Hey you have seen my comments on the CAP in the thread and on that issue I am with you guys.
Especially the AOL apparent favouritism.

I have never once said that infringement of copyright was acceptable. Neither have NTL.
What I think NTL have done is say it like it is, "yes the internet can be used for piracy and indeed some of our customers certainly use it for that means, but there is also other benefits to broadband"

How is telling the truth promoting piracy?
The talk about movies, other than the FACTUAL comment on Spiderman, makes no reference to being able to download copyrighted films does it?
And I am sure most BB adverts from all companies at one time or another have included the line "downlaod movies at the touch of a button".

No thats how you interprit it. Whether or not it was intened that way is of no concern to any of us.

So they should get away with it?

I remember the ASA telling them to stop calling 150Kb BB 'high speed'. Did they? No.

Ntl never learn, I bought BB from them because they told me it was 'unlimited' in respect to downloads, and now we have a cap. I don't want any other unsuspecting customer to be taken in my their totally outrageous advertising.

Tell the authority's, this is the only way they will learn. Hit them where it hurts, and if they continue to do it them hit them again.

As far as I'm concerned, if they think that advertising like this in one breath and tell us not to d/l in another is acceptable then they don't deserve to be running a telecoms company.

If they continue to do this and the authority's put them out of business then GOOD. Someone will be waiting in the wings to take it over. I'm sure it cant get any worse than it is not.

Remember ITV Digital?:mad: :grind: :afire:

Agreed. But, advertising standards prohibit this kind of thing.

The same as Ford arn't allowed to show clips of the Mondeo being hammered down the M4 by some rep flashing at the driver in front. It creates the wrong impression.

Would you be so cool about it if it said "paedophiles downloaded 32GB of child porn in the last week. ntl 1M broadband is here!"
Going by your statements, they are only telling the truth.
It still looks like they are saying it is acceptable, no mater how you phrase it.
Dad, can I use Kazaa to download the latest Britney single?
Well son, millons of people do it all the time.

Quite the opposite, how it is interprited is of major concern to some of us!
Mostly the ones who are P'd at being told not to download more than 1GB per day, then no implimentation, followed by an advert which may apear to promote downloading films, makes a point of advertising the ability to download before the cinema and quote how many millions of films are downloaded.

If nothing else this add condones piracy.
Isn't that bad enough for you?

It is high time that NTL stopped acting as though they are above the law. I don`t give a damn if they get stung by an enormous fine by FACT, although what would really make me smile is if some of the upper management got jail time for it (highly unlikely, I know).

I currently have a DPA dispute going with NTL, and if they end up getting stung from that I have no sympathy for them. All this argument that they are still on shaky financial ground carries absolutely no weight for me. Being a bit hard-up doesn`t mean they can flout the law whenever they wish. NTL have been crapping all over their customers for years, I think it is about time that they got some of it back.

One question for those in here....

I apologise if it seems to be a long winded one, but it needs asking

A customer downloads a song by an artist... say Metallica - Enter Sandman to see if it is the song he wants...
He burns it to CD, at a media cost of 16-20p, he is happy
He is also infringing the law...

A Record company puts out a new CD Single.

Unit production cost for the single is less than a penny per, yet they sell it for £4.00

that's a 4,000% markup...

when you look at things in the way of markups everyone needs to make a profit..... but 4,000%?

the biggest case of robbery is done by the BPI, yet they do it within the law

UPDATE URGENT REQUEST
I have not got any pms with offers of this publication could anyone assist in providing hard copy for evidence.

This is required by trading standards

Original Publication not a copy

Key phrase there would be "within the law"

Besides, manufacturing costs are not the only fugures to look at for CD's.
You need to look at how much these manufacturing comanies invest in research and developement. Think about it.... If a company manufactures CD's to todays standards, but does not think of investing in research & developement, what will they be manufatruing when the format gets better, or more data can go onto a CD?
When CD's first came out, they held no more than 72mins of music or 650M of data.

Now, with that in mind, start to consider this.... Dont you think maybee they pay staff, rent, rates, utulity bills etc.?

Someone having a good mark-up on the legitimate sale of a product is whole heartedly different to someone stealing.

It costs no more than 7p to manfacture 20 Benson & Hedges, add on profits and tax and it's nearly £5. Does that mean it is acceptable for me to go and rob my local newsagent?

Phone the Leeds Weekly News. They will post you a copy if you send them a cheque.

I am willing to pick it up am only 25 mins from leeds this afternoon so if its available will pick it up and drop off with trading standards as suggested .

they just need original copy

Think this time we have got them :D

Will call them and ask for a copy but need to check its genuine,do not want to alert them as they may be part liable

Anyone want to tip off El Reg or Amy @ The Mirror, Russ? :D

I'm sorry, and after reading this thread I really couldn't give two hoots if I get banned for life but -

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A LOAD OF HYPOCRITICAL SANCTIMONIOUS BUNCH OF CODSWALLOP IN MY LIFE!!!!

Hands up all of you who have never downloaded a movie or a album etc? (roll in the tumble weeds.....)


:mad: :rolleyes: :shrug:

Obviously not as eloquently put as Timewarrior (and this must be the first time we have agreed on anything...), but come on - you're all acting like a bunch of Erin Brocovich's.....what on earth do any of you have to gain from doing this? Yeah, good one, get ntl a massive fine. Then see how much upgrading (which would go a long way to getting the 'cap' removed) and price reductions they can afford. You can also wave goodbye to any hope of 2mb.

What I find almost hilarious is Stuart W's actions - wasn't it you that fraudulently uncapped your modem??? :rolleyes:

I say it again - HYPOCRITES

I think it goes further than that. They are using the ability to download movies illegally as a reason to subscribe to NTL's broadband service. They are implying that if you subscribe to NTL then you can quite freely download movies. They make no suggestion that doing so could be (in most cases) illegal - and certainly downloading Spiderman before the cinema release was. I would class this as promoting copyright infringement.

I find it impossible to believe that 400,000-600,000 movies are downloaded from legal sources every day. (Although if anyone knows of such a site where that number of movies could be downloaded legally then let me know...). There are some sites where movies can be legally downloaded (there was a feature in the news a couple of days ago about a UK film that is to be released on the internet as the same time as the cinema release - with DRM restrictions) and so the phrase "download movies at the touch of a button" isn't neccesarily promoting illegal activity. But to suggest you purchase NTL's broadband service to download 400,000-600,000 movies a day, and to download films such as Spiderman before the cinema release is promoting illegal activity.

Duncan

Come On Orangebird

Stop trying to defend NTL this time the advert and the aup conditions contridict each other.

Was only a matter of time before someboday tried to defend the undefendable.

Got em this time :p