Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Seems fairly reasonable, a key point is that people aren't going to be cut off arbitrarily.
The 'licence to sue' seems ok so long as it's not abused in the manner Sirius describes as a substitute for offering content in more convenient ways.
My one major frustration is that this does nothing for serial downloaders from newsgroups but will instead punish those who use P2P which will perversely push them into giving money to Paedoshare and newsgroup services who profit from supplying content.
|
Can I as a subscriber challenge the media companies for harrasment if I start getting letters?
---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
It's a tough call I have to admit.
The optimist in me would like to think that there may be some merit in that synopsis but the realist / cynic in me tells me that people who can get stuff for free will, for the greater part through human nature, prioritize other essentials before purchasing the media legally once they've seen / heard acquired it illegally.
That's not to say that their behaviour is entirely cost related but rather that the popular perception on their part is that everything should be available for free on a try before you buy basis.
I'm sure there is a common ground approach to this somewhere on the horizon but I'm afraid many people, on both sides of the argument, are going to suffer some very considerable financial pain in the very near future / interim.
|
Here is my view.
I am sensible enough to know a certian section of the population will never buy media, the only legal media they own would be whats given to them as presents, for the media companies they are a lost cause and they should be ignored.
There is a section of the population who would buy but dont currently if the media companies adapted to the global market and internet. I dont feel they would buy tho via the bullying methods currently been implemented.
There is also a section of the population who buy anyway regardless of ease of piracy. Including people who download and still buy media.
My honest view is on a overall basis, that piracy should be considered as free advertising and publicity by the media companies. They should consider that to give out promotional media costs money in manufacturing and advertising, on torrents and the like all this cost is removed for them, the end user and the isp pays the cost instead. The facts speak for themselves, there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales, there is evidence that people who download on average buy more media than those who dont download. There is also evidence that much of the media been downloaded is not even available to buy.
I will use F1 as an example, looking at youtube, I notice that the clips been removed are the ones with english audio, in particular itv/bbc audio. As if bernie has a problem with us in the uk watching on youtube but not people in brazil. The content that gets removed is not available to buy. Its down to a power thing, the power to control the distribution, not down to lost sales. Of course they cant go to governments with that so instead they come up with trumped figures claiming they losing billions every year so the government panics and legislates.