3 Strikes Rule?

[ThunderPants73]

Hi guys,

I know this has probably been asked before but I'm tired of looking. Since the bill thingy was rushed through parliament, what exactly is VM's stance on 'illegal' file sharing? Is it the 3 Strike rule or can copyright owners demand your details and sue you straight off? I for one don't download movies or music, just the odd tv programme, but I'm still paraniod about this Can anyone clarify once and for all?

[*sloman*]

Yep TV programs are included. Section 10/17 are the worst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010

http://www.dontdisconnect.us/

Illegal downloads

#4: After apparent copyright abuse, copyright holders can send a “copyright infringement report” to ISPs with evidence of the downloading, within one month of the alleged incident. The ISP must notify its subscriber within a month, providing education about legal alternatives, evidence and information about appeals and legal advice.

#5: ISPs, if requested, must provide copyright holders with a “copyright infringement list”, listing each infringement by an individual, anonymised user.

#6: Sets out conditions for approval of “initial obligations” code under which Ofcom can deliver the above two copyright clauses.

#7: If no such code exists, Ofcom can make its own.

#8: Populates the content of the “initial obligations” code, which would see that ISPs must not notify subscribers of alleged infringements more than a year old.

#9: Ofcom must report, every three and 12 months, on the extent of online copyright infringement, whether copyright owners are making content legally available, how the education drive is progressing and the volume of “copyright infringement reports”.

#10: The govt. can tell Ofcom whether it should order ISPs to sanction speed blocks, bandwidth shaping, site blocking, account suspension or other limits against an ISP customer. First, Ofcom must do consultation and consider whether these measures would work.

#11: If the measures pass Ofcom’s muster, the govt. can then level the measures against ISPs, but only if approved by both houses of parliament.

#12: Ofcom must make its own code regulating how these measures can be sanctioned…

#13: The code must cover enforcement procedures, subscriber appeals, costs are taken care of and that Ofcom would arbitrate owner-ISP disputes.

#14: Subscribers can appeal to an independent person named in Ofcom’s code and, later, to a first-tier tribunal. Costs would be met by the ISP, copyright holder and subscriber.

#15: ISPs that fail to apply technical measures against subscribers can be fined up to £250,000, as Ofcom determines.

#16: Copyright owners must pay Ofcom’s costs; both copyright owners and ISPs must pay costs of implementing technical measures; accused subscribers must also share appeal costs.

[pip08456]

#16: Copyright owners must pay Ofcom’s costs; both copyright owners and ISPs must pay costs of implementing technical measures; accused subscribers must also share appeal costs.

Looks good

accused subscribers must also share appeal costs.

Surely only if there is an appeal????? (an accusation ie accused does not mean guilty therefore no need for an appeal)

And this is going to stop "illegal downloads" HOW??

[Sirius]

#16: Copyright owners must pay Ofcom’s costs; both copyright owners and ISPs must pay costs of implementing technical measures; accused subscribers must also share appeal costs.

Looks good

accused subscribers must also share appeal costs.

Surely only if there is an appeal?????

And this is going to stop "illegal downloads" HOW??

My feelings are that VM will not be able to stop themselves from adapting the Detica kit they are using for this so they can make money from it.

[pip08456]

I have no problem with the Detica Kit per se, what I do have a problem with is section 10/17 (quoted above) which in itself is nonsense,

[ThunderPants73]

Still seems a little vague to me. Can anyone tell me, in words that a small child can understand, exactly what the penalty will be for downloading copyrighted material?

[pip08456]

Still seems a little vague to me.......

Not vague - total nonsense! Look at the legal implications totally unworkable.

[ThunderPants73]

Is that a professional opinion?

[Mr Angry]

Still seems a little vague to me. Can anyone tell me, in words that a small child can understand, exactly what the penalty will be for downloading copyrighted material?


There are two finite outcomes but one simple solution.

1: If you continue to illegally download tv shows you may well face a disconnection and ultimately a costly prosecution should a rights holder take it upon themselves to prosecute you.

2: The premise of the eighth commandment applies, VIII (http://www.thoushaltnotsteal.co.uk).

Conversely, if you stop illegally downloading you will, in all probability, find that you have less to worry about.

[pip08456]

Is that a professional opinion?

Not at all, I am not in the legal profession. Merely my point of view.

@ Mr Angry you need to check on the legal definition of theft.

Basic definition of theft

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;

[ThunderPants73]

I wonder how many VM customers DL copyrighted material?

[Mr Angry]

@ Mr Angry you need to check on the legal definition of theft.

I, personally, made no mention of theft, as such I'd thank you not to assume that you might know what I may or may not need to check the legal definition of.

That aside, the OP has clarified from the outset that he / she is aware that his / her activities in relation to downloading are illegal.

[ThunderPants73]

"That aside, the OP has clarified from the outset that he / she is aware that his / her activities in relation to downloading are illegal."

No I never! I didn't know downloading tv programmes was illegal! Shame on you for assuming that! I recorded Doc Who to my dvd hard drive last week, am I a criminal?

[pip08456]

2: The premise of the eighth commandment applies, VIII.

And that would not be a reference?

Bu**er the link doesn't work on copy and paste. However I'm sure those who wish to check can go to your original post.

[Mr Angry]

"That aside, the OP has clarified from the outset that he / she is aware that his / her activities in relation to downloading are illegal."

No I never! I didn't know downloading tv programmes was illegal! Shame on you for assuming that!


Apologies, you made no distinction in your post. That said, if you are not acquiring your TV downloads from an illegal source then you've nothing to worry about, have you.

I recorded Doc Who to my dvd hard drive last week, am I a criminal?

I'd need more information. Have you been arrested, charged and found guilty in the interim? If not then currently you are not a criminal.

[ThunderPants73]

No, no and no. Yay me.....

[pip08456]

I've never been arrested, charged or found guilty for any of the above. Does your assertion still apply?

2: The premise of the eighth commandment applies, VIII.


I think I've got it working


2: The premise of the eighth commandment applies, VIII (http://www.thoushaltnotsteal.co.uk).

[Mr Angry]

I've never been arrested, charged or found guilty for any of the above. Does your assertion still apply?

2: The premise of the eighth commandment applies, VIII.


I think I've got it working

Ah, the old school of "wouldn't let it lie".

OK. If your "any of the above" refers to the specific context as outlined by ThunderPants73 then if you also have recorded Doctor Who to your dvd hard drive last week and have not been arrested, not been charged or found guilty of anything then yes, the assertion still applies.

Notwithstanding that fact I cannot assert that you have not been convicted of a criminal offence in relation to any other illegal act or deed which you may have been found guilty of under criminal law.

I've made it patently clear that "I, personally, made no mention of theft".

Nowhere in my original post will you see the word "theft".

Any specific reference to theft was made by the linked to third party - not me myself.

Do you get it now?

[pip08456]

Notwithstanding that fact I cannot assert that you have not been convicted of a criminal offence in relation to any other illegal act or deed which you may have been found guilty of under criminal law.

I've made it patently clear that "I, personally, made no mention of theft".

Nowhere in my original post will you see the word "theft".

Any specific reference to theft was made by the linked to third party - not me myself.

Do you get it now?

Yup won't let it lie. YOU posted the link not me so how you can blame a third party I do not know.

The link YOU posted specifically referred to Theiving ba**ards and if you did not wish for anyone to infer anything then you should not have included it. YOUR choice not mine.

If you don't agree with the sentiments of the link then DON'T POST IT!!!

Do YOU GET IT NOW????

[Ignitionnet]

You're protesting a tad too vehemently, especially given that you aren't the subject of nor have you been referenced in this thread at any point apart from to respond to you.

Alcohol + forums, always a dangerous combination.

[pip08456]

How did you guess Igni. I just take umbrage (if spelt correctly) at bible thumpers!

[Mr Angry]

Do YOU get it now???
Yup won't let it lie. YOU posted the link not me so how you can blame a third party I do not know.

The link YOU posted specifically referred to Theiving ba**ards and if you did not wish for anyone to infer anything then you should not have included it. YOUR choice not mine.

If you don't agree with the sentiments of the link then DON'T POST IT!!!

Do YOU GET IT NOW????

"I, personally, made no mention of theft".

Me mentioning theft and my linking to a site which makes reference to theft are two entirely different things, but you know that.

I understand you're annoyed that your initial quip about my needing to understand the legal definiton of theft was a massive fail on your part - we all get that you were trying your best to be a "smarty pants".

I didn't say I "don't agree with the sentiments of the link". In fact I do agree with the sentiments expressed therein and I personally think theft is wrong. In truth whether I agree with them or not bears no relevance to their validity.

You have assumed that the site is referencing illegal downloads - personally I can see no reference to or mention of illegal downloads and, to that end, you are assuming an awful lot.

[pip08456]

"I, personally, made no mention of theft".

Me mentioning theft and my linking to a site which makes reference to theft are two entirely different things, but you know that

Mr Angry please I am not uneducated.

[Hugh]

Not at all, I am not in the legal profession. Merely my point of view.

@ Mr Angry you need to check on the legal definition of theft.

Basic definition of theft

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;
That may be the basic definition of theft, but this definition from LawTeacher (http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/theft-lecture.php) may clarify it.
Section 4(1) (of Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)) provides a general definition of property for the purposes of theft, where it states:
"Property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
GENERAL


Things in action are rights which can only be enforced by taking legal action, as they have no physical existence. For example, a man owes £ 500 to a company. This debt is a chose in action. It exists in the sense that the company could actually sell it to somebody else, who would then have the right to collect the money from the man.
Other examples of intangible property are copyrights, trademarks and patents. However, confidential information has been held to fall outside the definition of property:
Which brings us to copyright theft...;)

[Mr Angry]

Mr Angry please I am not uneducated.

Apologies, I certainly didn't mean to infer that to be the case.

Potentially offending part of post removed.

Lets move on.

[pip08456]

That may be the basic definition of theft, but this definition from LawTeacher (http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/theft-lecture.php) may clarify it.
Which brings us to copyright theft...;)

I could probabley agree with you 100% if your source was UK law and not US/ International.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------

Apologies, I certainly didn't mean to infer that to be the case.

Potentially offending part of post removed.

Lets move on.

Agreed let's not ponder.

[Mr Angry]

Good, we're all in 100% agreement (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Theft+Act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1204238&ActiveTextDocId=1204245&filesize=4087).

[Ignitionnet]

How did you guess Igni. I just take umbrage (if spelt correctly) at bible thumpers!

It's Saturday, the sun is shining, you're reminding me of me when I've had a couple and let myself loose on CF ;)

[pip08456]

It's Saturday, the sun is shining, you're reminding me of me when I've had a couple and let myself loose on CF ;)

We're all OK now enjoy the sun (I'm ignoring the link at present and will come out with one of my own.)

[Hugh]

I could probabley agree with you 100% if your source was UK law and not US/ International..Link (http://www.lawteacher.net/policies-and-contact-details/contact-us.php?topnav_id=contact)
Law Teacher is a trading name of Academic Answers Ltd, and our registered office is, AcademicAnswersLtd, 1st Floor, Goeland House, 178 St Albans Road, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 6GW.

Academic Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No: 4964706 (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/121f0df7e7d07c26f2891e5cf35d51cb/compdetails) VAT Registration No: 842417633.

And the site refered to "Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)" which is in the UK Statute Law database (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680060_en_1)

[Sirius]

Right quick check sheet

Deckchair. Check


:beer: Check


OK now to watch a fight that has been fought before and no doubt will be fought again :LOL:

But i feel i already know who will win this ;)

[pip08456]

Link (http://www.lawteacher.net/policies-and-contact-details/contact-us.php?topnav_id=contact)


And the site refered to "Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)" which is in the UK Statute Law database (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680060_en_1)

It is not necessarily in the form in which it was originally enacted (their words not mine)

[Hugh]

What happened to the I could probabley agree with you 100% if your source was UK law and not US/ International viewpoint, now you know it is UK Law? ;)

[Mr Angry]

It is not necessarily in the form in which it was originally enacted (their words not mine)

The actual quote is: "It is not necessarily in the form in which it was originally enacted but is a revised version, which means that any subsequent amendments to the text and other effects are incorporated with annotations."

Which simply means that the legislation has been updated since its original enactment and what you are reading is the current statutory instrument - which is what foreverwar has quoted from earlier.

[broadbandking]

Hi guys,

I know this has probably been asked before but I'm tired of looking. Since the bill thingy was rushed through parliament, what exactly is VM's stance on 'illegal' file sharing? Is it the 3 Strike rule or can copyright owners demand your details and sue you straight off? I for one don't download movies or music, just the odd tv programme, but I'm still paraniod about this Can anyone clarify once and for all?

If forced to then VM will have to adopt the rule and the simple answer is to not get sued don't download anything illegal.

[Sirius]

If forced to then VM will have to adopt the rule and the simple answer is to not get sued don't download anything illegal.

