BT ordered to block pirate links

kylew said:
You're talking ridiculous technicalities though. The beginning and end result are the same thing, there's very little difference in what's happening, the simple fact that one situation has physical media present, where the other doesn't is completely beside the point.
Click to expand...

The difference is while I might lend my book to one or two friends your 'internet friend' is lending his copy to thousands of people. The other significant difference being that while my friend has my book I can't read it unlike your 'internet friend' who can still watch the origional DVD while thousands of other people can watch the copies simultaneously.

While yes in isolation you can say the two activities are the same the cumulative effect is entirely different and warrants a different response.
 
Hairybudda said:
So by letting your friend borrow and watch your dvd, you're depriving the company of money, therefore facilitating your interpretation of copyright infringement!
Click to expand...

Now you're into the technicalities of the actual license in question, and whether there is indeed a license at work. Media companies like you to "buy" media at times and to "license" it at others, depending on what suits their immediate ends.

If you license it, then they can stipulate that you can't lend it in the terms of the license. Is that enforceable? Not easily.

At other times, which I can't readily envisage off the top of my head, they prefer to sell you things, but if you have been sold a piece of media then you should be able to lend it, as then you own it. They often don't like this.
 
I can't wait to see them blocking off the M6, M1, M25 etc. as people illegally speed on them too. This is purely due to the UK's Commercial Law system sadly, Companies and Profits before people every time. It's all about the £££££££££'s :(
 
stockhausen said:
The DVD for which I paid MONEY!

Dear God, give me strength :rolleyes:


What to you may be just a 'ridiculous technicality' is money to the copyright owner.

If it is simply a 'ridiculous technicality', why don't you just go out and buy it? The end result to you would apparently be exactly the same and I imagine that the copyright owner would be perfectly happy.
Click to expand...

So it's ok for you to lend the dvd to an indeterminate number of friends to watch?

you ever watched the terms at the start of the dvd?

Where it says in quite big text "no unauthorized lending" ?

you're as much of a pirate as anyone else stocky.
 
nonhelmet said:
No, it's not. With physical media, only one person can enjoy the media at a time. With filesharing, multiple people can enjoy it at a time. There is obviously a difference.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point of it, it's about watching stuff you've not bought a license for. If your friend rips a DVD or Blu-ray movie, and you borrow said rip from friend, and delete it once you're done, there's very little difference between that and borrowing the original from a friend.

You're still watching a movie that you've not paid for, whether it's on a DVD or not is very beside the point, especially with regards to lolStockhausen's point of it being immoral and dishonest to download movies, yet borrowing it is perfectly fine. The end result is exactly the same.
 
Tefal said:
Where it says in quite big text "no unauthorized lending" ?
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem... These terms are utterly unenforceable. No one who buys a physical item that they can readily pass from their hands to another person's hands is going to accept that they can't "lend" something to someone, particularly when the historic precedent of things like books has never included such clauses. So the contract is implicitly unenforceable and becomes all but meaningless. Technology moves forward, and all of a sudden people can share things on a wide scale, and no one cares about any license terms because hey, they never cared before, so why bother caring now?
 
a1ex2001 said:
The difference is while I might lend my book to one or two friends your 'internet friend' is lending his copy to thousands of people. The other significant difference being that while my friend has my book I can't read it unlike your 'internet friend' who can still watch the origional DVD while thousands of other people can watch the copies simultaneously.

While yes in isolation you can say the two activities are the same the cumulative effect is entirely different and warrants a different response.
Click to expand...

My argument isn't centred around the point of distribution, it's about the differences between borrowing a movie from a friend, and downloading a ripped version. The end result is almost identical, yet one lolStockhausen considers immoral and dishonest, and the other fine. As has also been pointed out, they try to claim lending itself is "illegal" and not allowed too.
 
kylew said:
That wasn't the point of it, it's about watching stuff you've not bought a license for. If your friend rips a DVD or Blu-ray movie, and you borrow said rip from friend, and delete it once you're done, there's very little difference between that and borrowing the original from a friend.
Click to expand...

But if you've lent it simultaneously to many people, and you still have it yourself, then clearly there is a difference.

Look at it this way. In the extreme case, it would be possible for one person to buy a DVD and upload it for the entire world to watch. Would this be OK? Clearly in this case, revenue would have been lost, because only one DVD would have been sold.

But where's the line? And what's the solution? That's the question.
 
nonhelmet said:
I'm sure he's not, but was the holocaust technically murder? I don't think it would meet the criteria.

Anyway. This is feeding a troll, so best leave it be.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? It wasn't murder because "war was declared"? So if I declare war on a group of people and go and kill them, it's okay and not murder?

All the jews killed weren't fighting in a war, in a jewish army against Nazi Germany, and lost their lives that way. Are you really being serious? :confused:
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Yes, it does. Hence the charges brought against the leaders and officers of the Nazi party.
Click to expand...

Good point. Consider my comments redacted.

kylew said:
Wait, what? It wasn't murder because "war was declared"? So if I declare war on a group of people and go and kill them, it's okay and not murder?
Click to expand...

Of course it wouldn't be OK, but it might be a war crime rather than murder. Semantics, perhaps?

kylew said:
All the jews killed weren't fighting in a war, in a jewish army against Nazi Germany, and lost their lives that way. Are you really being serious? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm being serious, but it seems I'm also being wrong. See my comments above to Jestar.
 
Last edited:
Bry said:
Over 18 million people in france are file sharing as it is, that is 27% of the population.

Do you honestly think over a quarter of the population should be given a criminal record? Do you think are justice system could cope prosecuting so many people?

Surely, if enough people do something and think it to be ok to do then laws need to adapt rather than enforce.
Click to expand...

No and it's not. As it would only be offences after the law was brought it.

It's like saying when drink driving was illegalised, it would make most car drivers criminals. Did it? Of course not.
You still have to get caught and charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom