Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35425506)

Classic. So because porn is viewable 'like on TV' it can be regulated just like TV.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425638)

The goalpost relocation scenario.....

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35425645)

Would suggest I've done it earlier.

That last paragraph of that post adds nothing to my argument I merely point people to a site where their views can be taken into account. I am not bothering to go through the lot again but there are enough remarks made for me to believe that some people who have replied do see it that way, e.g. post 295. Then had I been a moderator I would have pulled that post up as it could be construed as libellous ;)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425795)

As for Carl's comment, whilst slightly inappropriate, your interpretation differs from mine - I read it as copyright infringers (which is not something you have ever stated you have done, hence his post being inappropriate) not file-sharers....

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35425798)

Which comment? You didn't quote it so I'm not sure. Happy to clarify or correct if necessary. Happy to apologise for any "inappropriate" comment if warranted :)

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35424874)

You might want to tell a few people on this forum (eg _wtf_) that :)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425795)

'earlier' would be in post #213 when someone made a comment about VPNs being used to avoid being caught downloading copyright material, you stated (quite accurately, but not relevant to his comment) that p2p could be used to legally distribute material - if it was legally shareable, why bother with a VPN? ;)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425795)

'earlier' would be in post #213 when someone made a comment about VPNs being used to avoid being caught downloading copyright material, you stated (quite accurately, but not relevant to his comment) that p2p could be used to legally distribute material - if it was legally shareable, why bother with a VPN? ;)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425795)

'earlier' would be in post #213 when someone made a comment about VPNs being used to avoid being caught downloading copyright material, you stated (quite accurately, but not relevant to his comment) that p2p could be used to legally distribute material - if it was legally shareable, why bother with a VPN? ;)

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35425803)

Again if you reread my posts you'll notice that at no time do I state that I use a VPN for file sharing in fact I make a point of saying that my file sharing activities are done via a UK VPS and that everything on there is 'legal'. Do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to use a server paid for with my credit card for illegal activities. And before you mention I may have set the server up to use a VPN service I will point out I have already mentioned my knowledge of Linux is not very good and though I'm guessing it could be done I really would not know where to start and now I've got it working the way I want wouldn't want to mess it up.

My reason for setting up a VPN server and messing with VPN in the first place, even though it is none of your business is for relatives and friends in the states to by pass UK geo-location locking. Again if you reread my posts you'll also notice I mention having a free month of the American Netflix service and that I mention using StrongVPN because without it you are not able to view it.

Honestly, if you think a VPN service can only be used for 'illegal' activities maybe you shouldn't be a moderator on an internet based forum.

As to the comment. That's the wonderful thing about forums when it suits you can use the interpretation excuse. Well a couple of people I've pointed it out have not taken your interpretation of it. I think it's the (e.g. _wtf_) that gives it that slight edge, don't you think?

Originally Posted by vmfriend (Post 35424575)

Ah so you pay for a VPN not to pay for something else = genius

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35424598)

You do realise that P2P filesharing actually has legitimate uses. There are thousands of artists sharing their own copyrighted media. One of my servers in the UK runs a seedbox and trust me there's no copyrighted material on that. I also run a ShoutCast radio station and again all the music on there is from independent artists who own the copyright which I would argue is as good as anything the signed artists are doing in the genre. Infact I had to remove one of the artists CD's because he got signed.

How about 37GB of free music or maybe you want to watch a movie for free. I'll leave the reader ponder what films would now be available on the last site under sensible copyright laws, hint go on IMDB and type in 1982. (Note to mods these sites do not link to copyrighted material.)

Oh and VPN = privacy.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425846)

Question - VPN

Answer - p2p, with a bit on the end re privacy.

qas, Skie - thanks for those answers; I knew that, but they weren't the reasons given (since VPN was hardly mentioned in the original answer to vmfriend....;)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425846)

wtf, if you have an issue with me being a moderator on this forum, you can always contact the site owners (Mick / Paul M) about it, and if you believe that Carl's post was inappropriate, please use the "report post" function.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35425846)

..and if you believe that Carl's post was inappropriate, please use the "report post" function.

