If you don't pirate the content, and just don't consume it, this will have a much greater impact than taking the content anyway in terms of convincing the industry to create a better model...
BT ordered to block pirate links
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
If you don't pirate the content, and just don't consume it, this will have a much greater impact than taking the content anyway in terms of convincing the industry to create a better model...
That's beside the point, you're still watching something without having a license to do so. As has been said earlier on in the thread, what's the real difference between lending 20 friends a blu-ray that they'll never buy regardless, or just giving them rips? The end result is the same, they watch a movie without a license to watch it.
Yes you are, and it looks like it's on purpose, because you wouldn't be replying with that otherwise.
Let me make it very very simple for you. I was merely stating that a download doesn't mean some one is willing to pay for the media they're downloading. The only thing it indicates is that they want it, that is it. I'm not stating that them wanting it makes it okay, or anything about property, I'm stating that a download simply indicates the want for something, and that it doesn't indicate that they would buy it if they didn't have the chance to pirate it. If you're going to misunderstand that again, I won't be responding to you again.
Yes you were changing my point, I was simply stating that it's not costing people jobs if they're constantly reporting record earnings, I didn't say that everyone should do it because of that, so see my last point.
Right...
This is all on the basis of you purposefully misunderstanding my previous points.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,085
kylew said:
please can you substantiate your argument because as you keep saying, it is “as you keep saying” which is not providing a robust evidence base.
If that is the case, why are you against criminalisation or control of this want? Other wants are controlled where they have an impact on the rights of others in execution, why not this one?
This is an example of the broken window fallacy. You are disregarding the effects by referencing that people are already employed, without acknowledging that perhaps more people could be employed if the event wasn't occuring.
So to clarify, are you defending the practice of downloading or not? You seem to be arguing that there is no need to control it, because people who take things because they want it wouldn't always buy it anyway. If this is not the case, I apologise, but can you clarify your exact position?
It's time to make way for progress.
As far as music is concerned, record labels still seem to think that we ought to buy all the music we want to listen to.
As someone who doesn't buy or download music these days, they aren't talking my language. If I hear a song I like, perhaps on the radio or on a film or advert, my first reaction these days is to go to YouTube and watch the music video. I watch it once or twice, then move on. If I get a burning desire to watch it again, I'll go back to YouTube.
Now with our current connectivity, that's not possible when you're outside, "on the go". But it will be in future years. The iPod of 5 years from now will be able to store your playlists as a series of links to YouTube or whatever content delivery system replaces it.
Storing our music as files will some day go the way of the cassette tape.
As I see it, if you're a musician/record label you need to make your money a) from live performances and b) from content delivery services like YouTube. Significant numbers of people in future years aren't going to want to buy music by the track or buy the album. They aren't going to want CDs in their collection or MP3 files on their hard disks.
What do you do when the traditional concept of buying, selling and ownership is no longer relevant to your audience? You can't take progress to court and win.
As far as music is concerned, record labels still seem to think that we ought to buy all the music we want to listen to.
As someone who doesn't buy or download music these days, they aren't talking my language. If I hear a song I like, perhaps on the radio or on a film or advert, my first reaction these days is to go to YouTube and watch the music video. I watch it once or twice, then move on. If I get a burning desire to watch it again, I'll go back to YouTube.
Now with our current connectivity, that's not possible when you're outside, "on the go". But it will be in future years. The iPod of 5 years from now will be able to store your playlists as a series of links to YouTube or whatever content delivery system replaces it.
Storing our music as files will some day go the way of the cassette tape.
As I see it, if you're a musician/record label you need to make your money a) from live performances and b) from content delivery services like YouTube. Significant numbers of people in future years aren't going to want to buy music by the track or buy the album. They aren't going to want CDs in their collection or MP3 files on their hard disks.
What do you do when the traditional concept of buying, selling and ownership is no longer relevant to your audience? You can't take progress to court and win.
