NTL promoting copyright infringement

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

FACT: the ASA did very little.
Resulting FACT: The advert obviously wasnt that much of a problem
Resulting FACT 2: The ASA INFORMALLY closed the case.


Conclusion: Over reaction on someones part.

1. I am happy with as much as they did.
2. It was enough of a problem for them not to dismiss it out of hand, which they could have done.
3. No, they informally resolved the case, after receiving certain commitments from ntl.

Conclusion: Ntl were wrong; I reported their wrongdoing; the authorities agreed and requested an undertaking from ntl not to repeat the wrongdoing; ntl made a commitment; everyone acted in a legal, polite and honest manner; case closed.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Not at all, they have recognised the problem and judged appropriately. This is not a witch hunt, we, the public, saw an issue with said advertisement and reported it to the appropriate authority. This is how the system works.

I personally think the advertisement has potential to do damage, maybe it would have if it was on a more large scale medium or maybe it already has. My advice to NTL is don't beginning prosecuting file shares until this incident is long forgotten - it may come back to bite you.

I never wanted NTL to be hurt from the issue, just to recognise their mistake.

It needs to be looked at in context.
You say "we" well you certainly did not represent myself, nor I suspect OB.
The advert was able to be interpretted in two ways, one way was that there was nothing wrong with it, the other way was that there was something wrong with it.
This point was never really argued, I never said the advert was ok, I just didnt think it warranted so many people jumping on a bandwagon and reports top the ASA.
What I argued against was people reporting this, what has it gained? what did you achieve.......oh sorry yeah a thanks from the ASA, which is about as worthwhile as a big tick a gold star and a Well Done form your primary school teacher.
I stated that the ASA would do nothing, I was wrong, they actually did "Next to Nothing" See I can admit that I wasnt 100% correct all the time.
Had the advert been as serious as some of the users on here seemed to think it was the ASA would have indeed fined NTL. They didnt, draw your own conculsions from that.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by towny

1. I am happy with as much as they did.
2. It was enough of a problem for them not to dismiss it out of hand, which they could have done.
3. No, they informally resolved the case, after receiving certain commitments from ntl.

Conclusion: Ntl were wrong; I reported their wrongdoing; the authorities agreed and requested an undertaking from ntl not to repeat the wrongdoing; ntl made a commitment; everyone acted in a legal, polite and honest manner; case closed.

Towny, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments above, np there at all. However, there were several members who were particualrly verbal in their dislike and wished many bad things to happen, I am not counting you among them, but it was these members that blew this Ad out of proportion.

The result from the ASA is unlikely to satisfy them.

As far as I'm concerned, as a matter of Law, NTL were wrong to produce a misleading advert, it was reported, it has been dealt with. That's what the ASA are there for, that is their job, and they have done it. Assurances have been forthcoming that it won't happen again. Fair cop. Done deal.

What's the point in arguing this further ?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

It needs to be looked at in context.
You say "we" well you certainly did not represent myself, nor I suspect OB.
The advert was able to be interpretted in two ways, one way was that there was nothing wrong with it, the other way was that there was something wrong with it.
This point was never really argued, I never said the advert was ok, I just didnt think it warranted so many people jumping on a bandwagon and reports top the ASA.
What I argued against was people reporting this, what has it gained? what did you achieve.......oh sorry yeah a thanks from the ASA, which is about as worthwhile as a big tick a gold star and a Well Done form your primary school teacher.
I stated that the ASA would do nothing, I was wrong, they actually did "Next to Nothing" See I can admit that I wasnt 100% correct all the time.
Had the advert been as serious as some of the users on here seemed to think it was the ASA would have indeed fined NTL. They didnt, draw your own conculsions from that.

What was achieved:
NTL recognised a mistake in their advertisement
Advertisement will not be repeated
Therefore only a limited number of people will be under the impression that spiderman was availiable to download before in cinemas and it was acceptable.

We won't win the nobel prize for it (we just have too much time on our hands). But quite frankly if you don't care why have you been defending them?? I find your attitude lazy and selfish.

Originally Posted by Nemesis

What's the point in arguing this further ?

Good point. I think the case does stand on its merits so I'll try to refrain from commenting on it again (I do love an argument tho' ... ) and limit my posts to defending myself if someone wants to paint me as some kind of troll or troublemaker.

I know there are folks out there who want to see ntl die a horrible death; I'm not one of them, and reporting this ad to the ASA wasn't part of a vendetta on my part, nor was it an attempt to add grist to the mill of the 'anti-ntl mobs'.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

Good point. I think the case does stand on its merits so I'll try to refrain from commenting on it again (I do love an argument tho' ... )

Perhaps we should discuss whether sony have any legal right for compensation

And was that number for legal downloads of music correct???

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by downquark1

<snip>

We won't win the nobel prize for it (we just have too much time on our hands). But quite frankly if you don't care why have you been defending them?? I find your attitude lazy and selfish.

I don't think he's lazy or selfish. Even if he were though, better that than bitter and retentive....