RIANZ comments on Kim Dotcom and my solution

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › RIANZ comments on Kim Dotcom and my solution

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#747834 20-Jan-2013 16:23

freitasm: The number of people who would buy the "RIANZ Download Subscription" add on? ZERO.

And if one buys it. how would they differentiate between music download BEFORE the add on was purchased and AFTER? If they stop paying the ADDON all the music in the collection downbloaded during the period the add on was paid is kosher then?

You don't like iTunes because it uses RAM? That's not good a good enough excuse in my book.

Absolutely right. I had a good laugh at the "I don't like iTunes because it wastes RAM, it's been a LONG time since I have heard a more lame reason for almost anything.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#747835 20-Jan-2013 16:25

raytaylor:
freitasm: The number of people who would buy the "RIANZ Download Subscription" add on? ZERO.

And if one buys it. how would they differentiate between music download BEFORE the add on was purchased and AFTER? If they stop paying the ADDON all the music in the collection downbloaded during the period the add on was paid is kosher then?

You don't like iTunes because it uses RAM? That's not good a good enough excuse in my book.

Haha among other reasons - not just ram.

I have been talking to a few of our subscribers - and there are a few motels and parents who would purchase the subscription to protect themselves. Its not possible for a typical parent to block p2p traffic, especially with torrent clients now avaliable for android.

The other argument is who wouldnt want to?
Itunes at $2 per song, vs $10 for unlimited (via any other unpaid source)

Whats itunes commission per song?

You could apply that reasoning to failing to parent for any number of things, drugs, alcohol, underage sex. Doesn't mean you as a parent aren't responsible. This is one of the worst threads I have read for a while, and usually I find your posts relatively sensible.

Behodar

10508 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#747838 20-Jan-2013 16:35

I had a thought a few years ago about using data charges to pay for content.

Let's say that a customer pays their ISP $1 per GB. Now imagine that the ISP has a wide selection of popular movies hosted on its own site, which are available to download by its own customers for free (other than data charges). For a decent-quality HD movie, the files could be 5-10 GB. As this is hosted on the ISP's own network it costs virtually nothing for the ISP in terms of data, so the idea is that the $5-10 can go to the movie studio.

Of course, there are problems with such a system. First of all, the ISP would need to have a large selection otherwise people would ignore this legal service and just go for the torrent sites. Secondly, it's dependent on a relatively high cost per GB. Third, imagine trying to get the movie studios to agree to it!

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#747841 20-Jan-2013 16:42

networkn: This is one of the worst threads I have read for a while, and usually I find your posts relatively sensible.

I don't think it's laughable. I do think it needs a lot of thought put into a solution for the problem, and this is a start. I wouldn't say it's a solution though.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#747842 20-Jan-2013 16:44

Behodar: I had a thought a few years ago about using data charges to pay for content.

Let's say that a customer pays their ISP $1 per GB. Now imagine that the ISP has a wide selection of popular movies hosted on its own site, which are available to download by its own customers for free (other than data charges). For a decent-quality HD movie, the files could be 5-10 GB. As this is hosted on the ISP's own network it costs virtually nothing for the ISP in terms of data, so the idea is that the $5-10 can go to the movie studio.

Of course, there are problems with such a system. First of all, the ISP would need to have a large selection otherwise people would ignore this legal service and just go for the torrent sites. Secondly, it's dependent on a relatively high cost per GB. Third, imagine trying to get the movie studios to agree to it!

People whine they can't get their goat sex feather death metal specific music genre music on itunes and proceed to pirate it, there is no way for content to be available via ISP. What if you use a smaller ISP who doesn't offer consumer type features like say Unleash? It needs to come from the central location.

Also bear in mind that it will severely hurt movie theatres and movie rental places like United Video.

The whole system is an eco system with peoples livelihoods tied to it.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#747843 20-Jan-2013 16:46

freitasm:
networkn: This is one of the worst threads I have read for a while, and usually I find your posts relatively sensible.

