No, but FACT can..

oh yeh forgot about them :eek:

FACT... who?

FACT: The Federation Against Copyright Theft

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

There's no doubt about it, they are implying that illegal movie downloads are a positive benefit of broadband internet. It's morally dubious if not outright illegal. They're even using an official copyright image from the film. I expect the film distributor might decide using the photo in such a way is in itself a breach of copyright.

Hmm, BBC online might just get a tip off tomorrow morning ;)

So first they introduced a cap and then they advertise piracy.

Only NTL could be stupid enough to do this

oooooo if i was still in the playground id be hissing "grass! grass!" etc teehee.

* :notopic:s himself

Yes they are stating a fact in that people download movies and that Spiderman was (illegally) available to download before the cinema release, but in the context of an advert encouraging you to subscribe to NTL's broadband service NTL are suggesting that downloading movies illegally is a reason for subscribing to their service. In this respect they are encouraging copyright infringement.

While they are not literally saying "subscribe to our service to download movies" they are saying "people have broadband to shop on the internet and download movies. You should subscribe to our broadband service [and then you can do these things]".

They are using the ability to download movies in the reasonable time-frame that broadband gives you as a selling point for their service. And to quote a specific title - Spiderman - that was certainly never available to legally download prior to the cinema release (and I'm pretty sure isn't available to legally download now) is hardly appropriate. Suppose someone downloaded Spiderman and then got a letter from NTL stating that they were in breach of the T&C/AUP for doing so - I think the user would have a strong case to complain on the basis they were only using the account for the purpose for which it had been advertised.

A further quote from the feature is "We have only just scratched the surface of what you can experience and do in this magazine [with broadband]".

There is no mention of any "recommended daily download limits" mentioned anywhere in the advertisment feature although it does state "services available in ntl cabled streets and subject to capacity".

Duncan

The MPAA can act in Britain, they just to do so by pulling the strings in the background. I read a few days ago against a court case being taken against a group distributing pirate DVDs in the UK. Officially the court case is being brought by Warner's UK arm, but the MPAA are doing the actual driving from the background.

You think? The MPAA would certainly have something to say, and guess who has a shareholding in a certain on-demand movies service?

I have some inderect dealings with all of the major Hollywood studios....but can I bring myself to snitch?

Bwhahahahaha

OK, I've been on to my mate Chris @ FACT and he is more than a little interestead in the article....


The first, second and fourth item (above the superman pic) are acceptable as they are commenting on the availability of DVD's for purchase.
However, Item 3... "400,000 - 600,000 movies are downloaded every day" is a perfect example of promoting copyright theft.

If a case is brought against ntl: I will know about it by 9:00 GMT tomorrow and will post in this thread to let you guys know.

Microsoft is VERY anti piracy. Do they still have shares in NTL

Makes me wonder how their marketing dept think they will get away with it! :erm:

Why do you say item 4 - "Spiderman was available on the net before it was even in the cinema" is acceptable? It certainly wasn't officially available on DVD before the cinema release(!) The only way it was available on the net before the cinema release was as an illegal download - and again NTL are promoting their broadband service for this purpose.

Duncan

nothing surprises me when it comes to NTL.

This is how they get the custom.