Lloyd Webber blames ISPs for growth of internet piracy

[Noreen]

Andrew Lloyd Webber launched a stinging attack on British internet service providers today, blaming them for facilitating online piracy that he says is "decimating" the music market and accusing them of "feeding off and undermining" the creative industries.

Speaking to the House of Lords, Lloyd Webber implored the government not to invest money in improving the national broadband network until a solution to illegal file sharing can be found.....................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/02/andrew-lloyd-webber-attacks-internet-piracy

[Rik]

Yes, right. The petrol companies are, presumably, to blame for traffic accidents too. Talk about self-serving. 

[Steve]

I blame him for producing terrible music and musicals,

[Rik]

Don't we all. Not forgetting introducing us to Sarah Brightman!

[bobleslie]

The internet is a Somalia of unregulated theft and piracy," Lloyd Webber said, admitting that he is not equipped with answers.

What a 

[Sebby]

I blame him for producing terrible music and musicals,

[john]

I've no sympathy, when the rest us do some work we expect to get paid once for it whilst these so-called artistes want paying lots of times  for the same piece of work 

[cavillas]

And a lot of that is utter rubbish.

[drummer]

J'accuse Andrew Lloyd Webber of being:

A purveyor of crass and utterly trite music

A total hypocrite who cynically uses the BBC to promote his own theatrical productions

Severely lacking in any of the attributes most people regard as acceptable (personality, physical appearance, real hair etc)

I'm opposed to the death penalty, so exile to a remote frozen island would be the liberal approach to ALW's crimes against humanity.

No, not a big fan.

[zappaDPJ]

Having read his rant I found it quite amusing, he doesn't have a clue.

"We need to remember that one of the principal reasons for their popularity is that they search out information and creative content that people want. If internet service providers continually attract people to illegal sites - as they do now - and not to legitimate sources of content, then they are part of the problem, not part of the solution," Lloyd Webber said.

I demand to be attracted to illegal sites. IDNet are clearly failing in this area! 

[Rik]

 

Clueless is the only description, isn't it. He should have no say in the legislation passed in this country.

[Rik]

I've no sympathy, when the rest us do some work we expect to get paid once for it whilst these so-called artistes want paying lots of times  for the same piece of work 

Cliff Richard has been getting royalties on work he did in 1958 for 50 years, and he wants still more. I wish I had a job like that.

[Gary]

Cliff Richard has been getting royalties on work he did in 1958 for 50 years, and he wants still more. I wish I had a job like that.

What? Lots of plastic surgery, singing cr@p songs and having the most mysterious sexuality since the dawn of man 

[Rik]

I was going to leave that part out.

[Gary]

I was going to leave that part out.

[Sebby]

[colirv]

I've no sympathy, when the rest us do some work we expect to get paid once for it whilst these so-called artistes want paying lots of times  for the same piece of work 

So computer programmers shouldn't be paid every time someone downloads a copy of their programme? An author shouldn't be paid every time someone buys one of their books?

[drummer]

So computer programmers shouldn't be paid every time someone downloads a copy of their programme? An author shouldn't be paid every time someone buys one of their books?

Of course they should be paid the going rate and only a fool would argue otherwise.

Andrew Lloyd Blubber on the other hand, wants the government to make our internet access less free because he believes he ought to be richer than he already is.

Plus, he's an utter tool who has no clue about much really, never mind the interweb thingy.

Read the link Noreen provided and understand why this idiot's views should be  either mocked or ignored.

[colirv]

Oh sure. It was john's point alone with which I was disagreeing.

[Rik]

So computer programmers shouldn't be paid every time someone downloads a copy of their programme? An author shouldn't be paid every time someone buys one of their books?

Surely, the majority of programmers are on salary and receive no royalties, though? I agree on authors, but I do think 50 years of royalties should be enough for anyone.

[bobleslie]

I think the central issue here is who owns the copyright. You don't have to licence it. If you don't like the terms, just walk away.

Personally, I think people who create original works or their assigns should be able to collect royalties on a sliding scale for 100 years. IOW royalties taper considerably towards the end.

Fifty years doesn't really cut it with the average life expectancy projected to rise soon to 100 years.

Why should people who create nothing be able to exploit original works for profit? Why shouldn't assigns be able to profit from their benefactors especially if the latter die before their expected time?

[Rik]

OTOH, wouldn't it be wonderful if I received royalties on every copy of a leaflet I designed, or a piece of copy that I wrote? I was paid a flat fee for the work I did, much as most people receive a salary regardless of how much their work is worth.

[bobleslie]

Of course not. I'm talking copyright holder. Not drone, even if that drone is a creative one. 

[Rik]

But the argument, surely, is how long is it reasonable for copyright to last?

[bobleslie]

Precisely.

If life expectancy is soon to be 100 years, how can it be fair for copyright to last for only half of that?

Why can it not last in perpetuity, for example?

If something belongs to someone, why does it suddenly not belong to them after some arbitrary period?

What if they started applying the same arbitrariness to buildings?