What happened to their 'magnetic links'?:)

And 'flying servers'?

And vpn's? Guess, they finally realized that they just don't work. (Repeat after me: There is no privacy on the internet!)

Here's the bottom line:

6 strikes start next month in the US. Similar initiatives and new anti-piracy laws pop up across the globe.

Hardcore pedophiles & pirates is out of reach, but all these initiatives are not aimed at hardcore criminals. They are aimed at ordinary people. Ordinary people don't want all these problems. Ordinary people have jobs, money, friends and families to care about.

So there be tough times and mucho desperation ahead for organized crime.

If I ever see a pirate UFO hovering over my town I will shoot it down.

You don't have to.

The Pirate Bay is sinking!

I know they say: "Blocking doesn't work, we just get way more visitors."

But they're lying!

Here are the FACTS:

Since British ISP's blocked Pirate Bay in April, traffic dropped by no less than *three quarters*!

Source: BBC/Nielsen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20026271

Forget about proxies and vpn's -- blocking is indeed extremely effective!

Are you being sarcastic? Did you read the entire article? Do you know what whack a mole means?

Yes, I read the entire article -- a lot! :)

Did you?

Here is the conclusion:

"[...] BPI defended the action, saying that the block had a significant effect on the amount of traffic visiting the Pirate Bay site.

This claim is backed up by Nielsen, who told the BBC that since the April court order, The Pirate Bay has lost three quarters of its visitors."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20026271

(My emphasis. And let me add: This sensational drop is stable!)

No wonder this article is ignored over at torrentfreak, eh? :)

It is so cool that the pirates are using such innovative measures to fuck with the artist who create your favorite songs. Artists should never be able to eak out a living. Only pirates should make money from an artists work. Artist are such assholes for wanting to receive some money for creating something beautiful that brings joy to peoples lives. Fuck them. I should get it for free.

The pirates are terrible for taking earnings away from the writers performers and producer's but let's not get it twisted these bloodsucking label's have since the very beginning raped the artist and created the environment for pirates to grow and artst to be robbed.As for the publisher's how many writer's on a major publisher see a properly accounted royalty same with label's,with Universal now with 50% of the global market artist will get screwed even more.The blame for the situation we are now in with terrible rates from streaming,terrible rates from itunes,pirates etc come from the organized crime of labels/publisher's.

Blame pirates all day everyday cool but let's not forget these halfwit greedy shmucks at label's/publishers primarily in the early 90's who new the web was being used to steal from artist and did nothing about it.

Wrong. Not all labels are bloodsuckers. I've had very happy and mutually beneficial work being signed to labels as an artist, being hired as a producer and remixer, etc.

- V

Am I lacking information? This encryption business seems to make copyright infringement much harder for the average to semi-super music pirate. That said, it shouldn't deter officials from seeking justice against those who aid and abet illegal activity.

I think Mr. Dotcom's new business Mega (he loves that word) solves that problem.

The way I understand it, an encryption code and key are randomly assigned upon upload of digital content. It is up to the user to hand out the key. 

This makes his new business blind to the infringing activity and free from liability. 

Is that the way people here understand it?

Maybe.

But dotcom has access to number of files in each account, file size and the amount of transfers between accounts.

Investigators have found that 90% of the accounts in a previous incarnation were empty.

In any case, if there is abnormally high activity with an account there is grounds for investigation from Mega management and to ask the account holder for the key. If the account holder refuses, the name and address of account holder could be made available to police.

If dotcom is honest about his intentions, all this can be stated in a customer agreement. Is dotcom protecting pedophiles and thieves? Some may accuse him of being a pedophile and a thief if the customer agreement is flawed, as it protects the wrong people.

"Is dotcom protecting pedophiles and thieves?"

You might as well ask:

"Are The Pirate Bay protecting pedophiles and thieves?"

And we all know the answer to that. What we don't know is how long the public is going to support an industry who protects that sort of people.

Yes, stealing music is not only expensive and dangerous -- it's also going to be more and more complicated now.

And I don't know about you, but I would never in a million years install Mr. Dotcom's software on any device.

Yet, that's exactly what you need to do if you want 'free' music from his new service.

Agreed

Infringement policing will now require more intricate sting operations, more undercover agents and more money. Politicians, ICE and FBI will ge thrilled about the extra money required to fight child pornographers and copyright infringers. 

You are wisely choosing not to install any software created, supported or in any way associated with dotcom.

However, it won't take long for "legitimate" cloud service businesses to adopt the Mega model if it means simultaneously dealing with less takedown notices and providing legal immunity.

This has gone on long enough. We need to learn from our forefathers on how to deal with the dirty pirate.

Install capital punishment for all pirates and people who support piracy... make 'em pay with their lives. I ask for nothing less.

