infringement themselves.
Whiney bastards
The industry’s lack of profits all boil down to where they focus their attention and spending. They spend millions on lobbying politicians for tougher laws and copyright extensions, millions more on anti-piracy efforts, DRM and the like, all the while putting out crap music at inflated prices. Is it any wonder their profits keep shrinking? All that money wasted over the past decade and they haven’t even slowed anything down.
If they took all those millions and invested them into the music itself, they’d make more money, the artists would make more money, and they wouldn’t be some of the most hated asshats in the world.
They will NEVER stop people from sharing. It’s a reality they are going to have to face at some time or another. The game of whack-a-mole they will never win. The more they try to tighten their grip, the more profit oozes through their fingers. They got what they deserved with their quest for eternal copyright. It’s just not feasible to be able to protect an entire century’s worth of content. Had it been kept at a reasonable level, people would have more respect for it, and they could profit more by spending far less on enforcement efforts. When laws are written for the good of all, people respect them. Not so when they’re written a very small minority.
It’s an industry run by lawyers who don’t understand basic business economics and think additional, tougher laws will help them sledgehammer their way to the profits they want… but it’s never going to happen.
Assume on average 2 users per connection that implies approximately 22,300,000 connections.
Now assume 1/3 of 50,000 receive their third notice each day.
22,300,000/500,000 = 44.6 months to shut France’s internet completely down
Now assume that there will be a major political issue when 20% loose their connection and we are looking at 9 months.
If that 20% is reduced to the most vocal 10% then we are looking at 4 months.
Under either assumption if France followed the French right society’s wishes one would expect fot the rights society to be replaced by next fall.
We gave them an inch when we first extended copyright length.
They will never be happy now.
It appears that the record labels don’t care at all about what happens if they accuse totally innocent people.
“appears”? You make it seem as if there was still doubt.
Re: Re:
For them there are no innocent people. All are assumed guilty. It’s right there in the process.
I can see it now, when all of france is off the net, they can say, “See, wasn’t that easy? Now they HAVE to start buying our CD’s and DVD’s!” Nevermind that its after the point that all of france is “off the net” and the people in france still aren’t buying their CD’s and DVD’s.
Where the tit for tat?
Where is the reverse to 3 strikes and out for “public”? i.e. knock out the complainers sending in false requests after 3 bad ones, or seize their assets, or jail the top 10 officers, or …
Keep it real.
http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/shop/how-make-money-beauty-blogging-987709
People on the streets understand the value of being truthful, something record companies long forgot.
They will not make money and probably nothing is saving them from their own self-made lies and to compound the problem once perception turns south it is very difficult to reestablish it again, not even the thousands of proxies used are having an effect.
They forgot what really matters and that is the connections people make with them right now they have no connection with their public and that is why they are hurting so bad.
Look at the 2 bloggers on the link above, both now that having an image of honesty is important, they created a following that connects with them and their interests and are making money out off of it. Isn’t that amazingly simple?
Hadopi
Let them eat unsecured WiFi!
“i think this trend will keep up and since on ddl, you do not display publicly your ip, even if the government does get your ip, they have no right to use it.”
that is when the ddl came into account, as it’s not peer to peer based, and your ip is not publicly displayed.
They can collect these ip through p2p software because such software display your ip.
When everyone in France has been kicked off the net...
… can I have the .fr domain? I’d like to use it to post stuff that free for people to download.
http://www.linformaticien.com/Actualit%C3%A9s/tabid/58/newsid496/9825/nicolas-sarkozy-songe-a-hadopi-3-et-veut-un-conseil-du-numerique/Default.aspx
youtube and dailymotion are now doomed
What does that mean for other countries?
Since a three strikes type regime is also proposed for New Zealand, I thought I’d extrapolate that on a per capita basis for us (and for UK, Australia, Canada and Ireland). Unbelievable.
http://lawgeeknz.posterous.com/french-copyright-holders-are-sending-50000-no
Of course, the title and the entire slant of the story is rather far off the mark.
The record labels and such don’t want to kick people off the internet. That isn’t the point. The hope with a 3 strikes sort of situation is that the first or second warning is enough for people to change their ways, and to stop pirating.
It is also the idea that people may be encouraged to turn off their P2P programs, depriving the networks of the nodes and bandwidth it needs to work well.
It isn’t about kicking people off the internet, it is about getting them to change their ways. If they won’t, after repeated warnings, then yeah, it does end up about kicking people off the internet. But the record labels aren’t trying to hurry them to kick people off, just to notify them.
Re: Re:
Ah, right, fear-based law, that always works.
Re: Re:
Of course if the Music Industry gave us a legal source of their music that is just as easy to use as pirate products, there would no longer be piracy.
There is a cost for me to pirate music. It takes time to find the right file, read the comments, take the risk on virus’ and the obvious legal risk. I dare say most people would be happy to pay for music, if it is reasonably priced and easy to use.
All legal internet music services are such a pain in the arse to use and are too expensive.
Re: Re: Re:
The ease of piracy isn’t the big issue. What makes legal music so difficult for some many people is that they have to pay for it. Your typical tween with an ipod full of music certainly doesn’t have the 4 or 5 thousand dollars it would take to buy that music online (assume 5k songs, $1 each).
The desire for music far outstrips people’s desire to pay even token amounts for music.
How much less than a dollar would you need it to be in order to be reasonable? 10 cents? That wouldn’t even cover the costs involved in processing your order, let alone actually running the website and delivering it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“How much less than a dollar would you need it to be in order to be reasonable? 10 cents? That wouldn’t even cover the costs involved in processing your order, let alone actually running the website and delivering it.”