PM on its way

[pip08456]

Tables of legislative effects

The tables list the repeals, amendments and other effects of legislation (primary and secondary) enacted from 2002 to the current year on the revised legislation held on SLD. A letter 'Y' against an entry in the column headed ‘Amendment Applied’ means that the effect has been carried through to SLD. [NOTE: the column headed "Type of Effect" has not been completed for the effects of 2002 legislation, other than commencement orders]

The effects of new legislation are added as soon as possible after the legislation is received from The Stationery Office. There will usually, however, be some delay between the publication of new legislation to the website and the effects of it appearing in these tables. In most cases the delay will be less than two weeks.




You may search the tables for the effects of only one year’s legislation at a time (e.g. 2003), but you may then narrow that search by entering in the appropriate boxes: the number of the affecting legislation; the year of the affected legislation; the number of the affected legislation; or any combination of these.

None of the above state that the amendment has actually been passed into law.

---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Right quick check sheet

Deckchair. Check


:beer: Check


OK now to watch a fight that has been fought before and no doubt will be fought again :LOL:

But i feel i already know who will win this ;)

Have a pint for me too Sirius:D:D:D:D:D

[Mr Angry]

Tables of legislative effects

The tables list the repeals, amendments and other effects of legislation (primary and secondary) enacted from 2002 to the current year on the revised legislation held on SLD. A letter 'Y' against an entry in the column headed ‘Amendment Applied’ means that the effect has been carried through to SLD. [NOTE: the column headed "Type of Effect" has not been completed for the effects of 2002 legislation, other than commencement orders]

The effects of new legislation are added as soon as possible after the legislation is received from The Stationery Office. There will usually, however, be some delay between the publication of new legislation to the website and the effects of it appearing in these tables. In most cases the delay will be less than two weeks.




You may search the tables for the effects of only one year’s legislation at a time (e.g. 2003), but you may then narrow that search by entering in the appropriate boxes: the number of the affecting legislation; the year of the affected legislation; the number of the affected legislation; or any combination of these.

None of the above state that the amendment has actually been passed into law.



Yes, that's all very well and good but none of the outstanding legislative effects from 2009 / 2010 apply to (4) which has remained unrepealed since the original enactment.

Once the legislative effect is passed it becomes part of the statutory instrument. What you are reading at the link you are cutting and pasting from is not what might or might not be the law it is the law as is in relation to theft and it states very clearly:

4 “Property”

(1) “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

[ThunderPants73]

Well, that kind of veered all over the place didn't it?

[martyh]

Well, that kind of veered all over the place didn't it?

yeah see what you started :D

[Mr Angry]

Well, that kind of veered all over the place didn't it?

You bloody started it!!;)

[Andrewcrawford23]

The annoying thing is this stupid law does address the issue which is the copyright holder stuck in the bloody 70s and not moderising and provid us the peopel that pay them a better system that we like downloads and dma free and acess to the mateirla all at the same tiem ie america isnt first etc

[speedfreak]

Well, that kind of veered all over the place didn't it?

Did you even get the simple reply you wanted :erm: :D

[martyh]

Did you even get the simple reply you wanted :erm: :D

you didn't really expect him to did you :D

[Mr Angry]

The annoying thing is this stupid law does address the issue which is the copyright holder stuck in the bloody 70s and not moderising and provid us the peopel that pay them a better system that we like downloads and dma free and acess to the mateirla all at the same tiem ie america isnt first etc

Yes, the issue is, of course, that there are a very significant number of people who don't pay them - hence the need to have laws to protect their (the copyright holders) rights.

[Ignitionnet]

The annoying thing is this stupid law does address the issue which is the copyright holder stuck in the bloody 70s and not moderising and provid us the peopel that pay them a better system that we like downloads and dma free and acess to the mateirla all at the same tiem ie america isnt first etc

Yes we like downloads, I presume you meant DRM free, and access to them at the same time as the rest of the world.

Sad part is all too many of us like all the above without paying for said downloads, hence the need for DRM and legal remedies both to stop 'us' from downloading the content and sharing it with others so that the copyright holder gets nothing from large swathes of usage of their product, and to deal with those who download the content from those sharing it.

Fundamentally it was fine when it was a tiny tech-savvy minority, these days any numb-nuts can download a P2P client and download things for free. There's a balancing act here, and at the moment it's far, far too skewed towards downloading without paying and this needs some rebalancing towards people paying for the content. Downloading is so common it's not even considered as being dodgy by many at the moment, just what they do. This can't last.

[pip08456]

Yes, that's all very well and good but none of the outstanding legislative effects from 2009 / 2010 apply to (4) which has remained unrepealed since the original enactment.

Once the legislative effect is passed it becomes part of the statutory instrument. What you are reading at the link you are cutting and pasting from is not what might or might not be the law it is the law as is in relation to theft and it states very clearly:

4 “Property”

(1) “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Getting picky are we now?

Is this going off topic now?????????????

BTW\I'm only cutting and pasting from the links sited preveiously.

[speedfreak]

Is this going off topic now?????????????


Possibly did a couple of pages back




Agreed let's not ponder.


lol :D If it wasnt for the fact Ive been working today and not at home drinking Id probably have joined in with you :)


Igni made a good point, I consider downloading certain things "normal" To the OP, in simple terms if it worries you then dont do it, I didnt realise TV stuff was frowned upon either and I dont consider myself a criminal either :p:

[Maggy]

I'd say we were still on topic myself and I'm fairly certain the original question has been answered.

[pip08456]

[QUOTE=Ignitionnet;35022497.

Fundamentally it was fine when it was a tiny tech-savvy minority, these days any numb-nuts can download a P2P client and download things for free. .[/QUOTE]

And the difference between a tiny tech-savvy minority and any numb-nuts?

If it was fine then then it's fine now you can't have it both ways.

BTW Thanks Maggy!

[Mr Angry]

Getting picky are we now?


Errrr no.

I took from your previous post where you stated "None of the above state that the amendment has actually been passed into law". that you didn't quite understand that what you were reading actually is the law and not a collective of musings on what might or might not be the law.

As for "off topic" I think we have your original interjection to thank for that.

The answer to the original question is that Virgin Media will comply with the Digital Economy Act and people found to be illegally downloading copyrighted material be that movies, music, software or tv programmes (ignorance being no defence) will face the consequences of their continued attempts to do so even after having been warned.

[speedfreak]

will face the consequences of their continued attempts to do so even after having been warned.

Does a warning always come first? Thats a genuine question Im not catching you out :)

[Mr Angry]

Does a warning always come first? Thats a genuine question Im not catching you out :)

Yes.

[Maggy]

And to clarify that anyone using applications such as iPlayer and Demand 5 Player or 4OD and or downloading media that they are freely allowed to download from the appropriate web sites or that they have legitimately paid for are not going to be having their collar felt.. ;)

[martyh]

is it a dumb question to ask how they know what you are downloading ,can they see whats inside the file

[ThunderPants73]

"(ignorance being no defence)"


Aw honey, ignorance is my ONLY defence half the time, the other half I just run way.x

[pip08456]

Errrr no.

I took from your previous post where you stated "None of the above state that the amendment has actually been passed into law". that you didn't quite understand that what you were reading actually is the law and not a collective of musings on what might or might not be the law.



The statement wasn't mine but a footer from one of the links posted earlier. I understood fully what I was reading.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

is it a dumb question to ask how they know what you are downloading ,can they see whats inside the file

Depends on where it is coming from, how the file is packaged and the encryption (if any) employed.

[Mr Angry]

The statement wasn't mine but a footer from one of the links posted earlier. I understood fully what I was reading.

I'm afraid you are mistaken, I refer you to post #37 of this thread where you state by way of direct cut and paste from two sections of the OPSI site;

Tables of legislative effects

The tables list the repeals, amendments and other effects of legislation (primary and secondary) enacted from 2002 to the current year on the revised legislation held on SLD. A letter 'Y' against an entry in the column headed ‘Amendment Applied’ means that the effect has been carried through to SLD. [NOTE: the column headed "Type of Effect" has not been completed for the effects of 2002 legislation, other than commencement orders]

The effects of new legislation are added as soon as possible after the legislation is received from The Stationery Office. There will usually, however, be some delay between the publication of new legislation to the website and the effects of it appearing in these tables. In most cases the delay will be less than two weeks.

You may search the tables for the effects of only one year’s legislation at a time (e.g. 2003), but you may then narrow that search by entering in the appropriate boxes: the number of the affecting legislation; the year of the affected legislation; the number of the affected legislation; or any combination of these.

None of the above state that the amendment has actually been passed into law.


The portion thereof which states "None of the above state that the amendment has actually been passed into law" does not originate from the legislation nor the statutory framework nor indeed any part of the OPSI site - it is something which you posited as an "opinion" of yours.

I am merely pointing out that you are wrong - it is law.

[pip08456]

Swllows pride:angel: accepts my mistake , forgot to site

"The Digital Economy Act 2010 (c. 24)[1][2] is an Act[3] of the United Kingdom Parliament regulating the area of digital media. Issued Royal Assent on April 12, 2010, it will go into effect on June 12 of the same year."

[Mr Angry]

Swllows pride:angel: accepts my mistake , forgot to site

"The Digital Economy Act 2010 (c. 24)[1][2] is an Act[3] of the United Kingdom Parliament regulating the area of digital media. Issued Royal Assent on April 12, 2010, it will go into effect on June 12 of the same year."

No problem - now, let's get back to the drink!!

[Ignitionnet]

And the difference between a tiny tech-savvy minority and any numb-nuts?

If it was fine then then it's fine now you can't have it both ways.

BTW Thanks Maggy!

It's not fine at all. The difference is very simply rather a lot of money.

If 1% of people, the nerds, download the content instead of purchasing it that's 1% of sales lost. If that 1% becomes 25% as any numb nuts that can use a P2P client leeches instead of purchasing that's another 24% of potential revenue gone, not a difficult concept to grasp.

I also quite agree with you - you can't have it both ways, which is why the people whining about the quality of the content they aren't paying for are such hypocrites. The content has dropped in price and continues to do so meanwhile more and more people download it. Regardless of the price of the content, even if Avatar were 50p with zero DRM people would still download it because that's 50p they don't have to spend. A social problem as much as anything else.

[pip08456]

It's not fine at all. The difference is very simply rather a lot of money.

If 1% of people, the nerds, download the content instead of purchasing it that's 1% of sales lost. If that 1% becomes 25% as any numb nuts that can use a P2P client leeches instead of purchasing that's another 24% of potential revenue gone, not a difficult concept to grasp.

I also quite agree with you - you can't have it both ways, which is why the people whining about the quality of the content they aren't paying for are such hypocrites. The content has dropped in price and continues to do so meanwhile more and more people download it. Regardless of the price of the content, even if Avatar were 50p with zero DRM people would still download it because that's 50p they don't have to spend. A social problem as much as anything else.

At least we agree on something Igni.

It is my thinking that it arises from the 1960's/70's in that It would be accepted that I could "lend" you an LP of whatever band and you would record it to cassette disc.

That "thought process" has not changed and,if you will, got worse to what we have today with so - called "Pirates".

People will always share what they have and there is no getting away from it.

[Mr Angry]

At least we agree on something Igni.

It is my thinking that it arises from the 1960's/70's in that It would be accepted that I could "lend" you an LP of whatever band and you would record it to cassette disc.

That "thought process" has not changed and,if you will, got worse to what we have today with so - called "Pirates".

People will always share what they have and there is no getting away from it.

Yes, but it wasn't legal in the 60's or 70's either.

[gazfan]

It's not fine at all. The difference is very simply rather a lot of money.

If 1% of people, the nerds, download the content instead of purchasing it that's 1% of sales lost. If that 1% becomes 25% as any numb nuts that can use a P2P client leeches instead of purchasing that's another 24% of potential revenue gone, not a difficult concept to grasp.

I also quite agree with you - you can't have it both ways, which is why the people whining about the quality of the content they aren't paying for are such hypocrites. The content has dropped in price and continues to do so meanwhile more and more people download it. Regardless of the price of the content, even if Avatar were 50p with zero DRM people would still download it because that's 50p they don't have to spend. A social problem as much as anything else.

I agree it is a problem that many people perceive it is 'normal' to download, rather than pay for, media content.

However, I was surprised by the 'moan about quality' comment as arguably quality is a factor in the 'choice' between available media - for example downloading the latest USA episode of Flash Forward in 720p x264 format may be preferable to someone versus legitimately watching said episode a few days later in SD in the UK. Comparing X264 movie downloads to 'standard' commercial DVD versions is another example.

The growing market in media players capable of accepting SD & USB input for display on HD capable TV sets via HDMI seems to bear this out?

[Ignitionnet]

I agree it is a problem that many people perceive it is 'normal' to download, rather than pay for, media content.

However, I was surprised by the 'moan about quality' comment as arguably quality is a factor in the 'choice' between available media - for example downloading the latest USA episode of Flash Forward in 720p x264 format may be preferable to someone versus legitimately watching said episode a few days later in SD in the UK. Comparing X264 movie downloads to 'standard' commercial DVD versions is another example.

