Government drops website blocking

Looks like you have nothing else to really retort after your moronic assumptions made you look a bit silly. You can have the last word though if it makes you feel a bit better about it all.
Pot-kettle-black?

Your cinema ticket does not entitle you to view the film anywhere but at the cinema, nor does it entitle you to watch it more than the pre-agreed number of times. You still haven't made a retort to that other than "I'm entitled to view the film at home because the cinema screwed up" which, by the way, you are not entitled to do. Hmm, choice reply bro.

Also love the disguised "NO U" response, very mature.
Pot-kettle-black?
 
The license is bound to you regardless, they can't reuse it.
I know what the small print says, but i'd still torrent it, because I have paid for the game, not using it for a set time is ridiculous. I will take what I have paid for and what I am entitled to, regardless of it is it legal or not. Technically it's still mine and morally it's not wrong.

Good luck contesting morals against the law. Let me know how that one goes.

Your perceived entitlement is not the same as your actual entitlement. The cinema example is particularly hilarious.
 
As stated in the article the copying of your own purchased media for yourself is to be legalised i.e. copying a dvd to an avi onto your computer is at the moment illegal and is an act of copyright infringement. I wonder if iDroid84 has ever done this? As if so by his own definition he is a thief as you wouldn't of paid for the digital version.
Luckily the law is now catching up and realises this is in fact ridiculous.

And as pointed out in the review if the majority of the population is doing an illegal act then that is a bad piece of legislation and probably shouldn't in fact be illegal.
 
Pot-kettle-black?

Your cinema ticket does not entitle you to view the film anywhere but at the cinema, nor does it entitle you to watch it more than the pre-agreed number of times. You still haven't made a retort to that other than "I'm entitled to view the film at home because the cinema screwed up" which, by the way, you are not entitled to do. Hmm, choice reply bro.


My cinema ticket, from my own point of view entitles me to watch the film as it's intended, once, be it in the cinema, or online if ever needed, and no this hasn't happened before, it was merely an example, but I realise how you love assuming things, so to save you the embarrassment, I'll point it out now.

I have paid my fare to use this service, and I will get my service how it is intended. If the service isn't as intended then I expect a refund, and if a refund is refused then I will get my use of the service by whatever means it has to be, "simples".

I know legally, I am not allowed to, I never said I was, but I would do anyway because morally I know I am entitled to it.
Downloading and distributing the film online, is a different matter, which is where it would be more of a moral issue, streaming it? No. I don't mean streaming it multiple times, either. Just the once, to get back what I was intended to get in the first place.

Pot-kettle-black?
What ever. Filthy pirate.
Jovial, actually. Can tell you're mad though
You're not entitled to it, legally nor morally. Simples.
Pot-kettle-black?

By comparison to your replies? Not at all.
 
*munching on popcorn* I tell ya this beats the movies. All I need now is an IMAX screen and 3D glasses :D :p

Sorry, you have to pay for a ticket.

£12 please, otherwise I'll report you to the e-police for illegal viewing of my posts.
 
They should not ban Google, however they should ask Google to control their search results e.t.c what can and what can't be searched. For example Torrents, porn, hacking e.t.c.

if you cant control your urges then just ask your mum to get net nanny installed on your computer.
why do you want to deprive the rest of the world of the best thing ever....what a selfish little man.
 
My cinema ticket, from my own point of view entitles me to watch the film as it's intended, once, be it in the cinema, or online if ever needed, and no this hasn't happened before, it was merely an example, but I realise how you love assuming things, so to save you the embarrassment, I'll point it out now.

I have paid my fare to use this service, and I will get my service how it is intended. If the service isn't as intended then I expect a refund, and if a refund is refused then I will get my use of the service by whatever means it has to be, "simples".

I know legally, I am not allowed to, I never said I was, but I would do anyway because morally I know I am entitled to it.
Downloading and distributing the film online, is a different matter, which is where it would be more of a moral issue, streaming it? No. I don't mean streaming it multiple times, either. Just the once, to get back what I was intended to get in the first place.

By comparison to your replies? Not at all.
Save me from the embarrassment of what? That you've just admitted to your own mistake? Ok. :confused:

Your view != what the law says, and is != to what the cinema ticket actually entitles you to. You are not "morally entitled" to anything other than what you are legally entitled to. You bought the ticket under the premise that you are going to view the film at the cinema, not at home.

Also to point out, you'll be infringing the copyright of the owner of the film, and not the cinema at all. So morally, legally, and any other fantasy way you might think you are entitled to view said film at home without purchasing your own copy, you are not entitled to view it.

You lose.

Oh and I thought you weren't going to post anymore, with your disguised bow out? :(
Looks like you have nothing else to really retort after your moronic assumptions made you look a bit silly. You can have the last word though if it makes you feel a bit better about it all.

Also love the disguised "NO U" response, very mature.
 
Aedus said:
My cinema ticket, from my own point of view entitles me to watch the film as it's intended, once, be it in the cinema, or online if ever needed

Seriously?

Your cinema ticket entitles you to watch a single performance of a particular film, at the time stated on the ticket, at the cinema you purchased it from. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Yes it is theft. I don't care what the other threads say.

OK, so I walk into OcUK store. Ask for a product. They hand me it and I walk off without paying. So, this is not theft either?..... It's the same thing except here were talking about digital media. Most people who download do not own that film or music or application.

