And of course they conveniently ignore B, as that would actually highlight how flawed their business model actually is.
BT & Talk Talk lose Appeal
- Thread starter AMMUT
- Start date
And of course they conveniently ignore B, as that would actually highlight how flawed their business model actually is.
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?
Stop pretending to be ignorant, you know exactly what I mean...
I claimed the only item I didn't know about was the cost of how much it is to access sites which give you access to pirated material. I then just looked at prices and I was pretty much spot on for how much it costs.
They are paying for a service to get access to copyright protected material illegally for nothing, when it should be costing them the current price of that material. Does that make sense to you now?
As do I.
However, it's a service sanctioned to legally allow you to use the content and the relevant parties are taking their cut from it. It's totally different.
I don't doubt you that can be the case with music, but for every person who does that, there are thousands who won't. When you apply it to other media though, do you think the person who downloaded a rip of a Bluray is later going to go out and buy the genuine copy? Or the person who downloaded the cracked game or piece of software?
YET, person B still downloaded and consumed that media... thus they clearly had some interest in it. How do you explain that one away?
Agreed but there are a fair number of people who fall into catergory C who after hearing an album / watching a movie don't buy due to the quality some of the stuff being released now is rubbish.
and if i hear "The DVD event of the year" one more time this year am gonna scream
But they aren't getting access to it for nothing, as you've said they are paying for it! It can't be both
Again, using Lovefilm as an example, I don't pay anywhere near what would be the current price of that material if I were to procure it through other means. The fact that I (and you) are willing to pay for this, illustrates that if the service is made available, people will use it. Unfortunately if I was to want to watch HD quality video instead of the poor quality stream offered by LoveFilm, I have no realistic alternative than to download material illegally.
But my point is, it illustrates the fact that if there are sanctioned services in place, people will use them.
And you could say the same for:
"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."
Illegally downloaded compilation albums.
Friend suggests listen to "x" you might like it.
See/hear an advert on TV/radio/internet ad.
There are various explanations for it which are pretty obvious if you aren't trying to be deliberately obstructive.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Excellent thinking there bro . . .
. . . I have stolen something that I wasn't gonna buy so I really can't see why the owner should get bent out of shape about it
I guess that Tesco would look at it this way too
File sharing via p2p/torrents is not illegal. File sharing copyrighted material which you are not permitted to distribute, through any means, usually is though.
For example, using a torrent to grab your lastest linux.iso, is completely legal and actually a fairly nice thing to do. There is little difference between that and sharing a WoW patch.
On the other hand, using a torrent to grab the latest twilight could have you in hot water for distrubuting copyrighted content. The distinction is important.
Excellent thinking there bro . . .
. . . I have stolen something that I wasn't gonna buy so I really can't see why the owner should get bent out of shape about it
I guess that Tesco would look at it this way too
Lol mockhausen. Copyright infringement != stealing
Excellent thinking there bro . . .
. . . I have stolen something that I wasn't gonna buy so I really can't see why the owner should get bent out of shape about it
What? He was stating the types of pirates, not defending them or saying that person D don't understand why the owners would disagree with his actions.
Either way, he's still right. We shouldn't morally rip off content just because we can't have it at the price we specify, or during the timescales we want. We do not have a moral right to others works simply because we want it.
On the other hand, I suspect the media buisnesses would quickly go out of buisness if people did start to behave themselves. If we lived in a world where DRM actually worked, and we were forced to pay ridiculous prices, or go without, I can only envision a world where most of us go without; Instead we would consume consumer friendly material, and the market would shift.
What annoys me is the media companies aren't taking their fair cut. As far as I'm aware, they already take a cut on CD sales, and H/D sales in many countries, including our own. Well, theres your content paid for, it's unfair if you expect us to pay again. Any tracking, which I am against for reasons unrelated to file sharing, is somewhat encoraching on a right I feel we should have to not be under surveillance 24/7, a right we don't actually have, but I can dream. Finally, such tracking should come directly from the pockets of the people who wanted it, but no it's amazing we need to pay ourselves to remove our own privacy.
Last edited:
Excellent thinking there bro . . .
. . . I have stolen something that I wasn't gonna buy so I really can't see why the owner should get bent out of shape about it
To be honest, I have in the past downloaded films that looked like they might be entertaining to a degree, but not enough for me to part with my cash to watch. Watching them affirms my initial thought of them probably not being worth paying for, and I don't end up buying.
Even if I had not downloaded it, the net result remains. No sale.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I suspect that you might not feel that way if you happened to be a musician or did anything creative rather than churn out lame apologies for stealing music, games, software, films and TV shows
I don't understand what you are trying to preach here or where it's going over your head?
As I've stated a number of times now, they are paying to get access to illegally shared or hosted material. They are paying a fee to the the company who is making their profit from the distribution of copyright infringed material. At no point are they actually paying for the material itself.
You can't compare a legal rental service to a company offering a monthly subscription to access illegal material.
With LoveFilm, you are saying that because they don't offer HD streaming, it's therefore justified for you to download HD movies illegally. Before you start with the business model stuff again, where is it that this entitlement that just because it isn't available the way you want it, that you therfore have some kind of go given right to take it for free instead?
Which people are.
But there are thousands who would rather have a free lunch... if this wasn't the case, why would they even be trying to stop copyright protected material being distributed by P2P?
Your last part is a bit non sensical, what exactly are you trying to say?
That downloading an album illegally is the same as hearing it on the radio or seeing an advert for it on TV?
Are you also anti people who use PVRs to record shows currently airing, but without any ad-breaks and for them to watch when they want to?
It's pretty much the same as downloading said show from the internet to watch when you want to.
It's pretty much the same as downloading said show from the internet to watch when you want to.
Not this again.
You have no obligation to watch the adverts, even if you are watching a program live... hell you don't even have any obligation to watch the whole programme.
Except he isn't right, to use his example of Tesco, well, they don't create copyright material (unless you want to count logos/slogans etc. which aren't really relevant to the situation at hand), so I can only infer that he is (like several others in this thread) confusing theft (depriving the original owner) with copying (making a duplicate which does not affect the original owner in any way, shape or form).
While theft and copyright infringement/piracy do share some similarities, namely the procurement of goods without the owner's permission, the critical difference is that of deprivation - media companies use the argument that piracy is depriving them of sales, stating that "every download is a lost sale". When the pirate had no intention of ever buying the media in question, the deprivation component necessary for the act to be classed as theft is therefore no longer present.
Falsely stating that copyright infringement is theft, therefore is not only incorrect (and so weakens your argument), it also exaggerates the damage caused by the act of copyright infringement.
Last edited:
Yes they are comparable. They are both paid for services, one provides a superior service and is illegal, the other provides an inferior service but is legal. Provide a better service and the illegal operation will shrink.
As for a right to the end products, I don't think anyone here has stated they do have a right to it? However, as I said before, people do it because they can. Either the companies adapt to the times or die. They won't stop piracy with laws.