The growing market in media players capable of accepting SD & USB input for display on HD capable TV sets via HDMI seems to bear this out?

I was referring to people complaining about the quality of the content they download itself not about picture quality.

If people want to watch things in HD perhaps they'd consider purchasing an HD TV service and an HD TV as they would have to in order to watch HD without being able to download it to PC. Missus watches Flash Forward in HD and the difference between when it is shown in US and UK is pretty minimal.

I do kinda get your point but I'm not sure about it. If anything it goes to show the perceptions people have and kinda strengthens the argument against downloading. Someone downloads stuff such as Flash Forward in HD they are potentially short changing a TV provider on the HD subscription they are dodging paying, they are also avoiding paying for an HD TV. A not insignificant chunk of change that would have been needed in the past and would put money into the economy but is dodged by those who download content illegitimately.

[pip08456]

But in the US you don't need a licence just to posess a TV. On that note if you just download US progs before they are aired on UK TV would that be a breach of UK law?

[Ignitionnet]

But in the US you don't need a licence just to posess a TV. On that note if you just download US progs before they are aired on UK TV would that be a breach of UK law?

TV licence is totally irrelevant to this and doesn't in any way excuse anything and yes it would, content not broadcast in the UK so one can hardly make a claim to be time shifting.

[gazfan]

I was referring to people complaining about the quality of the content they download itself not about picture quality.

If people want to watch things in HD perhaps they'd consider purchasing an HD TV service and an HD TV as they would have to in order to watch HD without being able to download it to PC. Missus watches Flash Forward in HD and the difference between when it is shown in US and UK is pretty minimal.

I do kinda get your point but I'm not sure about it. If anything it goes to show the perceptions people have and kinda strengthens the argument against downloading. Someone downloads stuff such as Flash Forward in HD they are potentially short changing a TV provider on the HD subscription they are dodging paying, they are also avoiding paying for an HD TV. A not insignificant chunk of change that would have been needed in the past and would put money into the economy but is dodged by those who download content illegitimately.

Ah right, thanks.

- the point I was trying to make about picture quality wasn't so much about whether the subs would have an HD TV, but whether they would have the appropriate HD STB to fully use it - similarly whether an 'ordinary' DVD player was all that was available rather than an 'upscaling' DVD player or BluRay.

- for someone with an SD TV service STB, an ordinary DVD player, but who possesses an HD TV set the picture quality of downloadable files may be a significant factor when considering whether to buy a 'media player' from WD or SumVision or upgrade to a full HD STB & BluRay player with the associated purchase, installation & subscription costs...

[danielf]

That may be the basic definition of theft, but this definition from LawTeacher (http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/theft-lecture.php) may clarify it.
Which brings us to copyright theft...;)

I think you mean copyright infringement, as you can't actually steal copyright. I suppose you could steal the forms, but that doesn't mean you then have the copyright. ;)

[Andrewcrawford23]

Yes we like downloads, I presume you meant DRM free, and access to them at the same time as the rest of the world.

Sad part is all too many of us like all the above without paying for said downloads, hence the need for DRM and legal remedies both to stop 'us' from downloading the content and sharing it with others so that the copyright holder gets nothing from large swathes of usage of their product, and to deal with those who download the content from those sharing it.

Fundamentally it was fine when it was a tiny tech-savvy minority, these days any numb-nuts can download a P2P client and download things for free. There's a balancing act here, and at the moment it's far, far too skewed towards downloading without paying and this needs some rebalancing towards people paying for the content. Downloading is so common it's not even considered as being dodgy by many at the moment, just what they do. This can't last.

If there was good service, drm free, avaialble world wide at the same time at a reasonable price and unlimited and with backup i woul;d pay it and i wouldnt download the odd tv show and subs i do it because idnt want ot wait or it doesnt air here in the uk (i know some people do it because they always want it for free theses are the peopel that should be targeted)

[Mr Angry]

If there was good service, drm free, avaialble world wide at the same time at a reasonable price and unlimited and with backup i woul;d pay it and i wouldnt download the odd tv show and subs i do it because idnt want ot wait or it doesnt air here in the uk (i know some people do it because they always want it for free theses are the peopel that should be targeted)

Andrew, what did you do prior to the advent of the internet and DRM?

What do you - personally - feel would constitute a "reasonable price" for media which was "drm free, avaialble world wide at the same time at a reasonable price and unlimited and with backup"?

[Andrewcrawford23]

Andrew, what did you do prior to the advent of the internet and DRM?

What do you - personally - feel would constitute a "reasonable price" for media which was "drm free, avaialble world wide at the same time at a reasonable price and unlimited and with backup"?
it depedns what it includes, lets takes music for instance if it was truly unlimted, drm free and available world wide at teh same time then i say a reason monthly pric for that would be maybe £25-40 a month

if we are talking movies tv music and other stuff then i say a reasonable price would probally start at about 60-80 pound but that is drm free unlimited and world wide release, but you could easily go don the line non wolrd release as well with say 50 download a motnh for £5 a mont etc

at teh end of the day the industry has to modernise and be stuck in the70's i agree there has to be thing done for file shares but only once a ne model that allow for legal service is there and people can then use the legal service and peopel who dnt then get the law coming down ont hem

a similar service for movies is being trial in america and i think ti cost for the unlimited one about $45 a month and it getting a godo response

[Mr Angry]

it depedns what it includes, lets takes music for instance if it was truly unlimted, drm free and available world wide at teh same time then i say a reason monthly pric for that would be maybe £25-40 a month

if we are talking movies tv music and other stuff then i say a reasonable price would probally start at about 60-80 pound but that is drm free unlimited and world wide release, but you could easily go don the line non wolrd release as well with say 50 download a motnh for £5 a mont etc

at teh end of the day the industry has to modernise and be stuck in the70's i agree there has to be thing done for file shares but only once a ne model that allow for legal service is there and people can then use the legal service and peopel who dnt then get the law coming down ont hem

a similar service for movies is being trial in america and i think ti cost for the unlimited one about $45 a month and it getting a godo response

Thank you Andrew.

I notice you didn't answer the first part of my question in relation to what you did prior to the advent of the internet and DRM so I'll assume that you, like most others, went out and bought your music, dvd and videos.

Firstly, and strictly from a music perspective, the DRM argument is of course a red herring. Most, if not all, platforms now deliver DRM free music. The consumer complained, the industry reacted and made catalogue available without it yet still millions of people assume they have the right to acquire material for free on the pretext that if they discover after having downloaded it for free that they don't like it they can then assert that they wouldn't have bought it anyway and that their having done so doesn't constitute a lost sale.

In the broader scheme of things this is, of course, flawed logic. For many decades the music industry co-existed quite happily with many, many millions of people not buying music based purely on the fact that they did not like / care for a particuilar artist or type / genre of music. The difference was that not only were they not buying it because they didn't like it but also that they were not acquiring it for free - thus undermining / undervaluing the very experience of exploring and experiencing recorded music at a cost commensurate with the perceived market worth of the artists creative endeavours.

Yes, of course there will be exceptions whereby people are turned onto a particular artist having heard something they or someone they know dowloaded for free and they will buy material by that artist. However, as I said, these types of people are the exception rather than the rule.

In reality - and in the vast majority of cases - neither the industry, nor the artists, will have given permission for their works to be made freely available for distribution on a "free" basis. Someone, somewhere, will have elected to illegally make the material free for distribution thus circumventing the long held commercial requirement for those who wish to listen to same to have purchased a copy in order to do so.

The issue here is one of a mindset rather than of a commercial standpoint. I take from your posts that you are not opposed to paying for media. Your suggested subscription plans are somewhat optimistic, not least from the point of view that the industries are constantly evolving and offering new delivery mechanisms at ever lower prices for greater selection yet having to compete with whatever price they propose against "free".

The days of wanton copyright infringement of musical works are coming to an end. Countries realize that this type of behaviour is not sustainable and that their GDP cannot continue to be undermined just because people think that their illegal activities have no impact on others. This is not a case of them wanting to spoil someones fun - it's a case of governments trying, too late for many, to save the jobs and revenues which are being lost as a result of those behaviours. It will not be stopped entirely, but a very large proportion of those who have become accustomed to illegally acquiring "free media" at the press of a button are in for a very big shock.

One of the saddest things about this whole scenario - aside from the loss of jobs in human terms and the devaluation of music - is the rights which individuals will come to realize they have have inadvertently allowed to be sacrificed just because some were too self centered and obstinate in asserting their "right" to distribute or acquire media illegally.

[*sloman*]

Just thinking the V+ box allows you to recorded content and transfer to DVD/VCR. is this not encouraging copyright theft?

Everyone will just move to newsgroups or the apps like utorrent will start offering encryption.

I would quite happily pay £10-15pm month for 'all i can eat' films/tv... download, watch, delete but nothing like this exists (as far as i am aware)

[Paul]

Someone downloads stuff such as Flash Forward in HD they are potentially short changing a TV provider on the HD subscription they are dodging paying, they are also avoiding paying for an HD TV.
I already have an HDTV, and I pay sky for an HD subscription, so who exactly am I short changing if I d/l FlashForward a few days early (btw, this is a poor example as FF is actually on Channel 5).

[Andrewcrawford23]

Thank you Andrew.

I notice you didn't answer the first part of my question in relation to what you did prior to the advent of the internet and DRM so I'll assume that you, like most others, went out and bought your music, dvd and videos.

Firstly, and strictly from a music perspective, the DRM argument is of course a red herring. Most, if not all, platforms now deliver DRM free music. The consumer complained, the industry reacted and made catalogue available without it yet still millions of people assume they have the right to acquire material for free on the pretext that if they discover after having downloaded it for free that they don't like it they can then assert that they wouldn't have bought it anyway and that their having done so doesn't constitute a lost sale.

In the broader scheme of things this is, of course, flawed logic. For many decades the music industry co-existed quite happily with many, many millions of people not buying music based purely on the fact that they did not like / care for a particuilar artist or type / genre of music. The difference was that not only were they not buying it because they didn't like it but also that they were not acquiring it for free - thus undermining / undervaluing the very experience of exploring and experiencing recorded music at a cost commensurate with the perceived market worth of the artists creative endeavours.

Yes, of course there will be exceptions whereby people are turned onto a particular artist having heard something they or someone they know dowloaded for free and they will buy material by that artist. However, as I said, these types of people are the exception rather than the rule.

In reality - and in the vast majority of cases - neither the industry, nor the artists, will have given permission for their works to be made freely available for distribution on a "free" basis. Someone, somewhere, will have elected to illegally make the material free for distribution thus circumventing the long held commercial requirement for those who wish to listen to same to have purchased a copy in order to do so.

The issue here is one of a mindset rather than of a commercial standpoint. I take from your posts that you are not opposed to paying for media. Your suggested subscription plans are somewhat optimistic, not least from the point of view that the industries are constantly evolving and offering new delivery mechanisms at ever lower prices for greater selection yet having to compete with whatever price they propose against "free".

The days of wanton copyright infringement of musical works are coming to an end. Countries realize that this type of behaviour is not sustainable and that their GDP cannot continue to be undermined just because people think that their illegal activities have no impact on others. This is not a case of them wanting to spoil someones fun - it's a case of governments trying, too late for many, to save the jobs and revenues which are being lost as a result of those behaviours. It will not be stopped entirely, but a very large proportion of those who have become accustomed to illegally acquiring "free media" at the press of a button are in for a very big shock.

One of the saddest things about this whole scenario - aside from the loss of jobs in human terms and the devaluation of music - is the rights which individuals will come to realize they have have inadvertently allowed to be sacrificed just because some were too self centered and obstinate in asserting their "right" to distribute or acquire media illegally.


Ok so you think the lost of revenue that the companies says is really real? here is the perfect example of why it bullcrap, cineworld offers unlimtied card, me and my wife got it, durign the year we went to about 100 films so it paid for the card 10 folds, but of them movies only about6-8 of them where one we would have paid to see the rest we went to cause we knoew it was free some wher emince some surpised us.

the point of the above is new models are required i agree with what you saying people want thing for free but if you are going to rpescute someone for doing something when they have no real alternative to it then your breeching a person human rights

the main point is the right holder say they lose loads of money but if peopel didnt have the internet they owuldnt have downlaoded most of and certainly wouldnt have bought it so th lost revenue of 100 songs download would turn otu to be about 5 song when you take itno accoutn would you ave bought it if the itnernet isnt there and this is where the sole problem exists how much are they losing if the itnernet wasnt there

oh apogolise i never seen the first part of your question, i would borrow a game or vhs from friend or another family member i would record from tv to vhs or cassete etc, the net is jsut another way to borrow or record from, and where is these copyright holder when it comes to dvd recorder, pvr etc etc????

[martyh]

if i buy a dvd (new release)invite 5-10 friends round to watch it, is this theft after all the friends haven't paid to see it and may not buy the dvd after because they have already seen it

[Hugh]

Andrew, to me the difference between the 70s and 80s and now (in the realms of borrowing a VHS tape and seeding) is the difference between loaning a friend a book I have read and saying "try this", and making 10,000 copies of the book and leaving them lying about in bus and railway stations for anyone to pick up and read (and then each book recipient makes 10,000 copies of their own to distribute). It's all about (imho) fair and reasonable.

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

if i buy a dvd (new release)invite 5-10 friends round to watch it, is this theft after all the friends haven't paid to see it and may not buy the dvd after because they have already seen it
If it's in your own home, no - if you publicly display it outside without the copyright holder's permission, yes it is.

[Ignitionnet]

the point of the above is new models are required i agree with what you saying people want thing for free but if you are going to rpescute someone for doing something when they have no real alternative to it then your breeching a person human rights

Is someone holding a gun to their heads and saying 'You must obtain this content now!'

The alternative is to either wait or go without. You appear to suggest it's a fundamental human right to have access to this content, it isn't.

oh apogolise i never seen the first part of your question, i would borrow a game or vhs from friend or another family member i would record from tv to vhs or cassete etc, the net is jsut another way to borrow or record from, and where is these copyright holder when it comes to dvd recorder, pvr etc etc????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Not exactly the same as downloading something that hasn't been broadcast. Borrowing or recording is hardly the same as downloading, there is no 'borrowing' online, you have a copy, the other person has a copy, neither of you needed the original.

The major difference is scale. A game was released, small groups traded them amongst themselves, someone purchasing the original and copies going around. These days a game is released and millions are getting it, all it takes is one original to spawn these millions of copies.

Your position seems to be:

It's a violation of our human rights for us to be prosecuted for copyright theft as it's our right to obtain the content whether broadcast or paid for or not.

The companies exaggerate their loses so it's ok for us to download their content.

PVRs time shift and require broadcast in that territory and any relevant TV subscriptions, so it's ok to download content from the Internet that's never been broadcast in the country and we don't have any kind of subscription for.

Because there were minimal amounts of manual copying and trading of content in the past it's fine for millions of copies of popular content to be made now.

As I have repeatedly said there is an expectation of a degree of copying, just as retail outlets have an expectation of a certain degree of theft (I'm just using examples here by the way, I appreciate that is a swear word with this subject) but it's gotten to the point where it's mainstream and a sense of entitlement quite normal.

That you think it's a human right to have access to copyrighted content is really all that needs to be said.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

if i buy a dvd (new release)invite 5-10 friends round to watch it, is this theft after all the friends haven't paid to see it and may not buy the dvd after because they have already seen it

No sir - they all refer specifically to public exhibition. Showing it to mates at home is private.

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

I already have an HDTV, and I pay sky for an HD subscription, so who exactly am I short changing if I d/l FlashForward a few days early (btw, this is a poor example as FF is actually on Channel 5).

Hence use of the word 'potentially' in the paragraph of mine you quoted. A poor example or not it's a perfectly valid one beyond that I don't really watch TV so have no idea what channel things are on, should have said House which is the one thing I do watch :)

[martyh]

Andrew, to me the difference between the 70s and 80s and now (in the realms of borrowing a VHS tape and seeding) is the difference between loaning a friend a book I have read and saying "try this", and making 10,000 copies of the book and leaving them lying about in bus and railway stations for anyone to pick up and read (and then each book recipient makes 10,000 copies of their own to distribute). It's all about (imho) fair and reasonable.

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------


If it's in your own home, no - if you publicly display it outside without the copyright holder's permission, yes it is.


then it must a very fine and greyed out line ,

an example

if i dl a dvd rip of a film from say the pirate bay ,that dvd has been payed for legitimately ,now i appreciate that copying that dvd 100 times and selling them at the local pub is illegal and rightly so ,but if i dl it and watch in the privacy of my own home does it justify being hounded by my provider and is it so much different from watching a dvd borrowed from a friend ?

[Hugh]

Because your friend is unlikely to loan the DVD to a couple of thousand people, who can then loan their copy to a couple of thousand people (which is the basis of P2P, surely - seeding) - or do you think you are the only person who has d/l'ed that DVDrip?

Which does not seem to me a "fine and greyed out line", but very different from individual to individual loans.

btw, it is of no concern to me if you (and others) download/seed copyrighted material (except ethically, but they're my ethics, not yours), but don't be surprised if a letter drops on your doorstep soon if you (and others) carry on these practices.

[Ignitionnet]

btw, it is of no concern to me if you (and others) download/seed copyrighted material (except ethically, but they're my ethics, not yours)

Just to note - I am not playing holier than thou here either, for the simple reason that I'm no-one to judge anyone here anymore than they are to judge me. My comments are aimed more at the justifications that people are coming up with. What it may suggest that they feel the need to justify a particular behaviour is outside of my concerns.

Your morals are yours, mine are mine, I may disagree with you and forcefully explain why I disagree, doesn't mean I'm right :)

[martyh]

Because your friend is unlikely to loan the DVD to a couple of thousand people, who can then loan their copy to a couple of thousand people (which is the basis of P2P, surely - seeding) - or do you think you are the only person who has d/l'ed that DVDrip?

Which does not seem to me a "fine and greyed out line", but very different from individual to individual loans.


the point i'm trying to make (probably not well;)) is does the law draw a clear distinction between someone who dl's and watches in their own home and someone who dl's and sells a hundred copies in the pub if both instances are deemed illegal then surely lending a dvd to a friend who then lends to another friend and so on must also be illegal

[Mr Angry]

Ok so you think the lost of revenue that the companies says is really real? here is the perfect example of why it bullcrap, cineworld offers unlimtied card, me and my wife got it, durign the year we went to about 100 films so it paid for the card 10 folds, but of them movies only about6-8 of them where one we would have paid to see the rest we went to cause we knoew it was free some wher emince some surpised us.

Andrew, with all due respect, you are posting self defeating arguments.

A Cineworld unlimited card starts at £13.50 per month multiply by 12 and that represents an annual outlay of £162.00. Divide that by the "about 100" movies you have seen and you'll get an indication of the actual losses incurred (even from someone paying a vastly reduced monthly price per film ratio) which you think are "bullcrap".

Bear in mind that you have actually paid for all of the movies you have watched at Cineworld (whether you would have paid for them or not) together with the fact that you acknowledge the ten fold value of the card scheme and you will see that you are in fact confirming the movie industry "bullcrap" losses viz a viz lost revenue per viewing / sale.


the point of the above is new models are required i agree with what you saying people want thing for free but if you are going to rpescute someone for doing something when they have no real alternative to it then your breeching a person human rights

This is not a human rights issue and, again with all due respect, to say that someone has "no real alternative" to downloading something illegally is a total nonsense.

the main point is the right holder say they lose loads of money but if peopel didnt have the internet they owuldnt have downlaoded most of and certainly wouldnt have bought it so th lost revenue of 100 songs download would turn otu to be about 5 song when you take itno accoutn would you ave bought it if the itnernet isnt there and this is where the sole problem exists how much are they losing if the itnernet wasnt there

You have entirely missed the point. The analogy has been explained in fairly extensive detail in my earlier post. Just because someone illegally decides to distribute copyright material it does not infer that downloading it is legal. In ordinary (real world) circumstances people buy things to see what they are like. Just because the internet exists and people think that breaking the law is socially acceptable does not make it so.

oh apogolise i never seen the first part of your question, i would borrow a game or vhs from friend or another family member i would record from tv to vhs or cassete etc, the net is jsut another way to borrow or record from,

So it appears I was mistaken. Are you saying that you've actually never paid for a game, dvd, video, ort cd?

and where is these copyright holder when it comes to dvd recorder, pvr etc etc????

As mentioned earlier that is an entirely different dynamic.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

the point i'm trying to make (probably not well;)) is does the law draw a clear distinction between someone who dl's and watches in their own home and someone who dl's and sells a hundred copies in the pub

Yes, the former is copyright infringement and the latter is commercial piracy (for gain).

if both instances are deemed illegal then surely lending a dvd to a friend who then lends to another friend and so on must also be illegal

That is technically correct. Refer to the copyright caveats on any dvd cover and you'll see that they expressly prohibit unlicensed copying, lending or hiring.

[ThunderPants73]

I think I created a monster............

[Hugh]

the point i'm trying to make (probably not well;)) is does the law draw a clear distinction between someone who dl's and watches in their own home and someone who dl's and sells a hundred copies in the pub if both instances are deemed illegal then surely lending a dvd to a friend who then lends to another friend and so on must also be illegal
Yes, there is a difference, but under the 3 Strikes provision, it is more about seeding than downloading (by seeding you are distributing - the internet equivalent of giving away a hundred copies in a pub; the fact you do not profit from seeding will not be taken into account).

[Ignitionnet]

I think I created a monster............

Yep, all your fault.

[martyh]

That is technically correct. Refer to the copyright caveats on any dvd cover and you'll see that they expressly prohibit unlicensed copying, lending or hiring.

so i guess at the end of the day it's all about what can realistically be enforced .10-15yrs or so ago it wasn't technically possible to monitor connections and find out what was being downloaded and by whom but now it is more practicable ,so they will and laws are being ammended and improved to suit the available tech

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

Yes, there is a difference, but under the 3 Strikes provision, it is more about seeding than downloading (by seeding you are distributing - the internet equivalent of giving away a hundred copies in a pub; the fact you do not profit from seeding will not be taken into account).

and as you correctly stated earlier seeding is the very heart of file sharing ,take that away and theirs no point or possibility of sharing

[Mr Angry]

so i guess at the end of the day it's all about what can realistically be enforced .10-15yrs or so ago it wasn't technically possible to monitor connections and find out what was being downloaded and by whom but now it is more practicable ,so they will and laws are being ammended and improved to suit the available tech


That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

As others have said previously this is a moral issue - very much up to the individual. Unfortunately everyone will be impacted upon in one form or another as a result of the new recently enacted, and indeed yet to be enacted, legislations.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Is someone holding a gun to their heads and saying 'You must obtain this content now!'

The alternative is to either wait or go without. You appear to suggest it's a fundamental human right to have access to this content, it isn't.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Not exactly the same as downloading something that hasn't been broadcast. Borrowing or recording is hardly the same as downloading, there is no 'borrowing' online, you have a copy, the other person has a copy, neither of you needed the original.

The major difference is scale. A game was released, small groups traded them amongst themselves, someone purchasing the original and copies going around. These days a game is released and millions are getting it, all it takes is one original to spawn these millions of copies.

Your position seems to be:

It's a violation of our human rights for us to be prosecuted for copyright theft as it's our right to obtain the content whether broadcast or paid for or not.

The companies exaggerate their loses so it's ok for us to download their content.

PVRs time shift and require broadcast in that territory and any relevant TV subscriptions, so it's ok to download content from the Internet that's never been broadcast in the country and we don't have any kind of subscription for.

Because there were minimal amounts of manual copying and trading of content in the past it's fine for millions of copies of popular content to be made now.

As I have repeatedly said there is an expectation of a degree of copying, just as retail outlets have an expectation of a certain degree of theft (I'm just using examples here by the way, I appreciate that is a swear word with this subject) but it's gotten to the point where it's mainstream and a sense of entitlement quite normal.

That you think it's a human right to have access to copyrighted content is really all that needs to be said.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------



No sir - they all refer specifically to public exhibition. Showing it to mates at home is private.

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------



Hence use of the word 'potentially' in the paragraph of mine you quoted. A poor example or not it's a perfectly valid one beyond that I don't really watch TV so have no idea what channel things are on, should have said House which is the one thing I do watch :)
n it voilates our human right ot rpocesute us for downlaoding something its not crime as they make it out, maybe i am putting myself across wrong, i dnt think it right to be fiule sharing, i jsut think they should adapt and make things more easily accessible to people who want it and go after the ons who wont pay

here is dum example trains are still steam but everyone nicks this new train that use maglev so they can get there quicker and with better experaince so is it wrong to want things modernised?

[Hugh]

What about the rights of those who created the copyright material?

[Andrewcrawford23]

What about the rights of those who created the copyright material?
there entitle to get paid but the whole copyright model is screwed come on 70 years after death give it a break should be for 5 years after created then after 10 years they get garntee 15% of profits

what bugs me more is the likes of mpaa ria take the money and dnt pass it on t9 the artists

[Mr Angry]

there entitle to get paid but the whole copyright model is screwed come on 70 years after death give it a break should be for 5 years after created then after 10 years they get garntee 15% of profits

what bugs me more is the likes of mpaa ria take the money and dnt pass it on t9 the artists

Is your assertion that the copyright model is "screwed" based on anything but the fact that you neither respect, like nor comprehend the workings of copyright?

The argument you put forward does not appear to be cogent.

I'd be very interested in you explaining how your proposed 5 year / 10 year model with guarantees of 15% of profit would work.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Is your assertion that the copyright model is "screwed" based on anything but the fact that you neither respect, like nor comprehend the workings of copyright?

The argument you put forward does not appear to be cogent.

I'd be very interested in you explaining how your proposed 5 year / 10 year model with guarantees of 15% of profit would work.
well if you think the current copyright laws are brillant then why is there so many flaws? it designed to make corpartion rich not the artists or to help consumer have wha tthey want it like say it right for sky to monopolise hte market because it basically the same

[Mr Angry]

well if you think the current copyright laws are brillant then why is there so many flaws? it designed to make corpartion rich not the artists or to help consumer have wha tthey want it like say it right for sky to monopolise hte market because it basically the same

"Flaws" like what Andrew? Please be specific.

Are you going to enlighten me with an insight into your 5 year / 10 year model with guarantees of 15% on realized profit or are you just going to continue clutching at straws in an attempt to argue something simply because you don't like paying for things?

Come on now, you proposed it, let's hear the workings of it.

[Andrewcrawford23]

"Flaws" like what Andrew? Please be specific.

Are you going to enlighten me with an insight into your 5 year / 10 year model with guarantees of 15% on realized profit or are you just going to continue clutching at straws in an attempt to argue something simply because you don't like paying for things?

Come on now, you proposed it, let's hear the workings of it.
See this is dum logic the corpation have i do pay for things, i downloaded a show to view it cause i heard reviews about it but there wa sno uk broadcast and after downloading it i liked it so i shopped the dvd from america. tha tthe difference yes i download but i also pay for wha ti like and that what the advantage of the system is you cn try before oyu buy so to say but the flaw in the system is people abuse it and dnt pay for it

as for how to improve copyright laws i aint no law maker i jsut know the currnet ones are flawed to make copraration rich and not the artists and not help cosumers they need to be improved but i dnt know how to do it i jsut know 10 years should be the maximum that someone has the rights over something do determine how much it costs etc.


here a examp-le of how dum this law is because of copyright a well known show batman 60s can not be relased on dvd because everyone wants s big cut if the laws where 10 years then they would get a cut fo 15% the rest would go into produciton costs only.

another show that was tangled up in copyright rights for 25 yeasr was mysteriosu cities of gold but that is now out

i really am shocked you cant see the flaws it clear you are one of the big cats in corpartion that makes money and doesnt care about the average joe like me that wants to own stuff inf ormat that suits me

and at the end of the day this is what my arguement comes down to, i should have the right to decided how i have my stuff not be dicticted to to say you have to buy cds or dvd etc i should be able to say sorry this is to costly and copyright holder a lot of times make some stuff os dear because they all want hugh cut

im not goign to argue this anymore i have my views on the system i think it mince and needs improving, but i DO BUY STUFF I LIKE anything i dnt i delete and never get

[Hugh]

Couple of assumptions about Mr A in that post, Andrew.....

Also, you should have the right to take things that other people created without their permission? (because it is "their stuff", not "my stuff", as you put it) - I'd like to see you try that in Waterstones.....

If artists decided to give it away under a Creative Commons licence, good for them - but it should be their choice, not yours (as you were not involved in the creative process).

[Ignitionnet]

and at the end of the day this is what my arguement comes down to, i should have the right to decided how i have my stuff not be dicticted to to say you have to buy cds or dvd etc i should be able to say sorry this is to costly and copyright holder a lot of times make some stuff os dear because they all want hugh cut

Usually one would say 'sorry this is too costly' by not buying the product and perhaps feeding back to the company that they would buy it if some things were different, not by helping themselves to it.

Extending your logic about how you should have the right to have your stuff and not have dictated to you how it's delivered to you there's nothing wrong with walking into a store and taking something on the grounds that you should have to right to decide how you have your stuff, if they don't deliver exactly that way that's their problem and if you want it for free that's your right.

No doubt you'll disagree, but this is exactly what you are saying, the the suppliers of goods and services to you have no right to decide how to deliver those goods and services and that how you receive them should be your decision only.

Is this what you are saying?

It should be up to the content provider to decide how to present their content to us, if it's in a form or price unattractive to us we make them aware by not purchasing, they either change the price or form or decide not to do anything to make the sale. It's not the place of the customer to change that form and price by taking the decision out of the content providers' hands. They have rights too just as we do and it goes both ways.

[martyh]

actually i don't think dvd's/cd's or books have ever been cheaper ,i know you can go to asda or tesco and buy new release dvd's for a fiver sometimes ,it is as Mr A has already said ,it's down to the morals of individuals because i realy don't think price is the issue or even a very good excuse .

[Andrewcrawford23]

Usually one would say 'sorry this is too costly' by not buying the product and perhaps feeding back to the company that they would buy it if some things were different, not by helping themselves to it.

Extending your logic about how you should have the right to have your stuff and not have dictated to you how it's delivered to you there's nothing wrong with walking into a store and taking something on the grounds that you should have to right to decide how you have your stuff, if they don't deliver exactly that way that's their problem and if you want it for free that's your right.

No doubt you'll disagree, but this is exactly what you are saying, the the suppliers of goods and services to you have no right to decide how to deliver those goods and services and that how you receive them should be your decision only.

Is this what you are saying?

It should be up to the content provider to decide how to present their content to us, if it's in a form or price unattractive to us we make them aware by not purchasing, they either change the price or form or decide not to do anything to make the sale. It's not the place of the customer to change that form and price by taking the decision out of the content providers' hands. They have rights too just as we do and it goes both ways.

on in that case sky is right they should not be force to sell there channels at the price ditict at by ofocm but everyone is for that, i believe cosumer get screwed all teh time jsut to feed fat cats like bankers at the top, i beleive the ones that make the stuff should have a say btu so should the cosumer i just hate corparation having all the power to do wha tthey want the artists themself dnt get anything or very little, this is now straying to far off my original point so i aint goign to bother to post now my views ar emy own i beleive cosumer should hae access to stuff at reasonbale price and to it the way they want, i also believe the artist who evelop the stuff are entitle to get a good return on there work, but corparation should get nothintg

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

actually i don't think dvd's/cd's or books have ever been cheaper ,i know you can go to asda or tesco and buy new release dvd's for a fiver sometimes ,it is as Mr A has already said ,it's down to the morals of individuals because i realy don't think price is the issue or even a very good excuse .
correct and just because you download something doesnt mean you wont buy it, im just inpatient

[Mr Angry]

on in that case sky is right they should not be force to sell there channels at the price ditict at by ofocm but everyone is for that, i believe cosumer get screwed all teh time jsut to feed fat cats like bankers at the top, i beleive the ones that make the stuff should have a say btu so should the cosumer i just hate corparation having all the power to do wha tthey want the artists themself dnt get anything or very little, this is now straying to far off my original point so i aint goign to bother to post now my views ar emy own i beleive cosumer should hae access to stuff at reasonbale price and to it the way they want, i also believe the artist who evelop the stuff are entitle to get a good return on there work, but corparation should get nothintg

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------


[QUOTE=Andrewcrawford23;35022970]correct and just because you download something doesnt mean you wont buy it, im just inpatient

Ah, the old "If I like it after I've illegally downloaded it for free I buy it" chestnut.

Andrew, that would appear a lot more credible coming from you if you hadn't been explicit in saying

i just hate corparation having all the power to do wha tthey want the artists themself dnt get anything or very little

And

corparation should get nothintg

So, let me get this right, you are annoyed by the fact that you assert that artists get nothing or very little for their works due to the involvement of corporations and your answer to help alleviate the artists financial plight is to download their stuff without paying for it. Brilliant.

Once you've downloaded something for free, decided that you like it enough to break out the mastercard and part with a few shillings how do you ensure that none of the money goes to the big bad corporations which you so obviously despise?

Personally, other than you taking the stuff for free, I don't see how you can.

[gazfan]

on in that case sky is right they should not be force to sell there channels at the price ditict at by ofocm but everyone is for that, i believe cosumer get screwed all teh time jsut to feed fat cats like bankers at the top, i beleive the ones that make the stuff should have a say btu so should the cosumer i just hate corparation having all the power to do wha tthey want the artists themself dnt get anything or very little, this is now straying to far off my original point so i aint goign to bother to post now my views ar emy own i beleive cosumer should hae access to stuff at reasonbale price and to it the way they want, i also believe the artist who evelop the stuff are entitle to get a good return on there work, but corparation should get nothintg

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------


correct and just because you download something doesnt mean you wont buy it, im just inpatient

I'd love you to explain how you can download content for free, which the artist is paid for, but the publisher is not - who actually pays the artist in this scenario?

- I accept that a free download doesn't guarantee the content won't be paid for by some people - but, realistically, would you base a business model on that premise?

[Ignitionnet]

i beleive the ones that make the stuff should have a say btu so should the cosumer i just hate corparation having all the power to do wha tthey want the artists themself dnt get anything or very little, this is now straying to far off my original point so i aint goign to bother to post now my views ar emy own i beleive cosumer should hae access to stuff at reasonbale price and to it the way they want, i also believe the artist who evelop the stuff are entitle to get a good return on there work, but corparation should get nothintg

A few issues here.

You contradicted yourself - first sentence the ones that make the stuff should have a say and further down customer should have access to it the way they want - can't have it both ways unless both agree.

The corporation should get nothing Andrew? Even though they'll be spending their money marketing and distributing the products, they'll have spent their money developing the artist and providing them with professional standard production values for their product.

If you hate corporations that much the simple answer is stick to independently produced content. If you want this professionally produced and marketed content it, like most other things, follows the basic rule that the company produces a product and we either offer to purchase it or not.

We don't get to decide how we obtain their intellectual property, in a similar way to how we don't go to stores and decide how we obtain their physical property.

Regardless, none of it justifies violating copyright. At the end of the day I am not a huge fan of these companies and how they operate either, doesn't justify helping myself to the content, I simply choose not to enrich them with my money.

[Griffin]

surely the tv one is going to be hard to implement, after all you can record from the tv via video/dvd. Its also easy to get tv on the pc via a digital adapter with included recording software same with music & internet radio. The only way for this to stand up properly is if they come down on every in the country as you can record tv & radio quite easily, as far as i can see anything on tv or radio should be exempt from the download rules. After all you can't really have one law for one & not the other.

[Mr Angry]

surely the tv one is going to be hard to implement, after all you can record from the tv via video/dvd. Its also easy to get tv on the pc via a digital adapter with included recording software same with music & internet radio. The only way for this to stand up properly is if they come down on every in the country as you can record tv & radio quite easily, as far as i can see anything on tv or radio should be exempt from the download rules. After all you can't really have one law for one & not the other.

Recording from TV / Radio is not an issue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/digitaltv/recording.shtml). The illegal distribution of same (whether for profit or not) is the issue.

[Griffin]

Recording from TV / Radio is not an issue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/digitaltv/recording.shtml). The illegal distribution of same (whether for profit or not) is the issue.

I know recording from tv or radio is not an issue but that makes it a mockery trying to make it illegal to download the same programs/tracks. For example the free view tv channels & the hd versions are available online & to record from, providing you live in the uk, Effectively you are recording the stream as you watch. Again how can they tell the difference between recording the stream & downloading as its a similar data flow. My main argument is if the program/music has been broadcast over terrestrial channels or satellite channels then it shouldn't be made illegal to download those same programs. Another example is programs broadcast on the bbc iplayer can be streamed or downloaded, as can sky player programs once on the pc its easy to convert the format & burn to dvd. Where is the difference?

[Ignitionnet]

Another example is programs broadcast on the bbc iplayer can be streamed or downloaded, as can sky player programs once on the pc its easy to convert the format & burn to dvd. Where is the difference?

To grab those and do that you, respectively, need either a TV licence, though the BBC naively assume you have one if in the UK ;) or you need the relevant Sky subscription. Not the same as downloading something that you don't have the subscription for, and they give you permission to do this with the content just as they have obtained permission from and paid those who produced the content to allow them to offer you this service.

In any event though the main thrust I would imagine is geared more towards non-broadcast media rather than TV programmes, the point though is that simply downloading TV shows can cause a loss of revenue and violate copyright depending on circumstances. If it were perfectly ok to do so there would be zero incentive to subscribe to any premium TV.

[gazfan]

I know recording from tv or radio is not an issue but that makes it a mockery trying to make it illegal to download the same programs/tracks. For example the free view tv channels & the hd versions are available online & to record from, providing you live in the uk, Effectively you are recording the stream as you watch. Again how can they tell the difference between recording the stream & downloading as its a similar data flow. My main argument is if the program/music has been broadcast over terrestrial channels or satellite channels then it shouldn't be made illegal to download those same programs. Another example is programs broadcast on the bbc iplayer can be streamed or downloaded, as can sky player programs once on the pc its easy to convert the format & burn to dvd. Where is the difference?

consider, however, the same programs on the USA 'timeline' rather than the UK one - Flash Forward, for example - available for download before being broadcast on CH5 in the UK - the download version does not contain the commercial breaks that the broadcast version does - someone has paid for those adverts that are now not seen - is that a difference???

[danielf]

consider, however, the same programs on the USA 'timeline' rather than the UK one - Flash Forward, for example - available for download before being broadcast on CH5 in the UK - the download version does not contain the commercial breaks that the broadcast version does - someone has paid for those adverts that are now not seen - is that a difference???