IT IS THEFT.



They should not ban Google, however they should ask Google to control their search results e.t.c what can and what can't be searched. For example Torrents, porn, hacking e.t.c.

Better ban the sales of knives then if you want to go down that road.
 
Yes it is theft. I don't care what the other threads say.

OK, so I walk into OcUK store. Ask for a product. They hand me it and I walk off without paying. So, this is not theft either?..... It's the same thing except here were talking about digital media. Most people who download do not own that film or music or application.

IT IS THEFT.



They should not ban Google, however they should ask Google to control their search results e.t.c what can and what can't be searched. For example Torrents, porn, hacking e.t.c.

Not too bright are you? It is not THEFT it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Oh and pornography, torrents and information about hacking aren't illegal. You don't like it then move to China.
 
Not too bright are you? It is not THEFT it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Oh and pornography, torrents and information about hacking aren't illegal. You don't like it then move to China.

Never said I didn't like it. I also never said pornography, torrents and information about hacking is illegal either.

if you cant control your urges then just ask your mum to get net nanny installed on your computer.
why do you want to deprive the rest of the world of the best thing ever....what a selfish little man.

I can control my urges it's other people downloading illegal material that's my concern. What's selfish about that?
 
Save me from the embarrassment of what? That you've just admitted to your own mistake? Ok. :confused:

Your view != what the law says, and is != to what the cinema ticket actually entitles you to. You are not "morally entitled" to anything other than what you are legally entitled to. You bought the ticket under the premise that you are going to view the film at the cinema, not at home.

Also to point out, you'll be infringing the copyright of the owner of the film, and not the cinema at all. So morally, legally, and any other fantasy way you might think you are entitled to view said film at home without purchasing your own copy, you are not entitled to view it.

You lose.

Oh and I thought you weren't going to post anymore, with your disguised bow out? :(

I really don't care if the law states I can or cannot. I will get my use from the service that I pay for. Same thing with the game example, if I have paid for a game, and then the service I purchased it from prevents me playing it, I will get it by an alternate method.

I bought the ticket on basis I would get a pleasurable experience viewing said film at the cinema I bought it from, if for whatever reason their end of the deal cannot be completed and they refuse to reimburse my money, then like i stated, i'll use whatever method necessary to acquire it. They production company won't lose or gain any more money from me by doing so.

Then it's on the cinemas head to provide a better service so such incidents don't occur.

Disguised bow out? Not at all. I thought you were done and just giving petty 1 liners back to me. Since that's not the case we may continue. I do love the "You lose", though, it's not quite over yet, you've honed in on my poorer example which I typed while at work, and I do admit, it is a poor example. The game example is still just as valid, if not more-so, so lets focus on this shall we? You may still reply to the cinema example, but it's a bit of a circular argument which won't go anywhere so it feels a little pointless.


With a game service you pay for a CD-Key, regardless of what happens, that CD-key is now yours, it's bound to your account and cannot ever be given to anyone else. With EA's origin, they can after a certain period of time completely block your access to this game that you have paid for. For what reason? Well there is no real reason. Before they had another stipulation that after 6 months, you couldn't re-download your game again from the download manager. What option is there left? That CD key is still yours, you don't have a disk to install it and there's no other way to get the client. Oh that's right, torrents. But torrents are bad, right? They're illegal, so you shouldn't be able to play that game, sitting on your account unless you go and purchase it again just for the disk. That's insanity.

Same with Steam, you just bought "The witcher 2" on Steam, it's your only game on there, but Steam has just closed your account for no reason what-so-ever, you can't access your CD-Key, you can't access the download. Torrenting it is your only option, you've paid the developer for their game, yet you can't use it because of a discrepancy with the service you purchased it through. Is it theft to take the game off a torrent to play it? I mean you just bought it yesterday and for no reason at all you can't access it. By your logic, it is theft, and by a lot of others logic it's theft too. But by my logic, I am taking what I paid for. I paid for a game, and the service cannot provide me with this game, so I will get it by whatever means that I have to.
 
The stupidity in this thread annoys me. As someone said a few pages back (Fox IIRC), go and read up what theft actually is.



filesharingisnotpiracy.gif
 
Last edited:
i bet you have apps from cydia you have not paid for ;)
or at least tried then deleted

Nope, I don't use cydia.

Personally no - I got the free copy they gave away about a year ago, the free license for life?
But as an example I have 3 paid for licenses for WinZip because I use it on 3 different machines.

Every single piece of software on our 2 desktops, 1 laptop and 1 Macbook is 100% legitimate.
Mainly because I don't feel the world owes me a living.
I use things and so I pay for them, it's all pretty simple.

As to those who keep on going on about "it isn't theft" - a rose by any other name.....
Call it what you want, be as technical as you want to be. Bottom line is you're taking something that doesn't belong to you.
If you feel that is OK then go for your life - defend piracy as much as you want to.
However I was bought up with morals passed on to me from my parents. One of these was not to steal, not to take things that don't belong to you.
I choose to follow these morals.

This is how I see it regardless.
 
I feel that you should make your own decisions on morals, I acknowledge that in some cases people can't afford to buy products and never will, in these cases I don't feel that filesharing is causing much harm as they would have never bought the product in the first place. As a student on no income, I can barely afford to have any hardware let alone purchasing software + media, when I get a good job I am sure that my attitudes will change.
 
Back
Top Bottom