Gadgets & Tech

8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Illegal downloading: What happens if you're caught?

Whether it's swapping songs or swiping movies, almost every internet user has been tempted by the huge amount of free entertainment online. So what's the worst that could happen if you do fill your hard drive with illegal spoils? Robert Verkaik investigates

Are 'Men in Black' checking your IP address on behalf of the entertainment giants?

Are 'Men in Black' checking your IP address on behalf of the entertainment giants?

I remember how chuffed I was when I discovered I could use my Panasonic music centre to tape my mates' vinyl record collections. On just two C120s I recorded the Hawkwind back catalogue and still had space to tack on the best of X-ray Spex (1979 was a musically-confusing year). The music centre was the first mass-produced legal downloader and millions of us created vast vaults of tapes of our favourite bands. I don't remember any heavies from the record industry turning up on my doorstep to threaten me with prosecution for illegal taping. And I don't recall any sanctimonious hectoring about stealing from the mouths of starving artists. They don't make music centres any more. But they do send the men in black round if you try to avoid paying for your albums.

Illegal downloading in the UK has become a massive threat to the music and film industries. In 1997, 78 million singles were sold in the UK; last year, it was just 8.6m. It is estimated that half the population has engaged in some sort of nefarious downloading in the last five years.

So what is being done to stop it and what can you expect if you are caught illegally downloading music, film and TV show files? The first thing to note is that the internet is not the law-free community that its architects had intended when it was dreamt up 30 years ago.In the 1970s and 1980s, record companies were happy to turn a blind eye to the taping of albums, largely because there had to be at least one hard copy purchase before the copying could begin. That is not the case with the huge range of downloading options offered on the internet. In Britain there is an equally-dazzling raft of copyright laws that can be invoked to prosecute offenders.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended by the Copyright and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, currently protects copyrighted materials. People who distribute and download copyrighted recordings without permission face civil actions for potentially thousands of pounds of damages. Make no mistake: British copyright law is needlessly strict because it was born in an age that could not have envisaged the challenges of the internet. A recent survey of consumer rights' groups found that the UK was the least consumer-friendly of 16 countries examined in the report. There is, for example, no general "fair use" exception.

Illegal downloading can also constitute a criminal offence if the downloader distributes the material. Infringement of piracy and bootlegging laws can lead to hefty fines and even imprisonment if someone is caught making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others.

The penalties for copyright offences depend on seriousness, but at the higher end of the scale it can lead to an appearance before a magistrate where the sanction for distributing unauthorised files is a fine of up to £5,000 or six months' imprisonment. The worst cases may be sent to the Crown Court, which has the power to impose an unlimited fine and up to 10 years' imprisonment.

Those downloaders who can show that all their music and films copied from the internet are only for personal use will escape the full weight of the criminal law. But that does not mean personal use downloading is legal. Taking a song or film without paying for it is a breach of copyright. The real issue here is detection and the steps the industries are taking to enforce their members' rights. In a recent development, the British Phonographic Industry has started working with big internet service providers such as Virgin. Thanks to the ISPs' access to IP addresses, the BPI and the ISPs can contact individuals suspected of illegal downloading. Stern letters have been sent which issue threats of disconnection if the file sharing is not discontinued. The BPI has even threatened file-sharers with a court appearance.

But as ever with rapid internet developments, it is America which is leading the way in copyright prosecution. In some US states the online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to three years' jail and £150,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to six years. Individuals may be held civilly liable – regardless of whether the activity is for profit – for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to £90,000 per infringed copyright. In the USA the industry is putting fake tracks on file-sharing networks to track down your IP.

Bob May, a British PR, found out the hard way how seriously record companies are taking the issue. While copying an unreleased album for work, he accidently left a file-sharing site open on his computer. It was only a few minutes before he realised his mistake but in that time a track had already been downloaded. "A couple of weeks later, on Christmas Day, I got a phone call from a man employed by the record company who wanted to know how the song had been leaked. He called every day for a week and insisted on meeting," May explains. "Two guys in long black coats turned up at my work, trying to intimidate me. We resolved it, but they said if it happened again, they'd use the full force of the law."