Originally Posted by Dush (Post 35426460)

People shouldn't argue about copyright theft. Let those who think it is theft be and those who think it isn't be. Those who think it isn't will continue to download regardless. Those who think it is theft will put up with their DRM downloads of physical copies.

Those who think it is theft are generally older and will die out sooner or later leaving the majority who think it's not theft since they grew up downloading torrents.

Deeply moral issues change over the decades, something trivial like copyright theft will no doubt experience the same ebbs and flows.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35426473)

it's only the stupid old codgers like me who think copyright misuse is wrong

Originally Posted by Dush (Post 35426460)

People shouldn't argue about copyright theft. Let those who think it is theft be and those who think it isn't be.

Originally Posted by murfitUK (Post 35426486)

Don't know if this has been posted here before but a Danish court has order the Pirate Party to stop publicising ways of getting around the block on TPB.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18016819

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35426487)

Bit late for that

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35426485)

And when all these "old folk" have died, and no-one pays for anything any more, do you think that big movie studios will spend millions on making films (or whatever) if they're not going to be able to make their money back?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35426494)

what block ?

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35426498)

What's The Pirate Bay :D

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35426502)

Are you pleading ignorance or referring to their recent name change :D

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35426494)

what block ? no block here in sunny BT land :D

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35426503)

Ignorance ;)

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35426504)

No block here in VM land for me ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35426505)

You're a very good lad Damien :D

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35426508)

I am indeed. Not sure what Damien has to do with anything though ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35426505)

You're a very bad lad Sirius :nono:

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35426523)

Funny because that's what the RSM kept telling me ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35426525)

mine just hit me with a big stick :(

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35426473)

So the young artists of today shouldn't want to be getting their rights to their intellectual property protected because it's only the stupid old codgers like me who think copyright misuse is wrong
Also IF I work in an office/shop/factory I get paid weekly/monthly for the work I do.
An artist/musician has no weekly wage and relies on selling his work.Why shouldn't he get the copyright on his product.It's the same as an inventor having a patent on a machine/gadget getting his his dues when his patent is used by others..Why should anyone work on producing anything if they aren't to get paid for having written,composed,painted.invented it.

I can't help thinking that those who want to download what they want for nothing are not actually creative themselves.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35426891)

Maggy I am dissapointed you completely ignored my post in reply and you just kept repeating the same again.

I will say it again and hope you read it this time, for the struggling small artist their main problem is the publisher who takes the vast majority of profits as well as putting the artist in debt at startup. Piracy is all too conveniant to cover this little fact up. The artists who have made it and in turn get better record deals are not struggling.

Originally Posted by craigj2k12 (Post 35426941)

donations, then with popularity gained from free publications they can sign a deal and starts releasing paid material

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427011)

Record sales account for next to nothing as regards to an artists earnings.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427011)

Record sales account for next to nothing as regards to an artists earnings. What they do, is give the artist exposure that can then be transferred into ticket sales. Artists actually make more from merchandise at gigs/concerts during a tour than they ever would from a number 1 hit single in the UK. If 'piracy' was killing artists would Adele be able to afford her new home? Of course she would, she sings to sell out concerts at venues like the Albert Hall.

Maggy, what would be your thoughts on the recent ruling on Metropolis? A film made in 1927 by Fritz Lang. It actually became public domain in 1956, Fritz Lang died in 1976 (over 35 years ago). Yet on Jan 18th 2012 the US Supreme Court renewed its copyright for some lucky company until 2023. Would you be okay with no creative work ever becoming public domain in the future?

As to your argument of why bother if your not making money ask the thousands of people who picked up an instrument as a child and still play in pubs/clubs or even just in the house. Ask the people who've spent thousands on equipment for their 'bedroom' studios who release music for free all over the internet. An artist is an artist even when nobody is looking or listening. Sure, some would love to make the 'big time' but there's an awful lot that simply refuse to sign a contract with a studio.