In fairness, I don't see any commercials on regular UK broadcasts either. PVR: the best thing since sliced bread, or bread for that matter.

[Griffin]

In fairness, I don't see any commercials on regular UK broadcasts either. PVR: the best thing since sliced bread, or bread for that matter.

I tend to walk out the room & do other things like make cups of tea etc when adverts are on so again adverts are an irrelevance to me, as i also think with most people. There are also streaming sites you can watch the same programs online, the U.S has quite a few that show programs before they get over here. There is also a free tv system called tvu player that also has tv stations from all round the world broadcasting tv in dvd quality, you can also record from that & get programs before they hit these shores quite legally.

[Mr Angry]

I tend to walk out the room & do other things like make cups of tea etc when adverts are on so again adverts are an irrelevance to me, as i also think with most people. There are also streaming sites you can watch the same programs online, the U.S has quite a few that show programs before they get over here. There is also a free tv system called tvu player that also has tv stations from all round the world broadcasting tv in dvd quality, you can also record from that & get programs before they hit these shores quite legally.

Nobody is disputing that you can legally access shows prior to their release here.

The issue at hand is the illegal acquisition of shows and the unlicensed and illegal copying / distribution of same and how ISPs will be required to deal with such behaviours.

[KungFuKitty]

All the meaningless bickering to further ones arguement aside, if you download a movie or two now and then nobody should really care, though if your sharing hundreds of movies a time it's understandable they'll wanna stop what you're doing, fair enough right?

As for Tv episodes, if you can legally stream them off of a site such as iPlayer, which imo is a brilliant idea that needs to be used more by other companies, for free... then there wouldn't be much of a reason to download/share illegally would there?

Laws like this imo are bull, if everything was made a little easier to obtain (as in personal use, not for self profit) people who're looking to watch/catch up on their favourite tv shows wouldn't have to go through all this paranoia.

Movies - Fairer priced online rentals / more availability & choice
Tv Shows - Free catchup tv like iPlayer adopted by more companies
Software - More 'free for personal use' demo-like versions of commercialized software, more public awareness of great free open sourced projects.

If these things were to happen rather than criminalization of individuals seeking a little entertainment for personal use, there wouldn't be such a 'problem'

[Mr Angry]

All the meaningless bickering to further ones arguement aside, if you download a movie or two now and then nobody should really care, though if your sharing hundreds of movies a time it's understandable they'll wanna stop what you're doing, fair enough right?

Fine, if you live in an alternate universe where there are only six people with access to the internet and the software to download.

Back here in the "real world" - as we like to call it - there are many many millions of people downloading "a movie or two now and then". That is the problem.

As for Tv episodes, if you can legally stream them off of a site such as iPlayer, which imo is a brilliant idea that needs to be used more by other companies, for free... then there wouldn't be much of a reason to download/share illegally would there?

Yes, the i-player is a brilliant idea, as indeed is "The fact that BBC TV productions are paid for by the UK television licence fee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom), as well as rights agreements with third parties, mean that BBC iPlayer TV programmes are only accessible from IP addresses allocated to UK-based entities".

The material on i-player didn't just "magic" itself there - nor was it hand picked by the internet faeries. People paid for it via licensing.

Who do you think / assume would pay for the production and making of the programmes to be streamed "by other companies, for free..."? I'm genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on this as, without inferring that you are of a mind to think as such, it strikes me that the people who want stuff for free think everyone involved in creating and delivering the stuff to them should do so for free. Life, the world, economics and business do not work like that here in "real world".

Laws like this imo are bull, if everything was made a little easier to obtain (as in personal use, not for self profit) people who're looking to watch/catch up on their favourite tv shows wouldn't have to go through all this paranoia.

Whatever happened to your "All the meaningless bickering to further ones arguement aside" position?

Of course you think it's "bull". You think it's "bull" because you cannot comprehend the concept of how businesses (creative or otherwise) function. There is a reason for people suffering "paranoia" and that reason is because they know that what they are doing is illegal.

Take away the illegallity by people paying for what they want to download or stream and voila! the paranoia is gone, people get paid, more movies, TV productions get made and everyone, with the exception of the freetards, is happy.

Movies - Fairer priced online rentals / more availability & choice
Tv Shows - Free catchup tv like iPlayer adopted by more companies
Software - More 'free for personal use' demo-like versions of commercialized software, more public awareness of great free open sourced projects.

Ah, the usual "pity poor me, I'm a consumer. I want / demand that these matters are addressed otherwise I will continue to endorse and excuse people downloading "a movie or two now and then". All of the things you mention are already available on a subscription (see: "pay money for something") basis from many sources. The issue is that you, purportedly with the exception of rental movies, want them for free and that is not sustainable.

If these things were to happen rather than criminalization of individuals seeking a little entertainment for personal use, there wouldn't be such a 'problem'

Again, this is not just a few spotty kids in your alternate universe downloading "a movie or two now and then". As such it is a very real "problem". So much so in fact that Governments are starting to legislate to prevent and curtail it.

[martyh]

just to re-inforce MR A's point and give it some perspective i have just had a look on The pirate bay at the first page of movies

The Wolfman new dvd release has 489 seeders ,for the uninitiated a seeder is someone who has downloaded 100% of that movie, that torrent was uploaded 33 minutes ago and has 839 leechers already (people who are in the process of downloading and will become seeders) so i would estimate that by the end of the night there will be a few thousand people downloading that 1 upload ...and there are 3 pages of torrents for that film and one torrent has 25,000+ leechers

so you can make of that what you will

i would post a link to that page but the pirate bay is notorious for virus's so i won't ,anybody who wants it can pm me to see for themselves the scale of illegal downloads

[KungFuKitty]

I lol'd..
Mr. Angry do you have to be rude and condescending to others to further your own opinion?
"A movie or two" btw was referring toward a casual one-off downloader compared to somebody sharing/downloading hundreds of illegal files, if you can see the difference in severity between those two you might understand the difference in what i'm saying.

Iplayer is a brilliant idea, yes. I'm fully aware how it's paid for, though that doesn't mean other business's couldn't offer something similar with advertisement to pay for it etc, that is infact how 'free' programs etc tend to stay afloat in this "real word".

The comment of me saying "bull" was a personal opinion, everyone is entitled to one, correct? No need to act like that over mine just because they didn't fall into your way of seeing things, that's a difference of opinion in the "real world"

"Pity poor me" Wasn't said nor intended, again you've just misunderstood and went away with your own ideas. This law is promoting change, i'm pretty sure when i read the first post it said something about companies making alternatives available to consumers so the illegal downloaders have other options, the things i said would be part of that process in furthering legal downloads.

Now i've explained the things a little better as you didn't seem to understand them or have taken off in some wild tangent, i'd like to say what gives you the right to patronize others? There are constructive more mature ways to discuss things rather than troll on forums acting like that.

:)

[Mr Angry]

I lol'd..
Mr. Angry do you have to be rude and condescending to others to further your own opinion?
"A movie or two" btw was referring toward a casual one-off downloader compared to somebody sharing/downloading hundreds of illegal files, if you can see the difference in severity between those two you might understand the difference in what i'm saying.

The extrapolation of "one or two" has been explained to you not just by me but by others - you can, and obviously will, continue to ignore the fact.

Iplayer is a brilliant idea, yes. I'm fully aware how it's paid for, though that doesn't mean other business's couldn't offer something similar with advertisement to pay for it etc, that is infact how 'free' programs etc tend to stay afloat in this "real word".

Again who, exactly, will make these free programmes? Do you have a list of companies / individuals who are chomping at the bit prepared to gamble based on your premise that "advertisement" will pay for it? If so, start naming "real world" names instead of alluding to your ideal fantasy.

The comment of me saying "bull" was a personal opinion, everyone is entitled to one, correct? No need to act like that over mine just because they didn't fall into your way of seeing things, that's a difference of opinion in the "real world"

There is an oft quoted analogy (see what I did there?) regarding opinions which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion - just like everyone is entitled to be paid for their work yet you, and your opinion, appear to have some exclusive magical methodology whereby copyright infringement and illegal free downloading is supposed to encourage people to be creative and share their works for free because you, and your opinion, are fundamentally opposed to the accepted convention of trade / business based purely on the premise that you "think" your opinion "knows" how things should work in "real world" terms but you refuse to elaborate on your "logic" when challenged.

"Pity poor me" Wasn't said nor intended, again you've just misunderstood and went away with your own ideas. This law is promoting change,

You see in the "real world" that's where people like you get confused. It's not "promoting change" it is simply enforcing the laws which you think don't already exist. You pretend to offer alternatives to the status quo but when tasked with explaining those alternatives you adopt a narrative which explains / expands on nothing bar some unrealistic ideal that business should conform to your wants simply because you think it should.

i'm pretty sure when i read the first post it said something about companies making alternatives available to consumers so the illegal downloaders have other options, the things i said would be part of that process in furthering legal downloads.

No they wouldn't, as I've clearly evidenced and you have singularly failed to substantiate.

Now i've explained the things a little better as you didn't seem to understand them or have taken off in some wild tangent, i'd like to say what gives you the right to patronize others? There are constructive more mature ways to discuss things rather than troll on forums acting like that.

:)

No, you wouldn't like to "say" you'd like to "ask".

On that very matter - do you have anything of substance to bring to the debate or are you one of those posters who likes to just make reference to "mature ways to discuss things" rather than actually being mature (and rationally factual) about discussing things?

:)

---------- Post added at 02:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 ----------

KFK,

I see you're in the process of replying - unfortunately I've got to go to bed as my birthday celebrations have over run by about three hours.

I'll come back to you at some time later today.

Cheers.

[KungFuKitty]

I guess that was confirmation on trolling, lol.

If you don't know that there are many free programs supported by advertisement already alot of which being open source, then i guess that's your loss. You can do a simply google search for freeware rather than me compose some stupidly long list to point out to you the fact you are indeed confused!? This doesn't mean i don't accept some form of "Challenge" it simply means open your own eyes to this "real world" of free ad-supported software, google is your friend.

I didn't once say people weren't entitled to be paid for their work btw, though obviously you'd want to spin it that way to again further your arguement, another wild tangent to try push your own point across, heh.

No, you wouldn't like to "say" you'd like to "ask".
:dozey: That was brilliant, still can't answer the question then?

Incase you for whatever reason don't know how to use google for the purpose of what i said above i will provide you with a few examples because that's all you seem to need.

Off the top of my head ~ Gimp, Blender, Open Office, Avg, Spybot S&D, Ad-Aware, Avast, Microsoft Security Essentials, Rocket Dock, Rainmeter, Audacity, Malware Bytes, Video Lan, TVersity, SUPER, DriveImage, Winamp, Firefox, Skype, Utorrent, Trillian + many other messengers, graphics programs, security apps even some sites for free streams (legally) etc which are either totally free or give a free for personal use option, using various methods including advertising too.. imagine that! Like i said there are many alternatives to the subscription/pay apps. As i said before, further adoption of this wouldn't be a bad thing, although you seem to treat it so.

There's some "real world" examples for ya.
;)

Edit -
KFK,
I see you're in the process of replying
Sorry the post didn't get to you in time, i was playing a game with a friend inbetween, didn't know you were waiting :D

[Mr Angry]

Thanks for that.

I see we are addressing two very different areas here. I am referencing programmes whereas you are referencing programs.

However, to summarise - and bearing in mind your examples - this thread is about the three strikes rule and how ISPs may be forced to act to curtail illegal downloading. All of the examples you have cited have, of their own volition, made their product / programs available either free of charge or through open source media.

As such the matter of illegal downloading of same, at the entry level, is not relevant to the debate and there are no negative repercussions to be had for the companies involved at that particular level as open source / free distribution is what they intended. One would however have to wonder why, if the advertizing driven free model was so successful, there are pay for versions of many of those examples you listed currently available for illegal download on torrent sites.

Also, take your first example "Gimp". It is a collective, unpaid, endeavour to develop software which openly states "Please consider the time you give in assistance to others as payment". That is fine, indeed it's commendable, however people electing to get involved and give freely of their time for no monetary gain do so of their own free will and on that understanding.

Electing to make your media / software available free of charge is not the same as someone deciding to take your media / software free of charge when under normal circumstances one would expect to be paid.

You may not have used the exact words "people should not be paid for their work" however the sentiment in your statement "if you download a movie or two now and then nobody should really care" attests to that very mindset.

Obviously that is an attitude which I and many others take issue with and feel very strongly about.

[danlufan]

This debill is a nightmare for carriers and ISP's, i know TalkTalk have been fighting it quite a lot.

It is very expensive for the service provider to monitor everyones packets on the network. DPI equipment won't even be used to do that.

The only way to be truly safe however is to make sure when you download you download legally.

[psyfur]

Would be interesting to see if they (isp's) can inspect the packets sent in SSL? Surely the whole online banking system is fundamentally based on that SSL packets are encrypted and secure...

