BT & Talk Talk lose Appeal

[Fubsy]

You didn't quote all of my text, so I've done it for you again.

No need, as the rest of your post is wrong.

It is having a COPY of something without the artists/producer/publisher etc permission. It is not taking anything, from anyone, in a physical sense and denying them of that object, which is what stealing is. Now I have joined the many people to point this out to you, not that it will make any sense to you.

 

[Haggisman]

It's copyright infringement and taking something which you haven't paid for, no matter what way you try and dress it up with armchair lawyer speak.

So what relevance does this have:

It's akin to paying a thief access to his lock up to take whatever items you feel like.

?

Given that your previous post was about no figures being available on piracy, you've just contradicted yourself there by trying to make up numbers.

Not really - more like making the point that since there are no figures to back up either of our claims, there is no point in even mentioning them.

Pirated anything yourself?
Or downloaded pirated material?

Yup

Actually, thinking about it, I frequently "pirate" material, as whenever I buy a CD I rip it to MP3 so I can play it on my phone.

But by renting it, you are still interested in it.

Not sure I get your point here - I'm not buying it, I stated I might rent it a few years down the line, when, lets face it, the publishers aren't going to care and will probably get pennies (if anything) from it.

Again you are talking about a game, which started online with a tiny team. This same method can't be applied every other sector of the industry.

Because the big players in the industry are giant lumbering fossils with no grasp of what the current market actually wants.

What's that got to do with anything?

The encryption software is managed by the projector company, such as Dolby. The software and hardware used to created a DCDM comes from them, they then generate an encryption key for each cinema.

You talking about encryption being expensive. It doesn't need to be.

As I've said numerous times now, there is nothing in place yet as to how this will even be managed. So you can't just make claims that loads of innocent people will be disconnected.

I never said they will, I said it's a possibility, which is far more accurate than your claim that it wont happen.

 

[Tediore]

It is having a COPY of something without the artists/producer/publisher etc permission. It is not taking anything, from anyone, in a physical sense and denying them of that object, which is what stealing is.

I'm surprised nobody has made the copyright infringement versus theft argument using the subject of this debate.

Theft: Walking into a store and physically taking the DVD/CD/game, and therefore denying that store the ability to sell the product.

Copyright infringement: Downloading said DVD/CD/game from a torrent site. The store still has its physical copy, which it can sell to a customer. You can't say it's a lost sale with 100% certainty, because that person may not have purchased the item if it weren't available on torrent sites. It is potential loss of revenue, but there's absolutely no way to prove that it's a lost sale.

 

[Nexus]

Actually, thinking about it, I frequently "pirate" material, as whenever I buy a CD I rip it to MP3 so I can play it on my phone.

You know what I mean't...

Not sure I get your point here - I'm not buying it, I stated I might rent it a few years down the line, when, lets face it, the publishers aren't going to care and will probably get pennies (if anything) from it.

My point was that as your original post alluded, there are people who try and justify taking a pirated copy because the Developer/Publisher/Content Creator hasn't changed the product as much as they would like, so don't see why they should have to pay for it.

You talking about encryption being expensive. It doesn't need to be.

I never said encryption was expensive... I said distribution was expensive.

 

[stockhausen]

I'm surprised nobody has made the copyright infringement versus theft argument using the subject of this debate. ...

Actually, they have, repeatedly. Every time this debate arises, in whatever forum, people always trot out the same lame old excuses.

No matter how you look at it, some thieving ****** will claim that they don't agree with the pricing policies of musicians, developers, producers or whoever and that they are quite entitled to benefit from someone else's labour without paying - "Because they can".


These same people would probably also happily clean-out someone's lost wallet or purse because if they didn't do so, somebody else would and it would all be the same for the poor unfortunate loser - sickening dishonesty and lack of morals really

 

[ubersonic]

But like I said, what about the smaller people?

For example, the small team that develops some kind of program or app, only for it to be shared on P2P sites. Put yourself in their shoes.

They probably don't care, back in the early 90's John Carmack of iD software (tiny company then) went on record to say that he didn't care about the registered copies of Doom/Wolf3d floating around on the net because the people downloading them would almost certainly never have forked out the cash to register the shareware episode anyway.

 

[ubersonic]

Actually, they have, repeatedly. Every time this debate arises, in whatever forum, people always trot out the same lame old excuses.

Piracy is know to make more profit for the music/gaming industry than it costs, fact. Its benefits to the movie industry are debatable however.

 

[krooton]

stockhausen in cliched, sensationalist attempt to bait with wholly inaccurate generalisation shocker.

 

[Tediore]

Actually, they have, repeatedly. Every time this debate arises, in whatever forum, people always trot out the same lame old excuses.

I know the point has been made, but using Ferraris and such as examples, which is harder to relate to the subject matter than a DVD or game. I just don't get how people can argue that they're the same thing, so either some people aren't as well-informed as they like to think they are, or they're being deliberately obtuse.

Repeatedly is the key word here. This thread has just been four or five pages of the same few people beating their respective dead horses...

How do you guys feel about the used game market then? All this effort is being made to go after pirates, but the used game market is surely as, if not more damaging to the games industry than piracy?