But can the iron-fist approach really stop us doing a little bit of illicit downloading? The mind-boggling scope of what is freely available on the internet has brought temptation into the home. Many of us have got used to not paying for our music and films and there is a discernible cultural resistance to making us pay for something that has been has been free for years. The internet has turned us into a nation of freeloaders. When record companies try to tell us we are no better than shoplifters, we don't believe them. You wouldn't go into a record shop and run off with a bag of CDs, the executives complain. But we might if the record or DVD store had been giving away free stuff for years and then suddenly started charging us for it.

And album sales aren't haemorrhaging in the doom-mongering way we have been led to believe. Single sales have dropped, but 28 million more albums were sold last year than a decade ago, including digital sales. Live performances, which account for more than half of the industry's profits, are unaffected by downloads – and may even be boosted by the opportunity they offer for young people on tight budgets to sample the music they might like to hear at a concert. These are not arguments embraced by the music or film industries, which retort that only a small proportion of musicians and film-workers make a comfortable living. Their industries should be treated like other businesses, where not paying for a product or service is not tolerated. Geoff Taylor, the Chief Executive of the BPI, says: "There is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."

While this debate has run back and forth for years, the Government has done little more than keep a watching brief, neither coming to the rescue of the music and film business by enforcing sanctions against illegal downloaders nor offering an amnesty to the guilty. That changed last month with a report from Digital Britain, an organisation set up by the Government to ensure that the nation exploits the internet to its full economic capacity. Launched last year, its aim was to establish a pattern for digital growth in the UK economy.

One of the biggest challenges Digital Britain had to look at was how to balance the interests of the internet user and the industries. The Government now promises to crack down on illegal file-sharing and supports sending warning letters to those making illegal downloads of music and films. Ofcom will also be allowed to release the identities of serial infringers to make it easier for music and film companies to sue them. Lord Carter, the communications minister, said: "We think online piracy is wrong. Creative companies, rights owners and individuals have a right to protection. We wish to put in place a legal framework that provides those protections."

The ISPs are caught in the middle. They protest that it is not their job to police the internet and cutting off customers is bad for business. Nor do they want to be responsible for criminalising 15-year-olds for downloading songs in their bedrooms.

The truth is, if you want to copy music for free without fear of legal action, trawl the junk shops for technology launched in the 1970s as the greatest leap in integrated hi-fi entertainment.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Very informative...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
However, the "poor" industry organisations are already being compensated through a hidden levy imposed on every blank media and DVD or CD writer, that is quite a lot of money that the "poor" organisations are not shouting out about.

They are also breaking the law themselves, by illegally trawling blocks of IP's and taking a guess that anyone using a P2P programme is nevertheless guilty, people who use legitimate Peer 2 Peer programmes like World of Warcraft's patch downloader, due to their IP being linked by a third person's IP e.g. another WoW downloader is using say a bittorrent client at the same time, suddenly a lot of innocent people are getting nasty letters, threats etc...

But we live in an age where a lawmaker such as an MP can get away with the most heinous of frauds and deceptions, lining his pockets deep at the expense of the people and in that same moment is standing there, fresh with his bribes from the RIAA, MPAA, BPI or whatever and starts caning into the masses who themselves are more and more doing stuff like this as a means of social low key rebellion, no mention in this article of the massive payoffs the MPAA and RIAA give to representatives in the US under the "lobbyist tag" is there? And it goes on here too, in short the government response is a PAID for and BOUGHT response through bribery and little else.
Re: Very informative...
[info]board_member wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 03:18 am (UTC)
You make very valid points. Is it correct, then, that if, after downloading copyrighted material from the internet, you ensure that it is burned to a CD or DVD, that you have effectively legitimized your download. You have paid for your blank media, a royalty payment has thus been made, the tie-up is complete. You are acting entirely within the law as lobbied for by the "poor" industry?
Re: Very informative...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 04:23 am (UTC)
I am not sure where this would fit in as the question of the media/hardware levy has never been used as a defence as far as I know, I only found out about it through sites like Register and EFF who queried what and how this levy came about, I don't download so I do not see why I should be saddled with a hidden charge for other people's actions.

