Mininova deletes all illegal material

krooton · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:38

vonhelmet said:
The organised copyright infringement scene is an embarrassment for those of us with any respect for the law.

I have no problem breaking a law if I have morally justified it to myself and it isn't to the detriment of any one else.

But that's just me.

Johnnytoxic · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:38

Newsgroups I'm 99% sure will never go away.

The data on newsgroup servers is just junk. It's the newsreader that makes sense of it all.

Al Vallario · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:39

kgi said:
To take this even further, a company doesn't sell something in UK because for any reason they don't want to. That doesn't justify "your" actions as you don't have any 'rights' to buy it irrespective of where it is sold.

Don't confuse your wants with your needs.

This is granted. However, the point is not that an individual has a right to seek copyrighted material via means of infringement when it is not otherwise available to them, but that the copyright holders do not have a right to claim damages, or indeed any harm against themselves, when such an act takes place.

Thus there is no reason not to conflate necessity with desire in these cases. The person who downloads the material derives enjoyment from it, and there is no cost to the copyright holder. From a moral perspective, is this not the most desirable outcome?

Vonhelmet · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:41

Al Vallario said:
This is granted. However, the point is not that an individual has a right to seek copyrighted material via means of infringement when it is not otherwise available to them, but that the copyright holders do not have a right to claim damages, or indeed any harm against themselves, when such an act takes place.

Thus there is no reason not to conflate necessity with desire in these cases. The person who downloads the material derives enjoyment from it, and there is no cost to the copyright holder. From a moral perspective, is this not the most desirable outcome?

The problem is, at risk of invoking a slippery slope fallacy, if everyone downloaded stuff no one would get paid.

Johnnytoxic · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:42

krooton said:
My brief relationship was Usenet saw me constantly struggling to find an entire series of a show without there being a bunch of files missing, so I gave up..

Pars are your friend.

HEADRAT · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:43

vonhelmet said:
The problem is, at risk of invoking a slippery slope fallacy, if everyone downloaded stuff no one would get paid.

Isn't there a report that shows that people that download music actually buy more music.

<found it>

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

so yeah your premiss would seem to to be completely flawed

Sawell · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:44

vonhelmet said:
The problem is, at risk of invoking a slippery slope fallacy, if everyone downloaded stuff no one would get paid.

This is true. Old people aren't going to be around forever, and without them to be the main market for actually buying media we're in trouble.

Xon · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:45

[TW]Fox;15407343 said:
Some people use these sites to download material they have no way of buying. TV shows in the states for example - I'm sure many people would gladly pay to watch them but the opportunity is not there.

So true! I live in Malta and we get nothing!

I would pay for a subscription given the chance but currently we are stuck with a company that has a monopoly and provides us with:

1 crappy station that shows episodes ages later @ standard definition that has been converted to 4:3 from 16:9 and no surround what so ever (not even stereo)! After having spent quite a bit on my cinema room it's a pain to even switch on the decoder! Not to mention the lovely price of 55sterling a month for this crap.

Turtles · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:47

HEADRAT said:
http://www.newzbin.com/

prefer nzbmatrix, cheaper as well.

Al Vallario · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:47

vonhelmet said:
The problem is, at risk of invoking a slippery slope fallacy, if everyone downloaded stuff no one would get paid.

This bears a closer resemblance to the fallacy of composition than a slippery slope fallacy. Such a situation would only be made possible if copyright holders opted to make their material available to no one at all.

The case in point is one in which copyrighted material is not actually available to a consumer in a given market via any means other than copyright infringement. In neglecting to make their material available as such, the copyright holders have themselves removed any potential for income from that market from the outset.

Vonhelmet · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:47

HEADRAT said:
Isn't there a report that shows that people that download music actually buy more music.

<found it>

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

so yeah your premiss would seem to to be completely flawed

There's not enough info on the study to be sure.

Given that the study hinges on people admitting to illegal activities, I'm somewhat suspicious.

HEADRAT · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:48

Then we need a better study not more litigation.

From my own experience I would say it was true.

Vonhelmet · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:49

Al Vallario said:
This bears a closer resemblance to the fallacy of composition than a slippery slope fallacy. Such a situation would only be made possible if copyright holders opted to make their material available to no one at all.

The case in point is one in which copyrighted material is not actually available to a consumer in a given market via any means other than copyright infringement. In neglecting to make their material available as such, the copyright holders have themselves removed any potential for income from that market from the outset.

Sure, in your example of people downloading unavailable things.

I'd bet that the majority of downloaders could in fact buy most things they are downloading.

Sawell · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:51

vonhelmet said:
Sure, in your example of people downloading unavailable things.

I'd bet that the majority of downloaders could in fact buy most things they are downloading.

No they can't. Their banks keep fining them.

HEADRAT · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:51

I think for many people it's a "try before you buy" approach.

They are still creaming the digital market as well, digital downloads of music should be much cheaper as than they are as there's no physical product etc.

stockhausen · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:58

Sawell said:
... I remember trying to explain the concept of newsgroups, usenet and SSL to a torrenter once. ...

Ooohhh, go on, do please explain to me the difference between newsgroups and usenet, please sir, please?

Sin_Chase · 27 Nov 2009 at 13:59

vonhelmet said:
The organised copyright infringement scene is an embarrassment for those of us with any respect for the law.

I am a law abiding/respecting citizen for the most part.

Copyright Infringement has no victim, no sale lost.

If I wanted to listen to music without it being available online, I would record it off the radio. If I could not record it off the radio I would not buy it.

Would I download an mp3? Yeah.
Would I shoplift? No.

For someone crying for people to get some perspective perhaps you should start yourself?

stockhausen · 27 Nov 2009 at 14:01

Sin_Chase said:
I am a law abiding/respecting citizen for the most part. ...

ROFL

How many crooks (or MPs come to that) have used that excuse?

Cosimo · 27 Nov 2009 at 14:01

Sawell said:
No they can't. Their banks keep fining them.

They can afford to pay their "fines" so they can afford to pay for copyrighted material.

fendi · 27 Nov 2009 at 14:03

downloading is wrong folks.

especially stuff like adobe master collection etc. save up your pennies and buy the stuff you are stealing

Mininova deletes all illegal material

Capodecina

Capodecina