PDA

View Full Version : Virgin warns 800 punters for file-sharing


Gio Takahashi
07-07-2008, 11:26
Virgin warns 800 punters for file-sharing

'Important. If you don't read this, your broadband could be disconnected'

By John Oates (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2008/07/03/virgin_letters_numbers/) → More by this author (http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=John%20Oates)
Published Thursday 3rd July 2008 08:10 GMT
How IT Management Can "Green" the Data Center - Free Download (http://whitepapers.theregister.co.uk/paper/view/473?td=toptxt)
The BPI has written to 800 Virgin Media customers warning them to stop sharing music files or risk losing their broadband connection.


The letters came in an envelope marked: "Important. If you don't read this, your broadband could be disconnected." But Virgin told Radio 1's Newsbeat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7486000/7486836.stm) that the phrase was a mistake and the letters were part of an education campaign. Virgin said it was not making any kind of accusation and that it was possible someone other than the account holder was involved.


When the Virgin campaign was revealed last month (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06/virgin_media_bpi_deal/) the company assured us that the letters were not part of a "three strikes" process. The BPI has pushed ISPs to warn users three times for copyright infringement before cutting off their broadband.


The individuals were identified by the BPI which, as we exclusively revealed (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/26/bt_bpi_letter/) , is working on a similar scheme with BT. The BPI letter sent on by BT warns of further action including "litigation and suspension by BT your internet connection".


At least one Virgin customer who received a letter in June told Newsbeat he was certain it was not him or his flatmates who were responsible for downloading the Amy Winehouse song. He said it was possible that someone had used the flat's wireless network.


Will McGree said: "The campaign is doomed to fail. Virgin will lose a lot of customers over this because people don't like to be accused of stealing music over their morning coffee.


"It made me feel betrayed. I was under the impression that I paid a broadband company to keep my internet connection protected."
The BPI has been busy lobbying the government for stronger laws against file sharing. But the government seems to be resisting the pressure and is instead pushing the music industry and ISPs to get talking to find a licensed, and paid for, form of file sharing.


Although BT and Virgin are supporting the BPI's approach others, notably Carphone Warehouse, are refusing to co-operate.


A survey last month found 63 per cent of internet users (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/bmr_music_survey/) were downloading unlicensed music.


Source (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/virgin_letters_numbers/)

deathofcheese
07-07-2008, 13:47
Virgin's already gotten a lot of flak over their sudden change in stance on net neutrality and downloading in general. Cory Doctorow (of Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net)) sent them an email either the day of or the day after telling them that his contract was now null and void because of the CEO's announcement about net neutrality (something to the effect of: "it's a load of bollocks"). That should've sent a red flag up at Virgin. While Boing Boing might not rake in the dough for Virgin, I'd bet money that the blog is read by quite a lot of Virgin subscribers who are likely well-informed and opinionated about net neutrality. Virgin is only helping itself to shoot itself in the foot more and more with each action they take that's like this. That CEO needs to get sacked or woken up real quick.

Charlie
07-07-2008, 17:06
Thank God I'm not on Virgin. I don't gotta worry about this. xD

Fuck them, though. All the same.

Killer_Man_
07-07-2008, 17:11
You should be happy Charlie. As a musician, you should be happy that they are trying to help you make money.

Charlie
07-07-2008, 17:22
I don't care about the money. I care that the product sounds good. File sharing is only taking a mere 2% out of their income, anyway.

Killer_Man_
07-07-2008, 17:32
2% is still stealing.(Rather or not the money goes to the artist or not.)

Arainach
07-07-2008, 17:53
No, it's not. It's copyright infringement. They are totally different. One is depriving another person of property, one is copying a work. They are seperate concepts, which is why stealing a CD will get you a slap on the wrist but copying one will get you fined for thousands of dollars.

Seegtease
07-08-2008, 00:48
I believe KM's point was that it's still wrong. He didn't say "it's only stealing" but rather "it's still stealing" implying a kind of "it's still wrong" phrasing. You take it a step further, but still, it holds his point all the same.

Killer_Man_
07-08-2008, 01:09
It's not copyright infringement and I'll battle you to the death over it.

It's stealing, there is no infringement. Infringement would be me, taking the same song and trying to say it's mine.

Legally, it's stealing. DLing music is stealing, it's not copyright infringement. At least, IMO and Zeit is right.

Gio Takahashi
07-08-2008, 02:01
It's not copyright infringement and I'll battle you to the death over it.

It's stealing, there is no infringement. Infringement would be me, taking the same song and trying to say it's mine.

Legally, it's stealing. DLing music is stealing, it's not copyright infringement. At least, IMO and Zeit is right.

It's both stealing and copyright infringement. you're duplicating the work, and distributing it. That is called copyright infringement.

By doing that, you're stealing the potential money that they could make from it, since people getting these for free wouldn't have the need to buy them.

Arainach
07-08-2008, 02:19
You can't steal something that never existed. Definitely not in the legal sense, and not in the abstract either.

Killer_Man_
07-08-2008, 02:27
Meh, I suppose Gio but to me I still think it's more stealing than anything.

Gio Takahashi
07-08-2008, 02:28
but that is pretty much what the whole thing is all about: Money.

Arainach
07-08-2008, 02:53
It's not copyright infringement and I'll battle you to the death over it.

It's stealing, there is no infringement. Infringement would be me, taking the same song and trying to say it's mine.

Legally, it's stealing. DLing music is stealing, it's not copyright infringement. At least, IMO and Zeit is right.Then you clearly have no idea what the term 'copyright infringment' means (or 'stealing' for that matter).

Killer_Man_
07-08-2008, 03:11
Is that an insult because I disagree with you?

Copyright infringement is stealing ideas and using it for your own.

Stealing is taking something without PAYING FOR IT.

Which means downloading illegal software, music and etc would be stealing. Since you are obtaining something for free.

Arainach
07-08-2008, 03:59
No, and no. Ask any lawyer.Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.Taking implies deprivation of someone else's right to their property. Downloading music does not deprive the content owner of their property; it simply infringes on their exclusive distribution rights under copyright law. This is why no downloader or uploader has ever, in any jurisdiction, been charged with theft.

Killer_Man_
07-08-2008, 12:27
Ok, Ary, lets put it this way. I was writting what my opinion on the subject was.

I never said it was fact. I know the laws enough to not break them. I am just saying by my own opinion that it should be what I just said. There is no infringing rights, you are basically stealing property but whatever. I don't have to worry about the whole things that are illegal. The only time I really DL a whole game or something is if it's "abandon ware".

Seegtease
07-08-2008, 22:46
Ary is right.

Copyright infringement is the same as stealing, except instead of taking something out of their possession, you duplicate it and take the copy. Actually, when I put it that way, it doesn't sound as bad as stealing, since no item was technically lost.

deathofcheese
07-09-2008, 00:12
But no one received any pay for owning sole rights to copy it. It's too easy to think it's not bad/wrong and just explain it away by saying, "pssh, they're multimillionaires anyways/they get their money from concerts/loss of cd sales isn't going to hurt them" but it's still wrong because someone didn't get paid fairly for their contribution in creating something that can be sold and that people want so badly that they'll go to lengths to acquire it without paying.

Having said that, I don't bad about downloading wantonly. I do go back and buy music that I like (eventually), but a lot of times I find it a hassle to mess with cds and one of the most reputable ways to get digital tunes is through shitTunes. Screw that.

Arainach
07-09-2008, 01:58
No one's saying it's not wrong, only that it's not theft.