Major Close Down
Earlier this year it was TheBox.bz. A few months ago Radio Archive closed down. Now ZXCV.com (TB repacement) has gone for good. Our forbears fought in WW1 and WW2 for our freedoms to be who we want to be, to form sharing communities, and to live how we want to live. This year our freedoms gave been even more compromised by the enforced closing down of these sites. Beware / be aware - who is next? CJB. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Major Close Down
So, let me try and get this clear in my head... Have you really just compared the deaths of millions of young men who sacrificed their lives in two world wars, to the voluntary closure of a site hosting stolen material? And on a mailing list to do with the legal internet broadcasting of license-funded content? Sometimes I wonder if we need another war just as a bit of a reality check... *double face palms and walks slowly away shaking head* ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Major Close Down
Come to Libertaria and visit the money tree gardens! Green all year round... The sentiment of your email stuck in my craw. There has been no loss of freedoms. You may now be less able to infringe copyright law; you have never been free to do it. The undeniable fact: for the overwhelming majority of content available from users on those sites, they were not legally permitted to distribute it to others. For example, by making British-broadcast programmes available to people in other territories outside of an official syndication agreement, these people lose out: - Original and syndicating broadcasters - Cast, crew and production staff - Fans, who can see their show cancelled from low official viewing figures or lack of advertising syndication revenue What's lost? - Syndication royalties and trickle-down advertising revenue - Employment for talented voice actors who dub into other languages, and skilled foreign language subtitle writers - ...future work for everyone involved It reduces opportunities for reinvestment by broadcasters because they might not perceive a profitable return on their investment or commission. Why would people watch if they've already downloaded it, circumventing the system -- so why bother risking capital to fund production, or pay $$$ to syndicate a widely pirated show? Let them go run an indiegogo and self-fund their own series if their fans are so keen to watch it. As so many of the programmes we enjoy are actually made by independent production houses, this has another tangible impact as they lay off employees or merge with other companies to avoid shutting down. I've worked in the independent sector of the music biz and witnessed the crippling loss of revenue, jobs and inability to reinvest in new talent across the industry over the past decade. It's much the same across the other creative industries. --- Don't conflate unlicensed distribution of copyrighted material with useful tools like get_iplayer, which is simply another method of accessing something all British citizens are already entitled to - per the terms of the licence the BBC grants to us. Implying our countrymen fought and died for our rights to wilfully break copyright law is facile and tasteless. Regards Chris (I'm not against P2P file-sharing as a mechanism, it's very efficient. Sadly it's short term gain for long term pain when it comes to quick-grab consumption of our favourite mass media.) On 5 August 2014 18:40:05 Chris Marriott ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk wrote: -Original Message- From: Chris J Brady Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 3:25 PM To: get_iplayer Subject: Major Close Down Earlier this year it was TheBox.bz. A few months ago Radio Archive closed down. Now ZXCV.com (TB repacement) has gone for good. Our forbears fought in WW1 and WW2 for our freedoms to be who we want to be, to form sharing communities, and to live how we want to live. I don't know what your forbears did, but mine certainly didn't do any fighting for the right to steal other peoples' copyrighted material. These are pirate sites, pure and simple. Good riddance to the lot of them. Chris ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Major Close Down
On 5 Aug 2014 at 16:09, Jonathan H Jonathan H lardconce...@gmail.com wrote: So, let me try and get this clear in my head... Have you really just compared the deaths of millions of young men who sacrificed their lives in two world wars, to the voluntary closure of a site hosting stolen material? And on a mailing list to do with the legal internet broadcasting of license-funded content? Sometimes I wonder if we need another war just as a bit of a reality check... *double face palms and walks slowly away shaking head* Now I understand why gmail classes all Chris J Brady's emails as spam ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Major Close Down
On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 16:09 +0100, Jonathan H wrote: So, let me try and get this clear in my head... Have you really just compared the deaths of millions of young men who sacrificed their lives in two world wars, to the voluntary closure of a site hosting stolen material? Don't pretend to be surprised by someone's saying My ancestors didn't fight in WWn for this, It's a very common piece of rhetoric, and in this case isn't entirely inappropriate. If, as many do, Chris views the second world war as having been fought to defend us from fascist values, then he is correct in arguing that they were fought to prevent this sort of close down. One important democratic freedom is the freedom to share culture and information. The introduction of copyright to the UK was intended to allow for easier censorship, and to prevent free culture. I'd recommend reading http://ip.cream.org for the background. What does genuinely continue to surprise me is that people continue to compare copyright violation to theft. I'm not even sure if we have the legal right to use iPlayer content in a way the BBC don't explicitly allow, despite obviously having the moral right, so I don't view what we use get_iplayer for as any different from downloading these files from a P2P site. (If there's anyone on the list who can explain our exact legal status, I'd be grateful) ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Major Close Down
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:59:53 +0100 Frankie Higgs frankiehi...@gmail.com wrote: What does genuinely continue to surprise me is that people continue to compare copyright violation to theft. Pretty much every facet of the media uses copyright in the traditional way and as such they will tend to take pro-copyright stances, even when trying to be impartial. eg the BBC, the bastion of impartiality. Loads of their programmes are made by external companies, significant fractions of the staff of the BBC will have worked in the non-BBC parts of industry where questioning the fundamental philosophies of how the business works just isn't an encouraged debate to bring up. Ultimately the products these entities make will do things like demonise pirates - simply using the word pirate is demonisation because of the stigma attached to pirate. Impartially the average pirate is a violator of copyright law, a civil crime. I will concede what comes close to theft (and then only metaphorically) is the right the law gives to IP owners of control over distribution. Mostly they pick exclusive distribution meaning that when someone does something like upload on a torrent the uploader is breaking the law. They are breaking civil law though, not criminal, which is where actual theft (eg nicking a bike) lies. IMHO though when the internet exists and machines to handle data are everywhere and cheap that we cannot use technology to its fullest because of the law is a bit laughable. The media have very loud voices, we invite them into our homes and pockets (which they obviously encourage) and no matter details of their biases we stand to be influenced to varying degrees. I feel a big influence is something abstract to do with notions of monopolising ideas and information. Plus there people who have a livelihood based on copyright, there's the old phrase about someone will never get a subject if their salary relies on them not understanding. How technology has moved on and made past value-creation methods obsolete is something just not on the radar for some people. /end stoned ramble Nick ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
