Row erupts over file-sharing study

Copyright Industry lies about infringement? Shocker!

Next, you'll say policemen never break the law and that politicians don't lie.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows any "study" carried out on behalf of a paying customer will gleam the result they paid to find.

By cheysuli on 26 Jul 2010

Reality check

Of course most torrents are of copyrighted materials. Downloaders will use any excuse to justify this: the materials are too expensive, the companies are greedy, it's not technically theft...

ISPs defend the consumer because they know most of their business comes from big downloaders.

By Stiggy on 26 Jul 2010

Flawed logic

@Stiggy
Even if most torrents are copyrighted materials, it doesn't give any moral rights to AFACT (or similar companies) to lie and distort facts.

By Lomskij on 26 Jul 2010

Debating about the figures doesn't make the downloading of copyrighted materials ethical. Is the TorrentFreak site going to have an unbiased view?

This is my point: people seem to be unable to have a discussion about torrents without resorting to ridiculous arguments.

By Stiggy on 26 Jul 2010

All true

this is the thing, that AFACT is probably did skew the data toward showing as mentioned in the comments a biased view. and correct also that those who download will find any exuse, and the ones you mention i can give you a few examples. Microsofts Office 2010 £430 pounds, and how after this can you not say greedy companies. i bought mine for £45 as student discount so this means that they can afford to sell them at much lower price. i think that movie industry should be getting better in terms of profits since nowadays blu rays cost around 10 pounds with P&P so i personally buy these since i want to watch in great quality. and 10 pounds is reasonable. But i think TV shows should be much cheaper to buy or at least available for free to stream in highest quality (in UK, its really ennoying when you try to watch House or other online and you get the link to abc's website and it says only in the USA or canada) i do really think that most of the torrents out there are breaching copyrights, i think the biggest problem is that people like singers create so much trouble and get so frustrated about that their songs are getting "stolen" that the people who do it just say "relax man, it just means we really like you and you havew high probablity that we will come to your concerts" but singers just don;t get that. i mean BONO as one that speaks out and i sort of heard of him in the news, says piracy is bad, i have a question for you - HOW MUCH DO YOU earn? and how much do you think the average earnings are of general population. so you are telling me that your 20 room house with 2 swimmings pools and big fountain is not enough for you...

By mobilegnet on 26 Jul 2010

@Stiggy

"ISPs defend the consumer because they know most of their business comes from big downloaders."

This is either ill-informed or disingenuous. Large downloads contribute heavily to network utilisation, but do not represent additional revenue. The ISPs would much prefer torrents, iPlayer, and any other media sharing mechanisms to shrivel up and die [except for their own offerings]. It would release a massive amount of capacity to the network and have negligable impact on customer revenue. Why do you think there are so many using "fair use policy" small print on their "unlimitted" broadband?

ISPs don't want to take part in cutting of broadband services for distinctly other commerical reasons, like not wanting to be forced to become a law enforcement agency. They all seem to say they'll take instructions from a court, but dis-like the thought of taking instructions from media companies.

By matbailie on 26 Jul 2010

The ISPs could stop torrents and newsgroup downloads instantly if they really wanted to. They don't. Any ISP that did so would find their customers moving to an ISP that did support such downloads.

By Stiggy on 26 Jul 2010

Excuse?!?

I'm sorry Stiggy, I dont know how much money you seem to have that you think pricing is fair but to charge as much for a music downloadable song as is charged to buy the actual physical song is insanely ridiculas and either you know very little about the internet and associated costs relative to producing the real item or else you are just choosing to be blind.

The companies are all such greedy gluttons that they are trying to continue charging as much for e objects as they do for physical ones even though they lose ALL of the costs associated with the physical objects (production, delivery, storage, surplus stock, retail floor space, etc).

If they priced them at a decent price point maybe we wouldn't all feel so ripped off by them so might actually consider buying it.

By nilathomas on 26 Jul 2010

Excuse?

So if you feel something is too expensive, you steal it?

I'm not saying that audio/video is overpriced, but everytime file sharing is discussed people use arguments they wouldn't use for any other time of product to justify their behaviour.

I expect the personal attacks to start next...

By Stiggy on 26 Jul 2010

Demagogy

@Stiggy
Please! Do not put your words in my mouth. I *never* said that "downloading of copyrighted materials is ethical". My point is that copyright agencies lie and distort facts very easily, and it's not in any way related to my view of torrents.

If a cop forge evidence or provide false testimony, he most probably will get punished, not so with the copyright agencies. Or you're trying to say that if "baddies" (torrent users) are unethical, "goodies" (copyright agencies) have full moral rights to act the same way?

By Lomskij on 26 Jul 2010

So, a 'cop' forges evidence; does that mean I can break the law? As mother used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right".

