How do you feel about copyright infringement, piracy and general law breaking?

[supremus]

After seeing a number of posters getting surprisingly upset about something as relatively harmless as cable piracy in the Virgin Media News section, I thought there might be an interesting discussion to be had about people's views on piracy, copyright infringement and law breaking in general. I certainly respect someone's right to get all sanctimonious about someone else leeching free cable, but that level of respect would probably drop a little, if that person was a regular law breaker himself... or herself.

As someone who couldn't swear to every single MP3 on his iPod being entirely legit, I'd certainly find it difficult to work up a genuine sense of outrage about someone else leeching free cable, and if I were to look through my hard drive and maybe find the latest episodes of my favorite US TV shows before their UK air date, I imagine I'd feel like a huge hypocrite for berating someone else for leeching free cable, and if I were the sort of person who might occasionally break really serious laws, like speed limits and the sort, I'd probably feel compelled to keep my trap shut about something as comparatively unimportant as cable piracy. Either that or come up with a really brilliant explanation for how putting other people's lives at risk is less offensive than watching free television.

So that brings me to the big question. Considering that the vast majority of posters around here probably break either speed limits, copyright or other laws on a fairly regular basis, why the outrage over cable piracy? And if you're merely a movie/mp3/TV show downloading speed freak, how do you justify those particular offenses?

Please keep the discussion civil. No name calling, swearing or nudity allowed.

[zing_deleted]

As long as no one does me or mine any harm I do not interfere with what people do.

My biggest problem is those who broadcast that they break the law then go out of their way to claim they are innocent. Please do not try to blag me I am to smart to fall for it ;)

In my time I have done all but one of the things in your vote but I am not saying which ;)
As for justifying myself who to? no one here needs me to

[papa smurf]

as aVM network tech i can tell you that 1 chipped stb can knock out an entire node up to 600 customers .thats why we hunt them down like dogs,its not big and its not clever ,and vm techs dont take any prisoners .

re the vote can one pick more than one option cos i get free cable and as for the rest i'll take the 5th amendment if i may

[supremus]

As for justifying myself who to? no one here needs me toSure, the justification question was aimed more at the sort of people who might break certain laws, and then berate others for far lesser offenses. How do people justify that to themselves?

[Russ]

Sure, the justification question was aimed more at the sort of people who might break certain laws, and then berate others for far lesser offenses. How do people justify that to themselves?

OK so the purpose of this thread is for you to point out what you consider to be hypocrisy.

Broken pencil time.

[Hugh]

Love the emotionally loaded words in the OP
"surprisingly upset"
"relatively harmless"
"sanctimonious"
"regular law breaker"

and then the deal-breaker -
"Considering that the vast majority of posters around here probably break either speed limits, copyright or other laws on a fairly regular basis"

Who the hell do you think you are to judge and slander other people that you have never met from behind the anonymity of a nom-de-internet - you appear to be judging others by your own standards, and setting up loaded questions for others to fulfill your weird idea of humour.

And as usual, after insulting others and being derogatory, you finish off with the hypocritical caveat of "Please keep the discussion civil. No name calling, swearing or nudity allowed".

You, sir/madam/heshe/neuter are peurile and sanctimonious prig* (imho).

*(and no, that is not a mis-spelling)

[Tezcatlipoca]

And if you're merely a movie/mp3/TV show downloading speed freak, how do you justify those particular offenses?


While all of those = copyright theft, I do not think that - morally/ethically - they are equal.


If you download a movie, you're not paying the DVD/cinema cost.

If you download an album, you're not paying the CD/iTunes/Napster cost.


TV though? Not the same league, IMO (although yes it's still the same under the law). If you pay your TV Licence, & you pay your Sky/VM sub. or whatever, I don't see the big deal. No one is losing out, you're just watching something earlier than if you had waited for the UK broadcast.



"Done illegal drugs" also seems a bit too general to me.

[Gary L]

You, sir/madam/heshe/neuter are peurile and sanctimonious prig* (imho).

*(and no, that is not a mis-spelling)

Did you vote? what is a heshe?

