Come on guys, you don't want the ASA involved, what else could be done (and give a result)?:confused:

Well, if people draw attention to what was posted in a local paper then it becomes international news... leaving the ad alone would have kept it isolated to leeds......

And thats good, how, would Ntl learn anything from that, no:rolleyes:

And the extra people signing onto a congested network in order to download movies nationwide as a result of increasing the publicity, also paying NTL and covering the cost of any fine helps us NTL users how?

It's unlikely to get a fine - just a retraction.

my post on the .com got deleted because i showed the fecking picture!!!

was it because it was hosted here? they are paranoid about people seeing links to this site:rolleyes:

Can someone host the picture on their own space and link to it?? Iwould but dont know how to! :(

Done!

http://homepage.mac.com/towny/ntl-movies2.jpg

NTL should have put a disclaimer, saying that downloading copyright material is infringement thats all, had they done that then there would have been no problem with this ad, thats what they'll get fined for not the ad itself.

its just the same with video recorders, most of the ads for VCR's have a tag line somewhere at the bottom saying reproducing copyright material is illlegal.

In advertising terms this ad is good, it just didnt get checked by legal, had it done so this post wouldnt have got to 21 pgs

NTL will get rapped for leavig out a disclaimer, but it wont kill them and is a completely seperate issue from the cap , like it or not!

No it isnt you do not have the service to download the implied amount

This is nothing to do with the cap and trying to make it so will not advance that issue at all. No impartial reading of the advert could conclude that ntl is promising you the ability to d/l more than the 1gb limit. The advert doesn't use the word 'unlimited' (none of them do any more) and when it talks about 400,000 - 600,000 movies being downloaded a day ... well, there's absolutely no way any reasonable person could infer from that that they are saying one user could d/l that much.

Like it or not, this advert is controversial for one reason, and one reason only: ntl is advertising a service with the implication that downloading illegal material from the internet is a good thing.

I disagree with the cap; I think that on principle the internet is not a commodity and should not be sold as such. However trying to see the cap behind everything ntl says and does is not constructive.

I can see your point

Putting a disclaimer on an advert for this is problematic from my point of view.

Imagine, if they disclaim this then they have to also disclaim:-

Child porn
Music files
Software files
Hardcore porn
Offensive language
Offensive images
Racial prejudices
Terrorist bomb making info (jolly rogers cookbook et al)

By tthe time they had finnished there would be little space left for the advert anyway.

You cant disclaim against peoples stupidity.

But however you look at it, Reporting NTL to FACT and the ASA was pointless, it was detrimental to NTL and I am not happy having to pay ntl and have them pay fines, because of the actions of users here, instead of using the money to upgrade their services.
We may only be talking of a few thousand pounds but hell thats not really the point is it? I do not back ANY of the people that have reported NTL to relevant organisations I oppose you for this and will carry on doing so.

But yes I think the advert is stupid and badly written but as I said before, Its impossible to know how people will look at a wriiten passage and interpret it. You cannot account for peoples stupiddity and the fact that some people INSIST on reading in between the lines.

If the users had not reported it you can bet the competitors would have BT etc

Yeah but that isnt grassing on your own ISP is it?

And it STILL doesnt make it right.