BT & Talk Talk lose Appeal

[Linkex]

I just wish people who come clean and say "I download pirated material, I don't like this potential new bill because it means it stops me from doing so".

Rather than the constant excuses and false justification as to why illegal file sharing is justified.

Your assumption is wrong. Copyright infringement is already a civil offence, there is already a path to restitution for media people more interested in litigating than innovating. The objection to this law is that it WILL lead innocent people to be disconnected in exactly the same way that innocent people have been threatened with litigation in the past.

If you believe that the only people who object to this are pirates then you either do not understand what is being discussed here, or you are willing to accept a law that would allow you to be punished as a criminal, simply because you are accused. If the former, then I suggest you do some reading on this dangerous law. If the later, and you truly understand the risks and ramifications of this law, and still think the only ones who should be concerned are pirates, then I consider you of insufficient intelligence to debate with and will disregard any further posts from you, in this thread, that maintain this point of debate.

I have seen this argument used many times in defending this law, and that frankly concerns me that this outright lie is being so readily swallowed by the voting public.

 

[Andy]

Maybe one day the multimedia companies will see providing a good value service as the best solution to their problem.

They can only push piracy so far underground.

 

[Nexus]

Disk protection which prevents legitimate paying customers from running the software in question, installs malware and in some cases has even been suspected of damaging hardware (Starforce)

I've never heard of staforce before, what's it been used on?

Requirement for "always on" internet connection for offline play, preventing legitimate paying customers from playing if there is a problem with the publisher's servers (Assassin's Creed 2 and various other Ubisoft titles)

This was only with the PC release and was dropped with the latest sequel, so was clearly just an experiment that wasn't a good idea.

CD keys which have been used by people working in game shops, which the legitimate paying customer tries to activate and is unable to.

Take it back to the shop then.
I'd also add that this practise isn't so common anymore because the days of 14 day no quibbles return policies and such are long gone.

You've just stated people are willing to pay for it - do you not think these people would be perfectly happy to pay for a legitimate copy of the material if it was available?

I'd imagine the people who pay for access to such sites are paying a tiny fee a month, I've never looked, so I've got no idea what it actually is. However, there is no way any single outlet is going to be able to have every single item in the world available for download. The only reason people are paying is because it means they can download everything they want for free for likely the cost of one album a month, if that.

Your analogy is completely irrelevant, as theft and piracy are two completely different crimes

Again, pedantic, it's still stealing regardless.

 

[sxndy]

Seems to me that that those that have an interest in squeezing every penny out of a song, movie or software have a never seen before in history tool to access a global market of 2b people and growing.

Pity they waste their time greedly trying to plug the wrong holes in a proverbial sieve when they could be using market tools to profit from what they see as the copywrite internet monster.

BTW, went to see ghost rider with my girl the other night, cost £26 (we shared a hotdog), wasn't worth it. I wouldn't have felt ripped off if I had been able to stream/download it for a £5 through legit means tho.

 

[RomanNose]

Where has innocent until proven guilty gone?

 

[Nexus]

Your assumption is wrong. Copyright infringement is already a civil offence, there is already a path to restitution for media people more interested in litigating than innovating. The objection to this law is that it WILL lead innocent people to be disconnected in exactly the same way that innocent people have been threatened with litigation in the past.

If you believe that the only people who object to this are pirates then you either do not understand what is being discussed here, or you are willing to accept a law that would allow you to be punished as a criminal, simply because you are accused. If the former, then I suggest you do some reading on this dangerous law. If the later, and you truly understand the risks and ramifications of this law, and still think the only ones who should be concerned are pirates, then I consider you of insufficient intelligence to debate with and will disregard any further posts from you, in this thread, that maintain this point of debate.

I have seen this argument used many times in defending this law, and that frankly concerns me that this outright lie is being so readily swallowed by the voting public.

I've actually not said much about the bill at all in this thread if you read back through my posts. My main argument has been that of how people are trying to justify piracy because they don't agree with other methods of purchasing and how that means they have the 'right' to take something for free.

The two ISPs involved in this case are trying to fight it and have made no provisions as to how they would actually deal with this yet.

At the end of the day, if you are downloading legitimate torrents (patches, creative commons rights, etc.) then you have little to fear, if you were disconnected wrongly I'm sure you could fight it. On the other hand, if you are downloading tons of copyrighted material everyday, why shouldn't you be punished?

 

[Linkex]

Again, pedantic, it's still stealing regardless.

Sorry, picking you up on this one - its not pedantic at all. Theft is where I take something from you and you are then down by that item, it is no longer yours and you cannot use or sell it.
Copyright infringement does not take anything away from you. You can of course argue that the artists is entitled to whatever they would have charged, for the item in question, but that is less clear cut.

