MegaUpload has been shut down

[Tefal]

But as soon as you know it's a copy it looses it's magic, unlike knowlingly downloading a movie or song that is identical to the origional the fact that a painting is origional makes it what it is as evidenced by the slight difference in price for an origional compared to a top quality fake.

the paint is in the same place, down to the brush strokes.

you wouldn't be able to tell them apart so where is this "magic"?

that's just like the people who buy PC games legit because they like the box, you've gotten the same content it;s just by buying the official version you get a little bit extra. (although now days buying the official version means you won't actually be able to use it half the time as seen with ubisofts DRM)

the fact that a painting is origional makes it what it is as evidenced by the slight difference in price for an origional compared to a top quality fake.

No that price difference is because the top quality fake is illegal to sell.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Ahem, tax evasion and tax avoidance are completely different things. I think you have your terminology mixed up.

Yeah and they do both (Obviously more avoidance then evasion as that's a crime)

 

[Nexus]

but if you're arguing against piracy from a moral perspective it's very hard to say it's ok to skip the adverts, as that is the "cost" of ad supported tv.




any half devent DVR will do it.

I'm sorry, but it's just not the same thing.

I've also never owned a DVR that skips the ads.
The Sky boxes certainly don't and they are the most used boxes in this country.

 

[2-step]

do you REALLY think they can stamp out piracy?

I don't...

 

[Tefal]

I've also never owned a DVR that skips the ads.
The Sky boxes certainly don't and they are the most used boxes in this country.

your DVR doesn't have a fast forward function that skips in increments that are suspiciously the same length as an advert?

I'm sorry, but it's just not the same thing.

why?

 

[a1ex2001]

the paint is in the same place, down to the brush strokes.

you wouldn't be able to tell them apart so where is this "magic"?

that's just like the people who buy PC games legit because they like the box, you've gotten the same content it;s just by buying the official version you get a little bit extra. (although now days buying the official version means you won't actually be able to use it half the time as seen with ubisofts DRM)




No that price difference is because the top quality fake is illegal to sell.

Seriously you can't understand why looking at the work of a great painter is different to looking at a reproduction? If you don't get that then you won't ever understand it's one of lifes great intagibles something about knowing your in the presence of genius. Much like hearing a great man in person rather than seeing him on TV he might be saying the same thing it's just different.

 

[Nexus]

why?

I'm already paying to watch the TV Service, in the case of Sky Channels, they are selling the advertising on the proviso that the audience base is watching with devices that can fast forward through advertisements. Advertisers are well aware of this, they have been since the VHS days, it doesn't seem to have affected Ad Sales.

I just can't see how this can be likened to downloading a film illegally, which in many cases, won't even be going anywhere near a television channel yet.

 

[a1ex2001]

do you REALLY think they can stamp out piracy?

I don't...

They have no intention of stamping it out just massively reducing it and hopefully changing peoples ridiculous attitudes to copyright infringment.

The reason nothing was done about this in the 80's and 90's was because it was on a tiny scale compared to today, everyone had a few copied tapes in school but in those days you at least had to know someone who had purchased the origionals.

We now have a generation growing up with no understanding of it being wrong to copy music/films/games because their parents have fed them on a diest of pirated stuff for years. This is whats breeding the sense of entitlement that no matter how people try to dress it up is wrong, if you don't think something is worth the price don't buy it, if you don't like the distribution system don't buy it why either of those two things should entitle you to pirate it is beyond me.

Even the whole synchronised world wide release thing irritates me yes it is a bit stupid but they own the content so they should be allowed to decide and when did we become so impatient that we couldn't wait a few weeks for some poxy TV show or movie that is over in less than a couple of hours and is never going to change your life. The short term consumerist nature and total lack of patience of society these days is scary.

 

[:(Rhodri:)]

You can track and charge the users which which also impacts the network. A few high profile cases and most normal people will come into line.

That's clearly not the case as the media industry has been hitting people with massive bills for piracy for years, and it's had no discernible effect.

 

[a1ex2001]

That's clearly not the case as the media industry has been hitting people with massive bills for piracy for years, and it's had no discernible effect.

They haven't though really have they? There have been one or two high profile cases mainly in the states, if they want to have a significant impact they need to make the risk of being caught and proescuted real this is what stops people doing things much like drink driving.

If they made copyright infringment a criminal offence and actually prosecuted a couple of hundred people in the UK in a twelve month period you would see a massive fall in the levels of piracy.

One of the main reasons it is so rampant is that everyone knows you won't get caught and done for it. Much like doing 80 on the motorway everyone knows it's technically illegal but thousands of people still do it as they know they won't be prosecuted, put an average speed camera on every bridge and they would soon stick to 70.

 

[Tefal]

I'm already paying to watch the TV Service, in the case of Sky Channels, they are selling the advertising on the proviso that the audience base is watching with devices that can fast forward through advertisements. Advertisers are well aware of this, they have been since the VHS days, it doesn't seem to have affected Ad Sales.

I just can't see how this can be likened to downloading a film illegally, which in many cases, won't even be going anywhere near a television channel yet.

