Are 'Thieving fare dodgers' any worse than downloaders?

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Marty,

I understand your position and I understand that you consider your behaviours to be acceptable because you think the law ought to be changed to allow you to do these things without fear of prosecution.

The fact is, however, that your actions are illegal and they deprive people of income that they would otherwise be entitled to.

That's all there is to it.

Please explain how i am depriving people of a income by downloading ,eg Merlin, to a HD on my laptop (currently illegal)or a HD on a STB(legal) or a dvd (legal)or a vcr(legal) .I fully understand the case for films and music but i fail to see the case for tv shows

I do fear that we will have to agree to disagree

Just out of interest what illegal activities do you see as acceptible ?or are you a paragon of virtue

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Please explain how i am depriving people of a income by downloading ,eg Merlin, to a HD on my laptop (currently illegal)or a HD on a STB(legal) or a dvd (legal)or a vcr(legal) .I fully understand the case for films and music but i fail to see the case for tv shows

It has already been explained by others in the thread. There are plenty of resources available on the subject (copyright infringement and the impacts thereof) if you care to look.

Originally Posted by martyh

I do fear that we will have to agree to disagree

That is evident, you've already said you don't see anything wrong with what you are doing. As such there is no point in my re-explaining or again pointing out the illegal nature of what you are doing.

Originally Posted by martyh

Just out of interest what illegal activities do you see as acceptible ?or are you a paragon of virtue

What makes you think I'd see any illegal activities as acceptable?

Generally when one acknowledges something as illegal they have already determined that it is not (sociologially or societally) acceptable behaviour.

We don't all think like you in that we assume there are acceptable and unacceptable illegal activities. The very notion is a self contradictory nonsense - used only (as amply evidenced in this very thread) by people who seek to excuse doing something which they know to be illegal.

Incidentally. It's ironic that your avatar appears to be that of a Santa who takes rather than gives.

Hmmm.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

What makes you think I'd see any illegal activities as acceptable?

You ever ate a mince pie on xmas day??

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It has already been explained by others in the thread. There are plenty of resources available on the subject (copyright infringement and the impacts thereof) if you care to look.



.

No it hasn't ,people have said that it is currently illegal and have stated that it deprives people of a livelyhood as you did but have not explained how and neither have you

What makes you think I'd see any illegal activities as acceptable?

Generally when one acknowledges something as illegal they have already determined that it is not (sociologially or societally) acceptable behaviour.

We don't all think like you in that we assume there are acceptable and unacceptable illegal activities. The very notion is a self contradictory nonsense - used only (as amply evidenced in this very thread) by people who seek to excuse doing something which they know to be illegal.

maybe that's why your so angry

It was a question and obviously you are a paragon of law abiding virtue

Incidentally. It's ironic that your avatar appears to be that of a Santa who takes rather than gives.

Hmmm.

TOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING ,if you're response to my arguments is to call Santa a thief when he is quite clearly leaving a house via the chimney after depositing lots of goodies for the children then i feel sorry for you

Have you started the christmas spirit a tad early ?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

he is quite clearly leaving a house via the chimney after depositing lots of goodies for the children

If that's the case, then how come his sack is full up? he usually only takes what he needs down the chimney and leaves the rest in the sleigh

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Gary L

If that's the case, then how come his sack is full up? he usually only takes what he needs down the chimney and leaves the rest in the sleigh

because it's a christmas avatar and not real

[Hugh]

Santa's not real?

Nooooooooo!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

What makes you think I'd see any illegal activities as acceptable?

If I recall correctly, last time you and I had a discussion on this issue, you mentioned that the rights gained when purchasing physical media are non-transferable, thus rendering the second-hand trade and gifts (or at least the playing of media obtained though them) illegal.

To be honest, I struggle to see how anyone would find that (especially the second example) unacceptable.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it hasn't ,people have said that it is currently illegal and have stated that it deprives people of a livelyhood as you did but have not explained how and neither have you

Again, if you look back through the thread you'll see references to lost advertizing revenue - that being but one element of loss. As I said - a bit of factual research on your part and respect for the rights of others wouldn't go amiss.

You're an adult Marty. Pretending that there is nothing wrong in what you do is a fantastical / juvenile approach. You've already admitted several times that you are aware that what you do is illegal. The fact that you've outed yourself as a freeloader now appears to have upset you. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by martyh

maybe that's why your so angry

It was a question and obviously you are a paragon of law abiding virtue

You asked a question and I gave you a straight answer - that's what adults do when they debate. If you want to think of me as a "paragon of law abiding virtue" that is entirely up to you. The fact of the matter is that adults (indeed adolescents) tend to know the difference between right and wrong. You, clearly, have your own little universe where you think there are good illegals and bad illegals to suit your given wont at any time.

I know it's rather an inconvenience for you Marty but you've exposed yourself as an individual who thinks nothing of twisting things to suit your interpretation of the law when you decide to break it. Without drawing ridiculous analogies,as you have tried to do earlier in the thread, that somewhat undermines your past (and indeed future) feigned indignance and moral outrage at others who break the law.

Originally Posted by martyh

TOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING ,if you're response to my arguments is to call Santa a thief when he is quite clearly leaving a house via the chimney after depositing lots of goodies for the children then i feel sorry for you

Yes you're right Marty, I was joking. As for your "arguments" well, they are not really arguments - are they? They are just you trying to condone / explain away your illegal activity by adopting a very juvenile and ill informed (if at all) approach to a very real problem.