I'd also still like to hear some opinions on the topic of downloading TV shows you have technically already paid for with a TV licence/Sky, etcetera.

 

[ubersonic]

I'd also still like to hear some opinions on the topic of downloading TV shows you have technically already paid for with a TV licence/Sky, etcetera.

You know that if you record a TV show via old school VHS or some HDD job that your only allowed to view it once before erasing it and its only to be for personal use yeah? its basically a catch up thing. Lending a mate a VHS containing a show you recorded of TV was still a copyright offense even in the old days.

 

[Tediore]

You know that if you record a TV show via old school VHS or some HDD job that your only allowed to view it once before erasing it and its only to be for personal use yeah? its basically a catch up thing. Lending a mate a VHS containing a show you recorded of TV was still a copyright offense even in the old days.

I should probably be more specific. I know how the law views it, but what about from a moral point of view? Do the people who claim to live completely and utterly within the law see this in the same light as pirating a game or DVD, for example?

 

[Haggisman]

These same people would probably also happily clean-out someone's lost wallet or purse because if they didn't do so, somebody else would and it would all be the same for the poor unfortunate loser - sickening dishonesty and lack of morals really

Lol Mockhausen

You know what I mean't...

My point was that as your original post alluded, there are people who try and justify taking a pirated copy because the Developer/Publisher/Content Creator hasn't changed the product as much as they would like, so don't see why they should have to pay for it.

I never said encryption was expensive... I said distribution was expensive.

I give up. You're making the same mistakes as everyone else in the industry, which is failing to see that the best way to tackle piracy is to give people what they want, rather than punishing them for not wanting what you're offering.

 

[krooton]

I give up. You're making the same mistakes as everyone else in the industry, which is failing to see that the best way to tackle piracy is to give people what they want, rather than punishing them for not wanting what you're offering.

Indeed, imagine if other industries did the same.

Clearly the public is looking for reasonably sized boxes of cereal that don't contain so much that half the box goes stale before they can get to it... so lets just push the price of our over-sized boxes higher.

Hhmmm... no one is interested in our new 3-wheel Ford Crapstick concept car. Lets make all our other models not able to access fifth gear until the owner purchases one.

 

[FoxEye]

A) Punish legitimate users.
B) Push pirates to an alternative source.
C) Waste money which could otherwise be spent on actually fixing the problem.

It's amazing that people miss the "actual problem" altogether.

None of you have a "human right" to get what you want. I might paint a masterpiece and hang it in my bedroom. I might choose to have two viewing days a year where people can pay me to see it (just imagine I can actually paint for a second).

For 363 days of the year, the painting hangs in my bedroom. It's visible from my bedroom window, which in turn is visible from my neighbours kitchen. It is my express wish - as the content creator - that people only view my painting on my terms (two days a year, by paying me).

However my neighbour offers an on demand service to view my painting from his kitchen using his binoculars. He's also set up a camera with a zoom lens and is selling prints of my painting against my wishes.

His operation isn't causing me substantial loss because I'm just not providing a viewing service. Yet what he is doing has no justification, and is wrong.

My wishes, as the content creator, are the wishes that must take precedence. I don't care how many people are knocking on my neighbours door to see it and buy prints. Or how much money I'd make if I did year-round viewings and HD prints.

They do NOT have the right to take something even if there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain it.

And this is the rub.

We do not have the right to consume content just because we want it.

If you do not want to buy something - or use a LEGAL service even if it doesn't meet your requirements fully - you do NOT get to consume it, unless you are utterly selfish and just want your own way.

 

[Haggisman]

It's amazing that people miss the "actual problem" altogether.

None of you have a "human right" to get what you want. I might paint a masterpiece and hang it in my bedroom. I might choose to have two viewing days a year where people can pay me to see it (just imagine I can actually paint for a second).

For 363 days of the year, the painting hangs in my bedroom. It's visible from my bedroom window, which in turn is visible from my neighbours kitchen. It is my express wish - as the content creator - that people only view my painting on my terms (two days a year, by paying me).

However my neighbour offers an on demand service to view my painting from his kitchen using his binoculars. He's also set up a camera with a zoom lens and is selling prints of my painting against my wishes.

His operation isn't causing me substantial loss because I'm just not providing a viewing service. Yet what he is doing has no justification, and is wrong.

My wishes, as the content creator, are the wishes that must take precedence. I don't care how many people are knocking on my neighbours door to see it and buy prints. Or how much money I'd make if I did year-round viewings and HD prints.

They do NOT have the right to take something even if there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain it.

And this is the rub.

We do not have the right to consume content just because we want it.

If you do not want to buy something - or use a LEGAL service even if it doesn't meet your requirements fully - you do NOT get to consume it, unless you are utterly selfish and just want your own way.

At the same time, you can hardly be surprised if the scenario you've just described occurs.

You also can't deny that the best way to prevent people illegally buying prints off your neighbour it is to sell your own prints of the painting.

I don't think anyone here is arguing the rights and wrongs of piracy - we're more highlighting the flaws in the current methods of tackling it, and suggesting alternatives.