I'm not arguing for or against here, but infringement and theft are two very different things, both morally and according to the law, and it is wrong to say that they are the same,

 

[Nexus]

Sorry, picking you up on this one - its not pedantic at all. Theft is where I take something from you and you are then down by that item, it is no longer yours and you cannot use or sell it.
Copyright infringement does not take anything away from you. You can of course argue that the artists is entitled to whatever they would have charged, for the item in question, but that is less clear cut.

I'm not arguing for or against here, but infringement and theft are two very different things, both morally and according to the law, and it is wrong to say that they are the same,

Well I do work in the film industry, so I could argue that you are taking something away from my livelihood.

It might not be taking something away from me, but it's still taking something from the legitimate copyright holder. If I was to steal from a Ferrari dealership, how is that different to taking something from the copyright holder without paying?

I await your armchair lawyer response, but I thought my posts were deemed of no intellectual value for debate, so you were ignoring me?

 

[feedtheram]

So we go back to the old fashioned way then...

Everyone and his dog has a mate with a hard-drive full of films and tv shows just waiting to be shared out. Sure it's not as convenient as doing it in your own home but most people will be able to get their hands on anything they want.

Another great example of an industry fighting change rather than embracing new technology to create new revenue streams.

 

[Muzy]

who gives a **** guys,

$80/yr on strong VPN or hide my ass will save you from those ****ed up protocols.

 

[Hagar]

Personally the ability to readily be able to download material from the internet at decent bandwidth has turned me from an occasional pirate of software into an totally legal user of everything on my computers.
A few years ago to obtain a copy of anything was usually a patched CD-R from a 'mate' due to lack of freely available freeware alternatives and bandwidth to download it.
Now if i want some software I will google the alternatives, download either freeware or purchase at online prices.
The same with music, although I am now back in vinyl territory so am not into digital downloads there.

To me the solution is not to cause a huge overhead at the ISP but for publishers to put there stuff online. There will always be those who do not see that they need to pay for anything due to our welfare state culture however the vast majority will pay a reasonable sum (which should be the same as the states), availability of film and music archives will make them billions.

 

[Djwayne]

Well I do work in the film industry, so I could argue that you are taking something away from my livelihood.

It might not be taking something away from me, but it's still taking something from the legitimate copyright holder. If I was to steal from a Ferrari dealership, how is that different to taking something from the copyright holder without paying?

I await your armchair lawyer response, but I thought my posts were deemed of no intellectual value for debate, so you were ignoring me?

You work in the film industry that explains a lot of your responses in this thread.

If you were to steal a car you would be depriving the owner of his / her car however if you took a copy of their car they would still have a car but you would have a copy too.

The copyright holders argument is all about revenue 1 illegal download = 1 lost sale which is complete rubbish, I have heard music has been downloaded which i have subsequently bought on the other hand I have heard others that I am thankful i didnt buy so it doesnt equate.

Give high quality on demand delivery of what people want and they will pay, piracy will still be there albeit greatly reduced and easier to detect in that case.

 

[Haggisman]

I've never heard of staforce before, what's it been used on?

There's a small list here: http://www.10-78.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8896

There's also SecuROM which is similar in that it installs Malware, and has various compatibility issues with some hardware.

It's been used for several games, some of which you may have heard of:

Bioshock
Mass Effect
Spore
C&C3
Dragon Age 2

This was only with the PC release and was dropped with the latest sequel, so was clearly just an experiment that wasn't a good idea.

Which surely evidences the fact that DRM is not the way forward?

Bear in mind, none of these forms of DRM affect the pirates, only the paying customer.

Take it back to the shop then.
I'd also add that this practise isn't so common anymore because the days of 14 day no quibbles return policies and such are long gone.

And the shop says "prove it?"

And again yes, this is no longer common - surely more evidence that this kind of DRM (which only affects paying customers) is not the way forward.

I'd imagine the people who pay for access to such sites are paying a tiny fee a month, I've never looked, so I've got no idea what it actually is. However, there is no way any single outlet is going to be able to have every single item in the world available for download. The only reason people are paying is because it means they can download everything they want for free for likely the cost of one album a month, if that.

And here you admit you don't actually have a clue about what it costs, what's available, how they work or any of the other relevant information - you are simply making assumptions and "imagining" about what is happening, and making judgements based on unfounded opinions and guesswork. This is exactly why bills and laws like this are able to be passed, because the majority of people are just like you with extremely strong and opinionated views on a subject where you freely admit you have no actual knowledge.

Again, pedantic, it's still stealing regardless.

Except it's not. Stealing deprives the owner of the original item, piracy/copyright infringement merely takes a copy.