This is an interesting read.

This is also interesting.

Originally Posted by Skie (Post 35426907)

The "little" artists are also the ones who stand to gain the most from their stuff being "stolen". A larger audience is the best kind of springboard to make it big. And then be signed by a major label who loan you £2million which your music never makes back thanks to magical accounting practices so you are always paying off that debt.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35426988)

Actually I do get that point.BUT it is still taking without permission the intellectual property of another person whether they be struggling or not.I understand you don't want to pay the fat cats.However the artist STILL wants to be paid for their work..Or why the blooming heck should they fecking bother to even write,produce,hire a studio and go to all all the expense of producing their product.

You can hide behind all the semantics,complaints about high powered music producers asking too much and copyright lasting until the 100th generation as much as you like what you are advocating is just plain wrong.

It's no better than shoplifting.Yes lets not give it the romantic appellation of piracy. Let's just call it digital shoplifting.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35427054)

whos stealing what?

we back to using wrong words again?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35427054)

whos stealing what?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35427054)

whos stealing what?

we back to using wrong words again?

---------- Post added at 05:53 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ----------



The point is you was using a point which probably has little affect on how well they do. Torrents and the like probably help the small artists as its free publicity and distribution which in turn will help them fill up tour events.

Some new bands who have decided to remove the publishers from the loop actually give away their music and live of donations and tour events.

One of the big rappers from the USA even said to the media he doesnt care about piracy it spreads his music.

In my view its wrong by law (to share) but I dont see a major moral issue with it. A far bigger moral issue is how the record industry go about their business.

What is evident tho is those defending the record industry have to resort to use words like "stealing" theft" which arent applicable and then pretend its the artists been affected when its actually not. Then the RIAA start claiming every download is a lost sale, the whole thing has no credibility. The fact is piracy has always existed, its part of the business, and it will never go away, cant deal with it? then leave the business, its life. It isn tsomething that was born with the internet, I used to pirate the entire top 40 every week in the 80s. Remember these are the same guys that said the VHS recorder would kill the tv/movie industry.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427078)

I'm thinking of painters,photographers and digital artists ...

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427083)

Then this should give you an idea of how absurd it's become and why current copyright laws need reform and how you yourself could potentially end up being on the wrong side of copyright infringement.

Photographers, thanks to copyright trolls, now have to have waiver and release forms signed by just about anyone or thing in a photograph. Which means this is become more difficult with each passing year.

Some of my other stuff.

Originally Posted by Dush (Post 35427091)

You guys here of not being able to skip 20 seconds of warnings on Blu-rays?!

http://www.myce.com/news/dvdblu-rays...arnings-61574/

Makes me think of

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2012/05/52.jpg

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427097)

Well carry on with that thinking while they close down the internet..At least my conscience is clear.

I'm finished with this discussion.People can always defend the indefensible if they don't think they can be caught.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427101)

You've not answered any of anybody's questions so I wouldn't say you've discussed that much. I would say you've basically just put points over as to why it's wrong.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427157)

I was in a hurry :erm:

What I meant to say I would say you haven't even put any points over as to why it's wrong.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427157)

BT still hasn't blocked it I thought that they had to comply by EOB Friday!

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427101)

You've not answered any of anybody's questions so I wouldn't say you've discussed that much. I would say you've basically just put points over as to why it's wrong.

They won't closed down the internet what they will do and what they're really after is censoring the internet.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427083)

Photographers, thanks to copyright trolls, now have to have waiver and release forms signed by just about anyone or thing in a photograph.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35427054)

whos stealing what?

we back to using wrong words again?[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427078)

Actually I'm not thinking of Big Business.I'm also not particularly ONLY thinking of films and music.I'm thinking of painters,photographers and digital artists as small producers trying to protect their work whilst promoting themselves via the internet.The piracy,stealing,copyright abuse among these groups is rife as I have heard within the various communities' forums.To be frank if you don't have someone supporting you it's very difficult to protect yourself from people just taking and using your work for their own ends.You can ask for donations but can you be sure that you are being paid at all times?
Do you begin to see where I am coming from?