So say there are 2 people Person A sits down and watches an episode of friends on channel 4.

when the adverts come on he leaves the room.

now neither he nor person Bare a member of any ratings sample group so the tv company has no idea if he watched the program or not.

he didn't watch the adverts so has paid nothing to watch the program.

now person B watches the same episode of friends streaming on the internet and again pays nothing.


now we have two people who have watched the same show for free and neither the advertisers, broadcasting company or producers of the show have any knowledge of the peoples actions.



where is the difference that to you makes one theft and the other not?

 

[:(Rhodri:)]

They haven't though really have they? There have been one or two high profile cases mainly in the states, if they want to have a significant impact they need to make the risk of being caught and proescuted real this is what stops people doing things much like drink driving.

If they made copyright infringment a criminal offence and actually prosecuted a couple of hundred people in the UK in a twelve month period you would see a massive fall in the levels of piracy.

One of the main reasons it is so rampant is that everyone knows you won't get caught and done for it. Much like doing 80 on the motorway everyone knows it's technically illegal but thousands of people still do it as they know they won't be prosecuted, put an average speed camera on every bridge and they would soon stick to 70.

Also wrong - "The RIAA has admitted to filing over 30,000 individual lawsuits, but those are composed of both named and anonymous people, and not every case was settled. Regardless of which figure you decide to use, that gives a lowball amount of $50 million in settlements alone, perhaps as high as almost double that. "

and this was taken from an article written in 2009.

If they were to try and prosecute any serious amount of pirates the sheer amount of time, money and effort required to do so would cripple the courts.

 

[Tefal]

If they made copyright infringment a criminal offence and actually prosecuted a couple of hundred people in the UK in a twelve month period you would see a massive fall in the levels of piracy.

You'd also see the uk justice system fail spectacularly as you'd have about 50 million people all facing trial with the right to a trial by jury....


Interestingly I wonder where we'd get the 600 million people we'd need for jury duty

 

[Tefal]

Seriously you can't understand why looking at the work of a great painter is different to looking at a reproduction? If you don't get that then you won't ever understand it's one of lifes great intagibles something about knowing your in the presence of genius. Much like hearing a great man in person rather than seeing him on TV he might be saying the same thing it's just different.

and where does this fit into your legal argument?



Or is the metaphysical now a marketable product?


or is a lower quality copy acceptable?


cause that'll cover every streaming site because the quality of them is nothing compared to a cinema.

 

[Dirk]

expect it to the first of many......

It's not even close to being the first. Domain seizures have been happening for quite some time now!

 

[RomanNose]

There would be no point making it criminal, as people would just vpn offshore.

 

[RomanNose]

You can track and charge the users which which also impacts the network. A few high profile cases and most normal people will come into line.

If it did start occuring then pirates would vpn offshore, if the vpn has no logs there is no proof= no evidence.

 

[a1ex2001]

You'd also see the uk justice system fail spectacularly as you'd have about 50 million people all facing trial with the right to a trial by jury....


Interestingly I wonder where we'd get the 600 million people we'd need for jury duty

You Don't try them all just a random select few, much like speeding and once you have established a test case you offer a fixed fine which people will take rather than risk court much like with current speeding regs.

Also wrong - "The RIAA has admitted to filing over 30,000 individual lawsuits, but those are composed of both named and anonymous people, and not every case was settled. Regardless of which figure you decide to use, that gives a lowball amount of $50 million in settlements alone, perhaps as high as almost double that. "

and this was taken from an article written in 2009.

If they were to try and prosecute any serious amount of pirates the sheer amount of time, money and effort required to do so would cripple the courts.

I stand corrected on the numbers, but it's not been enough to make people concerned about being caught and that is the critical point, if you make it criminal set a precedent in court and then make it an on the spot fine similar to speeding you will inevitably reduce the numbers, you just need to convince people they will be caught and quickly and simply prosecuted.

and where does this fit into your legal argument?



Or is the metaphysical now a marketable product?


or is a lower quality copy acceptable?


cause that'll cover every streaming site because the quality of them is nothing compared to a cinema.

as I said earlier once you have changed a painting (due to lack of skill or precision orwhatever) you are almost certainly into the realms of derivative works which are governed differently by copyright laws in different countries.

I'm not sure I'd like to see a dodgy stream defined as a derivative work as it is still trying to pass itself off as a replacement for the origional without the rights holder being paid.

There would be no point making it criminal, as people would just vpn offshore.

See the point is the masses wouldn't hence the number still using unsecured torrents, the masses do whats straight forward and simple and I'm not sure the VPN providers could cope with the traffic volumes if everyone switched from direct access to usenet!

 

[RomanNose]

You Don't try them all just a random select few, much like speeding and once you have established a test case you offer a fixed fine which people will take rather than risk court much like with current speeding regs.

Impossible, the last two posts I made explain why.

 

[Ethereal2011]

I see there have been mini updated throughout the day, the latest one:

"he founder and three employees of the Megaupload file-sharing website have appeared in court in New Zealand after being arrested in police raids.

New Zealand police also seized guns, artwork, more than £5 million in cash and luxury cars valued at nearly £3 million after serving 10 search warrants at several businesses and homes around the city of Auckland."