UK government to get tough on file-sharers

[kylew]

Yes it is stealing, as copyright infringment is a form of theft also. In practical terms there is no difference between walking into *** and walking out with a DVD without paying for it, and downloading an AVI file of the latest film released to DVD from the internet without paying for it.

In a store, there is a payment system, on file sharing sites, there isn't. It is not theft, it is copy right infringement.

You want it to be theft, but your opinion and fact aren't the same thing.

You can "practically" anything you want, it doesn't actually then become what you wish it to be.

You can't compare to a real store as it's a different situation, try not to be so ignorant to that.

I have made this comparison countless times now, but:

If there was a store that had shelves that never depleted, no security and no method of payment, people taking things out of the store are not thieves.

The only comparison is the acquisition of the content not how the content was acquired, what's so hard to grasp about this?

It's not theft, and I don't understand why you so desperately want it to be, it has its place in law and it's called copyright infringement.

Those people who upload it are responsible, not those who download it.

Yeah okay, people have the choice to download it or not, but they're not taking things that don't belong to them at all, they're accessing a free alternative, no matter how you wish to put it, piracy in terms of media is acquiring something that otherwise costs money, for free.

The act of acquiring it though doesn't amount to stealing, nor taking something that doesn't belong to them as they have been given the choice to acquire the media for nothing.

The issue is with those distributing, if there's no one distributing, then there's nothing to download.

If I were to make copies of a game, and offer to them to people for free, are those people pirates? Are they thieving scum? Should they be punished for taking it? Who would be responsible for the copyright infringement? I would be, not them.

 

[kylew]

Yes so under both scenarios, the owner is potentially deprived of an economic inflow. To me this is theft. Not being labelled a thief just because you didn't steal an actual object, smacks of self-justification to me. If I was writing a dissertation, but accidentally left my PC on and unlocked and someone saved my dissertation to a USB key and passed it off as their own, they're a bloody thief end of story, and it's not even copyrighted material.

They're not a thief, it's plagiarism. You seem to have an issue with the definition of words.

Either that, or you've been deprived of the chance of entering it as your own work, which is still plagiarism.

 

[kylew]

That's a little bit silly isn't it. I clearly meant illegally depriving someone of economic inflow.



Of course it's different to borrowing a friend's magazine. One is illegal, the other isn't . If you can't see how downloading a film or MP3 from a P2P network is different to borrowing a friend's magazine, then it's fruitless debating further with you. It's COPYright...borrowing a magazine has not reproduced the material.

When was the last time you looked at what it says on discs?

"no unaurthorised re-sale, lending, public demonstation"

Suddenly, kids all over the country are becoming thieves for watching DVDs they don't own on movie days in school!

Everyone who sells their games are also thieves too! Lenders? Them too.

So yeah, the magazine situation should by your own logic be classed as theft.

 

[kylew]

Oh come on they are not very very watchable at all, and I'm not basing this on what I have read in the media.

I think the only recent think that I would say otherwise about recently is Up.

Oh yeah, I understand exactly what you mean, they're all completely unwatch-able.

Now if you're talking about cams only, you didn't make it particularly clear, as the media says ALL downloaded movies will be of poor quality and low resolution.

And yes, these are resized, they're both native 1920x1080.

 

[BigglesPiP]

Piracy is often theft, but it's never done on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

 

[kylew]

I'm sorry but your talking crap, even some HD encoded rips looked poor blown up on a large screen, let alone your so called 'high quality cam jobbies', yeah they 'maybe' passable on a small monitor veiwed from a far in your bedroom but noway are they good enough for the lounge on a average sized TV, and not to mention the poor audio quality.

That's funny, because I've got blu-ray rips that look identical to my BD discs themselves on the same screen. Odd that isn't it?

 

[kylew]

I'm stupid am I? I'd like to see you say that to my face. You might get half the sentance out before I put you in intensive care. Cheeky ****.

You're making yourself look stupid now, there's absolutely no need to be like that.

You have good points, but when you act like that it drags down the perceived value of your opinion.

So now you're both stupid.

 

[kylew]

Piracy is often theft, but it's never done on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

The only reason it was ever labels as "piracy" in first place was to try and associate it with the negativity associated with pirates.

To give it negative connotations.

It's the exact same thing that the "piracy is theft" club are doing.

 

[kylew]

If it's perspective that you want, perhaps you could consider that strong record sales do not constitute justification for software piracy.

But doesn't it highlight the fact that we shouldn't believe these people?

They're trying to get the 3 Strikes rule introduced to increase profits, not decrease piracy.

 

[kylew]

Also, can we keep this in perspective?

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news/piracy-isnt-stopping-record-sales-1210.html

All time high? What?


The same Michael Lynton who said;


Wait, wait, surely he couldn't be serious?


