UK government to get tough on file-sharers

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.
Well put! Durzels post is a great summary of a common sense approach to the topic.

The problem is with Piracy is that you are never going to persuade people that think it's OK to rip off other peoples work that it's wrong because they already know that.

As soon as you try to have a sensible discussion about it you generally get dragged down into pointless semantics, arguing over if companies are evil in the first place and 101 other arguments designed to dilute, as Druzel says the fundamental point.

Ripping off (and I use that phrase rather than the benign "copying" on purpose) peoples property (intellectual or not) is generally wrong. The law at the moment makes it very difficult for anyone to deal with this effectively and clearly needs updating to take digital assets into account.

However it's a two way thing and there should be an agreement from the main copyright holders to modernise their business practises (downloads, flat rate "all you can eat" services, allowing family/3 copies of an asset type licenses) in exchange for the law being clarified and the process to pursue those that persistently infringe copyright being made easier.
 
i agree that people would pay for an alternative, that was fair, good quality and easy to use

just seems so behind the times to not have a legal download service
 
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.

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.

Same as DD, the nearest cinema to me is a 20 minute drive, then there is the hassle of finding a parking space, paying over the odds for the film ticket, either paying over the odds for food and drink or not being able to have a drink for the length of the movie and the time it takes me to leave and get home, then I have to sit on an uncomfortable seat and run the risk of the move being ruined by kids.

I'll stick to watching films at home on my comfy reclining sofa and being able to eat, drink and go to the toilet when I want without missing anything.
 
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.

downloading a film , watching it and deleting it after = piracy.
borrowing a film from a friend watching it and giving it them back = piracy.

thats how all the film studios see it, its still a potential loss of a sale :p
 
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.

Robin Hood of the Internet? No, they're not.

I don't need to justify myself to anybody - I download stuff, I buy stuff. Big deal.

Oh and we know you think copyright infringement is stealing but that's your opinion. How many times are you going to say it? :p
 
Ripping off (and I use that phrase rather than the benign "copying" on purpose) peoples property (intellectual or not) is generally wrong.

Why not call it Digital Murder for even more effect? It's copyright infringement and no matter how it is dressed up that is what it is. Sure it is still wrong but it isn't stealing!
 
The same government that attempts anti-piracy measures like this is also wanting to charge us all 50p a month so more people can have faster internet speeds... And doesn't take any notice of ISPs offering faster and faster download speeds, which is fair enough but what do they think people are doing with it?
 
The same government that attempts anti-piracy measures like this is also wanting to charge us all 50p a month so more people can have faster internet speeds... And doesn't take any notice of ISPs offering faster and faster download speeds, which is fair enough but what do they think people are doing with it?


I thought this Ironic too.
I don't see why and "average user" will need 20MB+ speeds to browse facebook, twitter and the tube
 
I wonder what the porn industry think about piracy.

doubt the goverment cares about the porn industry or would want to help them from beeing pirated even though porn is probably has a far worse ratio than the "only 1 in 20 music tracks are bought"

i bet with porn its like 1000 leechers on torrents for every 1 person who buys it:D
 
Why not call it Digital Murder for even more effect? It's copyright infringement and no matter how it is dressed up that is what it is. Sure it is still wrong but it isn't stealing!
*sigh* It's simple, copying in and of itself isn't wrong and just calling it copying gives it an air of harmlessness. For the people who are deprived of their rightful recompense for their labour the phrase "ripping off" conveys a more accurate emotional context. I have no idea what you think calling it "Digital Murder" has got to do with anything?

We know it's copyright infringement, I've not said it's stealing so I don't follow your point?
 
Last edited:
*sigh* It's simple, copying in and of itself isn't wrong and just calling it copying gives it an air of harmlessness. For the people who are deprived of their rightful recompense for their labour the phrase "ripping off" conveys a more accurate emotional context. I have no idea what you think calling it "Digital Murder" has got to do with anything? Presumably you're just trying the pro piracy supporters argument of trying to shift the focus away from the point into arguments about semantics.

We know it's copyright infringement, I've not said it's stealing so I don't follow your point?

How about you contribute by putting forward a coherrant discussion on why you believe you should be able to benefit from other people work for nothing rather than indulge in pointless statements repeating what we already know?

*sigh*

How are they being deprived of 'their rightful recompense'? I only torrent stuff that I wouldn't buy anyway, so they are losing nothing because I would never have bought it any way.
 
Back
Top Bottom