BT ordered to block pirate links

[Glaucus]

because media is so grossly unregulated compared to other revenue streams?

for example how do you think it would go down if ford immobilised your car if you ever said anything bad about them?

or if you sold your car the second hand buyer has to pay a fee of ~30% of retail price to the manufacturer to drive it on the motorway?

Because this is considered acceptable in media.

A other stupid comparison, please explain how they are comparable.
Since when did you have to pay anything for second hand goods, including media.

Digital, media is different as it isn't a physical copy and as such you can't see how many people have it, unless you have restricted drm whichwould then cost money to transfer the registration.

Please cpmake better comparison, they are really absurd.

 

[kylew]

A other stupid comparison, please explain how they are comparable.
Since when did you have to pay anything for second hand goods, including media.

Digital, media is different as it isn't a physical copy and as such you can't see how many people have it, unless you have restricted drm whichwould then cost money to transfer the registration.

Please cpmake better comparison, they are really absurd.

You have had it explained to you multiple times by multiple people, stop saying it's stupid while actively ignoring what's being said, you're undermining any points you might otherwise have had.

 

[Glaucus]

The thing is that all media is subjective, more so than any other revenue stream.

The companies that are whining are doing so because they believe they aren't making as much money as they should. End of.

Yes its subjective and subjective is allowed. Nothing wrong with that.
It is no more subjective than the look of a car.

And media companies are correct, not every download equals a lost sale. But are you going to try and tell me downloaders, would not buy any legitimate media if they couldn't download.

And is again the reason uk law needs to change, it is totally unenforcable as you can not prove lose of revue and as such copyright law in the uk is less than useless. Where in America it's actually worth while as they do not need to prove loss of earnings as they have punitive charges. Also works well with large cop orations like tobacco companies. Your life is worth 1mill, why would they care about that.

 

[krooton]

I've come to the conclusion that AH2 is the Bizarro World version of me.

And for that reason, I'm out.

 

[kylew]

Yes its subjective and subjective is allowed. Nothing wrong with that.
It is no more subjective than the look of a car.

And media companies are correct, not every download equals a lost sale. But are you going to try and tell me downloaders, would not buy any legitimate media if they couldn't download.

You're suggesting that downloaders don't buy legitimate media? *facepalm*

 

[Tefal]

A other stupid comparison, please explain how they are comparable.

EA/bioware banned accounts of people who posted unfavourable comments on their forums.

this banning stopped them being able to play their single player games bought from them (despite being single player they require a constant internet connection to function).

that's comparable to ford immobilising your car wouldn't you say?

Since when did you have to pay anything for second hand goods, including media.

since ubisoft/activision/ea and other have introduced a new system designed explicity to remove second hand sales (after it came out that some major games retailer in the US makes 80% of it's profits from secodn hand games sales)by making it so a second hand console game has to have a code bought from them (~£10) to play the games on-line.

not complete disabling of the game but a large and in some cases the most played part of it, i'd say that is comparable to being banned from certain major roads wouldn't you?

Please cpmake better comparison, they are really absurd.

Please explain how they are obscured?

 

[Glaucus]

You have had it explained to you multiple times by multiple people, stop saying it's stupid while actively ignoring what's being said, you're undermining any points you might otherwise have had.

You haven't explained it at all. You have said its simimlar and that's all you have said. Why is it similar, what are the differences in law and liability. Please explain this then you will see why it isn't similar at all.

 

[Glaucus]

EA/bioware banned accounts of people who posted unfavourable comments on their site.

this banning stopped them being able to play their single player games bought from them (despite being single player they require a constant internet connection to function).

And they aren't 2nd hand goods, just like its not theft. It should never be written in law. Unless you also put huge DRM on with registration.

that's comparable to ford immobilising your car wouldn't you say?




since ubisoft/activision/ea and other have introduced a new system designed explicity to remove second hand sales (after it came out that some major games retailer in the US makes 80% of it's profits from secodn hand games sales)by making it so a second hand console game has to have a code bought from them (~£10) to play the games on-line.

not complete disabling of the game but a large and in some cases the most played part of it, i'd say that is comparable to being banned from certain major roads wouldn't you?





Please explain how they are obscured?

And how would you get around it, it's two separate issues. You can't combine or compare them.
One comes under T&Cs and needs to be taken to court.

The other is against the law but is Totaly unenforcable.

As co summers we need to be given far more rights but at the same time, so do media companies.

 

[Tefal]

And how would you get around it, it's two separate issues. You can't combine or compare them.
One comes under T&Cs and needs to be taken to court.

The other is against the law but is Totaly unenforcable.

I'm sorry what?


that sentence doesn't make any sense.


So why are media companies allowed to do both these things but you seem to think it is unreasonable for a car manufacturer to do the same?

 

[Glaucus]

I'm sorry what?


that sentence doesn't make any sense.


So why are media companies allowed to do both these things but you seem to think it is unreasonable for a car manufacturer to do the same?