Originally Posted by Dush (Post 35427091)

You guys here of not being able to skip 20 seconds of warnings on Blu-rays?!

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35427465)

You can't now! Still no justification for stealing. (ie taking something that's not yours without permission.)

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35427456)

Well this it really, how do you measure success.

Do they all have to be multi millionaires or is just getting by enough?

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427495)

freetards

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427474)

I've just bought a new laptop one of the first things i did was wipe the HD and install a download of windows 7 so that when i use it i don't get all the crapware that comes with it ,i don't want to be forced to use stuff i don't want the same applies for DVD's imo ,i do not want 1/2 dozen trailers i have to watch ,i can buy the DVD leave it in it's wrapper and download a high quality copy with no crap on it

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35427407)

They already do censor the internet.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35427407)

Actually, I don't think the copyright laws are the reason for that. The government has, over the last few years, changed various laws to give us more privacy. That is the reason for the waivers.

Originally Posted by jempalmer (Post 35427501)

I assume that you used the product key for Windows 7 that came with the new laptop?

Originally Posted by Blackened (Post 35427500)

Ugh. I wish people could ditch using this *******ised result of a horribly offensive, and mostly derogatory word :(

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427502)

True, but I doubt most people would consider what cleanfeed does, with the exception of blocking NewzBin2, as censorship.



And yet if photographing a model, who one would assume not to be concerned over their privacy during the shoot, the first thing you do is ask them to sign a model release form and basically end the shoot if they won't. However, when photographing a wedding copyright of the photographs actually belongs to the photographer on the bais that he can sell you further copies. Government and privacy laws are basically to protect celebrities from the paparazzi nothing to do with protecting the ordinary citizen. In reality you need model and building release forms in case of claims of copyright infringement. This is an interesting read though it is 4 years old.

As to the point of new business models Banksy seems to have found a pretty good one ;)

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427510)

Oh what word do you suggest? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Blackened (Post 35427513)

Good grief..

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427474)

I've just bought a new laptop one of the first things i did was wipe the HD and install a download of windows 7 so that when i use it i don't get all the crapware that comes with it ,i don't want to be forced to use stuff i don't want the same applies for DVD's imo ,i do not want 1/2 dozen trailers i have to watch ,i can buy the DVD leave it in it's wrapper and download a high quality copy with no crap on it

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35427520)

More legal would have been to remove all the crap-ware and make a backup image of that; which is what I did :)

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427518)

No seriously what word would you suggest to denote those who download illegal or protected products?If freetard is so insulting?

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427502)

And yet if photographing a model, who one would assume not to be concerned over their privacy during the shoot, the first thing you do is ask them to sign a model release form and basically end the shoot if they won't.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427522)

what's illegal about what i did ?

Originally Posted by jempalmer (Post 35427523)

Nothing.

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35427525)

Indeed. Oh, apart from downloading a copy of Windows he didn't pay for.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427510)

What the hell has privacy got to do with it? We aren't discussing privacy.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35427407)

Actually, I don't think the copyright laws are the reason for that. The government has, over the last few years, changed various laws to give us more privacy. That is the reason for the waivers.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427535)

Today I bought 14 DVD's for less than £10 have I broken any copyright laws?

Originally Posted by jempalmer (Post 35427530)

He didn't download a copy of Windows that he hadn't paid for. He bought a new laptop with a legitimate copy of Windows 7. However he didn't like the "customised" version that was installed on it, so chose to install a fresh version. He merely used his legitimate key to activate it.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427537)

Shame on you :nono: ,i hope you went straight home and wrote some money out for the millionairs...err poor deprived artists

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427535)

It was in reply to



And privacy has been brought up a couple of times during this thread.

Personally I thought the thread was about censorship and privacy but it quickly turned into a discussion about 'copyright theft', which hopefully some of the participants now relise is not an actual crime or really even a word.

