Years later I still don't get how we even allow music companies to complain about piracy let alone set attack people over it.

How many anti-piracy folks remember not that long ago that all the record companies in the U.S. were found guilty of price fixing CD's/Cassettes. While they could only prove price fixing for a 5 year period there were numerous documents showing it was on going for nearly 2 decades. Both parties agreed in court the price fixing identified would bring in $100 of Billions in extra revenue over that time period. In the end they weaseled out agreeing to pay a settlement of up to $150 million if citizens filed a special application in a 45 day window to get one time $20.

To me end all be all, the media companies out there are admitted criminals that have and continue to steal more money from the consumers then we would ever be able to take back in file sharing. Hell even all the major software companies today say their high prices are simply a reflection of lost revenues through piracy, but if there were no piracy would their prices be a penny lower of course not; so, Why should I care that I download 1/5 of my music or movies for free. If I pay for 80% of it, I'm still the one getting robbed. Until I start to see those companies CEO's in orange jumpsuits then I'll consider my P2P downloads as paid for in full.

"BTW, CyJambo, Peerguardian's never worked." It worked for me all right. It would for you too, if you had actually used it. All your funny titles have no weight. And what's this "strong evidence" you are talking about?

Well, as far as I know there is nothing wrong with PeerGuardian or Moblock. Can anyone confirm Andrew Norton :

"BTW, CyJambo, Peerguardian's never worked. It's based on a flawed premise that was known to be broken 10 years ago. There's strong evidence that the main list provider, bluetack, is actually part of an Anti-P2P company anyway, and that the lists steer you towards their logging bots (not like it can block them, since they can't be detected)"

I've read the following on a thread:

"Sorry the previous thread for this was closed, but I came across this statement in todays press. Is the true?

Never heard of the guy. Bluetack on the other hand has built a solid reputation along the years.
It's true that the approach used by PeerGuardian may not always work as it relies on blacklisting IPs."

and

"I agree. Bluetack have good reputation. I see the last time that many advice to use Peerblock as http://www.peerblock.com/ which is a fork of PeerGuardian."

I would like to see expert opinions :)

Thx!

Can someone please start publishing this startling fact, and let Peter Mandelson know it also. HMV don't sell CD singles any more.

I tried to buy the Miley Cyrus song "The Climb" for my niece on CD single. I couldn't find it so I asked a worker. He told me they don't sell singles any more.

How can downloading a single from a p2p be theft when it's not even sold in the shop in the first place?

OT: - Do you think the X-Factor version of "The Climb" is better or worse than Miley Cyrus's version? I think XF's is worse.

Well, we understand now why the FACT is at odds with the majority of people, when they talk about IP theft. Internet users do not now, nor have they ever stolen this nebulous "IP" (I presume he means copyrights, patents and trademarks - which are actually 3 very different things, and none of them property). The same can't be said of those he, and indeed Mandelson, champions. Just ask Edwyn Collins, who had his copyright stolen (in the legal sense, rather than the hyperbolic sense most use it) by Warner - stolen as in he has been deprived of his rights.

I've been looking at box office revenues for almost 2 years now, going through data, and I've found almost no impact on the US box office by P2P. Similarly, I have found that UK music sales have increased over the past handful of years; more digital singles were sold in 2008 than physical singles were sold in the 90s, and there's still a few million physical singles sold that year.

There is but one question. If there are all these losses, as claimed by countless industry studies, why can't they provide the data that the studies use with it. That way we can see the raw impact ourselves, and they avoid any embarresments like finding out a figure is vastly inflated (as the MPAA did 2 years ago)

BTW, CyJambo, Peerguardian's never worked. It's based on a flawed premise that was known to be broken 10 years ago. There's strong evidence that the main list provider, bluetack, is actually part of an Anti-P2P company anyway, and that the lists steer you towards their logging bots (not like it can block them, since they can't be detected)

Andrew Norton
P2P Researcher
Former chairman, PPUS & PPI
http://ktetch.wordpress.com

As always the discussion is about the people up the top of the chain - those that already have or have had a major distribution deal like Radiohead. These people have had years of investment from mainstream publishers and so of course their names are well known. When they switch to selling direct they do well - years of expensive building of goodwill pay off.

The issue is the small artists - the little band or game company that try to put their stuff up for a bit of PayPal. They get nowhere because the expectation that it all should be free stifles them from ever gaining a foothold. It's expected that they should give everything away - but that's an economic burden placed on them just as surely as the complaint about having to buy albums you might not like.

In these discussions I would really like to see analysis below the market leaders. No more Radiohead and NIN. I really don't think they are the rule.

All the people I know download illegally but they also buy DVD's and CD's, often 2 copies to give as presents, so I believe it's true that the thing works as radio in that it creates a buzz and interest and it doesn't actually lead to a net loss.

And it's obviously complete and utter bollocks to suggest that everything you download to try you'd still get and pay money for if you could not download it, even the people that spout that nonsense know full well it is nonsense, which again shows that the politicians that go around pretending that those numbers are legit are complete frauds and would sell their mothers into slavery for some wealth and power.

Use this little software called PeerGuardian ( http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ ). It should give you some privacy...

And of course I believe that anybody should be able to download and listen to music for free and THEN decide if he/she will buy that CD or not.

There is nothing the Greedy bastards can do about it. If not torrent, another form will come along. Like there was napster before torrent and DC++ and so on...

Peace!

CyJambo

Live without music? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

I don't listen to music and watch films to blindly follow other peoples opinions but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think that only my opinion is 100% right all the time.

Also the fact that you're here reading this techsite show that you aren't immune to the opinions of others.

the best thing you can do to oppose this dictatorship action is to not buy any music or movies - just live without it.

you will have a better life, free of pointless external influences and disinformation where you can be yourself and have your own opinions, not those of other people

Interesting that almost nobody comments on price. When DVDs of films are given away by newspapers, CDs of music by the music press and a mainstream CD is < £8.00 in Tescos, the whole idea of charging $1 for a single mp3/mp4 track looks like price gouging. I firmly believe there is a price that competes wiith free for an easily found, easily downloaded, well-tagged, well ripped MP3 and it's about what AllOfMp3 used to charge, ie $0.1 to $0.2 per track and $1 to $2.50 for an album.

So maybe the real problem here is that we have a duopoly of iTMS and Amazon with effective price fixing led by unreasonable wholesale pricing. And what needs to happen is for the record companies to cooperate with a new 3rd party to offer exactly what AllOfMp3 used to. A BIG (as in all recorded audio) library of music available for download at a reasonable cost.

dark lord mandelson is fighting the cause of the rich

these industries thrive on extracting maximum cash from the public to funnel it into a handful of fat exec's retirement/gold yacht/bugatti veyron fuel/mansion/etc funds

filesharing has reduced their profits so they have to get governments to threaten their public with fines and prison to ensure these fat cats get their money coming in as before

the solution is to remove the greed then everyone is happy but mandelson cannot see this as he is inherently evil and thus greed, to him, is a virtue

It's about loss of control of the supply and demand chain. IP owners used to have carte blanche on price gouging and making their products artificicially scarce in certain markets thus driving up the prices. They also had control of regional variations. The whole charge $1 in the US whilst charge £1 in the UK continues to this day. This they are unable to do when someone in Timbuktu can download from any place in the world.

It's all about control. He who has control of something in demand gets to set the price.

THE LIBRARY HAS CDS AND DVDS AND ALL THE BOOKS YOU WANT, FREE TO BORROW. THEY HAVE A SIGN 'DONT COPY IT' BUT I JUST PRETEND I DIDNT SEE IT. NOBUDDY HASSLES ME.