They aren't "allowed" to do it. It's just no ones challenged them in court.
I don't think either should be allowed, but it's a separate issue to copyright.
You can't use, he's doing something wrong, so I should be allowed to. Unless its a school play ground.

Media companies are in the wrong about many things, so are the public. The law needs changing/challenging to make both parties fall in line.

 

[Nate Silvers]

That's not what i mean, linking to torrents or file sharing sites is much more limited than everyone easily being about to upload an image in a few seconds and post it, stuff would be upped as quick as it's taken down, increasing copyright infringement to incredible levels, sure though anyone can easily get hold of what they want, i just wonder what it will be like if it gets that trivial.

Don't worry I understand you. You're talking about sending a bluray to a friend over MSN or Email or whatever in under a minute. That would be insane and we are no where near that yet.

Sure there is streaming but that's hosted and can be taken down but sending a bluray through email or ftp or whatever would be insane.

 

[gothic_hobbit]

but on the flip side i would also like to prosecute film companies and music companies for crimes against humanity. NOBODY need to listen to justin beiber.

Amen to that !

 

[LordSplodge]

EA/bioware banned accounts of people who posted unfavourable comments on their forums.

this banning stopped them being able to play their single player games bought from them (despite being single player they require a constant internet connection to function).

that's comparable to ford immobilising your car wouldn't you say?

This kind of behaviour really winds me up. Just because they don't get a cut of the second hand games industry they do everything possible to prevent it and it often punishes the legitimate customer. People who download the game and use a No-CD crack don't have to suffer from the poor DRM and the need for a functioning Internet connection just to play a game. I mean in the case of the paying customer it is their own hard earned cash they have laid down.

The movie industry also treats its customers poorly forcing them to watch trailers that they cannot skip often including the "you wouldn't steal a car one" that basically implies again that the paying customer is a thief. Pirates don't have any of this trouble.

All the media and games companies need to do is provide a good, reasonably priced experience and people will pay. That's not hard is it.

 

[stockhausen]

EA/bioware banned accounts of people who posted unfavourable comments on their forums. ...

Surely not

Posts openly criticising the policies or posts made by the owner in a rude or disrespectful way, or demonstrating a lack of respect for him are not permitted. He pays the bills and charges you nothing - remember that.

 

[Tefal]

All the media and games companies need to do is provide a good, reasonably priced experience and people will pay. That's not hard is it.

exactly.

Ubisoft with insane drm and no added bonus =i download it.

steam ok has drm yet gives me some nice perks though through the same system (in game internet/messaging the ability to move games from one instal/hdd to another purely by copy pasting/allowing cd backup of games etc).

Provides a reliable service (unlike ubi/ea's DRM which frequently goes down) lets you play offline if it does go down and generally provides a nice high quality and decent system.

Costs more yet i still buy from it because the extra features and ease of use offset both the drm and usually the price (but then their sales are brilliant too)

 

[iviv]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/38082/Valve_Piracy_Is_More_About_Convenience_Than_Price.php

According to Newell, Russia -- which is often ignored as a market due to its high level of piracy -- is one of Steam's highest grossing countries.

"Russia now outside of Germany is our largest continental European market," said Newell, adding that "the people who are telling you that Russians pirate everything are the people who wait six months to localize their product into Russian."

"The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates," he said.

While on the subject of video game piracy, thought I'd drop in this article.

 

[cHk4]

Seriously I'm inpatient, I don't pirate games, I buy them - I have over 150 games on my steam but the fact other countries get their games 3 days early does my head in. I normally VPN unlock them but still I shouldn't have to do that... Also when the games appear on torrent sites like a week before released does my head in to, I'm a paying customer I want the games noaw!

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I mean as trivial as it is with mp3's and images.

It already is.

 

[speeduk]

This is oh so over dramatised. The only real way to tackle piracy is to target newsgroups. Yeah you know, those multi billion $ companies that have been storing and letting people downloaded just about anything for years now.

Until then im off to stick my head in a cloud.

 

[kylew]

This kind of behaviour really winds me up. Just because they don't get a cut of the second hand games industry they do everything possible to prevent it and it often punishes the legitimate customer. People who download the game and use a No-CD crack don't have to suffer from the poor DRM and the need for a functioning Internet connection just to play a game. I mean in the case of the paying customer it is their own hard earned cash they have laid down.

The movie industry also treats its customers poorly forcing them to watch trailers that they cannot skip often including the "you wouldn't steal a car one" that basically implies again that the paying customer is a thief. Pirates don't have any of this trouble.

All the media and games companies need to do is provide a good, reasonably priced experience and people will pay. That's not hard is it.

What I can't get my head around is why these companies believe they are entitled to a cut of the money exchanged on secondhand games. It's highly illogical.

I will always find it hilarious that the only people who ever watch those "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR", "PIRACY IS THEFT", "PIRACY IS A CRIME" propaganda are the ones who've actually paid for what they're watching.