100M : The Pirate Bay is blocked

Originally Posted by smallclone

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?

no idea mate ,i don't use them,i download the odd tv show

Originally Posted by Chris

... 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.

I wish they would get on with sorting out these anomalies in the law before the freedom of the internet is completely eroded away..I personally intend on paying my way and making sure that the artists who produce the work I like get the remuneration they deserve so they can produce more of the same.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

Copyright is about more than the commercial value of the work. It's about the right of the owner to decide if, and how, their work is used. I don't think it's tenable to claim that copyright should lapse when something ceases to have commercial value (not least because it would be very difficult to determine whether something might gain commercial value again in the future - things do go in and out of fashion).

There are dirty tricks being perpetrated by the big rights owners in the pursuit of 'lost sales' but the correct response is for the courts to take a more nuanced view of the actual financial loss incurred due to file sharing.

you dont think its tenable but thats exactly how originally copyright was brought about. it originally lasted a few years only and whenever it ceased to have commercial value content was freely distributed.

now days its gone crazy lasting for many lifetimes and been enforced when there is no clear loss of revenue. this of course makes copyright infringement shoot up as copyright lasts much longer.

are we talking about whats moral or technically wrong?

both sides are doing lots morally wrong.

technically tho its not illegal to download copyright content only to distribute it.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Chris

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

Indeed so. Of course the number caught is a vanishingly small proportion of those downloading. Time somebody changed their tactics if they are serious about reducing the amount of unlawful downloading because the current ones simply don't seem to be working.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I wish they would get on with sorting out these anomalies in the law before the freedom of the internet is completely eroded away..I personally intend on paying my way and making sure that the artists who produce the work I like get the remuneration they deserve so they can produce more of the same.

I agree on the artists but if you checked into what you saying you would find the biggest culplrit of their earnings is the record labels not piracy.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

How many times have people said that about the Tate Galleries Exhibitions?

Seriously, I took that comment to mean that when a CD/DVD is no longer being sold then maybe it should be placed in the public domain.

Originally Posted by Chris

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

Yet there's not when a CEO openly rants that politicians are not staying bought?

[smallclone]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I agree on the artists but if you checked into what you saying you would find the biggest culplrit of their earnings is the record labels not piracy.

Too true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ync1u2Qw5c8

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Indeed.

Also, what people seem to forget is that most programmes are funded by sales to broadcasters, and the broadcasters are funded (usually) by the advertising revenue they raise when people watch these programmes on TV, so if the programmes are downloaded, and then not watched on television, the ratings go down, the advertisers pull out, the series gets canned - so, in essence, keep up the downloading and have less TV series (except *shudder* Reality TV series, which are cheap to produce).

Just to go OT slightly, this is currently the 'problem' with the BBC's iPlayer.

You can, quite legally, not pay for your TV Licence but still watch anything (that isn't 'live') via iPlayer. Now, if this remains the case and too many people do that, where's the funding going to come from for new programmes.

Sorry. Just a tangential thought


However, in the end, it is an, imho, ethical decision - for a long time I wrote business software (IBM Mid-range, payroll, accounts, logistics, etc); if someone had just decided to copy that and use it without our permission, I, and hundreds of others, would have been out of a job, and I have carried that viewpoint over to the present day - if I want something, I pay for it (unless the producer/copyright owner states that I can have it for free).

At the end of the day, we are talking about media (TV, music, films, etc) - not basic sustenance issues like shelter, food, water, warmth.

The over explosion of freetarding has given corporations and governments the stick with which to beat the internet with - thanks a lot, guys, for this application of the law of unintended consequences. As Robert A Heinlein stated, "TANSTAAFL" - everntually, someone has to pay.

YMMV.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

And of course, the people doing the illegal downloading have no responsibility whatsoever.......[/QUOTE]

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I wish they would get on with sorting out these anomalies in the law before the freedom of the internet is completely eroded away..

Fully agree.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I personally intend on paying my way and making sure that the artists who produce the work I like get the remuneration they deserve so they can produce more of the same.

Me too hence my LoveFilm and Netflix subscriptions.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Its not ok to download something that you have no legal right to.

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

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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.

Maybe it's already been paid for ,maybe the downloader has paid a tv subscription or bought the DVD/CD and simply wants a backup .If i purchase a CD from i tunes i believe i can download it again in the event that the original ipod gets nicked or damaged ,is their that much difference ?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by jempalmer

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.

Indeed for some it was seconds

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by smallclone

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?

No. Newsgroups are download only.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you dont think its tenable but that sexactly how originally copyright was brought about. it originally lasted a few years only and whenever it ceased to have commercial value content was freely distributed.

now days its gone crazy lasting for many lifetimes and been enforced when there is no clear loss of revenue. this of course makes copyright infringement shoot up as copyright lasts much longer.

are we talking about whats moral or technically wrong?

both sides are doing lots morally wrong.

technically tho its not illegal to download copyright content only to distribute it.

Well I think a successful LIVING artist has EVERY RIGHT to ensure that his immediate family get the benefit of his/her hard work..But I do take your view that extended copyright that is owned by those who have had no input into the finished product is unfair..

Though there are some cases where I think there should be exceptions.Such as the rights to Peter Pan being retained by Great Ormand Street Hospital or national/local museums with public money being allowed to charge copyright for usage of the famous artworks in their possession to pay for the upkeep of said artwork and the museum buildings.

[smallclone]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

No. Newsgroups are download only.

So presumably, jusging by what some peopel have said, they are not illegal? If the content is not shared or distributed?