Haha! This is the winning mindset that will rally the masses to our cause! Yes! Instead of simply extorting $4000 from grandma, let's burn her at the stake!  Probably won't be as effective against people who are already dead, but so what! We can kill their kids instead! Death penalty for sharing a few 99 cent mp3's!  Idiot.

Retard!

I agree with Artist. And yes, burning music pirates at stakes would be quite an entertainment webcast. Really couldn't care less what a music pirates opinion is about anything. Burn in hell, pirates!:-)

I've been following this forum for a pretty long time now, and it's kind of interesting how over the years the mood of many of the commenters has shifted.   Most of you now seem to be embittered industry insiders lashing out at "pirates", by which you generally mean any regular person.  I've even begun to notice more cases of shooting the messenger when Paul reports unpopular data.

Hyperbole aside, I would seriously suggest that you all are pretty much doomed unless you can somehow overcome this extreme us-vs-them mindset.   Taking a talibanesque attitude toward your potential customers cannot result in anything other than failure.  There are already significant numbers of "regular people" who despite loving music and the artists that create it, are utterly and irreversibly hostile to your industry as a whole.  Many if not most of the attitudes on display here can only serve to increase those numbers, and there is only one possible and inevitable end result.

Technology will not save you, and enforcement will not save you.  Not if you have lost the hearts and minds of the masses.  It led directly to the the American revolution, and it will lead directly to your own doom as well.

Your post is awesome! You're so absolutely right that the mood has shifted!

Here's why:

Today's artists are bright young people! They don't want to be screwed by Piracy Industry fat cats!

So here's their message to all you old pirates:

The world is changing, and your free ride is over!

B you seem to like to make generalizations about what the commenters here think. Also about what the consumers of digital music think. Ironically, the "Us versus Them" mentality seems to be your prefered modus operandi.

Believe it or not there are many different people that perform many different functions in the digital music business. Quite a few disagree on what should be done about piracy. There are many articles and comments here on DMN that confirm this reality.

Personally I am willing to let pirates slide, IMO there will always be some people around who expend large amounts of time and resources to exploit other peoples work without compensating the creators of that work.

What I find more disturbing is that there are some business models that exist and depend on pirating. These companies variously supply the servers, point the consumers, advertise and collect revenue without being held accountable.  These businesses' existence depend solely on a few lines of law written in the DMCA.  They contribute heavily to politicians pockets to maintain the status quo.

Finally, making an analogy between the American Revolution and fighting digital pirates is insulting in so many different ways I don't know where to start.

Sure I was making a generalization, that was the point.  Nowhere did I say or imply that there was only one viewpoint being expressed here.  But there definitely has been an uptick of fear and loathing and rage in the past couple of years.

The main disconnect I'm seeing is not whether piracy exists (it does), or whether enforcement adequately enforces existing law (it mostly doesn't). Rather it's the failure to realize that society's attitude has shifted, and it no longer defines piracy in the same way that you do (Paul has occasionally offered up information supporting this, and at this point it is pretty clear, especially for the younger generation).  This is why I say that you are ultimately doomed, because railing against society is a bit like standing knee-deep at the beach and railing against the waves.  The paradigm has shifted.  The train has left the station.

New law and better enforcement may stave off your last stand for awhile, but it will not ultimately save you if you are out of step with what society wants.  At some point this younger generation will be the ones making the laws.  Pot will eventually be legalized and so will file sharing, because both of them are desired by an increasing percentage of society, and because the laws against both of them are ultimately not enforcable. 

Perhaps I could have used a better analogy than the American Revolution -- there is certainly no shortage of examples to choose from regarding what happens to the status quo when society's opinion shifts.  :-)

Personally I don't think that society's attitude toward piracy or the definition of piracy has changed at all.

Rather I believe that technology has allowed some of society's members to realize two very dear and long held beliefs to be realized more efficiently than ever before.

1) People want stuff for free.

2) Neither musicians, nor their recording company bosses, should be paid. They should enjoy the art of making music for the sake of making music.

Again, I have nothing against people who copy music w/o paying creators. They are only acting on these basic impulses with the help of technology. It would be like hating a dog who steals food from your plate when you are not looking.

IMO it's the ancillary businesses that are making profit from copyright infringement without properly compensating the creators of the works that receive the most antipathy. 

I believe many of the commenters here feel the same.  Maybe I am wrong but it's not the way I've been reading it.  

Of course there are a few trolls here and there but for the most part nobody can seriously believe that the law or technology will stop copyright infringement or change the public's opinion.

i agree with most of that, especially the sentiment about who the actual villians are (those profiting or attempting to profit from someone else's work).  They should be shut down, but I would still oppose killing them :)  Simple file-sharers are not the enemy -- not if you want to stay in business for the long term.

Lets put this thread to rest. Thanks for the rational discussion.  

See, the beautiful thing is that you don't have to *believe* that "law or technology will stop copyright infringement".

