Disgusting !

[mattyrigby00]

downloading is like going into a shop with a laptop and copying some dvds/games to the hard drive of it, then putting the disks back, which is stealing. the actual media its on is worth next to nothing, its the data which is worth something. saying "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" is like walking into a cinema without paying, and saying "no one would've paid for that seat anyway".

 

[Fire Wizard]

Well thankfully according to Dutch law it is. If someone chooses to buy a movie because it's easier to him or he wants to support the makers fine, but don't argue with someone downloading it as here he's doing nothing wrong.

Hello snowdog, I honestly can't see how these laws vary in different countries. If you download a particular movie, regardless if someone uploaded it for you, which once again is surely illegal, you are still effectively stealing it from the makers of the film and these laws stand universally and not just dependent on the country that you live in?

 

[snowdog]

Hello snowdog, I honestly can't see how these laws vary in different countries. If you download a particular movie, regardless if someone uploaded it for you, which once again is surely illegal, you are still effectively stealing it from the makers of the film and these laws stand universally and not just dependent on the country that you live in?

Shame you can't read www.anti-piracy.nl, the articles of what's allowed and what's not. I'd really love to show you but most sites explaining it are in Dutch only .


You can read the law directly here though in english:

http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html

Article 16b

1. It shall not be deemed an infringement of the copyright in a literary, scientific or artistic work to reproduce it in a limited number of copies for the sole purpose of private practice, study or use of the person who makes the copies or orders the copies to be made exclusively for himself.

Even p2p apps are perfectly allowed here:

KaZaA is not infringing copyright, says Dutch court
, 02/04/2002

The Court of Appeals in Amsterdam has ruled that users of file-sharing service KaZaA may be infringing copyright – but the company is not. In November 2001, the District Court of Amsterdam found KaZaA BV liable for copyright infringement and ordered it to take measures to stop future infringements.

KaZaA launched in 2000 at a time when Napster was popular. Napster was subsequently forced to suspend its service in the face of legal battles. KaZaA allows users to download free peer-to-peer (P2P) software which can be used to swap music, images and movie files over the internet. To date, tens of million of copies of its software have been downloaded.

The Court of Appeals ruled at the end of last week that:

“KaZaA rightfully appeals the ruling of the District Court, where it stated that as a preliminary issue KaZaA acts contrary to copyright law. In so far as any infringing use is being made by the means of KaZaA, these acts are committed by its users, not by KaZaA.”

The court added: “It is not correct that […] KaZaA's computer program may exclusively be used for downloading copyrighted works.”

The company is claiming that this ruling means that, at least in the Netherlands, developers of technology cannot be held liable for what others do with it.” Users of the KaZaA software are able to share files via the internet, including copyrighted files. Accordingly, music copyright organisation Buma/Stemra sued KaZaA BV for copyright infringement.

The company acknowledged that “the practical meaning of the ruling for KaZaA BV remains to be seen.” As a result of the earlier judgment of November 2001, KaZaA BV says it "was forced to sell its most important business assets" to an Australian company. The Australian company now running the KaZaA.com site has not been sued - yet.

The Dutch company’s CEO, Niklas Zennstrom, said on Thursday: “I have received this verdict with mixed feelings. Surely, it comes too late for KaZaA BV. Hopefully, organisations such as Buma/Stemra will come to their senses and stop these legal battles against peer-to-peer file sharing technologies”

Tbh you can't argue with the laws here, The Netherlands are just a nice liberalistic country where more is allowed in certain area's than in other countries, this is from Drugs to Copyrights to Alcohol laws, everything is much more relaxed here.

 

[atpbx]

To steal - "to take without the owner's consent."

I'd say taking intellectual property without consent is stealing...

He hasnt taken anything.

Its not something i do myself as to be quite frank it takes to long.

 

[Jokester]

Nice to know we're subsidising the Dutch's viewing and listening habits.

 

[Tefal]

Hello snowdog, yes it is, there are no two ways about it.

according to law, it's not stealing no two ways about it, it's the same as going into an art gallery and drawing yourself a copy of a painting

 

["andy"]

stoned when they made that law to be fair.

i love the "most of its poo anyway and i wouldnt of bought it" style excuses that people use

yet they still spend hours of there time downloading and watching it

 

[Fire Wizard]

according to law, it's not stealing no two ways about it, it's the same as going into an art gallery and drawing yourself a copy of a painting

Hello Tefal, which law exacty are you refering too?

I honestly can't think how downloading something such as a movie is perfectly ok?

 

[Tefal]

Nice to know we're subsidising the Dutch's viewing and listening habits.

but your not.

