BT ordered to block pirate links

[kylew]

Uhhhmmmm, no, we are not on the same wavelength.

Yes, there is a difference, he didn't lend me the original DVD; he gave me one of an indeterminate number of copies of the original DVD.

Incidentally, I really don't think that many people acquire a copy of a DVD or CD 'from a friend' over the Internet

You're talking ridiculous technicalities though. The beginning and end result are the same thing, there's very little difference in what's happening, the simple fact that one situation has physical media present, where the other doesn't is completely beside the point.

 

[bingham67]

Surly its nothing a proxy couldnt fix?

But what if they started banning proxy sites like this article talks about.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/20...an-proxy-server-sites-due-to-piracy-laws.html

 

[kylew]

This is a good article about illegally downloading music from the prepsective of an independent record label owner.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/1201017234.shtml

 

[Bry]

Its not and should never be treated as theft. However punishment should be brought more in line with theft. The reason is you aren't depriving someone of property.

Over 18 million people in france are file sharing as it is, that is 27% of the population.

Do you honestly think over a quarter of the population should be given a criminal record? Do you think are justice system could cope prosecuting so many people?

Surely, if enough people do something and think it to be ok to do then laws need to adapt rather than enforce.

 

[kylew]

No where did I say it should be defined as theft. It should copyrightlaw should be made criminal.

What would it achieve making it criminal, other than effectively producing more criminals? How is that a good thing?

 

[Noel Gallagher]

But what if they started banning proxy sites like this article talks about.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/20...an-proxy-server-sites-due-to-piracy-laws.html

Then I will cry ;_;

 

[Cleeecooo]

In regards to music, I download music BUT if its good I will buy it. If not then I delete it.
I've been doing that for about 4-5 years now I used to just download whole albums for the sake of downloading.

Same here. All 1,500 of my songs are 100% legal

 

[Scrutinize]

You need to learn how to make analogies.

i fear you missed the irony in it rather than the analogy

 

[kylew]

Over 18 million people in france are file sharing as it is, that is 27% of the population.

Do you honestly think over a quarter of the population should be given a criminal record? Do you think are justice system could cope prosecuting so many people?

Surely, if enough people do something and think it to be ok to do then laws need to adapt rather than enforce.

In before "OMG IF LOADS OF PEOPLE STARTED MURDERING OTHERS SHOULD THAT BE MADE OKAY?". There obviously has to be context, but it really is a waste of time trying to make copyright infringement a criminal act, it's only pandering towards the top people in the record industries making obscene amounts of money anyway. This whole campaign about piracy has never been about right or wrong and "morals" it's more of an ego thing from the record and movie industries.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You're talking ridiculous technicalities though. The beginning and end result are the same thing, there's very little difference in what's happening, the simple fact that one situation has physical media present, where the other doesn't is completely beside the point.

No, it's not. With physical media, only one person can enjoy the media at a time. With filesharing, multiple people can enjoy it at a time. There is obviously a difference.

 

[stockhausen]

How is it different? Remember the DVD you own is just a copy from another format.

The DVD for which I paid MONEY!

Dear God, give me strength

You're talking ridiculous technicalities though. The beginning and end result are the same thing, there's very little difference in what's happening, the simple fact that one situation has physical media present, where the other doesn't is completely beside the point.

What to you may be just a 'ridiculous technicality' is money to the copyright owner.

If it is simply a 'ridiculous technicality', why don't you just go out and buy it? The end result to you would apparently be exactly the same and I imagine that the copyright owner would be perfectly happy.

 

[BlackDragon]

The problem is that even if you can prove that 'illegal' free copies of media, actually benefit that creator (which I think it's fair to say is not true in all [most] cases), surely it is the right of the person who created it to decide whether to make it freely available or not?

Whilst it would be nice for more people to adopt the 'try-before-you-buy' approach that the internet can offer - it's not our right as consumers to say 'you should have set your business model up in this way, so I'm just going to take it for free anyway'.

True, it should be down to the case of the artists.