It is not a theory or a religion. It's reality and you can watch it happen!

If you missed this week's sensation, I'll post the link again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20026271

Now, could you please explain why 75% less Pirate Bay visitors -- as a *direct* result of law enforcement -- is not significant?

Try to be as specific as you can and please avoid weasel statements such as 'many commenters feel', 'I believe', 'nobody can seriously believe', etc.

75% is significant.

From the same "sensational" article:.

According to web monitoring firm Nielsen, over a million unique users from the UK visited the three websites (Fenopy, H33t and Kickass Torrents) in September.

One ISP, which did not want to be named, revealed that despite an initial dip, illegal download traffic on its network recovered quickly within just a week of the Pirate Bay block.

So the BPI is playing large scale whack a mole using a court order as a mallet. Cheers to the BPI.

That won't work in the US. Unfortunately for the RIAA, the US has laws that allow business and individual liberty. There is a little more due process involved here before one organization can shut down another business or individual.  So until laws that effect personal liberty are changed here, law enforcement as a deterrent to digital copyright infringement is weak at best.

Yes, 75% is indeed significant.

Sure, a lot of anonymous sources -- many probably belonging to the Piracy Industry -- will tell you that criminal traffic is recovering.

But here's the fact:

It isn't!

Take a look at Nielsen's graph again:

This 75% drop is not only dramatic and sensational -- it is also stable.

Now, all these new anti-theft laws and initiatives you see across the world are obviously adjusted to local countries: The UK approach is used in many EU countries. Japan has chosen another path. And you'll see 5/6 strikes in the US within a month.

But they all have a lot in common: They don't mess with your privacy. They are the result of the first internationally coordinated war against Intellectual Property theft ever. And they will succeed. Because they are aimed at ordinary people.

We can't stop hardcore pedophiles & pirates -- but we can stop theft among ordinary people.

Also in the US.

I forgot this from the same "sensational" article:

Days after the Pirate Bay blocking, various other services were set up allowing users to access the site through alternative means.

Hope the BPI enjoys whack a mole.

What you and most old time pirates fail to understand is that these news laws and initiatives are aimed at ordinary people.

Hardcore pedophiles & pirates will always find ways to get their junk, but ordinary people don't have time for all that. They just don't want proxies and vpns and weird mails from their ISPs.

You did notice that this sensational 75% drop is stable, yes?

I think 'Artist' perhaps forgot a smiley...

Anyway, professional artists hate pirates. If they tell you anything else, they lie...

The new MEGA wth it's encryption will STILL be liable for the copyright infringement of its users's and be sued for "facilitating copyright infringement"

Excellent point.

Good find.

It looks like Mr. Dotcom may find himself in legal trouble in the US after all.

Do you know if defendant asked for appeal to supreme court? I must assume if they did ask, the supreme court denied review.

It seems Judge Posner likes to apply Google and facebook reasoning to his decisions.

IMO if Google and facebook decide that Mega business model is a good idea and could be a business threat, you can count on Posner to follow their lead. 

Google's going to hate Mega.

If Mega users want free music, they have to install a piece of software that blocks all other ads than Mr. Dotcom's.

That's a declaration of war.

You forgot to mention this:

Lastly, the court established that the DMCA § 512 "safe harbors" were unavailable because Aimster had done nothing to comply reasonably with Section 512(i)'s requirement to establish a policy to terminate repeat infringers and instead even encouraged repeat infringement.

Even if Mega complies with section 512(i)'s requirements, I believe Mega would lose a decision if Judge Posner had anything to say about it.

Laws are meant to protect citizens. When laws are created to protect 5% of it's citizens at a cost of ciminalizing 95% then that law is an ass.

Any law restricting the behaviour of the majority of citizens should be seen as nothing more that dictorial law. Then the USA is a dictatorship that changes its dictator every four years.

What is happening to file sharing now is the fault of these idiotic laws egarding file sharing.

What Governments do not understand is that the more they pass unfair laws the more the people will resist them and that may lead to rule by law becomming redundant which will tyen result in a permanant military backed dictatorship.

Governments exist for the people not vested interests.

Extrapolating laws that inhibit your perceived right to copy music without paying for it into a fascist dictatorship that is destroying your liberty is laughable.

If you want anyone to take your arguments seriosly, you might want to ease up on the outrageous analogies.

As for laws that only protect 5% of the people; First, this is a gross underestimation of the amount of people and businesses who rely on copyright to make a living; Second you need to look up the meaning of "Tyranny of the majority" and then get back to doing whatever it is you do and stay away from commenting in public places for awhile.

+ 1

By your logic, it's acceptable to enslave 5% of the population so that 95% can benefit. After all, the law should just protect the majority. 

Let's go further and assign a random 5% of the population to be subjects of scientific experimentation, perhaps as test subjects for chemical and biological weapons.

Herein lies the problem with democracy.

- V