UK government to get tough on file-sharers

For my sins i'm with Pipex Internet and as an isp, I can't imagine they have the collective intelligence to write a letter like that or figure out how to e-mail it.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Which is your opinion, and as such no more or less valid than anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Firstly, of course it's my opinion, I'm hardly likely to be citing anyone else's am I. Secondly, I never stated that it was more or less valid than anyone else so I'm unsure as to what that observation is contributing to the discussion.

Anyway - don't worry kids, one way or another you'll be able to carry on stealing software and movies (sorry, I mean 'infringing copyright').
 
Robbie G said:
Anyway - don't worry kids, one way or another you'll be able to carry on stealing software and movies (sorry, I mean 'infringing copyright').
Click to expand...

They are both against the law so what's the difference if it's called stealing or infringement of copyright ?, just because someone says it isn't stealing it doesn't automatically mean they are trying to justify what they 'may' be doing is fine, it's just that there is a technical difference in the eyes of the law.
 
Last edited:
Robbie G said:
Finding a newspaper on the train and reading it is not the same as downloading and distributing that newspaper freely to thousands of people. How can you not see that?
Click to expand...

Newspaper on train is read by one person then left on a train and read by another person. Repeat.

All those people that read the newspaper have not purchased the paper thus the paper is denied a sale exactly like downloading copyright material off the Internet.

The scale is a little larger but the concept is the same. Both result in a denial of sale but one is perfectly legal and the other is copyright infringment.
 
What i dont understand, and this may have been discussed on a previous page, i'll admit to skimming through this thread, is that in the BBC article it says:

The details of it would need to be hammered out at European level but it would take account of the use of copyright material "at home and between friends", Lord Mandelson said.

Well i have 210 friends on Facebook. So does this mean I can legally share a computer game/program/movie/CD with my 210 friends?

I think that there will be a lot of very blurry lines drawn and you'd need a rock solid case to actually prosecute anyone. Instead they'll just intimidate web-users and hope they swallow it. Much like the banks and bank charges.
 
Robbie G said:
Anyway - don't worry kids, one way or another you'll be able to carry on stealing software and movies (sorry, I mean 'infringing copyright').
Click to expand...

Wow. Brilliant sarcasm.

If those who download shape the industry to treat legit customers better (fairer rules, better prices, no adverts treating them like criminals, for example) then that is a good thing.
 
tbh
I went to the movies the other day
Vue plymouth
cost me over £7.50 + drinks/snacks etc each to get in.
I then had to sit though 20 mins of adverts (adverts. not trailers) watched 2 trailers (like trailers) then though the whole film the lights didn't go down all the way.
this is why I don't go to the cinima. it's nothing to do with piracy.
 
The whole "piracy isn't theft because the original owner still has their copy!" is a convenient argument over semantics which dilutes - and is intended to dilute - the argument.

Assuming for a moment that it wasn't possible to acquire movies, music, games, etc through filesharing channels your choice as a consumer would be either to pay the going rate that the content authors decide they want to charge, or do without.

Half the problem imo is that people have grown so accustomed to pirating stuff now, it's so easy and painless, that it's easy to assume that copying something doesn't hurt anyone. The thing is, which I hope most rational people can acknowledge, in a world where piracy wasn't so easy I don't imagine most of us would be satisfied not listening to, watching or playing these great pieces of media, we'd find a way to afford it if we wanted it that badly.

The flip side of course is that being able to sample certain types of media can be a positive thing - hearing samples of a bands album might lead you to go and buy it, likewise watching the first 5 minutes of a film (a few films have done this in recent times). Sites like Amazon already let you audition album tracks before you buy, so there's really no excuse for pirating entire albums using the fallacious logic that "you'll buy it if you end up liking it".

I'm personally not whiter than white so there's a bit of hypocrisy here - but unlike a lot of people it seems I'm not deluding myself that downloading stuff illegally is morally justified in any way. If something is "too expensive" in the regular world you do without. If something isn't easily accessible in pirate channels (as is sometimes the case), you either end up having to cough up for it, settle for something that's not quite as good, or you do without.
 
