BT ordered to block pirate links

Saviola · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:23

Its ok when they bring in the new 'law' that means anyone who downloads something illegal gets a criminal record we can just start our own democratic party up and win the next election and abolish it

People seriously want millions of people to be sent to trial and given a record that would be political suicide for any party.

I have a 50mb connection, I use it for work, steam, iplayer, online gaming on consoles etc. I download stuff from time to time, I also have a LoveFilm membership, an unlimited cinema card, over 1000+ DVDs and I have lost count of the CDs/Vinyl I own. Too many sweeping statements get made on this subject.

Glaucus · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:23

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

It's a massive deterrent and it's a good thing.
Do you say the Same thing for all new laws?

Hairybudda · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:23

nonhelmet said:
But if you've lent it simultaneously to many people, and you still have it yourself, then clearly there is a difference.

Would it be more acceptable if you were to lend it to them each in turn?

kylew · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:25

AcidHell2 said:
No and it's not. As it would only be offences after the law was brought it.

It's like saying when drink driving was illegalised, it would make most car drivers criminals. Did it? Of course not.
You still have to get caught and charged.

Yes but drink driving can prove to be very dangerous, that's the whole point of context. Copyright infringement is nothing at all like drink driving and just make you look ridiculous.

a1ex2001 · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:25

kylew said:
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.

The difference is while I might lend my book to one or two friends your 'internet friend' is lending his copy to thousands of people. The other significant difference being that while my friend has my book I can't read it unlike your 'internet friend' who can still watch the origional DVD while thousands of other people can watch the copies simultaneously.

While yes in isolation you can say the two activities are the same the cumulative effect is entirely different and warrants a different response.

Vonhelmet · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:25

Hairybudda said:
Would it be more acceptable if you were to lend it to them each in turn?

I'm not sure, as I don't know fully what the "no unauthorised lending" term in the license means.

Glaucus · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:26

kylew said:
Yes but drink driving can prove to be very dangerous, that's the whole point of context. Copyright infringement is nothing at all like drink driving and just make you look ridiculous.

And illegal file sharing can be proved to loss in revenue.

DiscoDave · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:26

We actually need technically literate judges to make decisions with cases such as these. I'm not advocating piracy, but this is completely the wrong way of approaching this.

They're not attacking the infrastructure that supports this activity; merely nit picking at what they can, it's pathetic and completely futile.

Offer people a service for say, £30-£40 a month to download whatever movies/games/Music even if it's limited to X number of movies/games/music downloaded at a time and piracy would plummet.

But no, record industries are still in the stone age; refusing to embrace modern technology. If I can download a movie in an hour, store it digitally in perfect form and save space in my flat but not cluttering it all up with discs and cases, why should I have to get in my car, drive to town, park up, walk to a store, queue up, pay, and drive home? These people don't seem to realise that some people pirate stuff because the way we traditionally obtain these products is becoming old fashioned.

Blocking or preventing access is just going to force people to produce workarounds, they're not addressing the real issue.

kylew · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:26

AcidHell2 said:
It's a massive deterrent and it's a good thing.
Do you say the Same thing for all new laws?

That's not the point, it's obviously going to be a deterrent, but what for? Downloading movies, because it's such a terrible and immoral act? Do I have to post that link again in the hopes of you actually reading it instead of pretending the problem lies with just the public who download copyrighted media?

Saviola · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:27

AcidHell2 said:
No and it's not. As it would only be offences after the law was brought it.

It's like saying when drink driving was illegalised, it would make most car drivers criminals. Did it? Of course not.
You still have to get caught and charged.

Yeah that's is fine, but we had to change that law as there were more and more cars and so more cases of DUI occurring. Plus it was a sensible one.

This new 'law' can not be judged the same, we are moving forward technologically but the industries that scream 'Copyright Infringement' are not. So they want to bring a law in to bring us back in line with their set of rules.

Vonhelmet · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:27

DiscoDave said:
We actually need technically literate judges to make decisions with cases such as these. I'm not advocating piracy, but this is completely the wrong way of approaching this.

They're not attacking the infrastructure that supports this activity; merely nit picking at what they can, it's pathetic and completely futile.

Offer people a service for say, £30-£40 a month to download whatever movies/games/Music even if it's limited to X number of movies/games/music downloaded at a time and piracy would plummet.