I merely pointed out that the TorrentFreak site is also likely to show bias.

By Stiggy on 26 Jul 2010

Exactly!

@Stiggy
Two wrongs definitely don't make a right, so if thieves and torrent users are untehical, cops and copyright agencies can't act the same way, otherwise there's no difference between them.

TorrentFreak is a pro-torrent site, it is "unethical" by default, while AFACT is a "cop" in our case. So saying that the latter can bend the truth, well, see above.

By Lomskij on 26 Jul 2010

Wouldn't a sensible method be to offer the content people want, on day of release (not six days, six months or years after) for a sensible fee to reflect the digital nature, DRM free to people willing to pay not not willing towait the pre-determined time the movie and TV industry deems we should have to?

Let's say a new series of a TV show starts. I can go to iTunes and download last season, but not pay for the first episode of the next season. It's absurd.

That's why torrents exist. Not because people are not willing to pay (ok, exceptions allowed) but because customers want immediate access which is denied them except through illegal channels.

There are many suggestions from decent people promoting this approach but the media people refuse to give customers what they want.

By bubbles16 on 26 Jul 2010

Usual story

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No one has put forward a sensible or credible alternative to the current copyright law and the business model it had created. I would think all of us reading this article are thinking the same sort of thing: spin has been applied to suit the writer (or rather sponsor) of the report. But that doesn't change the fact that *as things stand* the vast majority of torrents breach copyright law. People are breaking copyright by downloading copies movies, music and software that they have not paid for.
It doesn't matter what things cost. What matters is that if you don't or can't pay for something, then you should not have it. There are lots of things we can't (or choose not to) afford, but we don't go and nick one "because the company making it are ripping us off". Well, some do, but they are hardly the intelligent, reasonable body of people that I hope to lead thinking in matters such as this.
I happen to agree that media in general (and particularly that which is distributed digitally) is overpriced, but that doesn't lead me to download it illegally. The logical end to illegal downloading is the creation of less media, as revenue disappears and the incentive to create disappears with it. In other words, if innovators are not rewarded, they will cease to innovate.
I am completely open to constructive debate about viable alternatives (even if the best anyone can come up with is simply lower prices), but the "debate" we have above is not new, constructive or interesting.

By Mat1971 on 26 Jul 2010

"The ISPs could stop torrents and newsgroup downloads instantly if they really wanted to."

The question is not how they would stop it, but how they would stop the illegal ones and leave the legal ones intact.

How would an ISP know the difference between an illegal and illegal torrents. Especially if both use the same hosting services or client technologies?

If an ISP were to block my legal torrents I'd be throwing lawyers at them left right and center.

What do you think would happen if AT&T were to block torrents from a paid for Verizon service?

By Perfectblue97 on 26 Jul 2010

To Mat1971

Hello Mat, here is my little thing, which my friends told me is not possible, but i can see that you perhaps can tell me why what i am about to tell you cannot be done.
Right my idea was that creating a single site where people are able to download features (i.e. music, video, software) in highest quality for a reasonable monthly or yearly fee. this may sound something like what people call them usenets, but a much better one. i think that along with the people who illegally download plus the people who didn;t download would probably switch to this service. i would pay up to 30 pounds for this service a month, lets just say 30 pounds per account, thats 360 pounds per year per account and lets say 500 million users, thats 180 billion pounds a year. (i say that this is not limited to one country but the world sincei hate those restriction from the US where i cannot watch tv shows from the actual sites) yes this will require a lot of thinking of how the money is to be divided or why should different companies join this network but this is a good idea to start with. if they really do not want to be united than lets say music joins together and Movies and TV shows join, software join together. i would pay 10 pounds to each (making it 30 again)
i understand how this sounds but i think this is the only way to get rid of torrents and the rising use of usenets. my only excuse that i could see that the people in the industries would not go along with this is greed (i know this is old argument and perhaps you think that it is not the case but in here the only reason why companies could not talk about this is because they are greedy)
And to those who blame ISP to supporting torrents you are wrong the ISP hate them, they put strain on the bandwidth of the connections and decrease the quality of the service of whole bunch of people. indeed thats why they have fair use policy, which currently i think two services do not have thats virgins 50 meg and one other which at this time i cannot remember. but the best one is t he virgins 50 meg service although with continuouse cut outs its not the best service out there..

By mobilegnet on 27 Jul 2010

What's the problem??

Cinema attendances are up, the music scene is alive and kicking, and those that can't afford to buy are having some fun.

Win win.

By chrisfixit on 27 Jul 2010

Can't afford to buy...

MP3s are down to 40p each at HMV. Blu-ray movies are nearly half the price they were.

It's odd the people who 'can't afford to buy' digital media are able to afford a PC, broadband, and a usenet newsgroup subscription.

By Stiggy on 28 Jul 2010