however your details will probably also be sold onto marketing companies now too by the third party.
Sky Will Hand Over Customer Data In Movie Piracy Case
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
however your details will probably also be sold onto marketing companies now too by the third party.
If they streamed via the internet it would just get rid of cam rips and bluray rip releases.
There would be thousands of HD torrents on date of release.
Not that I know what a cam/bluray rip looks like mind
meh people probably thought the same thing about digital games.
Cities skylines was pirated within minutes.
look how many copies it sold anyway
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,307
Your ISP keeps records of who was assigned that IP address at that time, so they look up who was sharing the content on that address at that time and bam, letter in the post.
Letters and claims like this have been sent out on and off for years, not sure why anyone would be surprised by this.
Nailed it. It's a load of hot air.
This is just preying on the vulnerable. Just like all the telephone scams about having viruses on your pc. This company doesn't have a leg to stand on legally, but they'll bombarde the nation with nasty letters and if they get 1% coughing up their 'fine' then it'll have been a worth while endeavour for them. Who knows how old the data will be and IP addresses change so no doubt a very large amount of innocent users will be targeted with threatening letters.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
This reminds me of the ACS Law case.
Last edited:
We very clearly have different views, however your view is subjective, I am simply listing the facts of it.
It's not really a two sided argument, it's factual that it isn't stealing as stealing has to satisfy a specific criteria to be considered as such.
As I said before with regards to the Youtube example, can you explain how viewing copyrighted content on Youtube that shouldn't be there in a legal capacity is stealing? If you think you can, can you tell me what it is that you think is being stolen?
Even if you can prove that sharing the files has caused someone to not earn as much money as they otherwise would, (not lose, as you can't lose something you never had), it's still not stealing.
If you want to look at it that way, then you would have to be consistent and apply that logic to everything.
If you have a friend who is going to buy a game/movie/album that you have a copy of, and you let them use your copy to see what it's like which results in them not buying it, have they stolen something? If so, what is it that they've stolen? What about you? Have you stolen? Because your actions caused the company not to get an additional sale.
If you miss an interview because someone made you late, and as such didn't get the chance to apply for a great well paying job that you had a good chance of getting, have you been stolen from?
Is the person that caused you to miss the interview guilty of theft because their actions resulted in you potentially "losing" money?
If you're running a food establishment, and a new place opens which results in your income going down, has the new place stolen from you, and as such their owner is guilty of stealing from you?
Of course not, so why is it any different when it comes to media?
I realise they are exaggerated examples, but they still line up to the examples you made of being able to demonstrate a "loss" equates to theft.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It gets even more complicated. If downloading a movie you don't pay for is stealing, then if I show that downloaded movie to a friend who otherwise had no intention of watching it, but after he does goes out and buys the special edition blu-ray, then should I receive a cut for 'creating' a sale?
Likewise with albums. We often hear how much the music industry 'loses' via 'piracy' but they never state how many extra concert tickets are sold due to someone 'illegally' downloading a album and buying tickets to see the band live as a result.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 3,315
- Location
- Westergate
Its an interesting argument, how do you prove it cost them money, I will give you an example.
I downloaded the new Godzilla last month, I never made it to the cinema, and downloaded it about three weeks back, 4 months after it was released on DVD and one month before it came on Sky Movies to which I pay over £100 a month for. I was never going to purchase it on dvd as I don't buy them now as I pay such a lot for Sky, so have I cost them anything, they were never going to get a sale off me anyhow.
I downloaded the new Godzilla last month, I never made it to the cinema, and downloaded it about three weeks back, 4 months after it was released on DVD and one month before it came on Sky Movies to which I pay over £100 a month for. I was never going to purchase it on dvd as I don't buy them now as I pay such a lot for Sky, so have I cost them anything, they were never going to get a sale off me anyhow.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
TBF you pay over £100 a month for Sky, not Sky Movies which is £16 a month (although you can't get the movies without the basic package so you could reasonably say you pay £44 a month for the movies).
I agree with your sentiment entirely though. Having said that, and to play devil's advocate, they would argue that had you watched it on Sky or bought the DVD you would be subjected to advertising and thus by not counting in their viewing figures or not being enticed by the upcoming flicks they're bringing out you've hurt their future profit.
P.S If you're really paying over £100 for Sky you should look into card sharing
Last edited:
Exactly, I think it's a lot more sensible for people to just accept that it's not stealing, and it has its own terminology based on it being a different thing.
Demand proof that it was you specifically and advise that as you are under no obligation to provide them with information, you will charge them for technical services to assist in their case. I would suggest £400 a day as a starting point. Each letter you have to deal with you should then invoice at a flat fee of £45.
For 18 months (at the behest of the UK gov), which was found to be against EU law. Apparently the UK government were going to try and change the law to make it legal, while forcing the ISPs to keep breaking the law until it was in place, not sure how well that has gone though.