I wonder how the people who believe in the term 'copyright theft' feel about boot sales where you can pick up genuine DVD's, let's not forget trading standards patrol boot sales, for 50p and sometimes even less? Today I bought 14 DVD's for less than £10 have I broken any copyright laws?

Originally Posted by AdamD (Post 35427538)

I did something similiar for my dad, he bought a CompaQ machine, ultra cheap from Dixons I believe, they pre install SO much rubbish on it, it takes about 2 hours to remove it all and install all the windows updates, if you do a restore.

So I created a slipstream copy of W7 from my own installation disk, using the serial that's on the side of his pc, works a treat, plus it means it only has minimal patching to do.

Although now, we use Acronis true home to restore our pc's back to a bare W7 install, as it's free for anyone who has a western digital drive.;)

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427543)

Nope straight home and ripped them to the NAS. :cool:

I've not bought a new DVD or blu-ray since Sony removed 'Other OS' off the PS3.

Originally Posted by jempalmer (Post 35427530)

He didn't download a copy of Windows that he hadn't paid for.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427544)

Buying cheap GENUINE DVDs at a boot sale is not a crime. However if pirated then it's wrong. You just have to be very very careful who you buy from.;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427529)

that is so wrong ,anybody can download a copy of windows ,you just pay for the license key.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427535)

I wonder how the people who believe in the term 'copyright theft' feel about boot sales where you can pick up genuine DVD's, let's not forget trading standards patrol boot sales, for 50p and sometimes even less? Today I bought 14 DVD's for less than £10 have I broken any copyright laws?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427537)

Shame on you :nono: ,i hope you went straight home and wrote some money out for the millionairs...err poor deprived artists

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427543)

Nope straight home and ripped them to the NAS. :cool:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427549)

Actually i think it is ,giving them away isn't but selling them without the license holders permission is copyright infringement,i may be wrong but i don't think the licence is transferable ,willing to be corrected though

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35427548)

Yes he did.


Yes. That's the copy he's paid for. It's included in the price of the laptop.


That is merely a justification. It's one I actually agree with, but it is still wrong.

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35427550)

So I can download a copy of MS if I prove I have a licence? Please provide a link to where I can do this as I'd like a back-up copy.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427549)

Actually i think it is ,giving them away isn't but selling them without the license holders permission is copyright infringement,i may be wrong but i don't think the licence is transferable ,willing to be corrected though

Originally Posted by Blackened (Post 35427558)

Do these work? I'm on an ipad so don't get a downlaod window.
http://www.w7forums.com/official-win...ds-t12325.html

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427562)

The secondhand market for DVD's/blu-ray's is quite legal, let's also not forget trading standards officers are patrolling boot sales looking out for any counterfeit goods. The MPAA would dearly love it not to be lawful and have tried to get the laws changed but they haven't succeeded yet.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35427626)

Yep, They are the windows 7 downloads locations i use when i need a backup of my windows 7 install. I then use my GENUINE key to activate it. I bet some will still claim that's illegal just so they don't have to admit they are wrong ;)

Would they be illegal if you downloaded them from TPB ?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35427655)

Then i stand corrected ,i thought it was just one of those things that wasn't enforced

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427664)

Again we're back to the BS that they put on the covers and the BS warnings they try to force you to watch.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35427495)

What a crappy attitude..Who the hell are you to decide what's best for someone else?What right have you and all the other freetards got to decide what level of income such a person deserves?Who the hell wants to just get by?Some of us would like to do more than just exist so you can have the music collection/art work you want for free.

Impossible thinking.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35427664)

Again we're back to the BS that they put on the covers and the BS warnings they try to force you to watch.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35427626)

Yep, They are the windows 7 downloads locations i use when i need a backup of my windows 7 install. I then use my GENUINE key to activate it. I bet some will still claim that's illegal just so they don't have to admit they are wrong ;)

Would they be illegal if you downloaded them from TPB ?

Originally Posted by boroboi (Post 35427775)

It doesn't matter where you download the ISO as long as it is clean.