VeNT said:
tbh
I went to the movies the other day
Vue plymouth
cost me over £7.50 + drinks/snacks etc each to get in.
I then had to sit though 20 mins of adverts (adverts. not trailers) watched 2 trailers (like trailers) then though the whole film the lights didn't go down all the way.
this is why I don't go to the cinima. it's nothing to do with piracy.
Click to expand...

I prefer to watch films at home too TBH. Apart from being cheaper (or indeed free) I control the environment fully to my own satisfaction.
 
dirtydog said:
I prefer to watch films at home too TBH. Apart from being cheaper (or indeed free) I control the environment fully to my own satisfaction.
Click to expand...


hence why there should be a legal way to download films for a reasonable fee

part of the problem with piracy is that there is no cheap , legal alternative
 
LordSplodge said:
Wow. Brilliant sarcasm.

If those who download shape the industry to treat legit customers better (fairer rules, better prices, no adverts treating them like criminals, for example) then that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, software pirates are just the Robin Hood of the internet. They're all just doing everyone a favour, right?

However you seek to justify it to yourself dude.

If someone has written a computer program that can make them millions of pounds, but accidentally left their network unsecured when I go in and copy the data then distribute it myself as my own, that's stealing in anyone with half a brain's books. The fact that nothing physical has been removed and that the original information is still present, does not cease to make it theft unless you're talking in purely legal terminology, in which case it's just a different type of theft.
 
Last edited:
It's a Pandora’s Box. Once people start realising their internet traffic is being monitored they'll take measures to get round the problem. Then the government/music industry will lose any hope of implementing a fair system for remuneration.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
It's a Pandora’s Box. Once people start realising their internet traffic is being monitored they'll take measures to get round the problem. Then the government/music industry will lose any hope of implementing a fair system for remuneration.
Click to expand...

That's why "a UK intelligence agency" (GCHQ) recently criticized this plan as it fears the population will begin using encryption as standard on Internet traffic. Once the plan is implemented someone will release new P2P software for an anonymous network and then they'll be stuck on what to do next.
 
Stretch said:
It's a Pandora’s Box. Once people start realising their internet traffic is being monitored they'll take measures to get round the problem. Then the government/music industry will lose any hope of implementing a fair system for remuneration.
Click to expand...
How do you have a "fair system for remuneration" when the cost of pirating something tends towards zero? People already pay for their internet connections for legit reasons so it costs them nothing but disk space to download something illegally. How do you convince someone who is paying nothing that they should pay anything for exactly the same content?
 
afraser2k said:
That's why "a UK intelligence agency" (GCHQ) recently criticized this plan as it fears the population will begin using encryption as standard on Internet traffic. Once the plan is implemented someone will release new P2P software for an anonymous network and then they'll be stuck on what to do next.
Click to expand...
Well if they do insist on going down that path then what option is there? It is basically the same as opening ones post.

Consumers are not inherently 'bad' or 'evil' or willing to steal to get stuff for free. They are just doing what they can to get hold of products they want.
The more pressing issue here is coming up with a working, effective, easier-than-piracy alternative so artists and studios can be fairly renumerated for their efforts. I also remember something about 'DVD being much cheaper to make than VHS' but none of the cost savings were passed on.
Hell I remember DVDs being £20 while VHS was £14, what's up with that!?

iTunes is a step in the right direction, but for many (myself included) the relatively low quality sound files are not desirable. I spend 15 minutes ripping a CD to my system and filing it accordingly.
If someone said to me "You can download the albums for the same price as a CD, in whatever format you want, with all the album art and extra bits", of course I would choose that! It would save me so much time, effort and faffing around with CD cases.

But no. Here we are, 8 years after Napster really brought this into the mainstream and this is the best they can come up with? Get bent.
 
Any public servants mandelson employs now to tackle this "problem" will be sacked by the tories in 6mnths.

Any money spent tackling this is properly wasted, who's even paying for this ****s time to attend meetings about it... me! thats who!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom