p2pnet - rss feed: Is file sharing like drunk driving?
p2pnet.net News:- The BPI (British Phonographic Industry), the record label cartel’s UK pseudo police arm, has likened its action against file sharers to legal fights aimed at battling drunken driving.
Six UK ISPs have a fortnight to give the Big Music cartel’s UK rep, the BPI, the names and addresses of 31 people it says uploaded to p2p networks,” and, “The (BPI) is likely to bring further legal action against UK citizens accused of sharing copyright-protected files over the Internet,” says ZDNet UK, going on:
“Speaking on Monday, a BPI spokesman suggested that last Friday’s legal success - which followed a similar court action in October 2004 - will prove to be just one part of a long-term process of changing people’s behaviour online through legal action.
” ‘In terms of behavioural change, the UK government has broadcast the dangers of drink-driving, but people still drink drive [sic] said the BPI spokesman.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
============
See:-
names and addresses - BPI to get 31 file sharer names, p2pnet, March 12, 2005
ZDNet UK - UK gets tough on music swappers, March 14, 2005
March 14th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Filesharing is analogous to drinking, and the campaign against filesharing is analogous to the Prohibition movement that outlawed alcohol.
March 14th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
You said it.
It is nothing like drink driving. It is like motorway driving in the UK. The legal speed limit is 70 but everybody drives at 85-90 on average even with speed cameras (BPI) and no laws or punishment has ever stopped that.
Anyway - everybody copies stuff at home from TV and Pay TV for viewing later so what’s the big deal.
Offer real alternatives at cheap affordable prices on the Internet and forget DRM - nobody will buy into it. In fact nobody will by DRM enabled devices period suckers.
March 15th, 2005 at 4:45 am
Filesharing KEEPS Drunk Drivers at home!!!!!!
March 15th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Who are these dinosaurs of the entertainment industry anyway? If they want people to buy their products, legal intimidation isn’t going to to it. It is like the Mob sending hitmen out to whack anyone who does not pay tribute. Their overpriced crappy products demand piracy, especially in the (y)UK, everything costs more here for no apparent reason:
(excuses for price gouging in the UK: Er… we’re on an island. Er… there are extra costs. Somewhere. Err….)
Screw the BPI and their legal thugs- there’s got to be some lefty firm of solicitors who’ll take these cases on…?
March 15th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
FFS.
I realise a grand total of maybe two people will read this, but this is the stupidest anti-p2p slogan I’ve ever heard.
File sharing is like drunk driving.. it’s also like rape, murder, and abortion. The problem with the previous sentance is that it’s a damn lie.
Drunk driving is an activity that actively puts both yourself and uncountable others in IMMEDIATE DANGER of DIEING or being SERIOUSLY DISFIGURED for the rest of your like. No one sane argues FOR drunk driving, but we all know that every day countless people are arrested for it. Sure the anti-drunk driving campaigns have saved lives, but they SAVED LIVES, instead of GAVE THE EXECS AT BPI A RAISE.
In contrast however, the Anti-p2p campaign is a LOT like drunk driving; they are unpredictable, make rash judgements, have a delayed reaction time to dangers, and can seriously screw people’s lives up with legal issues. I don’t know about the UK, but in the USA any crime involving theft is considered an ethical crime. It doesn’t take a big stretch to see that if someone is convicted, it’s going to be called theft/pirating.
You don’t have a criminal record? Well, I do. And just TRY getting a decent job if you’ve got THEFT down on your police record. In that case, yea it might as well be drunk-driving.. either way, you aren’t getting hired, which, if you are the provider for a family, seriously screws them as well.. So, using the same rediculous circular reasoning of the BPI, I now declare that Anti-P2p TAKES FOOD FROM THE MOUTHS OF CHILDREN.
Chew on that, with your cuppa and elevenses..
March 16th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Readers Write is absolutely spot on. Brilliant. And oh so true.
“So, using the same rediculous circular reasoning of the BPI, I now declare that Anti-P2p TAKES FOOD FROM THE MOUTHS OF CHILDREN.” We all second that!
March 16th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Readers Write is absolutely spot on. Brilliant. And oh so true.
“So, using the same rediculous circular reasoning of the BPI, I now declare that Anti-P2p TAKES FOOD FROM THE MOUTHS OF CHILDREN.” We all second that!
March 17th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Hi Guys,
I’ve just sent a formal complaint over these comments from the BPI. Having lost a family member to drink driving, I’m deeply hurt by the comments and the obvious use of controversial PR to gain publicity.
I’ve asked for a full public retraction of the statement and an apology, I’ll let you know how I get on.
Please email me nickwit at gmail - if you’re able to help out in anyway?
-Nick
March 26th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
DWI, drunk driving, dui, and a license to drink.
Madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and Alanon related.
Copyright: 1987-2005 © Bruce Alm. Documentation is available.
The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.
This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.
There could also be many other positive results;
families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we’ve all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.
This new law could go something like this:
Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.
For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.
What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?
What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.
This permit doesn’t seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver’s license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don’t drive.
This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.
After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.
Would this be a violation of rights?
There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.
This could be a good saying, “If a person who doesn’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a license to drive, a person who doesn’t know how to drink shouldn’t have a license to drink.”
Here are some other pluses to this idea:
A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.
The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.
What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.
Even though A.A. members as a group don’t become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.
A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said “One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S..”
If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue ‘down the drain,’ and so on.
But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.
Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.
P.S.
What ever happened to the skid row drunk?
http://www.geocities.com/dwi_dui/index.html