Originally Posted by martyh

Have you started the christmas spirit a tad early ?

No. Have you downloaded everything you'll be watching?

[Russ]

Mr A:

I'd be interested to hear your view on the following scenario, which is a true account of what happened to me.

I searched for while for a particular film on DVD which I finally found and bought on Amazon. Several months later the DVD was accidentally (and irreparably) damaged. I decided to download it from a torrent site.

Now I know what your first answer will be: doing so was illegal. I won't argue with that. But I'm interested in what you feel about the moral aspect of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify anything. My view was I'd already bought the licence once. Again, I'm sure you'll be happy to point out that this does not excuse anyone from the law, however I suspect the film company would be likely to take the stance of most music labels, ie that a blind eye may be turned if we make a single back-up copy providing we legitimately paid for the original.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Mr A:

I'd be interested to hear your view on the following scenario, which is a true account of what happened to me.

I searched for while for a particular film on DVD which I finally found and bought on Amazon. Several months later the DVD was accidentally (and irreparably) damaged. I decided to download it from a torrent site.

Now I know what your first answer will be: doing so was illegal. I won't argue with that. But I'm interested in what you feel about the moral aspect of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify anything. My view was I'd already bought the licence once. Again, I'm sure you'll be happy to point out that this does not excuse anyone from the law, however I suspect the film company would be likely to take the stance of most music labels, ie that a blind eye may be turned if we make a single back-up copy providing we legitimately paid for the original.

It's an interesting dilemma Russ - and one which I think we may have visited / touched upon before.

The decision would certainly be a moral issue however the act, as you describe it, would as you quite rightly point out be illegal. Despite the fact that you personally may well have legitimately paid for the original the same cannot be said - with any degree of certainty - of those from whom you might obtain a download "back up" from.

Even if they had (all) legitimately paid for the copies which they were "seeding" their purchase does not confer unto them a licence to distribute / redistribute their copy.

Notwithstanding that fact there is the vexatious matter of how anyone proves they have legitimately acquired a licence (original purchase).

As Marty's earlier link to the story about the Hargreaves Report shows there are currently moves afoot to revise the law with regard to format shifting / copying for personal use post licence acquisition (original purchase). This, to my mind, is an intelligent move which will help prevent scenarios such as the one you have outlined occuring.

I do feel though that it's some way off coming to fruition and, in real terms, it still does not address the issue of the terms of single use licencing which is where a lot of the difficulties / animosity towards copright(s) originate from.

I also know that there are media companies working on a time sensitive methodology whereby legitimate purchasers of media will be offered options as to the format they wish to back their media up via / to. My understanding is that this will not take a physical form but rather a virtual form.

That said, even if format shifting and personal use backups are eventually fully legalized there will still be the issue of illegal downloading to be addressed.

As this thread has aptly evidenced there are many out there who choose to ignore the fact that illegal downloading is not a victimless crime. Until that mindset is addressed (if it ever can be) the temptation to get something for nothing will, I suspect prevail with those too selfish or blinkered to see the adverse impact their actions have on others.

[martyh]

Might i remind you (once again) that the subject of this thread is about which laws people find morally acceptable to break.Some people (millions in fact) find what i do acceptable ,some find parking on double yellow lines acceptable,or doing 35mph in a 30 zone, going to the extreme some even find murder acceptable .We all know these examples are illegal and we are breaking the law we are not ignorant of that fact .
In your outrage at my confessed crimes against humanity you have totally missed the point of the thread and decided that personal attacks are the way forward when you are challenged and others don't see things from your perspective

No. Have you downloaded everything you'll be watching?

Yep ,Sanctuary,ice pilots ,Merlin(last weeks) fringe and a couple of american choppers ,all sitting on my lappy waiting to be watched ,all license fees/subscriptions paid for ,all programs have been transmitted so the advertising revenue has been paid so all i have to do now is battern down the hatches and wait for the lynch mob

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Santa's not real?

Nooooooooo!

Behave! Or no pressies for you..

[admars]

Yep ,Sanctuary,ice pilots ,Merlin(last weeks) fringe and a couple of american choppers ,all sitting on my lappy waiting to be watched ,all license fees/subscriptions paid for ,all programs have been transmitted so the advertising revenue has been paid so all i have to do now is battern down the hatches and wait for the lynch mob

but as ppl have tried to explain before, using Merlin as an example, if you download a torrent of it, BBC won't have any record of your viewing it, which with enough ppl doing that could affect wages etc. Merlin is a hit, but for a less popular program, if it didn't get many "live" viewers, a handful of iplayer viewers, but loads of torrent viewers, then it could get cancelled as the number of viewers would be unknown. So you downloading it, may well mean they haven't lost a sale of a DVD, but it could matter.

[Kymmy]

The issue with UK programs on free to air stations is licencing.. That show is licenced to be shown a certain amount of times on certain days and then to be available on demand under a DRM system for a specific length of time.. If you record it then that licence is invalid so it does beg the question is downloading it any different than recording it and keeping/watching it whenever especially when it's content you originally had free access to??

It's a very grey area and one that the Digital Economy Act 2010 never truly covered especially as it seems to be pointed at sharers rather than downloaders..