So why even insist that it becomes a criminal act? It's really to the benefit of no one.
BT ordered to block pirate links
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
So why even insist that it becomes a criminal act? It's really to the benefit of no one.
Because it would be, just becuase not all bag snatchers are caught, would you say remove the law or put up CCTV and listening devices on every single lamppost. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
As I said before it's a massive deterrent, especially with some high profile cases. It gives owners a viable legal route.
Lots of. People would be massively put off by it, especially the masses of not so computer literate people.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
To who? The distributors of pirated files? Doubt it. To people consuming pirated media? Maybe, but if you want something that bad, you will always find a way and a way to not get caught.
Because it's much fairer on the general population to regulate only those who are unable to understand they are supposed to pay for property than to try and regulate everyone's behaviour via ISP restrictions etc?
Bag snatching and piracy aren't even remotely similar, please stop with these bad analogies.
As I keep saying, realistically it's not actually harming anyone, it's not factually going to drive up sales, potential lost revenue isn't a good enough reason to make it criminal, it's just a waste of time and money for the benefit of no one other than the industry bosses.
I'm not sure what you mean.
They don't need to be, do you understand the analogy and the part it focuses on?
That just because it doesn't stop everyone and not 100% conviction rate it is not pointless as he suggest. Otherwise you might as well abolish all rules as that applies to every single one.
It is harming people.
Essentially, blocking sites that contain files that allow people to infringe copyright is not the way forward, for a variety of reasons including the issue that those sites also often contain legitimate files, or that the individuals may have semi-legitimate (at present) fair use reasons for downloading files.
It would be much, much better to clearly state fair use rights, break the current erratic licensing idea as a result, and then criminalise those who still refuse to acknowledge that content owners have rights.
I'd go for a fair use approach that allows you to format shift etc without issue provided you don't go above the level of licence you pay for (so you could make an SD copy of a blu-ray you own, but not download a blu-ray copy for a DVD you own) and let it go from there.
The whole model of copyright needs rewriting, with stronger, clearer protections for both content owners and consumers, and greater penalties for either who refuse to play by the rules.
But downloading "illegally" from the internet isn't hurting anyone, it's a pointless waste of time trying to make it a criminal offense. It will likely cost much more money than these companies are claiming to "lose".
It doesn't hurt people unless you believe that piracy always means lost sales, and even then, who exactly is it hurting? These companies are constantly posting record earnings each year. As I keep saying, it's about ego and control, not about revenue and "lost sales".
I think there's an important point about these kind of powers being abused to block other websites. If, to have a free internet, we must then have media companies' bottom lines suffering, is that (or not) a fair deal? Because on the one hand, okay, companies should be paid for their work, but on the other hand, do we impose censorship, which could be abused and pervert the democratic process if abused, to protect those companies? So then you'd say, okay, we need a balance, neither can be perfectly satisfied, so we should go for something in the middle maybe.
While you're at it though, if some sort of liberty is curtailed to satisfy these companies, perhaps then those companies should not be allowed to lobby, or that should be curtailed? Or that there should be a guaranteed minimum payment to artists so that the media compaines are actually standing up for them and not just their own interests.
It's a complex argument and I don't think there's a perfect solution, though where possible we should cut out the middle man, the "moguls" and have the artists directly distribute their content. Maybe then would be a more apt time to debate the copyright vs liberty issue.
While you're at it though, if some sort of liberty is curtailed to satisfy these companies, perhaps then those companies should not be allowed to lobby, or that should be curtailed? Or that there should be a guaranteed minimum payment to artists so that the media compaines are actually standing up for them and not just their own interests.
It's a complex argument and I don't think there's a perfect solution, though where possible we should cut out the middle man, the "moguls" and have the artists directly distribute their content. Maybe then would be a more apt time to debate the copyright vs liberty issue.
No does shop lifting then. Who does that hurt?
It hurts people through loss of earnings, which can lead to loss of jobs, including the musicians you apparently are defending and of course ultimately tax and economy.
Now we can all argue that the research is questionable. But you can't argue the principle or that there is loss of earnings that has an impact.
Last edited:
Why is it not hurting anyone? If just one person who would have bought decides to take it without buying, there is harm there. Furthermore, by making it a criminal matter, it no longer becomes the company's responsibility to enforce their property rights, just as it isn't for other forms of misuse or removal of property without consent.
It doesn't always have to mean lost sales, just one lost sale is enough to establish harm.
Shop lifting isn't the same as piracy, again another awful analogy.
You're assuming that piracy equates to all that, as I said the movie and music industries are constantly posting record earnings. People aren't going to be losing jobs within an industry that's constantly earning more and more each year, it has nothing to do with shoplifting and bears no similarities other than somebody gets something for free.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Downloading copied music is not theft, you are depriving nobody of the product, it's nothing like shoplifting because there is nothing being lifted from said shop. Economically you're not gaining much, people who cant afford media arent going to buy it anyway, and if we're talking tax, lets just remember the rights holders (the big studios) are tax dodgers.
You don't get anologys do you.
Something that is different but is used to get the same pontiac across.
Yes the crime is different, but the aspect it fishers on is the same. Really you need to get of the bad analogy wagon and actually start reading what is said.
Something that is different but is used to get the same pontiac across.
Yes the crime is different, but the aspect it fishers on is the same. Really you need to get of the bad analogy wagon and actually start reading what is said.
Both the ethical and legal arguments really are irrelevant, no matter anyones opinion. Piracy has been around for as long as the written word.
No amount of legal posturing will ever change that! That people think this issue can be resolved by legislation is, to me, very suprising...
No amount of legal posturing will ever change that! That people think this issue can be resolved by legislation is, to me, very suprising...
Both me and HairBudda have pointed out exactly why it's a bad analogy. We're not just saying "bad analogy" and that's it, Additionally, piracy isn't a crime, that's part of this whole debate.
Again silly argument.
Murder has been around forever, no laws stop it. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws? And shouldn't try to minimise it?