[Pia]

I voted on 4 of the above ;)

[Gary L]

I voted on 4 of the above ;)

I voted on all 6 to get the numbers up. I lied about the 2 :)

[supremus]

as aVM network tech i can tell you that 1 chipped stb can knock out an entire node up to 600 customers .thats why we hunt them down like dogs,its not big and its not clever ,and vm techs dont take any prisoners.From what I'm told, VM techs are often the ones supplying chipped boxes. Several people I know have been offered chipped boxes by local VM techs. As far as I know, all of them refused, preferring instead to pay for Sky. :p:

Seriously, though, I don't really get the impression that VM are really being that pro-active about putting a stop to this. Partly because it's difficult and expensive, but from what I've been told by people in the business, although not working for VM, because many pirates do pay for the minimum service, and often take other packages like phone and broadband, while leeching the television service VM doesn't make much money on anyway. Add to that the fact that it isn't an offense the legal system considers particularly serious, compared to some of the other issues I mentioned, and I think my description of cable leeching was fairly accurate.

re the vote can one pick more than one option cos i get free cable and as for the rest i'll take the 5th amendment if i mayYep, it's multiple choice, anonymous voting. Go nuts. :)


OK so the purpose of this thread is for you to point out what you consider to be hypocrisy.No. Is the purpose of this post to drive a legitimate discussion off topic with your personal grudge?

Broken pencil time.I use pens. Pencils are for people who know they're going to make mistakes. Let's get back on topic?

and then the deal-breaker -
"Considering that the vast majority of posters around here probably break either speed limits, copyright or other laws on a fairly regular basis"

Who the hell do you think you are to judge and slander other people that you have never met from behind the anonymity of a nom-de-internet - you appear to be judging others by your own standards, and setting up loaded questions for others to fulfill your weird idea of humour.Please try to keep this civil. Statistics clearly show that most people have at some point broken some of these laws, the speed limit is particularly common.

You, sir/madam/heshe/neuter are peurile and sanctimonious prig* (imho)I guess I should have added "breaking forum rules" to the list. :rolleyes:

[papa smurf]

"From what I'm told, VM techs are often the ones supplying chipped boxes. Several people I know have been offered chipped boxes by local VM techs. As far as I know, all of them refused, preferring instead to pay for Sky."


contract partners maybe vm techs doubtful it causes to many head aches

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

I voted on 4 of the above ;)

5 i've been around a while

[supremus]

contract partners maybe vm techs doubtful it causes to many head achesThat's possible, i suppose. I couldn't say for sure. So is your personal view that cable pirates are worse than TV/games/movie pirates or speedsters, because of the potential for service disruption to other customers?

[papa smurf]

That's possible, i suppose. I couldn't say for sure. So is your personal view that cable pirates are worse than TV/games/movie pirates or speedsters, because of the potential for service disruption to other customers?

it just makes my day harder ......

[supremus]

it just makes my day harder ......Fair enough. :)

While all of those = copyright theft, I do not think that - morally/ethically - they are equal.I suppose not, but the way people justify it to themselves might be?

If you download a movie, you're not paying the DVD/cinema cost.

If you download an album, you're not paying the CD/iTunes/Napster cost.You might have downloaded a movie or album you wouldn't have bought or gone to see at the cinema anyway. Doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the law.

TV though? Not the same league, IMO (although yes it's still the same under the law). If you pay your TV Licence, & you pay your Sky/VM sub. or whatever, I don't see the big deal. No one is losing out, you're just watching something earlier than if you had waited for the UK broadcast.The broadcasters might disagree with this for any number of reasons. They might, for instance, feel you're missing out on the advertisements that are keeping your subscription cost low enough for you to afford.

"Done illegal drugs" also seems a bit too general to me.Yeah, I don't know anything about drugs, really, I just thought I'd throw it in there, as it's another one of those gray areas for a lot of people.

[Enuff]

Arn't I a naughty boy. I've done most of what's on that list.

[Russ]

No. Is the purpose of this post to drive a legitimate discussion off topic with your personal grudge?

Personal grudge? I'm sure you'd love the attention.

Your loaded wording and posting in the other thread have made it clear all you want to do in this thread is point out what you consider to be double standards.

I use pens. Pencils are for people who know they're going to make mistakes. Let's get back on topic?


I do apologise, next time I'll use an expression you'll understand.

[moaningmags]

Never ever done 1, nor my electricity, which is common where I was raised.
Yes to 2, more tv programmes though and I watch them again when they come on tv.
Yes to 3, been a long time since.
Yes to 4, 3 penalty points and a £60 fine to show for it.
Yes to 5, but didn't like feeling out of control so didn't do it again and don't drink either.
6, not that I'm aware of.

[supremus]

To those who might be outraged about my assumptions about people's law breaking habits, here's a survey showing that the average iPod contains around 842 illegal songs.

http://www.geek.com/articles/music/uk-survey-finds-average-ipod-contains-over-800-illegal-songs-20080617/

And here's an article echoing what I said about people breaking the speed limit.