But no, record industries are still in the stone age; refusing to embrace modern technology. If I can download a movie in an hour, store it digitally in perfect form and save space in my flat but not cluttering it all up with discs and cases, why should I have to get in my car, drive to town, park up, walk to a store, queue up, pay, and drive home? These people don't seem to realise that some people pirate stuff because the way we traditionally obtain these products is becoming old fashioned.

Blocking or preventing access is just going to force people to produce workarounds, they're not addressing the real issue.

You can buy music online. You can buy films online.

Hairybudda · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:28

nonhelmet said:
I'm not sure, as I don't know fully what the "no unauthorised lending" term in the license means.

You said yourself it's a grey area. I'm asking you, from a moral point of view, is lending it to one friend at a time until all your friends have seen it worse than sending them all a rip?

DiscoDave · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:28

nonhelmet said:
You can buy music online. You can buy films online.

I can buy films online, correct, through something like iTunes, but what If I want to play it on my blu ray player in my living room? last time I checked DRM prevented that for me.

Dj_Jestar · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:29

DiscoDave said:
We actually need technically literate judges to make decisions with cases such as these. I'm not advocating piracy, but this is completely the wrong way of approaching this.

They're not attacking the infrastructure that supports this activity; merely nit picking at what they can, it's pathetic and completely futile.

Offer people a service for say, £30-£40 a month to download whatever movies/games/Music even if it's limited to X number of movies/games/music downloaded at a time and piracy would plummet.

But no, record industries are still in the stone age; refusing to embrace modern technology. If I can download a movie in an hour, store it digitally in perfect form and save space in my flat but not cluttering it all up with discs and cases, why should I have to get in my car, drive to town, park up, walk to a store, queue up, pay, and drive home? These people don't seem to realise that some people pirate stuff because the way we traditionally obtain these products is becoming old fashioned.

Blocking or preventing access is just going to force people to produce workarounds, they're not addressing the real issue.

Lovefilm, NetFlix, bigstar, Virgin Online, Blockbuster Online.

Saviola · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:30

DiscoDave said:
We actually need technically literate judges to make decisions with cases such as these. I'm not advocating piracy, but this is completely the wrong way of approaching this.

Precisely, 70 year old codgers who think a BlackBerry is a fruit should be kept well away. We need to get a group together includes the industries being 'harmed' the ISPs, the piraters (in some shape) and technology leaders to really iron where we can go forward with this.

DiscoDave · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:31

Dj_Jestar said:
Lovefilm, NetFlix, bigstar, Virgin Online, Blockbuster Online.

How many of them allow me to save/play media to whatever medium I want, and in HD?

Dj_Jestar · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:32

Saviola said:
Precisely, 70 year old codgers who think a BlackBerry is a fruit should be kept well away. We need to get a group together includes the industries being 'harmed' the ISPs, the piraters (in some shape) and technology leaders to really iron where we can go forward with this.

Or those breaking the law just need to realise they are breaking the law? :confused:

It's simple. You are downloading and viewing media you haven't paid for. It's illegal. There is no discussion.

Saviola · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:32

Dj_Jestar said:
Lovefilm, NetFlix, bigstar, Virgin Online, Blockbuster Online.

All good services. However, a lot of them still charge the same price as the physical media format. How can that be right? Do DVDs and CDs now cost nothing to produce?

Vonhelmet · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:34

DiscoDave said:
I can buy films online, correct, through something like iTunes, but what If I want to play it on my blu ray player in my living room? last time I checked DRM prevented that for me.

Apple TV costs £99, which is less than most Blu Ray players...

kylew · 28 Jul 2011 at 16:34

AcidHell2 said:
And illegal file sharing can be proved to loss in revenue.

And that's enough reason to make it criminal? Do these companies have a divine right to earn at least a certain amount? There are plenty of things that could result in a loss of revenue, do we make them criminal too?

Should it be criminal not to buy every album movie and game released because it could be considered a loss in revenue if everyone didn't?

Are you aware of how they actually calculate these losses in revenue? They massively fudge the numbers, and AGAIN read the damn link http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/1201017234.shtml.

You seem to think a loss in revenue for these companies is awful, yet you're ignoring the fact that they've been caught selling music that they don't have the legal right or a license to sell.