UK government to get tough on file-sharers

[kylew]

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...

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.

You obviously don't understand the distinction between making a replica and ripping off.

Ferarri couldn't do anything if some one made their own replica of a Ferrari.

If you believe they could, on what grounds?

 

[Things change I've changed]

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

What other points ?, the only other person other than 'The Mad Rapper' to quote me with regards to the video quality discussion was 'dirtydog' and I rebutted that post, are you going to tell me that you disagree with me when I was stating that the video quality of cam jobs (or even SD divx codecs for that matter) are crap quality ?, the initial augment was about 'The Mad Rapper' thinking that his cam jobbies were perfectly watchable and good quality because he was watching them on a small screen, I said that is not the case, you are still watching a poor quality video but making it look better by viewing at a smaller size, technically the original video file is still low quality.

What's the problem ?

 

[antijoke]

Just think of a future where you could have the option to stream/download the latest blockbuster film in HD for say £5 straight to your home TV whilst it's still on at the Cinema, or purchase the film say two weeks after general/worldwide release to watch whenever you want, why would people want to bother with dodgy cam recordings with that available?

IMHO the music/film companies could do so much more to remove the problem, they are just too stubborn.

That's part of the fallacy that is perpetrated by the media companies. The quality of the releases on torrent is amazing now. Even cams are very, very watchable.

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.

There is the flow of the conversation, where is not clear we were talking about cams.

 

[markweatherill]

Ferarri couldn't do anything if some one made their own replica of a Ferrari.

If you believe they could, on what grounds?

They can, and have done, as have other car makers, and not always for passing-off. The car wrecked in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was a replica and Ferrari brought a lawsuit.

 

[Durzel]

They can, and have done, as have other car makers, and not always for passing-off. The car wrecked in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was a replica and Ferrari brought a lawsuit.

Indeed.

There's also this: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/24/news/mn-56581

...and plenty of other evidence elsewhere with other car makers.

Apparently though making a replica of something is perfectly legitimate even though it values the original designer/engineers input at £0.

 

[kylew]

Indeed.

There's also this: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/24/news/mn-56581

...and plenty of other evidence elsewhere with other car makers.

Apparently though making a replica of something is perfectly legitimate even though it values the original designer/engineers input at £0.

That's sales, which we weren't talking about. You just said the process of replicating a Ferrari car.

To sell it yeah, but to make it, no.

That's the same issue as copyright infringement. No matter how much they try, ripping your CDs to your PC isn't "Illegal" and punishable, but selling those copies is.

If I had the skill and ability to make a replica of a Ferrari (I wouldn't because I think they're vile) as long as I weren't making and selling them, as ferraris too, there'd be nothing ferrari could do about it.

With reference to the Ferrari replica in Ferris Beula one would have been made to order, no?

The important factor is the trade of monies for replicas, not the making of the replica itself.

That's the whole idea around patents, it's to stop people copying an idea to bring themselves financial gain. If you're copying the patents for your own personal use, say for example, I was able to build myself a replica of a Dyson vacuum cleaner, that's nothing they could do about it if I was just using it around my home, but as soon as I try to sell it, it becomes copyright/patent infringement

 

[kylew]

There is the flow of the conversation, where is not clear we were talking about cams.

"The quality of torrents is amazing now, even cams"

That to me is quite a broad statement, yeah cams were mentioned, but it wasn't specifically about them.

"Oh come on, they are not very watchable at all"

Again, broad. As I said, this stems from the media saying the same thing about ALL "pirate" copies of movies, so I'm sure you can appreciate where I'm coming from with that?

I've misunderstood exactly what you were talking about.

 

[platinum87]

if you watch CAMS you need to be punched in the face

 

[Durzel]

That's sales, which we weren't talking about. You just said the process of replicating a Ferrari car.

To sell it yeah, but to make it, no.

That's the same issue as copyright infringement. No matter how much they try, ripping your CDs to your PC isn't "Illegal" and punishable, but selling those copies is.

Fair point, however if you're using torrents you're effectively "selling" the content by being part of the swarm. In fact the whole torrent system is a reciprocal buyer/seller system albeit without monies changing hands.

You could also make the argument that the person that uploads a rip of a movie to Usenet has "sold" it to whoever ends up downloading it.