"the vast majority of drivers regularly exceed the speed limit"

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-99844971.html

Personal grudge? I'm sure you'd love the attention.I'm fine either way, but I'm sure the other posters and mods would prefer if we kept the thread on topic. This forum doesn't revolve around me, you know.

Your loaded wording and posting in the other thread have made it clear all you want to do in this thread is point out what you consider to be double standards.I'm sure forums like this is intended for people to share their views and opinions, right?

I do apologiseApology accepted.

[Hugh]

I use pens. Pencils are for people who know they're going to make mistakes. Let's get back on topic?

I do apologise, next time I'll use an expression you'll understand.

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new" - Albert Einstein

[supremus]

btw, your speeding example is from Norn Iron. Indeed it is, but surely you're not the sort of person who would make unfair assumptions about the people of "Norn Iron" being more prone to speed limit violations than anyone else?

This one from speedlimit.org.uk even estimate that as many as 95% of all drivers exceed the speed limits.

The majority of drivers exceed speed limits at some time (at least 70% admit it, probably 95% actually do it)

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/accept.html

How dare they? The prigs!

[Hugh]

Indeed it is, but surely you're not the sort of person who would make unfair assumptions about the people of "Norn Iron" being more prone to speed limit violations than anyone else?

No, but then I am not the sort of person who would use out of date regional statistics to back up my premise, rather than up to date national statistics (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article4391839.ece)which showed less than half (so not "most") drivers broke the speed limit.
"In the past ten years drivers of all types of vehicles have reduced their speed but the biggest drop has been among car owners. According to the DfT 70 per cent of cars travelled at speeds in excess of the 30mph limit in 1997 but this had fallen to fewer than half by last year"

btw, excellent unbiased reference site (speedlimit.org.uk) - someone's personal website with unsubstantiated statistics; way to go!

[Enuff]

"In the past ten years drivers of all types of vehicles have reduced their speed but the biggest drop has been among car owners. According to the DfT 70 per cent of cars travelled at speeds in excess of the 30mph limit in 1997 but this had fallen to fewer than half by last year"
That has to be due to all the ******* roadworks, speed bumps and bumper-to-bumber traffic jams. I couldn't do more than 30mph if I tried!

[supremus]

No, but then I am not the sort of person who would use out of date regional statistics to back up my premise, rather than up to date national statistics (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article4391839.ece)which showed less than half (so not "most") drivers broke the speed limit.These are obviously massaged statistics for areas with speed cameras, and they're talking about average speeds, not the occasional breaking of the speed limits, which most people have obviously been guilty of.

[Stuart]

These are obviously massaged statistics for areas with speed cameras, and they're talking about average speeds, not the occasional breaking of the speed limits, which most people have obviously been guilty of.

Not too sure they have been massaged. At least if they have, the AA (who, IIRC, have been fairly vocal in criticising speed cameras in the past) seem quite happy with them.

[Paul]

"In the past ten years drivers of all types of vehicles have reduced their speed but the biggest drop has been among car owners. According to the DfT 70 per cent of cars travelled at speeds in excess of the 30mph limit in 1997 but this had fallen to fewer than half by last year"

Must be a different area to where I live/drive then, finding someone who never exceeds 30mph (in a 30 zone) is a bit like looking for the proverbial rocking horse sh.... :)

[supremus]

Must be a different area to where I live/drive then, finding someone who never exceeds 30mph (in a 30 zone) is a bit like looking for the proverbial rocking horse sh.... :)Yes, the article was clearly talking about average speeds, and the estimate suggesting as many as 95% of all drivers break the speed limits from time to time still sounds very realistic.

[Tezcatlipoca]

The broadcasters might disagree with this for any number of reasons. They might, for instance, feel you're missing out on the advertisements that are keeping your subscription cost low enough for you to afford.

And what if you would not have seen any advertisements anyway, if you would have used Sky+/V+ if watching the programmes on broadcast TV?

I record stuff, so I can skip the ads. Stuff I don't record, I "Live Pause" initially, again so I can skip the ads.

Or, what if it is a programme that is on a channel which does not actually have any advertising, e.g. Heroes on BBC2/3/HD. Whether you download that, or wait for it to come to the BBC, the Beeb are getting their money either way (TV Licence), & there are no adverts for you to miss out on.


Yeah, I don't know anything about drugs, really, I just thought I'd throw it in there, as it's another one of those gray areas for a lot of people.

There is a whole range of illegal drugs out there, separated into three different "Classes" under the Misuse of Drugs Act - Class A, Class B, & Class C. The penalties for A are higher than those for B, which are higher than those for C.

