100M : The Pirate Bay is blocked

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Did you see the story of the 92 year old veteran copying dvd's for the American soldiers on tours of duty. Some people never mind their age just get technology

Bold writing in

3

2

See many 92 year old up on copyright infringement do you? I'm nearly 60 myself and I get technology and copyright.
The Want it now generation isn't mine..I am currently saving my 2 quid coins to buy a new PC.At the rate I'm going it's going to be another 2 years and I can do it without downloading copyrighted product for free.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

See many 92 year old up on copyright infringement do you?

He actually knew what he was doing could lead to a civil case, i.e. not a criminal case. It's the reason why he would never take any money and actually ended up spending $30,000 of his own money. Quite a few people, never mind their age, wouldn't have know that. It will be interesting to see if the media industry decides to take him to court.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The Want it now generation isn't mine..

It's not about the 'want it now' generation it's about using technology to it's fullest, let's also not forget new technology usually means things get cheaper. It's also about realising that the human race can now communicate on a level that has changed us in ways we don't even know yet. When a global protest can literally finish of a well known charity or get governments to drop policies then the public finally have something better than the corrupt system that has evolved.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I am currently saving my 2 quid coins to buy a new PC.At the rate I'm going it's going to be another 2 years and I can do it without downloading copyrighted product for free.

We are all saving for something even the 'want it now' generation have to pay for hardware



Here's a question to everyone.

Is it legal to make back up copies of your DVD/Blu-Ray collection?

If you answer yes why? If you answer no why not?

Originally Posted by _wtf_

He actually knew what he was doing could lead to a civil case, i.e. not a criminal case. It's the reason why he would never take any money and actually ended up spending $30,000 of his own money. Quite a few people, never mind their age, wouldn't have know that. It will be interesting to see if the media industry decides to take him to court.

Irrelevant


It's not about the 'want it now' generation it's about using technology to it's fullest, let's also not forget new technology usually means things get cheaper. It's also about realising that the human race can now communicate on a level that has changed us in ways we don't even know yet. When a global protest can literally finish of a well known charity or get governments to drop policies then the public finally have something better than the corrupt system that has evolved.

Irrelevant.Just because the technology is available is no excuse.for copyright thrft.




We are all saving for something even the 'want it now' generation have to pay for hardware

But the younger generation tend to be the want it now generation.



Here's a question to everyone.

Is it legal to make back up copies of your DVD/Blu-Ray collection?

If you answer yes why? If you answer no why not?

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I get technology and copyright.

Yet in your reply you mention copyright theft, I'm assuning a typo and correcting it, even though there is no such thing in UK or even US law as 'copyright theft' because that would obviously make it a criminal not civil case. Even though I point out that distinction in my reply to your question on how many 92 year olds I'm aware of that know this you still use an incorrect term that's perpetuated by the media industry. The point I'm trying to make is ordinary people don't understand copyright law and simply regurgitate terms the copyright owners want you to.

Wish you had answered my question.

[Milambar]

Is it legal to make back up copies of your DVD/Blu-Ray collection?

In the eyes of the law, no its not legal. The UK has only a limited "fair use" clause in law and that does not allow for archiving, copying or backing up of copyright media.

The law says "Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.", note, of a computer program. It does not have any allowance for the backing up of audio/visual media. This is a common misconception.

The licence on the dvd/blueray does not allow for this either.

The law is old and outdated, but it is still the law. There have been many campaigns to get it updated to allow the backing up of audio-visual entertainment media, but none have come to fruition yet.

Moralistically, I do believe it should be allowed.

It must be noted that the law doesn't allow for the transcoding of your media to your mp3 players or tablets either.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Milambar

It must be noted that the law doesn't allow for the transcoding of your media to your mp3 players or tablets either.

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?

---------- Post added at 08:43 ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 ----------

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Yet in your reply you mention copyright theft, I'm assuning a typo and correcting it, even though there is no such thing in UK or even US law as 'copyright theft' because that would obviously make it a criminal not civil case.

Who cares about the specifics? Whether criminal law or civil law, a law has been broken.

You can hide behind semantics all you want, _wtf_ but downloading something you do not have the rights to do so is wrong. End of story.

Imagine you were a musician relying on income from your job. But you don't get paid. Instead, people just download your stuff against civil law. How would you feel? Now imagine you're a film company who has spent hundreds of thousands on a big, popular film. You should really be making your money back, but it's pirated so much that it doesn't make as much as it should. Is that good or bad for your business?