On a side matter, people that are really into downloading will simply get an international ISP (All ready a few offering this) and use a non UK server / private tracker for downloading.

Ultimately this bill just scares/harms/punishes the general public and not the dedicated hardcore.

[danlufan]

Would be interesting to see if they (isp's) can inspect the packets sent in SSL? Surely the whole online banking system is fundamentally based on that SSL packets are encrypted and secure...

On a side matter, people that are really into downloading will simply get an international ISP (All ready a few offering this) and use a non UK server / private tracker for downloading.

Ultimately this bill just scares/harms/punishes the general public and not the dedicated hardcore.

This has always been my point, hardcore will always find a way, private trackers etc...

The ones who will get into more trouble will be the ones who use P2P programs, which tend to be the slightly more advanced general user.

[Ignitionnet]

This has always been my point, hardcore will always find a way, private trackers etc...

The ones who will get into more trouble will be the ones who use P2P programs, which tend to be the slightly more advanced general user.

And there's far more of these 'slightly more advanced general users' than there are the 'hardcore'.

Private trackers are trivial to track to be honest, happens constantly ;)

[Sirius]

And there's far more of these 'slightly more advanced general users' than there are the 'hardcore'.

Private trackers are trivial to track to be honest, happens constantly ;)

I use ssl whenever its available. I don't use trackers for that very reason that they are not safe.

I tend to use private download sites with just a few users that can be trusted. I have used Newsgroups but i fear there the next target of an industry that has decided it's easier to sue than innovate.

[Ignitionnet]

I use ssl whenever its available. I don't use trackers for that very reason that they are not safe.

I tend to use private download sites with just a few users that can be trusted. I have used Newsgroups but i fear there the next target of an industry that has decided it's easier to sue than innovate.

You can't beat free for pricing I'm afraid. No innovation will help with that.

[Sirius]

You can't beat free for pricing I'm afraid. No innovation will help with that.

But that's just it i don't mind paying. But all the good sites are based across the pond and will not touch us because of copyright laws ( i am talking about tv shows and films here by the way), I have no interest in music or apps :rolleyes:

[Ignitionnet]

Irish Crackdown On Piracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10152623.stm)

3 strikes rule for Ireland.

[Mr Angry]

I have used Newsgroups but i fear there the next target....

Already in motion.

[ultimate]

This is today's news, sounds pretty serious:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10183820.stm

[danlufan]

I still think the first people who will be targetted are those who download music from P2P programs, easier to track and detect.

Also they should be targetting the source of the problem, not making the ISP liable.

I always thought a good idea by the ISP would be to charge an extra £2-5 per month which allows people to download as they feel like and that money goes to the industry (Well something along these lines)

[Ignitionnet]

I always thought a good idea by the ISP would be to charge an extra £2-5 per month which allows people to download as they feel like and that money goes to the industry (Well something along these lines)

How about the people who play by the rules and don't download anything sir?

That extra few pounds a month doesn't come close to covering the cost of how much content people will consume when they feel untouchable.

To do this would require it to either be a volume based charge (technically tricky) or a large flat rate cost with two different bodies of customers, those paying it who'll likely be the same people hammering your network so you'll not be wanting them on your service anyway or will want to charge them a load more money, and those who are't paying it who tend to be much lighter users.

It's not necessarily a bad idea but it'd be very difficult to implement, Canada's blank media levy is an example of a volume based charge.

[Daz555]

Strange things #1432

Why do the Gov and Industry always refer to 'illegal DOWNLOADS' when it is always the UPLOADERS who are the target of action?

[pip08456]

Could be because it is the UPLOADERS making it available for the DOWNLOADERS.

[Hugh]

Strange things #1432

Why do the Gov and Industry always refer to 'illegal DOWNLOADS' when it is always the UPLOADERS who are the target of action?
Perhaps because if they didn't illegally download copyrighted material, there would be nothing to upload? ;)

[Daz555]

The law is the law and no-one can argue that copyright infringement is anything but wrong at the fundamental level.

My concerns though arise around implementation of the proposed legislation. Those owning IPs found to be associated with copyright infringement will be ASSUMED to be guilty. They will be tried and punished without trial or redress.

Not sure what they are going to to about pubs/cafes etc who have open networks or at the least publish their keys for customers to use. For example, I have a friend who has been using the pub next doors wifi for over 4 years free of charge - the pub and landlord could easily find themselves disconnected from the internet if he infringed copyright on their network. What about those who rent rooms in shared houses? What about people who just don't get it? (wireless security I mean).

It is just plain barmy. We will sadly have to wait for the first highly-motivated person who is genuinely innocent to take this all the way to the highest courts.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

Perhaps because if they didn't illegally download copyrighted material, there would be nothing to upload? ;)
Buy/steal DVD. Rip DVD. Upload. ;)

[Hugh]

Buy/steal DVD. Rip DVD. Upload. ;)
But in the majority of cases......:D

[Horace]

Not sure what they are going to to about pubs/cafes etc who have open networks or at the least publish their keys for customers to use. For example, I have a friend who has been using the pub next doors wifi for over 4 years free of charge - the pub and landlord could easily find themselves disconnected from the internet if he infringed copyright on their network. What about those who rent rooms in shared houses? What about people who just don't get it? (wireless security I mean).

It is just plain barmy. We will sadly have to wait for the first highly-motivated person who is genuinely innocent to take this all the way to the highest courts.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------


Buy/steal DVD. Rip DVD. Upload. ;)

That's why it's three strikes and not one, at some point the pub/owner will be warned and advised how to secure their wireless network.

[Griffin]

That's why it's three strikes and not one, at some point the pub/owner will be warned and advised how to secure their wireless network.

What about the poor innocent souls whose pc's have become compromised & are being used by others remotely to download files, when i first started on the net i had a rapid learning process when mine got used this way. There are loads of people who connect to the net that have no idea about these things ie i think most of us know users whose expertise ends with switching the pc on & off.

[roughbeast]

Just thinking the V+ box allows you to recorded content and transfer to DVD/VCR. is this not encouraging copyright theft?

Everyone will just move to newsgroups or the apps like utorrent will start offering encryption.

I would quite happily pay £10-15pm month for 'all i can eat' films/tv... download, watch, delete but nothing like this exists (as far as i am aware)

Encryption is already very easy to get via BTGuard (http://btguard.com/) which offers anonymous IPs, (Canada based), and encryption for a very low annual cost. All you have to do is download their preconfigured uTorrent installation file and you are up and running in seconds. Unless someone knows of a sniffer system that can get around such measures I would suggest most regular pirates would adopt something like that.

[Chrysalis]

Strange things #1432

Why do the Gov and Industry always refer to 'illegal DOWNLOADS' when it is always the UPLOADERS who are the target of action?

good question since downloading the content alone is not illegal.

[M1ckR1ck]

I think you'll find that it is "illegal filesharing" not "illegal downloading" that this is meant to deal with and that is why it is the people that make the content available to others that are usually pursued. If you use a system like bittorrent, emule etc to download material, you are also making that material available to others to download. That way, you are a "filesharer". If you use a system like usenet, where you are directly downloading material from servers, you are not sharing it with others and so that makes you a "downloader".

[vanman]

so it's ok to download films and mp3 from various file hosting sites like: Rapidshare

[M1ckR1ck]

As far as Im aware, its "filesharers" that are being targeted not "downloaders". There would be a huge legal difference between the two I reckon. I personally only ever use newsgroups myself with ssl encryption.

[pip08456]

And why would there be a "Huge legal difference"????

Did you pay for what you got???

[M1ckR1ck]

Because you downloaded something doesnt mean you shared it with anyone else thats why. Any decent lawyer would have a field day with it. Whether you paid for it or not is neither here nor there.

[Chrysalis]

And why would there be a "Huge legal difference"????

Did you pay for what you got???

check into copyright laws and you have your answer.

[M1ckR1ck]

For the purpose of this matter, it states "filesharers". If you make files available to others its sharing. If you don't its not, simple as. The different industries pursuing "filesharers" make a distinct difference as well.

[vanman]

And why would there be a "Huge legal difference"????

Did you pay for what you got???

yes i paid Rapidshare

[M1ckR1ck]

And I paid Astraweb.

[Ignitionnet]

Not sure paying the party facilitating the piracy really counts any more than paying a Chinese person in the street a couple of quid for a burned DVD ;)

Pip - redistributing the stuff is a criminal offence, leeching it isn't it's copyright theft.

It's why the legal heat is starting to go onto people like Astraweb who profit from being warez distributors ;)

[vanman]

Not sure paying the party facilitating the piracy really counts any more than paying a Chinese person in the street a couple of quid for a burned DVD ;)


nice smile what chinese person they only sell porn

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2010/08/27.gif

[Ignitionnet]

You've not seen the ones in Tower Hamlets or various other swathes of London with their DVDs in blankets saying 'Dee Wee Dee'. Fond memories of getting accosted by 4 of them in between Brick Lane and Whitechapel tube. Unsure if there was porn there but certainly plenty of the usual stuff.

[vanman]

Download Failed (1)
no live in luton

[Mr Angry]

I think you'll find that it is "illegal filesharing" not "illegal downloading" that this is meant to deal with and that is why it is the people that make the content available to others that are usually pursued. If you use a system like bittorrent, emule etc to download material, you are also making that material available to others to download. That way, you are a "filesharer". If you use a system like usenet, where you are directly downloading material from servers, you are not sharing it with others and so that makes you a "downloader".

Nice try, but no cigar.

Unless you are suggesting that stuff magically appears on the internet without the participation / facilitation of a third party then I think you'll find that the person or entity you download from (ie the person or entity who made the material available for you to download) facilitates both filesharing and downloading with you.

Ergo you and the offering party are complicit on both counts in that you are downloading whilst simultaneously sharing with the point of origination as provided by the third party. Obviously not to the extent that p2p would involve but, nonetheless, the act of downloading cannot take place without the premise of sharing - that is a fact.

Any decent lawyer would have a field day with it. Whether you paid for it or not is neither here nor there.

There's no other show in town other than "Whether you paid for it or not" when it comes to copyright.

[Barton71]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, no matter how many times the various sections of the entertainment industry and it's supporters call it stealing, it is just copyright infringement. It is not a criminal offence.

There are many consequences to the Digital Economy Act which MP's did not foresee or, as most MP's didn't have a clue what they were voting for, did not care about.

Imagine the scenarios. You start a thread on cableforum about a news report from the Times website concerning the future of VM. You copy and paste the story and link back to original article. The Times find out about this and get their lawyers to request the IP of the poster, and inform the posters ISP of a possible copyright infringment. That would be strike 1.

Or, you find some photographs on a photographers website of something which interests you, and you post those images on your blog and you talk about whatever it is in the images that interests you. The original photographer finds out, and start the procedure against you for infringing his copyright. Strike 2

Or, as happened to me, you post a 27 second long video on youtube, and you put a sound track over it of a song which is under copyright. EMI claim copyright, and the video is muted, or, as could happen now, they decided to inform your ISP and you get your 3rd strike.

None of those scenarios have malicious intent. They are things millions of people across the UK do on a daily basis. It doesn't cost the copyright holder anything, yet they choose to use this pretty awesome weapon the government has given them, against ordinary internet users and have them removed from the internet. Not only would they be removing the person who allegedly infringed their copyright, they would also be removing anyone who used that network to access the internet, or the people who own the network, could find themselves cut off because someone else used their network for the alleged infringement, without their knowledge.

The law in this case, is an ass, and it is slightly comforting to know that a growing number of MP's fro all partys are slowly starting to realise just exactly what it is they voted for. They have pitted two different sets of rights against each other. The right for an individual to access information, education, and entertainment on the internet, against copyright. To my mind, the right to access the internet, far outweighs copyright.

[Chrysalis]

Barton71 good post, I think some people have been brought into the lies tho. The claims that the industry is losing billions. The claim that every download is a lost sale. The claim of stealing when it isnt stealing. The claim they the industry is struggling when they have reported healthy profits during a recession and had some real high profit movies.

The truth is they have discovered a new revenue stream and they want either (a) an easy way to fast track fine people without using courts for content they were unlikely to buy anyway or (b) probably their final goal is to get isp's and the like to agree to pay a % of every broadband subscription as a licence fee for overall content downloaded. Its all about control, copyright is massively abused these days and needs an overhaul to allow free sharing of content and information.

[pip08456]

Cue Mr Angry:D:D:D:D

[Toto]

it is just copyright infringement. It is not a criminal offence.
.

So, nobody in the UK has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement as a criminal offense?

[pip08456]

So, nobody in the UK has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement as a criminal offense?

Sources please.

[Toto]

Sources please.

I asked the question, am I expected to provide sources?

[Chrysalis]

clip of shark tank (american show) on youtube presents me this message.

"This video contains content from ABC, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

whats the point? the content isnt sold here. To make it even stupider the video was under the "reccomended for you" box.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

I asked the question, am I expected to provide sources?

people have been prosecuted for civil offense but not criminal offense. They different things, infringing copyright is a civil offense. So the proof is in the law books.

