Big Music shill BPI attacks BT over file sharers
p2pnet news view Music:- Giant British telecom company BT has come under sharp attack from Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s BPI (British Phornographic Industry).
It’s, “refusing to punish internet pirates who cost the music industry at least £200million a year despite being led to the culprits,” says the Mirror.
And (gasp) that’s despite being handed a list of 100,000 alleged BT ‘illegal’ file sharers, compiled by the ever-vigilant labels.
“It’s shameful,” the story has BPI mouthperson Geoff Taylor saying.
“It’s shameful for a company like BT to know that a high percentage of the traffic it carries is illegal material but do nothing. If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business.”
UK broadband revenues have soared in the past six years while music sales have fallen every year due to piracy, he says in the Mirror’s story.
However, “Despite harassing their customers with bogus threats and lawsuits and saying they’re, ’stealing music’, and false claims that file sharing is killing the music industry, the BPI last publicly stated the labels do, in fact, sell more CDs today than they did 10 years ago,” said p2pnet roving correspondence catflap in 2008.
During an interview with BPI rep Matt Philips (right), the BBC reported CD sales were in a “downward spiral,” says our post, adding »»»
But, Philips responded, “We do in fact sell more CDs than we did ten years ago, and I suspect there’ll be a lot of albums sold on CD [in future] as well.”
And this is confirmed on the BPI website which states >>>
Increasing the number of CDs bought by occasional customers is one of the reasons why we sell more CD albums in the UK than we did a decade ago. – BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor
Their own figures also show CD sales of BRIT (UK equivalent of Grammys) nominated artists, ” … give the overall market a boost as CD sales are increase (sic) by 25%.
“Furthermore, 2007 saw the overall market increase by 9%.”
“A recent BPI press release also stated, ” … (CD) sales remain 26% higher than those recorded a decade ago … “
Interestingly, the video of the interview with BPI rep Philip has been taken offline.
Meanwhile, “This is just about BT protecting profits,” Taylor told the Mirror.
But according to a BT spokesman, “to investigate the exact nature of each case would involve an intrusive level of inspection of people’s traffic and customers would rightly complain.”
No need to stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Mirror – BPI boss Geoff Taylor blasts ‘apathetic’ BT over music pirates – Exclusive, September 26, 2009
p2pnet – BPI admits CD sales booming!, March 25, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
You know, people stealing music is almost as bad as having more than one kind of people in the world. It must be stopped.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:03 am
as it shows, the video was removed by the user – that’s me.
i deleted the video some time ago because i fucking hate gootube, it’s inconsistencies in policy, and what it’s become – a political tool.
if i want to post a video, there are several other non-tools available.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
” i deleted the video some time ago because i fucking hate gootube, it’s inconsistencies in policy, and what it’s become – a political tool.
if i want to post a video, there are several other non-tools available. ”
All of this stuff that has the RIAA contradicting itself on every issue needs a permanent home,
So the curious can easily see just how much the labels and their lapdogs lie. Otherwise
it just vanishes and no one gets to see it.
It needs to reach as many eyes as possible.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“It needs to reach as many eyes as possible.”
I concur with Dreddsnik. Personally I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen that video.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
here:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3462023/bpi_admits_cd_sales_booming/
September 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xamz8g_bpi-admits-cd-sales-booming_news
September 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
An interesting mix video would be snippets of music / movie people contradicting them selves. So person X claims they are loosing money then ideally the same person or someone from the same company says they are making money.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Dredd:
1. Youtube’s “policy” is totally irrelevant, given the undeniable fact that people who get suspended start new accounts within minutes, re-upload all their videos, and go on about their lives.
2. Every cycle of RIAA-inspired “takedowns” results in the videos being back up in a few hours.
In fact, to my way of thinking, you SHOULD use something like Youtube (even — or especially) of the policies piss you off/they tend to cave in to corporate lobbyists. Just don’t obey the onerous policy. Enough people disobeying EN MASSE, and the policy is, de facto, repealed even if it remains on the books.
Same with the p2p thing. THEY inflate a 7 year privilege into a 140-year one (75 years past “rights-holder’s” death), everybody ELSE refuses to obey the privilege for that long, privilege is DE FACTO gone, even if the corporate pinheads and their lackeys in government don’t understand that yet.
So you SHOULD have uploaded the video to Youtube, as a matter of principle: a big, exuberant “fuck you” to the RIAA lobbyists, their corporate paymasters, AND Youtube’s parent company Google, for being bellycrawling, submissive little RIAA bitches with all their “takedown” shit.
On a less “polemical” note, anything really critical should be ‘mirrored’ to as many different sites as practical, with multiple links provided, PREFERABLY on servers in multiple jurisdictions. That way, repressive bullshit from ONE jurisdiction (RIAA takedowns) has a harder time impacting any of the others.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@henry:
i think you should have addressed that diatribe to me, as it was my recording i had uploaded, and much much later removed. dredd has/had absolutely nada to do with it.
i gave my reasons why i removed it. i don’t apologise and i don’t have to explain myself to you or anyone else.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
No offense taken here Catflap.
My only suggestion is that someone who is capable create a site just for the purpose of hosting
the endless contradictory statements of the Label mouthpieces, side by side.
It would not only be really informative, but the unintentional ‘funny’ would be fantastic.
I have no talent for such a venture.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
you can download the video from either of the two links above. then upload it to your own photobucket account and use the embed or url links to post it wherever you want.
or use the links provided on the video page. but i suggest doing the former in case i or anyone else decides to ever remove them.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Catflap:
” think you should have addressed that diatribe to me, as it was my recording i had uploaded, and much much later removed. dredd has/had absolutely nada to do with it.”
Misattribution acknowledge and — humbly — apologized for.
“i gave my reasons why i removed it. i don’t apologise and i don’t have to explain myself to you or anyone else.”
Ummm:
1. Just what exactly do you think you have to “apologize” for, exactly? You gave your “reasons” (which, to my way of thinking, sorta kinda seems like “explaining yourself”, BTW), and I disagreed with them. Your (bad) choice. If you want to allow an irrelevant and unenforceable TOS policy — that everybody else and their cousin routinely violates without a second thought — stand in the way of your video getting to what’s probably the largest potential viewer-base out there, then that’s fine by me.
I just question the thought process of somebody who (rightly) advocates mass civil disobedience in the form of p2p/filesharing, but can’t bring him/herself to break Youtube’s (already meaningless) TOS policy, to get the word out.
The only thing I *would* think you’d need to “apologize” for, is failing to take the opportunity to get the video seen as widely as possible, irrespective of the policy quirks of any particular host.
“you can download the video from either of the two links above. then upload it to your own photobucket account and use the embed or url links to post it wherever you want.”
or use the links provided on the video page. but i suggest doing the former in case i or anyone else decides to ever remove them.”
Tell me, ‘Flap: does your dislike of Youtube policy mean that you’d complain if somebody had a google blog that linked to your video?
I stand by my “rant” as you call it, because the points I raised remain valid.
Bye now