Another legal question is the size of the punishing compensations, if I go into a store and steal a CD, I am only charged with stealing that 9.99 item and thereon the courts work around that figure, I am liable for a theft of about 10 quid, obviously I am going to pay costs and maybe a modicum of compensation to the store owner but how then can the situation change where I download 1 song and not share it and suddenly the price is set at a couple thousand as the working "loss" figure presented to the court, plus costs and compensation on top of that.

This is a crazy system and on the front of it, it would be cheaper to actually go steal a hard copy and face a slap on the wrist for nicking a CD than to download a song and get mangled for costs which far, far outweigh the actual value of 1 song.

Also, is it illegal to actually download a fake track? A three minute junk file containing not a hint of copyrighted material surely is not enough to convict someone of being a pirate.
[info]stevvi wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 05:17 am (UTC)
"While copying an unreleased album for work, he accidently left a file-sharing site open on his computer. It was only a few minutes before he realised his mistake but in that time a track had already been downloaded."

Good grief! For me, the above has ruined what useful info there may be in the article. The software used for copying music is completely different to that used for distributing music. It's a bit like saying I used me web browser to look at recipes for cheese on toast and now I can't start up my word processor without a cheese recipe being there. Its total nonsense.

Of course the author may have meant "While downloading an illegal copy of an album for work..." which is a completely different thing.
[info]tzanev1978 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 06:20 am (UTC)
Right, exactly what I thought. If this was a simple typo there would be no need to comment. But as it stands the cited example makes no sense whatsoever and would serve to confuse less tech savy readers. If this PR was downloading a promo from the record company he would not be using a torrent client but would be downloading directly. He would then have to create a torrent file and upload it to a torrent tracker site. Hardly an accidental procedure!
[info]smidbob wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
He could also have been using a program like Soulseek and have a nominated share file which corresponds with the default download location
[info]tzanev1978 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)
True - I did not think about that since its not my preferred method of pirating. Either way not something you would do by an accident!
[info]edwren wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:50 am (UTC)
A little bit of misinformation for the uninitiated the message being use a filesharing program and your files can be stolen without your consent
Journalistic Standards
[info]drplokta wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 06:37 am (UTC)
If, as is apparently the case, you neither remember nor are aware of the 1970s/1980s "Home taping is killing music" campaigns, then it hardly seems that you're either qualified or competent to comment on attitudes to copyright protection. The record companies were in no way "happy to turn a blind eye" to home taping. Perhaps the Independent should hire journalists with more knowledge of the topics that they cover, or at least with the ability and inclination to use Google.
Re: Journalistic Standards
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)
You forgot to mention...

"..trawl the junk shops for technology launched in the 1970s as the greatest leap in integrated hi-fi entertainment."

Anybody who does remember these will remember the poo(r) quality of those music centre cassette recordings.
ooh I'm scared
[info]ealonder wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
Ooooh now I'm really scared , but if they employ enough people to knock on every downloaders door at least we will all have a job.
[info]ebbi581 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
the only reason for all this song and dance is because of the might of the music industry and their financial strength to pursue the matter. there are always laws to protect the rich and powerful and if there aren´t they create them for you. once we have anther french revolution they be begging to keep their pants never mind the billions of stolen money belonging to the people in the first place.
THEY CAN'T STOP IT
[info]georgesign wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:47 am (UTC)
No need to download anything. There are legal sites where you can officially listen to music. Your computer has the ability to record anything that goes through it. Just combine the two.

Musicians used to be paid for live performances. Along came clever electronics that could record and then came the recording companies to cash-in. Now, because a new clever electronic devise has come along and nobody needs the recording companies, they are trying to bully everyone. Musicians can always go back to just giving live performances.
Re: THEY CAN'T STOP IT
[info]garethll wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
"Musicians used to be paid for live performances. Along came clever electronics that could record and then came the recording companies to cash-in. Now, because a new clever electronic devise has come along and nobody needs the recording companies, they are trying to bully everyone. Musicians can always go back to just giving live performances."

Totally agree with you on that. And if we rely less on professional musicians, more of us will feel less abashed about our talent to make our own music, eg playing the guitar in a group of friends etc instead of being sealed off from the world behind an iPod.