...Woah. So with the highest singles sales ever, music has been seriously harmed?
That book sales have plummeted in the face of rampant e-book piracy? Did the news get through to J.K. Rowling?
The fall of newspaper revenues has nothing to do with piracy, and very much to do with their business model.
As for movies... Well...


I agree those figures are not fantastic. Perhaps it's down to;
1) The quality of the movies being released?
2) The broadbrush closure of cinemas around the country? I have to travel for half an hour for my nearest cinema.
3) The quality of the cinemas themselves? It's expensive, full of screaming kids or scumbags I wouldn't want to see in the street, let alone share a cinema with.

Or maybe, if Michael Lynton pulled his head out of his rear end, and provided the public with a fast, affordable internet-based movie rental service, at or near the time of official release, he might just make a LOT of money.

This to be honest, just shows that this Michael Lynton shouldn't be trusted when it comes to his claims of "poor old mega rich industries" are struggling to feed their family the high quality top class restaurant food they deserve!

 

[kylew]

Yes.

Did you design the Ferrari? Could you? No. Someone else (well lots of people) with expertise, flair and the necessary engineering skills designed and built it, and you just made a copy of it and therefore deemed the creators effort as being worthless, despite the fact your cloned Ferrari was important enough to you to warrant copying in the first place. The fact you could copy it so easily doesn't alter the fact that it wouldn't exist in the first place without someone elses considerable effort, and they deserve to be paid their dues for that.

If everyone had your attitude and no one paid for content who would pay for it? How would it get made? Where would the money come from?

Whether you're prepared to accept it or not the people that do buy legitimate copies of stuff are ultimately subsidising those that don't. The more the balance tips toward those that don't pay for it the harder it becomes to make it in the first place.

Let's make this argument real simple for you - a lone musician spends a week painstakingly writing and recording a song, publishing it himself on his own pressed CDs. He offers it up for sale only to find that 10 people buy it and everyone else copies it off whichever one of those 10 people seeded it on torrents. Lone musician gets a fraction of what he would expect to get from the same audience if copying his material wasn't so effortless. Lone musician realises he can't afford to pay his bills with what he makes from writing music and gets a different job.

Now you'll probably say something retarded like "be a better musician LOL" or "music should be free" or some crap like that, but ultimately writ large when something cannot sustain itself financially it ceases to be made anymore, and everyone suffers. Unless you can write music yourself it might be worth bearing in mind that downloading their stuff does have an effect, and whilst each individual downloading a film, album, game or whatever is a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things (and another convenient excuse), all those drops add up....

Looking forward whilst I don't imagine Hollywood is going to stop making movies overnight I can quite easily imagine them ending up not willing to finance unknown quantities, instead churning out the same old mainstream crap over and over again that they know will at least sell enough tickets to cover the budget and hopefully turn a profit. Same goes with music - how many real indie bands are there that might not get a break because a record label can't afford to take a punt on them?

Do you actually believe that?

Despite that the majority of your post is extremely biased opinions of your own, how on earth do you think that cloning something for your own usage is the same as stealing it?

Okay, for example, I have painted an picture of Van Gogh's "Starry Night". Am I a thief? Because according to you, I am.

Say some one painstaking makes themselves a replica of a Ferrari that looks and performs identically to a genuine ferarri, are they also a thief?

I don't quite think you understand how such matters work.

As long as I'm not making paintings of "Starry Night" to sell as the genuine thing, it's not illegal.

Same as the person who makes the Ferrari, they're not trying to pass it off as a Ferrari original, making loads of them and tricking people in to buying them, it's also not illegal.

If you think that's the case, how do covers of songs work? Surely they're illegal too if I understand your logic correctly.

It's also illegal if I pick my guitar up and use it to make a recording of a famous "song", again, according to your logic.

Or, is the fact that there has been more work put in to it than a simple clone the deciding factor between illegal and not?

 

[Things change I've changed]

That's funny, because I've got blu-ray rips that look identical to my BD discs themselves on the same screen. Odd that isn't it?

Oh come off it I think it was pretty obvious that I was mainly referring to cam and standard definition divx rips during that little spat with 'The Mad Rapper' (and as was he), I wasn't talking about blu-ray rips, yet you go and quote the one line out of the debate were I make a small mention to HD and pull me up on it, I said that "some HD codecs are not good", which they aren't, of course if you want to download a full blu-ray rip it's going to be good quality, although still not identical to that of an uncompressed blu-ray disc but quite near though I'll give you that.

And also to be fair people that download proper HD rips are very much still in the minority tbh, although no doubt that will change in the future as BB speeds increase.

 

[kylew]

Oh come off it I think it was pretty obvious that I was mainly referring to cam and standard definition divx rips during that little spat with 'The Mad Rapper' (and as was he), I wasn't talking about blu-ray rips, yet you go and quote the one line out of the debate were I make a small mention to HD and pull me up on it, I said that "some HD codecs are not good", which they aren't, of course if you want to download a full blu-ray rip it's going to be good quality, although still not identical to that of an uncompressed blu-ray disc but quite near though I'll give you that.