[pip08456]

To my knowledge the only copyright infringements have been agaist those who have downloaded, burned and sold material, which I fully agree with.

[Toto]

people have been prosecuted for civil offense but not criminal offense. They different things, infringing copyright is a civil offense. So the proof is in the law books.

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/latest_news/index.htm

Who were prosecuted largely under this act

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm

You're right, the proof is in the law.

That is not to say that freetards should go to prison, certainly not, but to say it is not a criminal offence is legally incorrect.

[Barton71]

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/latest_news/index.htm

Who were prosecuted largely under this act

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm

You're right, the proof is in the law.

That is not to say that freetards should go to prison, certainly not, but to say it is not a criminal offence is legally incorrect.

The only people who have ever been prosecuted criminally are those who seek to profit from it. Remember the Oink site? The CPS declined to prosecute the guy who ran the site, so the music industry brought a private criminal prosecution against him, which failed after they couldn't prove he profited from the site.

If you share copyrighted material, on a rare occasion, you will be sued in the civil court. Those FACT links you posted, were for organised criminals, who were into illegal stuff, as well as selling dodgy DVDs. None of them are for file sharing. FACT are using those prosecutions as propaganda in the hope that people will think that they were prosecuted for copyright infringement alone.

[Mr Angry]

The only people who have ever been prosecuted criminally are those who seek to profit from it. Remember the Oink site? The CPS declined to prosecute the guy who ran the site, so the music industry brought a private criminal prosecution against him, which failed after they couldn't prove he profited from the site.

You are mistaken. The charge was "conspiracy to defraud", not copyright infringement. He was proven, in fact he admitted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/8461879.stm), to have profited from the site.

If you share copyrighted material, on a rare occasion, you will be sued in the civil court. Those FACT links you posted, were for organised criminals, who were into illegal stuff, as well as selling dodgy DVDs. None of them are for file sharing. FACT are using those prosecutions as propaganda in the hope that people will think that they were prosecuted for copyright infringement alone.

You are talking nonsense. The crimes that the people linked to on the FACT site committed - and were summarily convicted for - all involved copyright infringement as the core precursor to any illegal commercial based activity which they engaged in.

Copyright infringement is, as you so eloquently put it, "illegal stuff". As such people who participate in copyright infringement should be prepared to face the full weight of the law.

The world has changed, the law has changed and all your bleating about civil and criminal differentials became an irrelevance back in April of this year.

Ask Newsbinz (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/03/30/usenet_search_engine/) - they'll tell you all about it.

[pip08456]

If you had took the time to read the relevant sections of the act you provided the link for you would know that fie sharing is not covered by it. Making a profit is.

[Mr Angry]

If you had took the time to read the relevant sections of the act you provided the link for you would know that fie sharing is not covered by it. Making a profit is.

If you took the time to read the Act that he provided a link to you'd find that you are wrong (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1g24) .

[Barton71]

You are mistaken. The charge was "conspiracy to defraud", not copyright infringement. He was proven, in fact he admitted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/8461879.stm), to have profited from the site.



You are talking nonsense. The crimes that the people linked to on the FACT site committed - and were summarily convicted for - all involved copyright infringement as the core precursor to any illegal commercial based activity which they engaged in.

Copyright infringement is, as you so eloquently put it, "illegal stuff". As such people who participate in copyright infringement should be prepared to face the full weight of the law.

The world has changed, the law has changed and all your bleating about civil and criminal differentials became an irrelevance back in April of this year.

Ask Newsbinz (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/03/30/usenet_search_engine/) - they'll tell you all about it.

You are missing the point of the debate Mr Angry, and you are probably doing it deliberately to derail the debate. The links you have posted all relate to people who have profited from copyright infringement or who were accused of profiting. None relate to file sharing. Show us one example of someone who has been criminally prosecuted by the CPS or PF for file sharing?

Even the DEA does not allow for criminal prosecution of file sharers. It only allows for "technical measures" to be taken against people accused of allowing their network to be used for file sharing, and as yet we do not know what those "technical measures" will be, although the clever money is on disconnection or a throttling of speed.

[04mattystevo]

You are missing the point of the debate Mr Angry, and you are probably doing it deliberately to derail the debate. The links you have posted all relate to people who have profited from copyright infringement or who were accused of profiting. None relate to file sharing. Show us one example of someone who has been criminally prosecuted by the CPS or PF for file sharing?

Even the DEA does not allow for criminal prosecution of file sharers. It only allows for "technical measures" to be taken against people accused of allowing their network to be used for file sharing, and as yet we do not know what those "technical measures" will be, although the clever money is on disconnection or a throttling of speed.

you realize your arguing with someone called Mr angry right, which means he is always right regardless

so angry he wanted cable forum to know it

[pip08456]

Just thought I'd throw this one in for fun

"Speaking at a seminar for the Cinema Expo this week, Paramount Pictures COO Fred Huntsberry said that average Joe unauthorized movie downloaders are no longer Hollywood's biggest threat, " ( I think it should read CEO)

Source here

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/06/24/hollywood_s_new_piracy_nightmare_cyberlockers?utm_ source=newsletterENG&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100624

And this one
"The BPI, Britain's largest recording industry association, has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google demanding the popular search engine take down links that lead to "one-click hosting" sites such as MegaUpload. "

Source

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/06/22/music_labels_now_going_after_google_search_results ?utm_source=newsletterENG&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100624

[Barton71]

Just thought I'd throw this one in for fun

"Speaking at a seminar for the Cinema Expo this week, Paramount Pictures COO Fred Huntsberry said that average Joe unauthorized movie downloaders are no longer Hollywood's biggest threat, " ( I think it should read CEO)

Source here

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/06/24/hollywood_s_new_piracy_nightmare_cyberlockers?utm_ source=newsletterENG&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100624

And this one
"The BPI, Britain's largest recording industry association, has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google demanding the popular search engine take down links that lead to "one-click hosting" sites such as MegaUpload. "

Source

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/06/22/music_labels_now_going_after_google_search_results ?utm_source=newsletterENG&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100624

The cynic in me think that the entertainment industry are looking to cover as many bases as they can. When they were lobbying the old government about the DEA, they wanted the Secretary of State to have the power to amend legislation to deal with what they see as a great evil. Developments in technology. The entertainment industry and the government, need to be made to realise that the internet does not revolve around them. The Internet belongs to us, the users, and for the music industry to encroach on our domain, by buying politicians and laws, is unacceptable.

[pip08456]

I'm just waiting to see if we get the reply from Google to the BPI. It would be actually a good test case if taken to court in as much as several torrent indexing sites have said all along that what they do is no worse than Google. This cease and desist order just proves their case. Google have the money to fight it though.

I do wonder if there is possibley someone pulling someone elses strings here though just to see what happens in Europe with a view to following on in the States.

[Ignitionnet]

The cynic in me think that the entertainment industry are looking to cover as many bases as they can. When they were lobbying the old government about the DEA, they wanted the Secretary of State to have the power to amend legislation to deal with what they see as a great evil. Developments in technology. The entertainment industry and the government, need to be made to realise that the internet does not revolve around them. The Internet belongs to us, the users, and for the music industry to encroach on our domain, by buying politicians and laws, is unacceptable.

The realist in me says there has to be a balance. It's worth noting that the Internet doesn't belong to us, the users, it belongs to various corporate and government entities that supply the infrastructure.

While we, the users, as a group engage in wholesale copyright theft, in some cases of hundreds of pounds a month of the entertainment industry's products we supply them a huge incentive to attempt to influence the Internet.

Groups of us stop downloading TB a month of their products just because they're there, and large amounts of us stop downloading whenever we feel the need for a particular item they will back off. The current status quo benefits no-one. Freetards tar all of us with a pretty dark brush, entertainment industry over-reaction ruins their perception to the public.

[Barton71]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on who owns the Internet. I feel the Internet belongs to all users, not just to large corporations alone.

When you read stories like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/23/youtube-wins-viacom-lawsuit or this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10322825.stm it is understandable why people like me, who believe in online rights and privacy, trust the entertainment industry as far as i can spit.

[Hugh]

If the Internet belongs to all users, when did they dig up the road for the cables and build the comms rooms?;)

[pip08456]

If the Internet belongs to all users, when did they dig up the road for the cables and build the comms rooms?;)

That is the route to the internet and belongs to the provider who is paid by the user just the same as you would for a bus,train or flight. (or even use a road for your car!)

[Ignitionnet]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on who owns the Internet. I feel the Internet belongs to all users, not just to large corporations alone.

Unfortunately the owners of the routers, switches, fibre optics and servers that form the Internet would disagree.

You access the Internet via VM (NASDAQ:VMED), you may well go across the network of someone like Level3 Communications Incorporated (NASDQ:LVLT) or Global Crossing Incorporated (NASDQ:GLBC) using fibre laid by Cable and Wireless PLC (LDN:CWC) to reach a server farm owned by Google, Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG), sitting in a Data Centre owned by Telehouse, a subsidiary of KDDI Corporation Japan (TOKYO:KDDIF) in order to view an index of the Internet.

Community owned content on the Internet definitely, the Internet owned by users absolutely not, we just rent access to the Corporations' network :)

[Hugh]

That is the route to the internet and belongs to the provider who is paid by the user just the same as you would for a bus,train or flight. (or even use a road for your car!)
But without that route, there is no internet, just a bunch of content with nowhere to go - is the medium the message, or the message the medium? ;)

[pip08456]

But without that route, there is no internet, just a bunch of content with nowhere to go - is the medium the message, or the message the medium? ;)

See Igni's post above.I tried to put it simple terms for you, maybe you'll understand his explanation better.

[Hugh]

Yes, that's right, I need it explaining in simple terms.



(having worked in IT for 30 years (and before that 6 years in the forces in crypto and sigint), 10 years of that time working for cable companies and telecomms companies, previously being Head of IT Infrastructure for a £2 billion a year company, and currently an IT Director for a University, my knowledge of IT and comms is very limited.....;) )

[Ignitionnet]

See Igni's post above.I tried to put it simple terms for you, maybe you'll understand his explanation better.

I said exactly what he did, I just put it in a more verbose form and named names?

[Griffin]

If anyone could lay claim to the internet, its the scientists who started it off as a way of communicating easily with each other.

[Hugh]

ARPANET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET)

[Horace]

This is a silly argument, the internet is inherentaly under control of the the content creators; scientific communities, users, media organisations, governments and others. Would you say that 'TV' is 'owned' by Arqiva because it owns the transmitters?

I was discussing the future of file sharing and piracy with a friend the other day and tried to see where we were heading to, the only conclusion in the BPI/RIAA/MPAA's utopian future would be mass migration over to Freenet and Darknets should connection to Freenet become illegal. It doesn't take a genius to work out the negative consequences of mass exposure to such an unregulated network.

[Chrysalis]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on who owns the Internet. I feel the Internet belongs to all users, not just to large corporations alone.

When you read stories like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/23/youtube-wins-viacom-lawsuit or this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10322825.stm it is understandable why people like me, who believe in online rights and privacy, trust the entertainment industry as far as i can spit.

Most embarrassingly for Viacom, court documents revealed in in March that at the same time that it was suing Google and YouTube, Viacom was itself uploading its content in secret and trying to make it look stolen - so that people would be more interested in it.

haha, sounds familiar. same with what they doing on torrents, they sourcing their own material so they can profit from legal actions.

[Ignitionnet]

haha, sounds familiar. same with what they doing on torrents, they sourcing their own material so they can profit from legal actions.

Really? Anything to back that comment up? I have never heard anyone claim that content providers are intentionally doing initial seeding of their own stuff in order to sue people who download it.

[Chrysalis]

Really? Anything to back that comment up? I have never heard anyone claim that content providers are intentionally doing initial seeding of their own stuff in order to sue people who download it.

few stories have been about, they will seed something so they can harvest ip's.

[Ignitionnet]

few stories have been about, they will seed something so they can harvest ip's.

Oh that. Totally different from Viacom uploading content to You Tube to try and sue them. Don't even need to actually seed anything to harvest the IP addresses either, and wouldn't really want to as it's people uploading the stuff that gets them in trouble, not downloading it.

[Sirius]

A different perspective

[Ignitionnet]

Here's a somewhat different perspective (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/21/lse_music_debate/) on that one that isn't using silly extremes of banning children from sharing toys :)

[Sirius]

Here's a somewhat different perspective (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/21/lse_music_debate/) on that one that isn't using silly extremes of banning children from sharing toys :)

But sharing is bad ask VM and Detica they now know all about it ;)

[Ignitionnet]

But sharing is bad VM and Detica ;)

When it's someone else's property you're sharing without their permission to take a perfect copy sharing is a tad naughty yes.

So unless those toys were stolen and replicated I think the kids are just fine :)

[Sirius]

When it's someone else's property you're sharing without their permission to take a perfect copy sharing is a tad naughty yes.

So unless those toys were stolen and replicated I think the kids are just fine :)

:)

[ThunderPants73]

Wow......you guys.....wow.