Sounds good to me!
Re: THEY CAN'T STOP IT
[info]quicky101 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 11:24 pm (UTC)
ipods rock
Re: THEY CAN'T STOP IT
[info]luwin wrote:
Saturday, 28 November 2009 at 03:28 am (UTC)
ok. so then WHAT DO we do when we get sent a letter and get a 1200 euro fine for downloading a CD? Can someone help? thanks.
[info]ajwimble wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC)
The current state of the law is clearly rediculous. How can it be just to threaten a 14 year old kid with huge fines or even prison for downloading a few songs, when he would only expect a caution if he was caught shop-lifting (assuming he was not a repeat offender). While illegal downloading may not be a completely vicimless crime, I do think the recording industry massively exagerate the ammount of harm it does them. Claiming that a child with a few pounds a week to spend would have gone out and brought those thousands of tracks he downloaded is simply rediculous. The vast majority of downloads do not represent lost sales at all. I think the troubles the music industry is suffering have far more to do with competition from DVDs, Video Games and other competing sources of entertainment aimed at the youth market.
Time for a change...
[info]ddraig_ddu wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)

We should really follow the example of the Spanish on this one.
Last summer, the High Court there ruled that it was legal to download any files at all.
Easy as that!
Re: Time for a change...
[info]quicky101 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 11:28 pm (UTC)
mate i think i have to agree with you their!!!
What about our Programers & Network Engineers?
[info]bazmd wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:40 am (UTC)
Programers & Network Engineers are the rodies of the Internet, Like rodies we do all the hard work setting up the stage, we'll design an artistic Light show and amaze audiences with pyrotechnics and Lazer Light shows.
We work hard behind the scenes and slave over a sound desk all day and through the night with enthusiasm, while audiences enjoy their favourite band we make sure the show runs smoothly and we Enjoy it.
So why is it that like the majority of Rodies we are Ignored and go uncredited for both our creativity and Innovation, And also like most of rodies we are at the bottom of the list when it comes to reciveing any financial reward for our effort. And now like our Fun loving hardworking Rodie we have to listen to overated Bands, spoilt self absorbed musicians and Huge record companys wine and complane about how kids and the young at heart are copying, recording and sharing music and videos of their favourite Bands, While at the same time enjoy the spot light that we shine on them.
Programers & Network Engineers have accomplished more over the past 15 years than any of these record companys, bands and musicians put togeather, with out programmers, Engineers and the "basement wizz kid" devloping networks and writing billions of lines of code to share their music, videos, pictures, Ideas and games we wouldent have the programs and fast networks for Media companys and Artists, that do make billions using the same technology and dont forget the billions being made by thousands of advertising companys.
If like a Rodie watching Axl Rose recklessly dive off a stage and atack one of his fans for taking his photo I'd realize how arrogant and disrespectful to his fans musicians realy are. To be honest the Rodie probably Laughed, ran for cover to the nearest bar and planed his next Show, If you rember back to Sacramento 1993 that stunt back fired, the stage was wrecked and it led to a riot spilling out onto the streets.
Invest in your roadies and Appreciate the hard work they do, More importantly don't be disrespectful and attack your fans.

Then We can all enjoy a Fantastic Show.
Digital Britain and EU law
[info]hugocox wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
UK laws against illegal file-sharing are being created in parallel with EU laws - this makes for some interesting politics. See my posts at:

http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/internet-rights-go-on-trial.html

http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/devils-in-digital.html
The BPI and copying music
[info]ukbobboy wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
As far as I remember, the BPI has always had "a bee in it's bonnet" about copying music, they wanted the government to introduce a tax on all forms of blank tapes, e.g. cassette, video, reel to reel, etc., just like they have in Germany. And I also remember that the BPI ran adverts in Hi-Fi magazines, in the 80s, informing you that it is illegal to tape your own vinyl records.

As far as I can see, the BPI has always had a problem, and been unable to come to terms with, new recording technology. Instead of looking for ways to use this new technology to sell music to the majority of us that want it, the BPI have constantly fought to control and ration the release of music to the British public.