I'll admit it's a cloudy issue, and people making copies of their own CDs & DVDs isn't something the industry should really care about, it's the distribution that's the problem.

if you watch CAMS you need to be punched in the face

This too. My mate downloads CAMS and watches them on his huge projector screen. Boggles the mind that someone would spend so much on AV kit and then play the absolute crappest quality content through it.

 

[kylew]

Fair point, however if you're using torrents you're effectively "selling" the content by being part of the swarm. In fact the whole torrent system is a reciprocal buyer/seller system albeit without monies changing hands.

You could also make the argument that the person that uploads a rip of a movie to Usenet has "sold" it to whoever ends up downloading it.

I'll admit it's a cloudy issue, and people making copies of their own CDs & DVDs isn't something the industry should really care about, it's the distribution that's the problem.

This too. My mate downloads CAMS and watches them on his huge projector screen. Boggles the mind that someone would spend so much on AV kit and then play the absolute crappest quality content through it.

That's true, but also, you know how industries get when not only are they NOT making money off something, but some one else is. They go a bit overboard with things, trying to get people put in prison where they face sentences worse than had they gone and assaulted some one.

Money centric, that's the "crux" of the matter.

Like the ridiculous sentences people get for tax evasion etc.

People doing the uploading are still the people they should be targeting though, as I said earlier, if I was copying DVDs and giving them out to people on a stand, I'd be the one to get in to trouble, not the people receiving them, which is right really.

For example, there was this one stand in my city center, where they had hundreds of what look like legitimate DVDs, but their original cases had been destroyed, like factory seconds or something.

I bought a few at a pound each, and they were identical to their boxed versions. They had been pressed, not burnt, and had the correct "Image" on the topside of the discs, basically identical to their retail counterparts.

It wasn't until a few weeks later that I saw the volume of each disk they had, it looked like they had 200 disc spindles of each movie under the counters.

They soon went, and I haven't seen them for years now.

My point anyway, those people who bought them, should also be getting in to trouble over them as well as those selling them if we go by the logic of a lot of people around here.

 

[kylew]

if you watch CAMS you need to be punched in the face

I agree, in fact, you should punch them yourself, you'd completely obliterate them.

As soon as you make contact, they'd disintegrate!

 

[starfighter]

They can impliment this if they also make DRM illegal.

 

[mollymoo]

They can impliment this if they also make DRM illegal.

Hehe a heavily debated subject already.

 

[Dolph]

They can impliment this if they also make DRM illegal.

Like I said, I'm happy for that, providing they make copyright infringment a criminal matter (after clearly stating and enforcing fair use rights).

 

[Hairybudda]

Okay what if my friend comes over to my place for a few beers and to watch a DVD and forgets to bring it so now we decide to download and watch a rip we found on the net and delete it afterwards, are we in the right because he owns the DVD at home or are we in the wrong because we downloaded it to watch?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

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.

A valid point. Until BB speeds increase massively, it will remain a minority. Even the thought of a BR sized download makes me QQ

 

[SGCWill]

I do not understand some things.

Did all of you obtain permission of the copyright owner of all your sigs - even though you took the picture and modified it for a different use?

What is the difference between going to a site and downloading a torrent of a movie or someone taking a screenshot (of a legally purchased dvd) and uploading it to the internet for..Lets say the "guess the movie" thread or wallpapers/backgrounds/skins - As far as I know, there is none if you get technical - you do not have permission from the original copyrighter therefore you are commiting a crime!

Now then - If you're on the internet you automatically download copyrighted materials (stored in your cache) in the first place - if they take your pc then am I to assume that I will get severely fined for just visiting websites.

There can be no automatic blocking service until it can accurately decide between legal downloading and illegal download. This is not something that can be done without a)monitoring download and upload streams of EVERY connection b)using common sense to sort out legal from illegal.

The only other way is to monitor a much smaller area and do random location changes.

What about personal details? Company secrets?

Doing this fairly and in a way that will not encroach upon our 'human rights' is not possible therefore we will have to sacrifice some privacy to do it.

I usually ignore this topic, but I'd hate to see a world where there is no freedom of information and I have to ask every tom dick and harry for permission to see a picture he took, or story he wrote.

 

[Reality|Bites]

A government spokesman described internet access as a basic human right a couple of months ago. How does this fit in with a 'three strike' policy? And why are the government weighing in on this? Surely this is a matter of concern for the copyright holders.

Less products being bought in shops meaning less TAX being paid to the Government.

 

[grudas]

it will cost more to get the system going (if they ever will lol) than lose a few mills thorough the year..