And also to be fair people that download proper HD rips are very much still in the minority tbh, although no doubt that will change in the future as BB speeds increase.

You're also selectively quoting yourself. What you said in that post was to back up your claims that he was talking crap.

You were also using it as a basis for downloaded movies look rubbish.

Personally, I think CAMs are utterly un-watchable and I don't see the point in them, but tried to make a point of "Some HD rips are poor, so CAMs are gonna be horrendous".

I didn't address anything else you said because I felt others had already and there's no point in me repeating what others have already said multiple times already. The rest of your posts had enough replies that I'd just be mirroring what was already stated.

So no, I wasn't just quoting you selectively.

 

[antijoke]

Oh yeah, I understand exactly what you mean, they're all completely unwatch-able.

Now if you're talking about cams only, you didn't make it particularly clear, as the media says ALL downloaded movies will be of poor quality and low resolution.

And yes, these are resized, they're both native 1920x1080.

It was very clear we were talking about cams as that's what The Mad Rapper said. I am not disafreeing with you that ALL downloaded movies are of very poor quality, but cams certainly are unwatchable on a 32" LCD tv.

 

[Things change I've changed]

You're also selectively quoting yourself. What you said in that post was to back up your claims that he was talking crap.

You were also using it as a basis for downloaded movies look rubbish.

So no, I wasn't just quoting you selectively.

EH ???!?!?!? ha ha ha..

If anyone is quoting someone selectively it is you, the whole debate I had with 'The Mad Rapper' with with regards to Cam jobs and standard divx codecs, go back and read it for yourself, I make one off the cuff comment with regards to SOME HD codecs not being good also and you home in on me like a fly on ****, I didn't say that all downloadable pirated videos were of poor quality, anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that I was mainly referring to the type of video files that 'The Mad Rapper' also referring to, he wasn't talking about HD content.

 

[Dolph]

Ah, the classic OcUK position of defending and excusing file sharing through irrelevancies and crap. The absolute refusal to accept that you do not have the right to property at the price you want is still prevalent.

If you want prices to go down, stop consuming, rather than taking the product without consent.

 

[kylew]

EH ???!?!?!? ha ha ha..

If anyone is quoting someone selectively it is you, the whole debate I had with 'The Mad Rapper' with with regards to Cam jobs and standard divx codecs, go back and read it for yourself, I make one off the cuff comment with regards to SOME HD codecs not being good also and you home in on me like a fly on ****, I didn't say that all downloadable pirated videos were of poor quality, anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that I was mainly referring to the type of video files that 'The Mad Rapper' also referring to, he wasn't talking about HD content.

And I say again, your other points had been responded to by other members.

 

[kylew]

It was very clear we were talking about cams as that's what The Mad Rapper said.

Well it wasn't that clear, as I stated.

 

[Durzel]

To be fair even HD rips of Bluray movies are typically lower bitrate than the actual Bluray. If a 1080p BDRip is 10-13GB and a straight Bluray disk dump is 25-40GB+ then it's fairly obvious it's a reencode. That's not to say that it's probably 95% of the quality, but just saying...

a bunch of strawmen

If you are unwilling or unable to see the difference between an exact replica and paying homage to or taking inspiration from something then it's pointless even trying to debate it with you, especially as you seem keen to try and twist my words to fit your arguments.

If you could build an exact replica of a Ferrari that looks & performs identically then more power to you. I suspect Ferrari would take issue with you copying their design though, and since you didn't come up with the design in the first place (and presumably couldn't - otherwise why would you be copying it at all) then isn't the designer due their portion of payment for it?

That being said it's purely academic because you couldn't build an exact replica of a Ferrari, whereas if a Ferrari was digital you could make an exact copy of it without any technical ability whatsoever.

At the end of the day it's all paper-thin justifications for ripping off someone elses content. You couldn't create it, otherwise you would, instead you just copy it and pay the author nothing for their work. If you're going to do that then just do it - but don't try and dress it up like the author isn't losing anything when if the option to pirate it wasn't available you would have to buy it if you wanted to enjoy it.

 

[krooton]

No.2 - Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge

Budget: $8 million

No.1 - Caligula

Budget: $17.5 million (1979)

The acting in porn movies is pretty cheesy, right? Not in Caligula, a 1979 film whose makers cracked open the piggy bank to hire a real Hollywood crew, including Oscar Award winning actress, Helen Mirren. Needless to say, she raised a lot of eyebrows when she accepted this role.

The plot is about a perverted Roman Emperor and the action sequences include hardcore orgies. No wonder the uncensored version was banned. The good news is that the uncut version is finally on sale, just 29 years later.


never heard of that but aparently it was classed as a porn movie :O

Pirates is of the more conventional porn structure though, Caligula is a proper movie with just LOADS of sex, hehe.