100M : The Pirate Bay is blocked

[danielf]

Originally Posted by smallclone

What sort of punishment is there for downloading a film via piratebay? Not sharing or distributing. Just downlaoding and watching?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if TPB is a Torrent site, then you are sharing/distributing when downloading?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

However is it ok to massage figures to get dodgy laws passed, eg. claiming every download is a lost sale, meaning someone on the dole who has downloaded £1000 woth of content in a week would have obviously otherwise brought that £1000 of content out of their dole?

Its not ok to download something that you have no legal right to. However its also not ok to blatantly lie to get laws passed and even in some cases put own content on torrents for the purpose of them claiming for damages of the people downloading it. Having a business plan to basically profit of copyright infringement.

I also think its wrong to enforce copyright on something that has no commercial value anymore or at the very least isnt been actively sold.

So its wrong both sides of the fence.

A voice of reason.

My feelings are that the media companies have wasted a large amount of money on a failed course of action. They wanted the TPB blocked and all they did was have it blocked for a couple of hours before the block was bypassed. What they have done is raise the awareness of TPB and that its easy to get stuff from that site.

They would have been far better spending the money on more ways to set up legally downloadable content.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Slightly OT, but wasn't law changed (or at least relaxed) recently with regards to CDs/MP3s so that you can now legally rip them for personal use?.

The last Labour government proposed amending the CDPA 1988 to formally allow 'format shifting' but the proposal never made it into law. It is still technically an infringement to rip your CD collection and load it onto an iPod. However, personal ripping is a civil, rather than a criminal matter and as it would be impossible for any rights holder to show any significant financial loss as a result of an individual's iPod use, pursuing such a claim would be pointless and counterproductive.

The main reason for bothering to make the proposed 'format shifting' amendment would be on the principle that laws people routinely flout result in a general lack of respect for the concept of law. It is sometimes better to change the law in such cases.

Originally Posted by smallclone

? I thought it was illegal?

It is against civil law ,but the only way they can enforce it is to shut the Internet down ,which is what this thread is all about ,Why are the courts /government getting involved in a civil issue ,and why block access to only one site .Civil cases should only affect the 2 parties concerned not thousands of innocent people

[smallclone]

Originally Posted by danielf

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if TPB is a Torrent site, then you are sharing/distributing when downloading?

I see. I guess then you become a distributer as soon as you download.

Thanks.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by smallclone

What sort of punishment is there for downloading a film via piratebay? Not sharing or distributing. Just downlaoding and watching?

None, but it's impossible to do that because of the nature of P2P filesharing. You join a swarm and start uploading as well as downloading.

Originally Posted by smallclone

? I thought it was illegal?

Nope, downloading copyrighted files found on TPB would get you a civil court case if caught but as mentioned several times there's a lot of files on TPB that are not copyrighted. P2P filesharing has many uses. How about 37GB of free music or maybe you want to watch a movie for free. (Note to mods these are links to noncopyrighted material)

A couple of hours Sirius?, more like ten minutes. Which goes to show how wrong their approach is regarding piracy. The "powers that be" are clearly clueless.

Originally Posted by smallclone

I see. I guess then you become a distributer as soon as you download.

Thanks.

correct ,Utorrent doesn't allow you to not seed(upload) the minimum is 5kpbs ,i don't know about other clients but i suspect they are all the same

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Go to love it when people use an exceptional circumstance as a general guideline.....

If all movies made the sort of money ...

I think that's why only some movies are called blockbusters.

Originally Posted by Sirius

They would have been far better spending the money on more ways to set up legally downloadable content.

Been saying that for years

[smallclone]

Originally Posted by martyh

correct ,Utorrent doesn't allow you to not seed(upload) the minimum is 5kpbs ,i don't know about other clients but i suspect they are all the same

So what about these newsgroup things? (I genuinely don't have a clue here). Are they just downlaoding content? Or is it the same concept, where you have to share if you take?

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

ISTR reading that some remote tribesmen used to regard taking their photographs as theft of their souls...

Seriously? Worst analogy ever.

..still doesn't alter the fact that nothing was physically taken and so the law does differentiate between theft and copyright infringement.

Then I shall either start or join a campaign to get that law changed as it is obviously ridiculous.

.. but will increase the amount of BS being posted on forums on the subject enormously.

As we've noticed

Originally Posted by martyh

All the products in question i.e films ,music etc are intended for public consumption .The owners of such property give people rights to that product in exchange for money so the semantics are very important.

If you download it from TPB (or wherever) then you how are you paying them for it? You know, the biit in bold of your statement.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate such a film because the producers make lots of money from people watching it?

Seems like they might be saying exactly that. But what about the indy producer who isn't making millions? Though I don't suppose their films will be pirated so there's nothing to worry about.

Or something like that

Originally Posted by martyh

Nobodies saying that Maggie ,WTF is just highliting the stupidity of film and music companies in constantly pleading poverty because the pirates have stolen their money and using that as an excuse to get governments involved in a civil matter .

The one flaw in this specific example is that the film isn't even available on disc yet. (And are people so desperate that they will still watch a dodgy, "cam-corded off the cinema screen" copy? )

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Maggy it works both ways.

You asking a queston with an obvious answer.

However is it ok to massage figures to get dodgy laws passed, eg. claiming every download is a lost sale, meaning someone on the dole who has downloaded £1000 woth of content in a week would have obviously otherwise brought that £1000 of content out of their dole?

Its not ok to download something that you have no legal right to. However its also not ok to blatantly lie to get laws passed and even in some cases put own content on torrents for the purpose of them claiming for damages of the people downloading it. Having a business plan to basically profit of copyright infringement.

I also think its wrong to enforce copyright on something that has no commercial value anymore or at the very least isnt been actively sold.

So its wrong both sides of the fence.

So you decide artwork I produce has no commercial value so you don't need to pay for..whereas I feel it does have commercial value so I want paying before you walk off with it.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

ISTR reading that some remote tribesmen used to regard taking their photographs as theft of their souls - still doesn't alter the fact that nothing was physically taken and so the law does differentiate between theft and copyright infringement. It even only regards taking and driving away a car to be theft if the intent was to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle - TDA <> theft in the eyes of the law.

... which is why we have a separate offence of Taking WithOut Consent (TWOCing, in the vernacular). Also why there is now an offence of fraud for using a chipped box or some other means to get cable/satellite TV without paying. Neither of these is theft as defined by the theft act, but both are still offences and the victim in either case is liable to refer to the act as 'theft'.

Personally I think it's unhelpful for organisations like FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft) to keep banging on with the T-word when it doesn't apply; it might keep some of the casual downloaders at bay but all the hardened freetards simply use it as an excuse for a good old fashioned strawman argument about inappropriate use of the word "theft".

The point is, the activity is prohibited by law and there are civil or criminal penalties awaiting those caught doing it.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

As we've noticed

Guilty as charged but I can't resist it because I really can't take this topic seriously.