BT & Talk Talk lose Appeal

[krooton]

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.

I know, but it's the ads that pay the station to be able to buy rights to air the program in question.

A program with high ratings can charge networks more as ad revenue is higher as more people watch the show. This why 4OD and ITVPlayer still have ads.

Rather than use those low bitrate services, I could just record the HD broadcast straight to PVR without any ads. The end result is the same as me downloading HD rips of the show from the internet.

Ban all the PVRs!!

 

[Nexus]

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.

Well a number of forum users have already made it quite clear that because said services don't offer what they want, then and now, that they get it illegally instead. It's rhetorical though, of course they don't have the right, but it shows how a whole new culture has developed in that in the past if you couldn't afford something, or weren't sure, you there didn't have it. Now a culture exists of either not being able to afford it, or wishing to pay for it and then taking it for free.... then trying to justify it with all kinds of rhetoric about it being the fault of the people creating the media that's forced the to have to do so.

Of course companies will have to adapt with the times... but why can't they also try and stamp out piracy where they can?

Or is it just that by doing so, it means that you can't get hold of pirated material so much, so that's what's got your goat?

 

[paradisiac]

I must admit, since signing up to netflix, and with steam, greenmangaming, origin.........I haven't had the need to download. yes Netflix doesn't have a huge catalogue, and its not got loads of HD content, but its enough to keep me going. and with the amount of patches that get released (FM12) on steam and the likes to make cracking harder, it just seems pointless having an illegal copy.
I see why people do it, if a large company decided to setup a streaming site in HD with a huge catalogue at a small price, then less piracy would go on. but it would still go on, as different regions get different content at different times, so unless some law comes in that states a film has to be released in every region at the same time, then there will always be a need to get something illegally.

as for ISPs being made to control it, well I think that's wrong, surely the companies should make their stuff less easy to pirate I know this is naive, but money spent on offering a service people are willing to pay for does seem like a better solution, but piracy will never stop.

 

[Nexus]

I know, but it's the ads that pay the station to be able to buy rights to air the program in question.

A program with high ratings can charge networks more as ad revenue is higher as more people watch the show. This why 4OD and ITVPlayer still have ads.

Rather than use those low bitrate services, I could just record the HD broadcast straight to PVR without any ads. The end result is the same as me downloading HD rips of the show from the internet.

Ban all the PVRs!!

Media Sales who are selling the ad spaces and their clients know full well that the potential audience for a show may be skipping the ad breaks... but let's rule out the PVRs for a minute and remind ourselves that ever since ad breaks began, people have been going off to the toilet or to make a cup of tea, so nothing much has changed.

 

[Haggisman]

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

lol mockhausen! Suspect away, I do actually work for a software developer, however we ensure that the product we offer is far more valuable to customers when obtained legitimately and backed up by the various support and advice options we offer.

In other words we provide a service which is worth paying for - that's all I'm trying to argue for. Media companies need to realise that if they don't provide the services people want, someone else will, instead of trying to cling onto the archaic and outdated business model of traditional retail sales.

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.

The same as LoveFilm.

You can't compare a legal rental service to a company offering a monthly subscription to access illegal material.

Except they provide an identical service.

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?

I never said it was justified, but it will happen, and if the media companies refuse to provide the service, then someone else will, and they have only themselves to blame.

Also please could you stop using the word "free" when you've already stated they pay for it.

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?

I'd love to pay an extra £5-£10/month on my LoveFilm subscription for unlimited HD streaming. Unfortunately they don't provide this service so I can't (and in fact, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a legal service which does so).

As I said, the media companies have only themselves to blame when they fail to fill a hole in the market, which they are arguably best placed to fill.

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?

You asked me to explain how a person could have interest in media they weren't intending to purchase. I gave some examples which did so.

 

[krooton]

Media Sales who are selling the ad spaces and their clients know full well that the potential audience for a show may be skipping the ad breaks... but let's rule out the PVRs for a minute and remind ourselves that ever since ad breaks began, people have been going off to the toilet or to make a cup of tea, so nothing much has changed.

So then why is downloading tv shows bad? Lets ignore films, music and games for a moment.

 

[Martini1991]

This is the constant poor argument from people who pirate (I'm not suggesting you are).

Just because you don't like the price, doesn't mean you can therefore have it for free.

I could say that I've always wanted a Ferrari... I don't agree with the price for it though, so it's ok if I go and steal one right?

Copy it then.

 

[aln]

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'm a software developer and I don't consider is stealing, because it's not.

That doesn't mean that it's not a morally wrong thing to do, just that it's not the same as you coming and taking my laptop because afterwards I'd have no laptop.

 

[Haggisman]

So then why is downloading tv shows bad? Lets ignore films, music and games for a moment.

This is a good argument.

Say I forget to set my Sky+ to record an episode of my favourite series one week. Why would I then be classed as a pirate for torrenting it the next day?

Copy it then.

Apparently it's the same thing

 

[Nexus]

The same as LoveFilm.
Except they provide an identical service.

The service in theory shares the similarity in that they give you access to films, but I'm sure they all host plenty of other copyright infringed material, such as games, music, programmes, apps etc.

That is where the similarities end, it's not a legal service, none of the copyright holders are getting any part of it.

Also please could you stop using the word "free" when you've already stated they pay for it.

What?

Perhaps go look up the definition of the word and rethink that one eh?

Further to that, why do you keep hanging up on them paying for it. They are only paying a fee because it gives them access to illegal material that they can download and keep forever, they are not paying for the content, nor is the content on it actually even advertised as part of the 'service'.

To compare it back to LoveFilm, you can stream or rent the discs as a rental service based on what they currently have in their library. At no point am I keeping those forever.

