Virgin mulls suspensions of file sharers

TalkBack 2 of 7:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Agreed: I can't wait for the class-action lawsuit that will come because of this.

Fact - IP address of a 'persistant' sharer actually means zero, and will never be conclusive proof of offense. If someone hacks my wireless network and steals my internet, shares files, and gets caught - I will get the suspension. Multiply by a few thousand users and BAM, class action. Not to mention all the other ways there are of spoofing IP addresses. The system is flawed and will target more innocent bystanders, except this time it will actually come after them on a large-scale basis. All it will take is for one person to loose a few hundred thousand due to an internet outage and Virgin will be hurting, not to mention the negative press that will come about because of this.

Bottom line - you can't use an IP address to systematically punish consumers. I have no doubt that many 'persistant' file sharers are doing so without their knowlege because they've been compromized and are now sitting on a botnet. Back in school we had a similar system, except that any file sharers were warned first and they other desisted or argued that they did nothing wrong, in which case a tech (me) went out and made sure the system wasn't hacked. 95% of the time it was, resulting in a disk format and a crash course in internet security. Is Virgin going to do the same for each and every one of its customers? A warning maybe, but beyond that, I highly doubt it.

Bottom line, this will never fly. Just like every other attempt to stifle piracy, this is going to punish innocents while actual pirates will simply adapt and continue as they have for decades. And as every person will tell you, the problem isn't piracy, the problem is that there hasn't been much Intellectual "property" worth paying for. Maybe if these record lables starting hiring artists based on talent rather then using a flavor-of-the-week mentality, they'd see some sales. Simple fact of the matter is, you can't charge the same amount of money for a good arist and a bad one. I realize these are very subjective terms, but there it is.

Subscription-based unlimited downloads are a good idea, especially if the price is right, but THAT won't fly if you the best format you offer is 128KB. If I'm getting digital, I want quality that will match hundreds if not thousands of dollars I have invested in musical amplification equipment.

And even with all of the above aside, I still don't understand why these companies refuse to akgnowlege that people that download music illegaly actually spend more money on music related merchandise then those that don't. It seems to me that the business model is all wrong - but I have an idea!

1) Give all music away for free. People will take it anyway, might as well give them what they want.

2) Merchandise like crazy. Artists love to tour (not all of them, but many). Artists also get a lot higher percentage of my money when I pay for a show ticket then if I buy a CD. a LOT more. If I get a hoodie or a T-Shirt, its even more. That's where the money is for future business and record cos need to recognize and embrace it. They don't even need to give it away for free - if CDs were $5 a pop, piracy would drop to negligible levels and show attendence/merch sales would spike through the roof. But no, keep up this hard-line stance. Its working out great.

But what do I know - I'm just a Wharton graduate...

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."; Posted by: gnesterenko Posted on: 06/15/09 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use