UK Govt reports 7m illegal filesharers - wrongly?

I don't think I'll share an opinion here as I totally get that the UK is a different world from the culture here, so I'd love to hear some authentic opinions on this!

http://www.programmica.info/2009/09/ill ... arers.html

Unless they all now have cerebellum implants and are walking around with 24/7 satellite uplinks, I think you need your head examined if you believe anything close to 11% of a population is engaged in "illegal filesharing". Which I would say the root of the issue was conflating people who said "they had done so" with people who are bonified "illegal filesharers".

This would be like saying that because 50% of high school students admit trying marijuana, half of the high school population is stoned. No, they ain't.

eh? Your response doesn't seem to match up to the quote - I'm not sure what you mean?

Oh, I meant that if the culture were so different that the UK now counts as part of the Borg (hopefully you get the Star Trek reference?), maybe I could see it. Like, you step outside, and there's 11% of your village, all rushing back home so they can get on with the illegal file sharing!

Ahh, gotcha. I really didn't peg 11% as too far-reaching, but then again, that's why I wanted other opinions on it. Hard to keep up with you people across the pond.

I'm starting to wonder if anything can be counted with any sort of accuracy on the Internet.



That, actually depends on when you ask each individual. Slim odds that each student would just happen to be asked right after smoking, I know, but it's possible. It would be much more likely if the question were asked the day of or after a prom or something.

I think that 11.6% means that they have used it at least once, not that they use it regularly. The same thing goes for the 50% of high school kids, its probably pretty accurate that 50% of high school kids tried pot at least once, but not that 50% of high school kids use it regularly.

Right, but it is the same tactic: because statistics clearly indicate that "half these kids are stoners already" we must crack down on drug use. In reality, I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously consider marijuana or file-sharing an issue worthy of public attention. Like, there's global warming, the continuing arms-race, the US health care situation, widescale starvation and poverty continue to exist -- but as a responsible politician, "I feel it's time to get serious about file sharing". I really believe most of our elected representatives should have one of those "glory hole" things in their front door for corporate executives to come around and use freely whenever they want, safe in the assumption that the politician will be waiting on his/her knees, mouth open, on the other side. If you understand my reference

I used to be part of the "I didn't vote so I can always complain" crowd. I think I'm going to switch to the "you didn't run for office so you have no right to complain" crowd now though.

I really don't care what Government funded reports or any one person has to say about filesharing really. I'm not blind and I've not exactly been "sheltered". I would put the number of people I've met that don't at least occasionally use software like Limewire and bit torrent to get things for free closer to 11% than I would the number of people who do it.

As someone who is called to do frequent computer cleanings as well as web programming, I meet a lot of people with viruses caused by file sharing - specifically with Limewire. I agree with joebert, it's a lot more widespread than the 11 percent. It's especially prevalent on college campuses where you have fewer doing the downloading but many "sneaker netting" the software/music/videos all over campus.

The mass proliferation and access to digital media through the Internet has made copyright a veritable joke. Unenforceable as national marijuana laws in California, the best price is the price that will cause the least number of people to "share" your authored material.

There is also a real question as to whether so-called intellectual property(ip) is real property at all. With real property stealing means depriving one person of the physical object so that another can have it. That kind of scarcity disappears when your product is composed of 1s and 0s - of which the supply is endless. Some would argue that the money lost by the artist is the theft, but that argument can be made against legitimate sharing activities or competition - it doesn't hold water.

Some aspects of copyright, trademark and patent laws protect consumers from fraud, but mostly they put a chilling effect on creativity and innovation. Copyright also presumes to control the content after transferring the ownership. How can something be owned if the "owners" have no control over the disposal and use of their legitimately acquired property? As a published author, I realize that there is truly nothing new under the Sun. Therefore, I have taken a stand of live and let live.

What is it that they say? I think it is something like 90% of statistics can be made to say anything you want them to say 50% of the time or something like that. I remember seeing one of those investigative reports on the accuracy of those statistics. They asked people a series of questions, and some of them were pretty much the same question but reworded and the people answered them differently because they didn't understand. That explains how fox news (aka faux noise) can say that 99% of Americans are totally against public health care, whereas msnbc can say the opposite.

I thought the saying was "There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's statistics.".

Okay, I guess you make a good point. I just think they need to be slightly more stringent with their definitions, since it clearly is a case where most of the filesharing is probably done by a small (much less than 11%) population but that a much larger population may be casually involved.



"Copywrite infringement" should really refer to plagarism, eg, I copy your song and call it my own. "Intellectual property" is really an attempt by media conglomerates to increase the scope of all the copyrights they hold, eg. it is just a money grab.

There is nothing sadder to me than the type of musician who whines that they cannot make a living because bootlegging hurts their record sales. This is a preposterous situation created by the 20th century recording industry. It has nothing to do with what music is, etc. If you are a musician and you want to make a living at it, perform live, or get paid in the studio for playing. If you are not satisfied with the living you make that way well, too bad. I play guitar and think it would be great to make a living at it, but I do not think I am entitled to do so just by calling myself a musician, or that society has somehow been unfair to me because, in reality, I could not make enough money playing my instrument.

I'm actually not engaged in file sharing at all, but I don't see any moral dilemma in copying someone's album for free. If I like the artist, and they come play near by and I can afford to go, I will, and then they can get paid for working as opposed to sitting in a jacuzzi somewhere with a champagne glass in hand. If the Rollings Stones said tomorrow, "We aren't going to release any more albums because people don't pay for them" I would say, if you were just making an album for the money, don't bother. Please. Most of that money doesn't go to them anyway and they already have enough of it. It is really the industry execs, shareholders, etc, who are behind this whole bogus line of reasoning.

ps. vis voting I do (usually) but that does not mean I totally adore the people I voted for or agree with them about everything, and I do believe politicians are, by and large, smarmy, easily dishonest, jerks with virtually no serious principles.