I think you have missed the point, It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. Strangely enough you made reference to murder, which again, you cannot legislate against (well you can but it won't prevent murders from occurring). I'm not sure what you are trying to say, you can have as much legislation as you like, and it won't prevent murder, (Norway anyone?) nevermind copyright infringement.
It's absurd to think that you can.
Music labels are already doing that.
Most of them are all ready in partnership with YouTube, most tube music is totally legal. Some music labels even allow the music to be used on your own YouTube video and rehash/mixes.
So by watching on YouTube you are paying for the content you watch, just through adverts rather than cash.
Most of them are all ready in partnership with YouTube, most tube music is totally legal. Some music labels even allow the music to be used on your own YouTube video and rehash/mixes.
So by watching on YouTube you are paying for the content you watch, just through adverts rather than cash.
Last edited:
Someones point was unless it stops it completely what's the point, I was saying why do you only apply that to copyright Nd not all law. No law stops 100% of it intended crime, so he therefor must think all law is totally pointless and should be removed.
But you can work to protect your right to work within the new framework instead of the current one.
Because these record companies don't care about piracy, otherwise they wouldn't sell music that they don't have a license to sell, and they're constantly posting record earnings. I can't see what else it would be other than them wanting control over what people can do with their legitimate media.
It is probably worth noting that the Judge doesn't need technical understanding, he needs legal understanding. How the technical aspect of enforcing the legal judgement is implemented is largely irrelevant to the law itself.
This chestnut again
A) two wrongs don't make a right and you seem happy enough they are being taken to court, so why not individuals?
B) if this is the article you linked to earlier, they have the copyright and the contracts the arguments is the artists aren't being given the correct amount of royalties, which will come down to what the contracts say.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
As I read in an article not long ago, politicians and copyright holders alike love CP - not literally - but because of what it allows them to achieve. You use CP as the justification to lay the ground work for blocking technologies, then oh woops, we better add an illegal filesharing site to that list. Next its fringe groups and political activists. Where does it end?
That isn't a substantiation of the argument, it is a statement of your opinion coupled with a 'two wrongs' fallacy and a continuation of the Broken window fallacy highlighted earlier.
What legal or other evidential basis do you have for the argument?
Because what will criminalising it actually do to help the situation? It will cost more money than they're claiming to lose, and open the way for web censorship in a bad way. Making piracy a criminal act will just result in more criminals being produced, seems entirely pointless to me.
How is it a fallacy? You're the one assuming more people would be employed if they were making more money, that's just an assumption on your own behalf.
I'm not condoning it, but I'm also not saying it's a big issue that needs to be fixed. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be controlled on the basis that people who pirate might not buy anyway. The whole piracy debate is very much a grey area, yet loads of people love talking facts and figures that are essentially fabricated. From my experience, and I'm sure I've read reports on it stating that those who do pirate are more inclined to buy more, which correlates with my experience of it.
Well you wouldn't think I'd posted in this thread!
It's the same 5-10 or so people in every thread repeatedly arguing the same points for pages and pages.
I'm starting to wonder if SC and GD has anymore than about 10 incredibly active members, with most posts containing nothing more than "lolstockhausen".
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,085
have you got any actual evidence for this? because from a legal, and in my opinion moral perspective, industry has a right to defend and charge for its IPR
I do agree with other posts that the way music and digital media is paid for and disseminated needs a remodel. I haven't bought a CD myself in ages, I don't download, I don't fileshare, I just listen to the radio or watch music channels on TV, youtube or even grooveshark.
piracy of digital media has happened because it can and it is easy, it is a combination of many factors but ultimately, the industry needs a re-think on how they approach and license distribution and the pirates/filesharers need to accept that what they do is not acceptable no matter how they try to dress it up or put spin on it.
otherwise all that will happen are more draconian measures like this.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
All credit to you there kylew, you certainly don't give up easily . . . you keep right on stealing other people's work wee laddie 