There are ways to make it work, maybe not in micropayments, but they could offer $5 for 50 mp3 downloads, or $10 for 100 mp3 downloads. Each would only require a 1 time processing fee. But the best and fairest way would be to use the AllofMp3 model and charge by the MB.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sort of non-functional, you are back to 10 cents a song, which is far below the cost of even being there. Read again, 10 cents would not cover the cost of processing your order, let alone actually running the website and delivering it. Even at 100 pieces, it still wouldn’t be worth getting up in the morning.
As for AllofMP3, it’s pretty simple: when you pay only token amnounts (if anything) for content, what you are doing in selling by the meg of bandwidth is doing bandwidth arbitrage, not selling music. That isn’t a music business model, that is a bandwidth selling model. There isn’t actually enough money there to pay for the artists to live (or even buy a coffee).
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Non-functional to me is the idea you seem to be stuck in that selling by the “song” is the only way to make money from music. That’s record label mentality.
Picture this: The record labels set up their own “cyberlocker” service, fill it with all their own content and charge people similarly. If the rates are attractive enough advertisers and customers would likely flock to it, provided it’s in open formats (DRM free), and they open up ALL their content. Advertising could cover operational costs for bandwidth/servers etc., while there MB/GB package fees would cover the cost of the music itself. Downloads could be logged and applied properly, even toward the Billboard charts, be it just a song or full album. If priced fair enough to compete with the “unauthorized” services they’d be raking it in. They could cut out the traditional retailers like iTunes and Amazon on the digital side by selling direct, give the artists a better percentage, and pocket more than they are now. Same could work for the movie & TV studios, but they all have to give up on the idea of charging CD/DVD prices for content that has no packaging/shipping costs or resale value.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Do you think the person selling them the coffee is making enough to live?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazon, iTunes, NetFlix and Steam all say “Hi”.
Oh…but their massive successes are obviously “the exception to the rule”, right? Funny that the first services to put “ease of use and access” as a high priority rake in the dough…imagine that, answering consumer demand.
And those four are hardly “optimal”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Itunes is terrible software that is restrictive, slow and cumbersome. Fine if you don’t mind spending big on hardware to play it on.
Netflix isn’t available where I live.
Steam is cumbersome and the support is terrible. Then there is the issue of massive price difference between American and Australian downloads. These are the same restrictive trade practices that went with the region codes for games.
Then there is the issue of paying full price for restrictive use. When I pay the same for a boxed game as I do for the download, I should be able to sell the game when I am done.
As I said, as soon as they find a method that is as easy and open as piracy, they will convince me. But that means trusting your customers and we all know that won’t happen.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Netflix isn’t available where I live.
Steam is cumbersome and the support is terrible.”
And neither support Linux.
Re: Re:
Can you refer me to where you took your course in doublespeak? I’d like to learn that talent.
Re: Re: Re:
You have trouble speaking? That’s cool, sometimes I have trouble reading.
Re: Re:
Right, but how does legally threatening people make them buy more of your products?
Oh wait, it’s not about making profits, it’s about “making people change their ways”. Gotcha.
Re: Re:
“It is also the idea that people may be encouraged to turn off their P2P programs, depriving the networks of the nodes and bandwidth it needs to work well. “
Linux and world of Warcraft thank you for making it harder for their users to obtain their software.
Dude, get this through your thick skull: the technology is not the problem. The problem is what people do with it. Or perhaps the Law just isn’t keeping up with the technological advances.
Re: Re:
> It is also the idea that people may be encouraged
> to turn off their P2P programs
What business is it of some private record company what software people are running on their computers?
Talk about arrogance. It isn’t their place to try and shape what legal software the populace is using.
Re: Re: Re:
Not just legal software.
Think sony rootkit.
Re: Too much power, not enough accountability
But what if you are not illegally torrenting? Such as downloading off Jamendo, or getting Linux. They won’t want to tell the difference. They will just disconnect them. I don’t like piracy, I pay for and enjoy my music, but I hate how we are treated like criminals anyway. We hold the cards, they don’t.
Re: Re:
It is also the idea that people may be encouraged to turn off their P2P programs, depriving the networks of the nodes and bandwidth it needs to work well.
Bullshit. If you really think that p2p causes more traffic than porn and stream you’re fooling yourself (same goes for the idea that providers would not push for higher prices ANYWAY on equally bogus claims if filesharing actually had been stopped).
This is Government at its worst. But it will backfire. At 50,000 a day they will run out of subscribers pretty quick. If I was an ISP I would be real worried about business falling off. If I were the tourist industry I would be even more worried because I would not go to France because obviously all of my internet traffic is being monitored. What happens to a foreigner that infringes. Time to stay home and keep your gun warm.
HADOPI is a basically a internet kill switch.
HADOPI is a basically a internet kill switch.
Re: Re:
Trust me …
HADOPI is a basically a record label kill switch.
not
“HADOPI is a basically a internet kill switch.”
hasn’t anyone realised yet that the whole object of what the entertainment industries are trying to do is take complete control of the internet. once done, they can create such a monopoly that no one, not even their own artists will be able to use it without their permission, going only to sites that are approved by them. none of this would have happened if all the companies, from ISPs to small on line traders had stuck together and challenged what was going on from day one. all these companies sat back with the attitude that ‘they wont come after me’. wrong! those that tried to appease these ass hats were still shut down. innocent, even dead people were and still are being accused of file sharing, but the industries don’t care. they have gotten away with far too much for far too long to stop or be stopped now. even Google is being accused now but i doubt that they will be taken on because if Google wins, the precedent will be set and the industries will be forced to back away. they would rather continue to harass, especially those that cannot fight back! beware though. if they do win a battle with Google, you can kiss ‘goodbye’ to the internet completely and for good!