|Net Piracy 'Halved' In New Zealand Over Three Strikes Rule|
Net Piracy 'Halved' In New Zealand Over Three Strikes Rule [bbc.co.uk]
|Internet piracy rates in New Zealand have halved since the introduction of the controversial "three strikes" rule, a record industry group has said. |
|However, Rianz reported a significant drop in piracy levels - its data suggesting the incidences of top-200 movies being viewed illegally went from 110,000 in August to 50,000 in the following month, when the rule came into force. |
But it added that the number immediately "plateaued", and noted that four out of every 10 internet users in the country still accessed pirated material.
It would be more effective if they could block the offenders from getting internet access kind of like taking a drivers license away from repeat DUI offenders.
If you lost your internet access and couldn't get a data plan on your cell phone you would really think twice about pirating a file.
Yes Bill, punishing people without a trial is such a good, that we should make it more permanent.
Cutting off internet access is a very severe penalty and very out of proportion as it is. I would rather see the record industry go bust than see this.
|Cutting off internet access is a very severe penalty and very out of proportion as it is. |
Jail is severe.
Losing your car for DUIs is severe.
Having to register as a sex offender is severe.
Losing internet access for piracy is just inconvenient but appropriate and free wifi and public libraries would still let the little bandits back online.
As a software author, I really have zero sympathy for pirates. Whether it's movies, music, books, short stories, articles, blogs, photography or software, if people can't play by the copyright rules then maybe they shouldn't play. It's not that complicated, if it doesn't belong to you, then you don't take it without permission or paying for it.
|I would rather see the record industry go bust than see this. |
How would you like it if a couple of scrapers duped your sites all over the web and you went bust?
Doesn't sound too amusing does it?
The record industry has its head up its backside over this, they have failed to embrace the new technology and monetise file sharing. All the on-line music sales sites have limitations which are a big disincentive. e.g. only allowing use on a couple of devices.
Also they only offer what they think the public wants to download, not their entire back catalog, which would be relatively easy to do.
The price they charge for downloads gives them a much higher margin than they get from a CD. No packaging to pay for and originate, no physical distribution, no stock holding etc. Downloads should be dirt cheap; the record industry would still get a decent cut and the artist and copyright holder would get what they deserve.
I favour a system of licensing which would enable the licence holder to download and/or share as much music as they want to without penalty. The licence fee would be redistributed direct to the copyright holders in proportion to the number of times the track was downloaded. A small part of this could be used to recompense the record labels for their lost profits and for money they may have invested in an artist or band.
Downloading and burning to CD's for resale would still be a criminal offence.
So then we could get back to real choice in music and hopefully something half as good as the old Audio Galaxy where you could find such treasures as Jim Morrison jamming with Jimi Hendrix.
BTW the real reason music sales are falling is nothing to do with down loading it is the wishy washy soulless music that the record companies are offering. Simon Cowell and his ilk have a lot to be sorry about, they have convinced every pub karaoke singer that they can be famous, short cutting the years of playing in small clubs that allows the talent to develop. Then they release a few overproduced cover versions which all sound exactly the same as the last "discovery" before they fade into obscurity. A whole generation has grown up thinking that this is the best there is, it stinks. Perhaps I'm biased but I grew up listening to the Beatles, the Stones the Beach Boys, the Who, the Kinks and so many more. Now every "indie" band and every female singer sound the same. I despair for the future of popular music. As for Rap that is not even music it is Rhythmic Doggerel and requires very little talent and ability to write or perform. Those who look up to Snoopy Dog and the like as role models are setting their sights far lower than those of us who looked up to Jimi Hendrix and John Lennon.
How do they measure this? My guess would be that the drop results from people simply using VPN and proxies located in other countries which then don't show as NZ traffic in the statistics.
|they have failed to embrace the new technology and monetise file sharing. |
That's why iTunes, Amazon Music, etc. are selling tons of MP3s because they ignore the new technology.
Opposed to expensive eBooks, at a measly $0.99 a song we don't really need to share them do we? It's not like they're $8 a track or anything, sheesh.
Also, how do you "return" the shared music?
We tried DRM's and they suck, then they shut down like Yahoo! Music and you're left with a big steaming heap of digital garbage.
The current system works if it weren't for the jerks.
FWIW, I know some extreme 'file sharers' and some of them are just insane. They'll download anything for free just to have it just because they can. They have stacks of DVDs filling shelf after shelf with pirated crap. I'm pretty sure it's a sickness.
Losing internet access is severe. I would rather lose my car than be cut off from the net. It is more akin to being banned from using mains electricity. The whole supposed moral argument here rests on copyright being a form of property, which is plain silly (property rights do not lapse, they are not an idea that got thought up relatively recently, they do not keep varying on government whims, etc.).
|Losing internet access is severe. |
I grew up without it just like most other people so losing it is nothing severe. Having just come back from 4 days away that were virtually internet free, I didn't really miss it that much while I was busing having a real life.
It's a privilege, just like driving, and if you abuse it you should lose it.
What I don't understand is why people would argue losing it is so extreme when avoiding the things that would cause someone to lose access are quite simple. If you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will happen, that's the general rule. It's how the majority of the population maintains their internet access and also avoids jail and prison.
Therefore, anyone arguing the counterpoint is also arguing that there's nothing wrong with doing bad things, that's it's OK to do bad things, that punishment is the problem and not the bad acts.
Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.
I think this can only be the first step. I also have a B&M store and people are shoplifting. I want the road departement setting up checkpoints at every corner, searching people that come and go for goods that might be stolen. Same goes for mail. Parcels and letters could be automatically searched for stolen goods and such.
Now honestly. I don't see any reason at all ISPs should start policing internet traffic because little Susi Brainless from next door is downloading Justin Bieber songs without paying.
In all business you loose money to fraud and thieves. Tough luck.
the internet shouldn't be censored, nor should it have a surveillance team.
keep chasing the *boogie man* just a tactic to defer the real problem....
In all business you loose money to fraud and thieves. Tough luck.
yeeeeeeep, gota hedge for those people that will chargeback, lie, and fraud you etc etc. Its part of business, what do you do? Get a red face and smash your fists? No..... keep moving, because for every 1 of those you have 10000000 honest customers.
When you focus on the bad ones you start a quick downward spiral of lost income.