The point I'm trying to make is ordinary people don't understand copyright law and simply regurgitate terms the copyright owners want you to.

Yet the law is still the law and should not be broken.

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Yet in your reply you mention copyright theft, I'm assuning a typo and correcting it, even though there is no such thing in UK or even US law as 'copyright theft' because that would obviously make it a criminal not civil case. Even though I point out that distinction in my reply to your question on how many 92 year olds I'm aware of that know this you still use an incorrect term that's perpetuated by the media industry. The point I'm trying to make is ordinary people don't understand copyright law and simply regurgitate terms the copyright owners want you to.

Wish you had answered my question.

Semantics.If you make off with my art work without paying me it is theft. Just because it is in digital form makes it no less a crime.Stealing flowers from my front garden is theft,stealing,nicking taking my intellectual property without permission is theft,stealing,nicking. You can use all the examples,situations and clarifications of the law as you like...artists will still regard what you do in not paying for what you have downloaded of their intellectual property as theft.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

...artists will still regard what you do in not paying for what you have downloaded of their intellectual property as theft.

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.

Anyway - back closer to topic - blocking TPB will not make one iota of difference to the amount of copyright infringement but will increase the amount of BS being posted on forums on the subject enormously.

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.

Anyway - back closer to topic - blocking TPB will not make one iota of difference to the amount of copyright infringement but will increase the amount of BS being posted on forums on the subject enormously.

If you steal one of my paintings it is still theft whether it is in digital or physical form I will still chase you through every avenue open to me and you can hide behind as much semantics as you like..eventually I will get what is due to me.

If folk are not prepared to see this then you will get the situation we have here where actions that restrict the freedom of the internet are instigated. by those who are having their intellectual product stolen,copied and used without permission.
What is needed is for everyone to respect that artists have a right to make money from their product and no one in the world has the right not to PAY them for that product.

[kwikbreaks]

Fair enough that's your view and indeed the view of many but it still doesn't alter the fact that illicit downloads are rife, probably the major driver for faster internet, and blocking TPB will have no effect on any of that at all.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Anyway - back closer to topic - blocking TPB will not make one iota of difference to the amount of copyright infringement but will increase the amount of BS being posted on forums on the subject enormously.

I hope it makes people look for alternatives and especially if they can find a few PRIVATE trackers. That way they will be far safer than using a public tracker as well known and as well watched as the pirate bay.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

If you steal one of my paintings it is still theft whether it is in digital or physical form I will still chase you through every avenue open to me and you can hide behind as much semantics as you like..eventually I will get what is due to me.

If folk are not prepared to see this then you will get the situation we have here where actions that restrict the freedom of the internet are instigated. by those who are having their intellectual product stolen,copied and used without permission.
What is needed is for everyone to respect that artists have a right to make money from their product and no one in the world has the right not to PAY them for that product.

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 ,it is not theft ,it cannot be theft ,it may be ,under certain circumstances copyright infringement ,but definately not theft .The distinction is important and the very reason why we have copyright laws

[_wtf_]

This was reported in August last year. I'll try to find if/when it will or has been passed, unlike others I wouldn't want to just rely on my common sense. Isn't copyright law fun? Especially as half the lawyers involved in it don't seem to understand it either.

In answer to my own question. I personally would have gone with yes purely on the fact that you can purchase so many different software programs to do it. Seeing how the MPAA/RIAA destroy companies that are even suspected of illegally affecting their business model surely these companies would not be in existence.

Update: Still not passed as this from last month says.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Sirius

.. far safer than using a public tracker...

Are the media moguls still watching? I thought all that stopped when ACS Law had their own collar felt and went down the tubes big time.

My major gripe with torrents is that it seems idiots seem to be smart enough to use VPNs (or VM's shaping is totally useless) yet not smart enough to avoid seeding flat out 24x7 and completely naffing up my connection forcing me away from VM who I was perfectly satisfied with until they started selling high speed unlimited without realising buyers would take that at face value. They even junked the last ditch protection of "detrimental usage" threats.

I personally don't use torrents, never have, never will. That's not some moral stand - I just think they are far far better ways of acquiring content (for better read faster and for want of a better word safer).

[basicfags]

tue 8th lunchtime, tpb still accessible via bt broadband.