Comments on: ‘Licensed’ file sharing in the UK?

By: Thinker

Thinker — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:33 +0000

“Rights holders are almost never the artist.”

Artists and songwriters are the most and first mentioned.
And the last and least paid.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:31:04 +0000

Fuk fascist taxes. I don’t pay tv licences because I watch it through my pc hahaha. I wont pay isp taxes either. Nor will I pay any device taxes come up with. I would rather import the stuff from china than feed those fascist RIAA / IFPI / BPI losers. fuk the law, fuk the fascists. It’s not relevant to the public. They can enact any laws they wish, but will they will adhered? Not a chance. It’s like pot. Who actually takes any notice of the law? they can classify it as a class Z drug for all any cares. Another irrelevant law… zzz….

By: Neo Space

Neo Space — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:00:06 +0000

You need a license for everything in the UK, im currently waiting for my public smiling license and my green sock license to arrive in the post.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:15:10 +0000

What I want to know is how much are the cartel levies on external storage devices and hard drives?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:10:13 +0000

If it costs more I’m against it. Isn’t it about time they started charging for free to air tv content since its digital? Also it can be recorded unless its coded. The stage is set to broadcast uncoded content for a price. If they could only figure out how to make it selective.

By: chronoss

chronoss — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:18:54 +0000

as too anything that is not MOVIES, TV , GAMES
goto thre site and buy it, or if they want adverting give the users a fully functioning game that requires somehting added on to play multiplayer ( which is what the best games already do)

as to imagery people if you place a few things on site, then sell you dont need a piece of any pie

I dont buy images so why shuld i pay is the attittude and its very valid.
SO book autors and photographers can get bent. There alternatives are there and are very workable.
Besides, if you want to have them get a piece of a pie pace a fee on the sale of all scanners and printers,
this then gives EVERYONE free reign to p2p it to death.

The current levy system that the CRIA is collecting aobut 60-70 million for blank media
the artists are complaining they are nto getitng ANYTHNG IN CANADA.
ALSO
the new copyright bill will make everyone who has ever dled and place dit on that levied media a criminal.
( Section 12 Charter violation on top of the anti circumvention that WILL AFFECT PUBLIC DOMAIN MOVIES AND TV)
feel free to drop into the eastern chapter of fair copyright and i will give anyone a run at how to make a levy on net accounts work.
Remember that in canada with 25 million net accounts the levy on blank media gets 60-70 mill/year
SAC wants 5$ per net accounts thats over a 1.1- 1.2 billion
A bit greedy
so
1$ for music = 300 million per year
2$ for movies = 600 million
2$ for TV = 600 million

AND remember people will still have tvs
and if they get off the crazy trip of COPYRIGHT abuse
people might start returning to theatres ( providing they don’t charge 16$ for a pop and popcorn)

By: chronoss

chronoss — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:09:34 +0000

wont work

the SAC canuck proposal is the ONLY way such would work and is a blanket liscene fee on the users net acount and they can go where every and do whatever they wish.

NO one will GO FOR a service that forces you to some mpaa/riaa site.
A) we are already peeved enough at three meddling
B) no one trusts them.

By: Hippie

Hippie — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:50:05 +0000

In other news, the candle industry has been granted a percentage of revenues of electric light bulb sales
to offset their losses due to infringement of ” creating light ” which is the intellectual property of the candle industry.

The horse and buggy industry also won a major victory against auto manufacturers for infringing on their
“getting from one place to another” intellectual property.

Soon book authors, photographers, and any other media that can be digitized will insist on their piece of the pie.

How much can YOU afford to pay for internet service ?

btw , I noticed that once again there are no mention of ARTISTS getting conpensated fpr their work.
Rights holders are almost never the artist.
Rights holders are almost always the label, with very few exceptions.

Tell the truth , please.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:01:04 +0000

hmm, spoof?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:59:47 +0000

As envisaged, âthe new music services track exchanges of songs within a network using non-intrusive technology, and reward rights holders by their popularity,â. They found a new use for their media defender friends: artificially inflating the numbers so they enrich themselves to the expensive of smaller labels. I mean, they have been manipulating the charts (if you can really call them that) for years…

By: Quartz

Quartz — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:19:26 +0000

“Bait and switch” tactics like this are just a waste of everyones time, heavy encryption is the suggested way ahead.

Speaking as a creative file sharer I ceed no rights to any commercial entity to steal my work and profit from it as the media giants would doubtless try to do, our rights to distribute our own work are not for sale, thats the bottom line.

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:54:54 +0000

To clarify: I can’t quite decide what to make of this music industry move.

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:54:06 +0000

Duh – and what’s your take on this Jon?! I was really looking forward to it and you have sorely disappointed this loyal reader.

I can’t quite decide what to make of it.