BT ordered to block pirate links

Does anyone know how this will work in practice? Is CleanFeed BT branding of the IWF blacklist or is it something completely different?

Either way, anyone competent enough to use Newzbin will already have a VPN set up now or a proxy and are still happily downloading whatever they want.

These media moguls need to understand these sites are their competitors and they need to offer a better service to their customers if they want to keep them.
 
There was a class action suit raised in the US a few years back, a collective of artists were suing some major labels for not passing on royalties from compilation albums... not sure what the outcome was, it kinda got swept under the carpet, but record labels are just as guilty as net pirates if they are going to use the "poor artist" argument.
 
If I borrow a DVD from a friend but don't watch it, does it fall under the 'no unauthorised lending' clause? If a friend buys a DVD and leaves it over at my place by mistake, and I watch it, did I just break the law?
 
It's so simple that you don't understand it yourself? It's not illegal to download and view, it's only illegal to upload.

... really not sure about that... :p

Seems like a pretty blatant civil offence under s.17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to me.
 
These media moguls need to understand these sites are their competitors and they need to offer a better service to their customers if they want to keep them.

how can they offer something better than a device with no overheads and doesn't charge anything.

They aren't in competition as it's an illegal act to distribute.
 
how can they offer something better than a device with no overheads and doesn't charge anything.

They aren't in competition as it's an illegal act to distribute.

By allowing me to stream content over the internet, even though I'm in the UK. If I could legally stream The Daily Show from the Comedy Central website I'd be more than happy to watch the adverts and watch the show, even in SD. But the pirates offer it to me in 720p half an hour after it airs. So they get my business.

Don't DRM lock media files to certain devices.

I'm sure there's plenty more examples of how they could improve but they're getting paid the big bucks so they should put the effort and creativity in to solve these problems.
 
There was a class action suit raised in the US a few years back, a collective of artists were suing some major labels for not passing on royalties from compilation albums... not sure what the outcome was, it kinda got swept under the carpet, but record labels are just as guilty as net pirates if they are going to use the "poor artist" argument.

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

I keep posting it, and certain people are choosing to ignore it, I suspect because it doesn't fit in with their argument of "poor record and movie industries".
 
So if they don't offer you what you what you have a right to it for free?

I just don't get this mind set. As I've said before I used to download loads. But never did I think it was just or acceptable. I just new the chance of being caught was zero and that the punishment was equally lame.

Do you guys really think this, or is it just your public reasoning to try and defend it.
 
... really not sure about that... :p

Seems like a pretty blatant civil offence under s.17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to me.

So if you say it's illegal, what's the point of it if there's no consequences for it? Doesn't it effectively undermine the supposed illegality of it if nothing comes of it?
 
And its irrelevant.
They broke the law, they get sued. What's the issue? Other than you think that's right, but nit going after individuals.

Ah, irrelevant because your choose so? Okay...

How can you even begin to be in support of these companies when they're known to do that? How is that at all irrelevant?
 
So if you say it's illegal, what's the point of it if there's no consequences for it? Doesn't it effectively undermine the supposed illegality of it if nothing comes of it?

Yep, which is why laws should catch up with technology. And the consequences be upgraded.
 
Ah, irrelevant because your choose so? Okay...

How can you even begin to be in support of these companies when they're known to do that? How is that at all irrelevant?

Am I in support of these companies? Laws apply to everyone, not select groups. That's why your arguments fails so badly. For some reason you think they should be applied differently.

It's irrelevant as they broke the law and are now in court.
 
I think it's actually because it is largely irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Because they're equally "wrong"? All this piracy is a crime nonsense is a complete fabrication of companies that do things like in that link. Their argument is always "poor artists", how can you take that seriously? On top of that, they're actually making money on pirated media, it's nothing at all like a member of the public downloading a movie or album to watch in their own home, so it's not a case of "two wrongs don't make a right".
 
Am I in support of these companies? Laws apply to everyone, not select groups. That's why your arguments fails so badly. For some reason you think they should be applied differently.

It's irrelevant as they broke the law and are now in court.

So why constantly go on about how copyright infringement needs to be made a criminal act? As I said, you're essentially just asking for more criminals to be produced with no benefit to anyone, it's just a complete waste of time and money.
 
Oh dear, I guess you'll have to live with buying SD from iTunes, HD on physical media, or just live without.

Yeah lets waste having a 40" TV showing standard definition. My point is there is no single provider of digital media that caters for the latest technology a lot of people have in their homes, or provides the adequate flexibility, but when there is... piracy will plummet. This is how this situation should be addressed, not nit picking at websites here and there.
 
So if they don't offer you what you what you have a right to it for free?

I just don't get this mind set. As I've said before I used to download loads. But never did I think it was just or acceptable. I just new the chance of being caught was zero and that the punishment was equally lame.

Do you guys really think this, or is it just your public reasoning to try and defend it.

I guess I find it acceptable enough to do it. This situation won't go away by pleading to peoples morals. They need to offer a much better service instead. Blu-Ray quality download. DRM free. Don't lock it down to a certain device. Don't abuse early adopters. I've been stung plenty of times purchasing something on release date, for a better version with more content to be released a few months down the road. All these things leave a bitter taste in peoples mouths. And its something they need to address.
 
So why constantly go on about how copyright infringement needs to be made a criminal act? As I said, you're essentially just asking for more criminals to be produced with no benefit to anyone, it's just a complete waste of time and money.

There's lots of benefit to everyone. Through economy.
And no stop saying you criminalise everyone, that's not how law works and wouldn't happen.

Why becuase I think it's wrong, just like record companies not paying their contracts with artists. I don't need to support onto realise what's happening, where we are heading and how it is very bad for the industry and wider effects.

What happens when 3d printers take off? Is it ok to pay nothing for a oven and just download illegal blueprints?

The laws need bring in line with the rapid development of technology.

The point you say record companies are evil and do these me is totally irrelebpvent and shows how poor your argument is.
 
Back
Top Bottom