Would you class it as stealing if you went into a Ferrari showroom and meticulously duplicated every component of one of the cars on show and then built your own Ferrari? As this is a far more accurate comparison.

 

[Nexus]

You work in the film industry that explains a lot of your responses in this thread.

If you were to steal a car you would be depriving the owner of his / her car however if you took a copy of their car they would still have a car but you would have a copy too.

The copyright holders argument is all about revenue 1 illegal download = 1 lost sale which is complete rubbish, I have heard music has been downloaded which i have subsequently bought on the other hand I have heard others that I am thankful i didnt buy so it doesnt equate.

Give high quality on demand delivery of what people want and they will pay, piracy will still be there albeit greatly reduced and easier to detect in that case.

That argument also doesn't work because there are plenty of people who will never buy what they've taken for free.

Regardless of the fact I work in the industry, doesn't change that the majority of posters in this thread are still just defending their piracy because they don't want to pay the prices, so it's alright for them to take for free.

 

[Djwayne]

That argument also doesn't work because there are plenty of people who will never buy what they've taken for free.

Regardless of the fact I work in the industry, doesn't change that the majority of posters in this thread are still just defending their piracy because they don't want to pay the prices, so it's alright for them to take for free.

On what basis are you making those assumptions?

There maybe people who wont pay for what they have taken but I doubt anyone would volunteer to pay retrospectively and admit illegal behaviour.

However as there hasn't been a legal alternative for people to use what does the industry expect , move with the times or get left behind and the still are not trying to implement anything that will satisfy their consumers.

And the fact that you work in the film induistry....

You wouldn't steal a car?.............

 

[Nexus]

And here you admit you don't actually have a clue about what it costs, what's available, how they work or any of the other relevant information - you are simply making assumptions and "imagining" about what is happening, and making judgements based on unfounded opinions and guesswork. This is exactly why bills and laws like this are able to be passed, because the majority of people are just like you with extremely strong and opinionated views on a subject where you freely admit you have no actual knowledge.

Well I was hardly far wrong with my assumptions was I...

Megaupload - $9.99
Newzbin - $3.50

So of course there are going to be those who will pay that tiny fee to be able to download all the material they want for nothing.

Would you class it as stealing if you went into a Ferrari showroom and meticulously duplicated every component of one of the cars on show and then built your own Ferrari? As this is a far more accurate comparison.

Well yes you likely would be stealing still because they no doubt have patents on various parts. That aside, it was only an example of how if you don't agree with the price of something, doesn't mean you can take it for free, which is exactly what is happening with piracy.

While people can argue all they want that they never intended to buy the product in the first place, there are still plenty who would have done, but would rather pay nothing instead.

 

[Vulcan]

defending their piracy because they don't want to pay the prices, so it's alright for them to take for free.

Doesn't matter what's right or wrong in the eyes of the law in this case, piracy is going to continue until the business model is changed. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Embrace modern technology, or fall behind.

 

[Hagar]

I have a spotify account for which I pay £4.99pcm and use to stream and listen to music and find music I want to buy (mainly on vinyl). I would pay the same for a film streaming site if I wanted to watch film however the choice of films available appears very limited.

 

[Haggisman]

tiny fee

for nothing.

what is this i don’t even

If you're going to argue about something you've freely admitted you don't know anything about, at least make up your mind up what you're arguing.

So are they paying for it, or getting it for nothing?

Megaupload - $9.99
Newzbin - $3.50

I pay £11/month for my LoveFilm subscription. That gives me unlimited downloads on their streaming service, and unlimited disk rentals. Does that mean I'm also downloading all the material I want for nothing?

Well yes you likely would be stealing still because they no doubt have patents on various parts. That aside, it was only an example of how if you don't agree with the price of something, doesn't mean you can take it for free, which is exactly what is happening with piracy.

Well, you may like to call it stealing, but legally it isn't. In all honesty you could call it whatever you want and that still wouldn't change what it actually is.

While people can argue all they want that they never intended to buy the product in the first place, there are still plenty who would have done, but would rather pay nothing instead.

And there are plenty who would have never heard of artist "x" had they not downloaded a track from them, and have then spent a lot of money on music, gigs and merchandise from artist "x", so to be honest your last point is moot.

 

[krooton]

That argument also doesn't work because there are plenty of people who will never buy what they've taken for free.

There are 4 types of copyright infringers:

A. Someone who would have purchased, downloads illegally, and then still purchases.
B. Someone who would not have purchased, downloads illegally, and then purchases.
C. Someone who would have purchased, downloads illegally, and then does not purchase.
D. Someone who would not have purchased, downloads illegally, and does not purchase.

Only C is a lost sale, yet media companies will say the sum of all 4 are lost sales in their predictions, as 1 download = 1 lost sale in their eyes.