I don't think it's laughable. I do think it needs a lot of thought put into a solution for the problem, and this is a start. I wouldn't say it's a solution though.

I am not saying any differently, I am saying this suggestion didn't get enough thought and the RIANZ isn't going to take these type of suggestions seriously.

What I would challenge the RIANZ to do is post the sources and evidence of it's piracy claims.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#747853 20-Jan-2013 17:18

quakeguy: - (optionally) The detection software downloads some data from each peer to confirm it matches content they have been asked to protect.

I'm not sure this is even possible due to the nature of the bittorrent protocol. This would involve dynamically configuring iptables to block everything in the swarm except the 'offending' IP and grabbing data from it.

This would be one of my main gripes with the enforcement of this law. Without actually downloading data from the offending IP how can they be certain the files being shared were actually Lady Gaga and not simply re-named public domain audio files that have been mis-tagged.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Lorenceo

904 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#747868 20-Jan-2013 17:59

If a piece of a torrent is verified during its hash check, and the spying company has previously verified that the torrent in question contains the work they're being paid to monitor, wouldn't that be verification enough?

Although that's of course assuming that the spying company is in fact downloading/uploading data to peers in a swarm, rather than just logging all the IPs in it and sending out their spam to which ever company the IP is assigned to.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#748060 21-Jan-2013 08:46

Behodar:
freitasm: or are you saying iTunes is too expensive?

I personally think that; most songs are $2.39 while in the US they're only $1.29. Even after taking GST into account that's still a premium of almost 35%. While that's OK for one song, it quickly adds up.

I've seen this before. It costs $x to purchase y. I'm not prepared to pay $x so I'll just download it for free.
In my mind - and this is my moral standpoint, not encased in law or anything else. But it is theft.

While I'm not saying that this post implies this, it's opening the door to a common excuse!

quakeguy

111 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#748065 21-Jan-2013 08:57

1080p:
quakeguy: - (optionally) The detection software downloads some data from each peer to confirm it matches content they have been asked to protect.

I'm not sure this is even possible due to the nature of the bittorrent protocol. This would involve dynamically configuring iptables to block everything in the swarm except the 'offending' IP and grabbing data from it.

This would be one of my main gripes with the enforcement of this law. Without actually downloading data from the offending IP how can they be certain the files being shared were actually Lady Gaga and not simply re-named public domain audio files that have been mis-tagged.

Nah, once the tracker/PEX/DHT give you a list of peers you can connect to, you can connect to them in whichever way you want, and record anything per-connection that you want, with your modified client (detector).

Running a 'detection company' is actually dead-simple.

“I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.” - Nikola Tesla

Disclaimer: Views expressed in my posts do not necessarily reflect those views of my employer.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#748159 21-Jan-2013 12:04

DaveDog:
Behodar:
freitasm: or are you saying iTunes is too expensive?

I personally think that; most songs are $2.39 while in the US they're only $1.29. Even after taking GST into account that's still a premium of almost 35%. While that's OK for one song, it quickly adds up.

I've seen this before. It costs $x to purchase y. I'm not prepared to pay $x so I'll just download it for free.
In my mind - and this is my moral standpoint, not encased in law or anything else. But it is theft.

While I'm not saying that this post implies this, it's opening the door to a common excuse!

That's an interesting point but there is a major difference between physical and digital goods

- I steal your car types, you no longer have car tyres = Theft
- I get a digital copy of your song from my mate (who either purchased your cd and ripped it or purchased it from itunes and copied it) = Copyright Infringement

With theft you are deprived of your thing, you no longer have it you can't use it... with copyright infringement you've only been deprived of the right to profit from a copy of your work you still have your work and can still sell it again.

Theft is not the same as Copyright Infringement.

You have to remember the right to profit from something that is virtual and infinitely copy-able without depriving the owner of their original thing only exists because of an government granted right to profit from it (copyright) whereas theft is more of a natural right due to the physicality of the item.

Music is now a digital good with infinite supply, limited demand and almost zero marginal cost of production (the cost to make one more copy)... there's no scarcity, there's an abundance... excessive pricing won't be tolerated by the market people will just route around barriers until there is a fairly price legit option.