What they fail to realise is that with use of new technology being so readily available they should stop being like "King Canute" or risk being swept away and becoming an historic irrelevance.
Re: The BPI and copying music
[info]robred wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:18 pm (UTC)
Their mantra is "Pay per Play EVERY Play" using DRM and threats, to cosh us into compliance.
[info]rants_a_lot wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
If I want to listen to music I just use Spotify, I'm quite happy to get the odd advert for free music.
Watching a paid for DVD though is a hassle, I have to sit through all the copyright info, an advert saying I wouldn't steal a car so why steal a film and then loads of trailers. Or I could just copy the DVD and not have to watch all that crap.
[info]robred wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:04 pm (UTC)
"Thanks to the ISPs' access to IP addresses, the BPI and the ISPs can contact individuals suspected of illegal downloading. Stern letters have been sent which issue threats of disconnection if the file sharing is not discontinued. The BPI has even threatened file-sharers with a court appearance."

This article propagates many of the misconceptions that non IT savvy people have regarding digital data distribution and the internet, and how it works

This is basically a myth in many respects due to the fact that IP addresses are finite and ISP's regularly allocate them on a temporary basis and re-allocate them on a regularly, on a wider scale than a home wireless router allocating IP's ad hoc, as you log on and off, you will most likely have a different IP at a different session. According to an article in Micro Mart 2 -8 July 10 "10 Broadband Myths" saying that most courts have "wised up" to the fact that an IP is not absolute proof, and mentions an Italian case where it was ruled that an IP address alone does not identify an infringer. As to peer to peer file sharing, there are many legal uses, such as Linux Operating systems, file and application distribution, legal media file sharing between artists and amateur film makers. The Sky Player uses a form of peer to peer like bit torrent does to make its media distribution more efficient, unlike BBC IPlayer that appears to download the whole file and slow down networks much to the displeasure of BT. The main issue is the media content owners inherent greed, where you buy a CD then you may copy it to mp3 or to cassette to use in the car, rather than risk the master copy being damaged (still illegal though). No they want to use DRM to prevent copying, and impose a pay per play, every play, to have a bottomless pit of money by selling us the same content ad. infinitum (sorry Bournemouth Council ) for each device so we would pay for the same song over and over again. In the "old days" when applications came on floppy disks, it was policy, even stated in the manual, that you made copies of the floppy's stored the master disks for safety, then installed off the copies. Many still do this wit CD's and DVD where possibe. Not to break any law, but to safeguard the application data from damage in case they need it later for re-installation after Windows goes titsup again, and the copy has been lost or used as a coaster by someone.
Mask your real IP address
[info]azwizo1 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 05:13 pm (UTC)
If you mask your REAL IP address you will never have to worry about it!

RT
www.anonymize.tk
[info]jrp1000 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 06:08 pm (UTC)
I remember getting a radio/ cassette player and recording all my favourite songs off the radio. And having a dual cassette player and diligently copying all of my friends' purchased cassettes and sharing mine with them. It was rampant and didn't destroy the music industry.

Nowadays if I want to try a new band I download a couple of tracks and put them on my ipod or burn them to a CD. I do it illegally because otherwise it will be too full of DRM to use properly. If I like it I am more likely to buy the CD, not less. I think that is fairly typical.

I think the reaction of the BPI will one day be studied by economists as a perfect example of what happens when you fail to adapt a business model to new technology. They misuse statistics and then believe their own headlines. In a few years the recording industry will be left flogging Hannah Montana CDs and merchandise to 10 year old girls while anyone who is a bit more discerning in their tastes will be downloading directly from bands' websites for a fraction of today's costs. I certainly wouldn't want to own shares in the major record labels at the moment.
total tosh
[info]graphix2004 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:42 pm (UTC)
no 1 everyone in the world pays that very high internet bill for broadband for the same reason
we pay the large amount a month to get usage out of it and that is nothing more than downloading.

the only reason we have broadband and superfast net is to download thats the point of it.
even when legal services was very far and few between we still had broadband the isps was
pushing the adverts saying download 10000's of mp3's in min's films in under 10 mins etc.

Now your article hits in were all bunch of freelodaders????

i'm sorry but i pay 39 pounds a month for 20mbit broadband same as everyone else to download with
so how is this freeloading, it should be the ISP's that provide us with content to use our connections that we are paying monthly for.