Then, of course, there is also the expert opinion that some illegal drugs - e.g. cannabis & ecstasy - are actually less physically dangerous and less socially harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/23/constitution.drugsandalcohol

Members of the study linked above included scientists and experts from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs*; the chief exec. of the MRC; psychopharmacologists; consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction; and also other experts in chemistry, pharmacology, psychiatry, forensics, police and legal services. They looked at physical harm, addiction, and social harm.

The authors stated that, based on the evidence and expert opinion, alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy.

They also said that if alcohol and tobacco happened to be classed in the same way as illegal drugs, alcohol would be a Class A, and tobacco would be a Class B.

The study concluded that, of the 20 drugs they investigated, heroin & cocaine were the most dangerous. Alcohol came in at 5th most dangerous, 6th place went to ketamine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine) (currently only a Class C - strangely lower than cannabis' new Class), in 9th place was tobacco, 11th place cannabis, 14th place LSD, and ecstasy was way down at 18th place.

*[The ACMD are the guys the Government completely ignored when they re-classified cannabis again, up from a C to a B. The ACMD said it should stay a C (http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/acmd-cannabis-report-2008?view=Binary), yet the Government nonsensically (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/08/cannabis_law_analysis/) changed it to a B. The general assumption by many was that it was to pander to the usual suspects in the right-wing press etc., and also a case of New Labour puritanism].


As well as all that, there is also the "personal freedom" aspect - so what if it is illegal, if it is your personal choice & does no harm to anyone else.


So, trying to stop rambling on... :erm:

...As I said, I feel "Done illegal drugs" is far too general etc. There's a lot more to it than that.

[supremus]

And what if you would not have seen any advertisements anyway, if you would have used Sky+/V+ if watching the programmes on broadcast TV?The + issue is presumably part of their overall business model, but there was a article/survey recently which showed that a surprisingly high percentage of DVR owners actually watch as much as 70% as many ads as regular TV viewers. I'll see if I can find the article and post it tomorrow. It also had some general points about the importance of advertising as relates to piracy.

Or, what if it is a programme that is on a channel which does not actually have any advertising, e.g. Heroes on BBC2/3/HD. Whether you download that, or wait for it to come to the BBC, the Beeb are getting their money either way (TV Licence), & there are no adverts for you to miss out on.But NBC/Universal sell a show like Heroes to the BBC for a certain price which is at least partly based on expected viewership. If either one of them feels piracy affects how many people may or may not watch the show when broadcast by the BBC, that price becomes an issue. Let's say the BBC pay $500.000 per episode of an extremely popular US show, expecting to have 10 million viewers for the show. If half of those 10 million don't bother tuning in, because they already watched the show, the BBC got a bad deal and wasted a lot of money, and won't be able to reach as many viewers with non-commercial advertisements for other shows, which might again affect ratings. It's not all that different a concept to Sky's advertising based model.

As well as all that, there is also the "personal freedom" aspect - so what if it is illegal, if it is your personal choice & does no harm to anyone else.Yes, this is where I thought there might be similarities with views on copyright infringement

[Druchii]

I have broken the speed limit. On my bicycle.
Car parks with 5mph limits count too, right?

[Gary L]

I have broken the speed limit. On my bicycle.
Car parks with 5mph limits count too, right?

I tried that once in a cemetry. I drove at 5mph while the man with his dog walked past us looking at me funny :)

[Chris]

These are obviously massaged statistics for areas with speed cameras, and they're talking about average speeds, not the occasional breaking of the speed limits, which most people have obviously been guilty of.

Obviously the statistics are flawed, because they don't back up your premise.

I've answered the poll because I'm interested in the answers. I stole sweets from the Sunday School tuck shop. For which I have repented in sachcloth and ashes.

As for the rest of it, well I suppose it's heartening that you don't reserve your sanctimony and loaded questions for religious threads. But I won't be sticking around this thread unless it needs moderating.

[supremus]

Obviously the statistics are flawed, because they don't back up your premise.That's probably just a coincidence, but it should be clear to anyone reading the article that it was talking about average speeds, and that the conclusions of most other surveys are still accurate, which is that the vast majority of drivers exceed the speed limits at some point or another. We all know this, of course. Out of 24 voters here, 19 admit to breaking the speed limit.

As for the rest of it, well I suppose it's heartening that you don't reserve your sanctimony and loaded questions for religious threads. But I won't be sticking around this thread unless it needs moderating.Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but there were some angry comments earlier that maybe could have done with some bold fonted intervention. Some of it seemed downright libelous. ;)