The exact same thing can be seen in PC game sales, before digital distribution platforms like Steam we had obstinate publishers trying to extract high prices which meant very high piracy... Steam adds a lot of value and the fast tapper off of pricing from release price to sale price means more of the market buys legit rather than pirating (long tail economics).

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#748163 21-Jan-2013 12:19

Not this debate again all over again. Gah! : ) I can't help myself:

Copyright infringement on this level is not piracy and it is not theft - it is just copyright infringement.

Theft is criminal. Copyright infringement is a civil matter in every civilised country of the world.

In NZ for the better or worse there is now a civil penalty for P2P copyright infringement kind of like a flexible parking ticket. Because an internet connection is just like a car apparently. Except more than one person can drive it at the same time.

PS: If you haven't heard the story about that annoying advertisement on every dvd that you paid for violating copyright itself you might enjoy reading it.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#748165 21-Jan-2013 12:26

Beccara: The most likely response is going to be "It's your job as the ISP when using CGN to be able to identify the flows of traffic"

Also what other "major ISP" are using CGN?

Telecom use it for 'wap.telecom.co.nz' traffic from mobile phones.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#748168 21-Jan-2013 12:45

freitasm: The number of people who would buy the "RIANZ Download Subscription" add on? ZERO.

And if one buys it. how would they differentiate between music download BEFORE the add on was purchased and AFTER? If they stop paying the ADDON all the music in the collection downbloaded during the period the add on was paid is kosher then?

You don't like iTunes because it uses RAM? That's not good a good enough excuse in my book.

Don't mean to sound cheeky, but I've worked in radio. I'd definitely be on for a re-occurring flat-fee to be able to pick and choose whatever songs I wanted or needed, but only if they were non-lossy tracks. I agree though you would need a way to prove it's origin and/or transaction using some form of individual encrypted certificate belonging to that user only.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#748176 21-Jan-2013 13:02

Ragnor:
DaveDog:
Behodar:
freitasm: or are you saying iTunes is too expensive?

I personally think that; most songs are $2.39 while in the US they're only $1.29. Even after taking GST into account that's still a premium of almost 35%. While that's OK for one song, it quickly adds up.

I've seen this before. It costs $x to purchase y. I'm not prepared to pay $x so I'll just download it for free.
In my mind - and this is my moral standpoint, not encased in law or anything else. But it is theft.

While I'm not saying that this post implies this, it's opening the door to a common excuse!

That's an interesting point but there is a major difference between physical and digital goods

- I steal your car types, you no longer have car tyres = Theft
- I get a digital copy of your song from my mate (who either purchased your cd and ripped it or purchased it from itunes and copied it) = Copyright Infringement

With theft you are deprived of your thing, you no longer have it you can't use it... with copyright infringement you've only been deprived of the right to profit from a copy of your work you still have your work and can still sell it again.

The work is owned by the original owner unless it's rights have been transferred or explicitly state it's free to copy and distribute. It's not for another to decide what should happen with the owner's property, intellectual or physical. There's nothing moral to debate when it comes to who owns what belongs to them. It either does or doesn't. There are usually two areas to music, intellectual and mechanical. Mechanically yes it's easy to duplicate something, but there's also intellectual which is the song writers lyrics, composition etc... the work that is copyright by default.

Has anyone at least sent a letter asking for permission to copy something from the artist/label wanted? Of course we'd know what the answer probably would be, however, my point is most who wouldn't pay for it, wouldn't ask, they just take, and that in my opinion is stealing. Blueprints are copy-able too, but if you took Boeing's or Ferrari's blueprints and then turned those prints in to something usable, in a songs case a file and used it to reproduce it for consumption/entertainment, you gain something, from those works, then you have disadvantaged the rightful owner of those works, and not to mentioned abused their rights as owner. Call it what you will, infringement or stealing, the motive is still the same, it's to gain something for nothing with disregard to asking permission from its rightful owner.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7