1. the isp charges us for internet usage but provides nothing of value for us to use it on.
so what are we just going to keep paying 20-40 quid a month for no usage of said broadband?
because this is what your saying, calling us freeloaders im sorry but im going to get every penny
i can in content from my broadband bill same as everyone else otherwise what use is paying for something you cant use.

Everyone keeps going on about download this and that is wrong but no one is being honest
99.9% of the homes have broadband for this reason it's the only reason to have fast internet fact.

Cont. p. 94
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:17 pm (UTC)
it must have been a hard job filling up those column inches. About halfway through this piece I realised I was hearing absolutely nothing new, so I stopped reading.
They stole my music
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:51 am (UTC)
I have had problems with DRM in that I felt that it has been used to steal back tracks that I had paid for. After legally downloading tracks, and having no problem with paying 79p each for them, I found that the acquired licences were lost on occasions when I had to reboot my hard drive, and I could no longer play them. I have been unable to find any way of preserving the licences. Admittedly each track offers to reinstate my licence if I type in my order number and submit it. But who the hell has still got the order number of a track they bought 2 years earlier? I have found the best thing to do is burn each track on to a CD, then rip it back to my computer. That seems to remove the DRM in most cases, but then I have broken the law. I still quite happily pay my 79p per track. But I refuse to pay twice. So again I have broken the law by illegally downloading the tracks that DRM stole from me.
One thing not mentioned here, I don't understand. Why are we rquired to pay for a licence to play a radio that might be heard by others, such as in a shop or factory. A farmer was even threatened with prosecution for playing a radio to his cows. Surely, as the radio station has paid a royalty on each track they play, no further payment should be due. I have serious doubts if it is even legal, and would be interested to know if it has ever been tested in court. I once worked for a boss who was so scared of being fined, he would constantly turn off our radio. In the end we had to resort to hiding the radio in the stock and wiring it to a hidden speaker, so that he could not find it. We had many laughs as he frantically searched for it, then having to give up, walked away mumbling to himself.
Re: They stole my music
[info]robred wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 11:15 am (UTC)
Buy them off Amazon then they are DRM free, if you load them in audacity you can then export them in any format you have the codec for, even expand them to a .wav to burn on an audio cd (quality won't be as good as a normal cd though). However the concept of fair use that is in USA copyright, but sadly missing in UK, should allow you to back up your DRM free tracks to a pen to restore them in case windows goes titsup.

The other issue is down to the Performing Rights Society" PRS, which chases people for licences for public performance of music, so a shop where a radio is playing needs one, even a taxi would probably need one if paying passengers are in it. A garage owner was threatened by them for his customers having their radios on when entering his premises for repairs and MOT. They would probably chase individual car owners whose radios can be heard outside their vehicles in a traffic jam if they could.
Well what did you expect?
[info]darkenergy28 wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 11:32 pm (UTC)
As long as we live in a Monetary System (money system), there will always be fear of scarcity. There's been talk that by the year 2012, the internet will become like a cable subscription, for which you only have a portal of just a few websites that you can visit, provided by your ISP. It will no longer be the World Wide Web that's open for all....just a targeted, controlled web portal that will monitor your every click. I believe they want to call it "Internet 2" or something similar to that. And it only gets worse as time goes by....

Throughout history, whether it's religion, government, or money, we have all been fooled by our establishment.

Imagine life without the need for money. Your food, clothes, and shelter should be available regardless of your earnings. These are the necessities for human survival. There is enough to go around for EVERYONE, and we have the technology to make it all possible. Environmentally friendly & completely self sufficient energy for homes, gas-free cars, organic agriculture. ALL across the globe.

Sadly, technology is being held back by the monetary system. In other words: people/companies don't want to make products that will not create profit, right? The oil companies have the patents that will not allow any other companies to produce "green" cars...why?... MONEY, of course. We can never move forward in this way.

I'm a member of The Zeitgeist Movement, which is growing in popularity more & more everyday. We are coming together from all parts of the world, DROPPING our ignorant religions, traditional culture, military, and government dependencies. We come together as logical, creative human beings. We are planning, designing, and building right now!

MY POINT: WITHOUT THE MONETARY SYSTEM, THIS WHOLE PIRACY ISSUE WOULD BE IRRELEVANT.

More on The Zeitgeist Movement: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

-Sara

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date