The films are made regardless if you buy them or anyone else downloads them.

only when it become unprofitable is a film not made, which won't happen due to piracy, as most (good) films make a profit in the cinema alone, and most people who go to the cinema do so to see on a big screen and surround sound, not on their little screen at home.

 

[Tefal]

Hello Tefal, which law exacty are you refering too?

I honestly can't think how downloading something such as a movie is perfectly ok?

the fact that people are charged with copy right infringement in a civil court not theft in a criminal court.

 

[snowdog]

stoned when they made that law to be fair.

i love the "most of its poo anyway and i wouldnt of bought it" style excuses that people use

yet they still spend hours of there time downloading and watching it

I spend hours downlaoding, I often download and never watch though, just cba, it's not an excuse, I'd never buy films in any way I never did before I discovered downlaoding, and I'll never after I have to stop dling, I'll just watch cable tv wich I'll pay for. Most stuff is poo though half the films I do watch @ the end I think I've wasted 2 hours of my time as it's not worth watching.

I hardly spend any time watching anything tbh these days on my pc, I just game and listen to music and browse.
Games: Far better value, you buy a game and play it for years isnetad of 2-3 hrs, and far more enjoyable than movies.
There's a reason why the games market has surpassed the movie market.

 

[Jokester]

but your not.

The films are made regardless if you buy them or anyone else downloads them.

only when it become unprofitable is a film not made, which won't happen due to piracy, as most (good) films make a profit in the cinema alone, and most people who go to the cinema do so to see on a big screen and surround sound, not on their little screen at home.

Do you not think that people not paying for it affects the profitability. Either the companies will cut costs, charge more, or just don't make it in the first place. The fact is legally people here have to pay for it, whilst the Dutch plus a couple of other countries don't have to pay for it. For me that is subsidising it as those paying for it are ensuring it gets made in the first place.

 

[Fire Wizard]

the fact that people are charged with copy right infringement in a civil court not theft in a criminal court.

Hello Tefal, ok I see your point. Regardless though, it is still illegal and how it can be different from one country to another is beyond me.

snip

Hello snowdog, that's fair enough and thanks for your post.

 

[snowdog]

Do you not think that people not paying for it affects the profitability. Either the companies will cut costs, charge more, or just don't make it in the first place. The fact is legally people here have to pay for it, whilst the Dutch plus a couple of other countries don't have to pay for it. For me that is subsidising it as those paying for it are ensuring it gets made in the first place.

No it's not, the movie releasers are releasing a lot of stuff at a big profit, they want to make you believe you have to pay more due to p2p, but actually they are greedy and just want more profit, open your eyes and don't believe what liars like the MPAA are saying.

 

[Jokester]

No it's not, the movie releasers are releasing a lot of stuff at a big profit, they want to make you believe you have to pay more due to p2p, but actually they are greedy and just want more profit, open your eyes and don't believe what liars like the MPAA are saying.

You do realise a lot (if not the majority) of films made don't make a profit?

 

[Tefal]

Hello Tefal, ok I see your point. Regardless though, it is still illegal and how it can be different from one country to another is beyond me.



Hello snowdog, that's fair enough and thanks for your post.

it may be illegal but it is not stealing.

And laws are different in many countries, massively so, it's illegal to have anal sex in some, its illegal to drive on the left-hand side of the motorway in others.

In Sweden you can only copyright something of a certain intellectual or artistic value, in others you can copyright pretty much anything you write.

 

[LordSplodge]

Copyright Infringement !=Stealing !=Piracy.

How many times do we have to have this debate on OCUK?

Seriously.

 

[Tefal]

For me that is subsidising it as those paying for it are ensuring it gets made in the first place.

I didn't say it doesn't cut profitability, but it probably only does cut it by a tiny amount, even an average film makes multimillion dollars of profit, and piracy would have to reach ridiculous levels to ever stop that.

 

[snowdog]

You do realise a lot (if not the majority) of films made don't make a profit?

That is the fault of the producers, the plot, the cast etc, the movie is just not good enough: stop making bad movies and try harder.

The newer the films the poorer they get tbh imo, all my favourite films are from 1960-1970, pretty much all new films aren't trying hard enough imo.

Copyright Infringement !=Stealing !=Piracy.

How many times do we have to have this debate on OCUK?

Seriously.

Prove me wrong, show me a source.
I've explained that :
Copyright Infringement = not stealing, prove me otherwise
=Piracy. not in my country, downloading a movie or mp3 is not piracy nor
Copyright Infringement.

 

[SkeeterUK]

I think i remember seeing a movie company thanking piracy as they got a lot more ppl interested in there film if it wasnt for them the movie wouldnt have been as popular.