I'd love to pay an extra £5-£10/month on my LoveFilm subscription for unlimited HD streaming. Unfortunately they don't provide this service so I can't (and in fact, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a legal service which does so).

Netflix does.
LoveFilm no doubt will in future.

It's here that the entitlement factor comes in again. Unless you live on an oil rig or something, you likely could buy a film, rent it from a store, or wait for LoveFilm to deliver it... instead you would rather take it for free.

As I said, the media companies have only themselves to blame when they fail to fill a hole in the market, which they are arguably best placed to fill.

And if piracy continues to grow without attempts to stop it, less content is produced, so who wins?

 

[Vulcan]

And if piracy continues to grow without attempts to stop it, less content is produced, so who wins?

Are you defending this law Nexus, a law that allows innocent people to become disconnected?

 

[Nexus]

Are you defending this law Nexus, a law that allows innocent people to become disconnected?

My argument this whole time has been about people justifying piracy.

Inregards to the law, do I think it's a good thing for people to wrongly be disconnected... of course not.

However, as I've already said once in this thread... the two ISPs at the centre of this current case are fighting against having to police it themselves. As it currently stands, they have made no provision as to how they would actually tackle the situation.

If you were wrongly disconnected, I'm sure you could ultimately appeal it and they would be foolish to disconnect people without some kind of warning/strike system and clear reasoning as to why. If they do pass the law, then the only person who really should be in fear are those who persistently download illegal torrents and similar.

If you keep your nose clean, what is there to fear?

 

[krooton]

How do they tell legal torrents from illegal ones?

A 1080p rip of Avatar could just be labelled as a Linux distro in a password protected zip file.

The only way to prove it is illegal is to acquire the password and download it, making you a perpetrator of the crime.

 

[Djwayne]

As I said, the media companies have only themselves to blame when they fail to fill a hole in the market, which they are arguably best placed to fill.

And if piracy continues to grow without attempts to stop it, less content is produced, so who wins?

Seems its a self fullfilling prophecy if the media companies introduced a better service than the illegal options available then piracy would decline and their revenues would go up , if they continue to litigate rather than innovate then all they will do is alienate their customer base and encourage people to access content the way they want it albeit illegally.

I always thought the most successful way to run a business was listen to your customers and give them what they want. Obviously the media industry feel they are above this principle and believe that customers have to accept the inferior way that they choose to deliver content or go without and with current technology thats naivety bordering on stupidity.

 

[Vulcan]

If you keep your nose clean, what is there to fear?

Because of course the innocent never get accused.

 

[Haggisman]

The service in theory shares the similarity in that they give you access to films, but I'm sure they all host plenty of other copyright infringed material, such as games, music, programmes, apps etc.

That is where the similarities end, it's not a legal service, none of the copyright holders are getting any part of it.

And the fact that it's not a legal service is the only difference

If there was a legal service which provided the same content for a comparable cost, which service do you think people would prefer to use?

The only reason many people pay for an illegal service to provide the content they want is because the legal option doesn't exist.

What?

Perhaps go look up the definition of the word and rethink that one eh?

You repeatedly state that they pay for it, therefore it is by its very nature not "free".

Further to that, why do you keep hanging up on them paying for it. They are only paying a fee because it gives them access to illegal material that they can download and keep forever, they are not paying for the content, nor is the content on it actually even advertised as part of the 'service'.

I'm "hanging up" on them paying for it, because you keep stating that people would rather get something for free than pay for it, and then in the same breath state that they are paying for it. Either it's free or they are paying for it, like I said before, it cannot be both.

Of course the content is advertised as part of the service - do you really think people would pay for nothing?

With regards to "they are not paying for the content" well, this is the same as with any rental service, you don't pay for the media/content you consume you are paying for the service. In the same way that when I pay my Lovefilm subscription, I'm not paying for the blu-rays, games and films I rent, I'm paying for the LoveFilm service.

To compare it back to LoveFilm, you can stream or rent the discs as a rental service based on what they currently have in their library. At no point am I keeping those forever.

And with a LoveFilm subscription, I could arguably keep the discs for as a long as I wanted also.

Netflix does.
LoveFilm no doubt will in future.

The HD selection on Netflix is minimal, and while LoveFilm may offer HD in the future, until they do, people who wish to watch HD content on demand will be forced to use illegal services, no matter how much they wish to pay for or use legal services.

It's here that the entitlement factor comes in again. Unless you live on an oil rig or something, you likely could buy a film, rent it from a store, or wait for LoveFilm to deliver it... instead you would rather take it for free.

Actually I'd rather pay to legally stream it in HD, but that option isn't available so it's down to the next best thing.

And if piracy continues to grow without attempts to stop it, less content is produced, so who wins?

There's nothing wrong with attempts to stop piracy, it's just that the majority of attempts are all stick and no carrot.

If you keep your nose clean, what is there to fear?

Because no one's ever been falsely or mistakenly accused of something they haven't done before?

 

[FoxEye]

I love how people on this site think they are superior

I think you just alienated 90% of the posters here

 

[stockhausen]

tldr

I take it that you would be perfectly happy if I "paid" someone to burgle your home?

 

[Haggisman]

I take it that you would be perfectly happy if I "paid" someone to burgle your home?

If they didn't damage any of my things (copyright infringement doesn't cause any quantifiable damage to the copyright holder) and didn't deprive me of any of my property (copyright infringement doesn't deprive anyone of any property) then I wouldn't have any problem with it.

 

[FoxEye]

If they didn't damage any of my things (copyright infringement doesn't cause any quantifiable damage to the copyright holder) and didn't deprive me of any of my property (copyright infringement doesn't deprive anyone of any property) then I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Loss of ability to generate income should be seen as *the same* as loss of property.

And indeed should be punished in the same way. After all, if you had more money, you could buy more stuff.