I've been following news about past and ongoing patent and copyright cases, it is generally pursued by groups that claim to protect the content creators, but their actions show that they don't give a hoot about them.

The artists believe the publishers and labels are protecting the artists' interests, and believe that piracy is a major danger to them. The artists shouldn't fear their music being pirated, because if it has value and is worth the amount of money requested, people will pay for it.

Look at the case of Radiohead who actually leaked their own tracks via BitTorrent before releasing it for sale to drum up publicity and get people excited. See here

I think the consumers should have a right to demand certain things, that aren't possible because of the bullying demands of the large record labels. For example, why can I not purchase music from any music selling website, and do with it as I please? I'm aware you can purchase DRM free tracks from some websites, but each distributor has a different selection of music and can charge a premium for the priviledge of DRM free tracks.

I have a friend who owns a shop, and needs to pay two licenses just to play music in his shop. Why is there a need to pay for TWO licenses, when you can't do anything with either of the licenses alone.

 

[Raikiri]

This is a good article about illegally downloading music from the prepsective of an independent record label owner.

He claims that total abum sales have dropped which is true, but also happens to forget that single sales have been showing a year on year rise since 2003.

There was a drop from 2002-2003 (43m to 30m) but since then it's increased to over 160 million sales in 2010. Chances are this is because you can now pick and choose the tracks that you like from an album, rather than the rise of piracy.

It's a natural progession in the way we consume media, why buy 10 songs when you only like 3 of them?

The DVD for which I paid MONEY!

Dear God, give me strength

You did, yes. But the person you're letting borrow it hasn't. How do you think these people get DVD rips to upload in the first place? They pay for them with MONEY.

 

[Bry]

In before "OMG IF LOADS OF PEOPLE STARTED MURDERING OTHERS SHOULD THAT BE MADE OKAY?". There obviously has to be context, but it really is a waste of time trying to make copyright infringement a criminal act, it's only pandering towards the top people in the record industries making obscene amounts of money anyway. This whole campaign about piracy has never been about right or wrong and "morals" it's more of an ego thing from the record and movie industries.

Yes your right everything needs to be taken into context. But I don't think anyone would for example ever let there be 18 million murdered in a country.

All I was trying to say was you can't criminalise something which a huge amount of people are doing. The system would not cope and would fall apart.

 

[Hairybudda]

No, it's not. With physical media, only one person can enjoy the media at a time. With filesharing, multiple people can enjoy it at a time. There is obviously a difference.

Physical media can be copied, I remember copying casette tapes I borrowed from friends on my zx spectrum!

 

[kylew]

i fear you missed the sarcasm in it rather than the analogy

I hadn't noticed the wit.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Physical media can be copied, I remember copying casette tapes I borrowed from friends on my zx spectrum!

Um... thanks for proving my point? If media of any kind is illegally copied, then it can be enjoyed by more people than just those who have paid for it.

 

[Hairybudda]

The DVD for which I paid MONEY!

Dear God, give me strength

What to you may be just a 'ridiculous technicality' is money to the copyright owner.

If it is simply a 'ridiculous technicality', why don't you just go out and buy it? The end result to you would apparently be exactly the same and I imagine that the copyright owner would be perfectly happy.

So by letting your friend borrow and watch your dvd, you're depriving the company of money, therefore facilitating your interpretation of copyright infringement!

Um... thanks for proving my point? If media of any kind is illegally copied, then it can be enjoyed by more people than just those who have paid for it.

You said with physical media only one one person can enjoy it at a time. When was the last time you had someone over to watch a DVD?

 

[edscdk]

Yes your right everything needs to be taken into context. But I don't think anyone would for example ever let there be 18 million murdered in a country.

germany had a good go at it...

 

[Dj_Jestar]

So by letting your friend borrow and watch your dvd, you're depriving the company of money, therefore facilitating your interpretation of copyright infringement!

Which, should you actually care to read the licence, is exactly the case. Redistribution is prohibited. Lending it to someone counts as distribution.