*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please. - Page 60

**Chris** · 23-02-2005, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

So, they were telling you that you could download movies which is quite correct, you can.

They were also telling you that you could download the Spiderman movie which again is quite correct if you have the copyright holders permission.

It's just like buying a fast car such as the 9 litre V8 Corvette special which averaged 235 mph on Nevada desert roads. It could be advertised quite rightly as being a car that allows you to drive at over 200 mph but try doing that on the M1 and see if you can get away with it.m I don't think that the judge would accept the fact that the advert said you could drive at over 200 mph as being mitigating circumstances for your breach of the law.

Not quite. Car adverts of that kind always include '*where permitted' in the small print. NTL made no such disclaimer in their advert. In fact, what they said was that the Spiderman movie was available to download from the 'net before it was even in the cinema. Blatant incitement to perform an illegal act.

Neil · 23-02-2005, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not quite. Car adverts of that kind always include '*where permitted' in the small print. NTL made no such disclaimer in their advert. In fact, what they said was that the Spiderman movie was available to download from the 'net before it was even in the cinema. Blatant incitement to perform an illegal act.

Thanks Chris, that exactly the point I was trying to make.

Hans Gruber · 23-02-2005, 13:02

The difference with fast cars is there are places of you can legally drive at such speeds. Track days, driving across Europe, private land, etc... Obviously it takes a little common sense where you chose to do it.

ian@huth · 23-02-2005, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not quite. Car adverts of that kind always include '*where permitted' in the small print. NTL made no such disclaimer in their advert. In fact, what they said was that the Spiderman movie was available to download from the 'net before it was even in the cinema. Blatant incitement to perform an illegal act.

NTL would not have to put any such disclaimer in the advert. The law overides everything else and everyone should know the law. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

The difference with fast cars is there are places of you can legally drive at such speeds. Track days, driving across Europe, private land, etc... Obviously it takes a little common sense where you chose to do it.

Of course.

Likewise there are times when you can legally download copyright material, for instance by having the copyright holders permission.

Hans Gruber · 23-02-2005, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Of course.

Likewise there are times when you can legally download copyright material, for instance by having the copyright holders permission.

At the time of the advertisement there was no legal way of downloading Spiderman, even with permission of the copyright holder.

23-02-2005, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

It was also companies like NTL who right from the start told users what they COULD NOT DO with their connection but most complainers forget that little fact and completely disregard the parts that don't suit their requirements. Read the T&Cs and AUP and tell me I'm wrong.

But they didn`t, did they? If you were with NTL from the early days of cable modem roll-out there weren`t any caps, so how could they have told customers about them from the beginning? Not to mention the fact that NTL actually did their best not to tell customers by slipping the changes out quietly on a Friday afternoon, and not to mention the fact that the manner in which they did it contravenes their own T&Cs and AUP, so if anyone took them to court then from a legal perspective it could be argued that NTL *haven`t* told customers everything they need to know.

**Chris** · 23-02-2005, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

NTL would not have to put any such disclaimer in the advert. The law overides everything else and everyone should know the law. Ignorance of the law is no defence.

I agree completely. Anyone caught warezing Spidey could not claim in court a valid defence that it was OK because NTL said they could do it. However, the very fact that someone could claim in court that they did it because NTL said so does leave NTL exposed to a charge of incitement to commit an offence.

ian@huth · 23-02-2005, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

At the time of the advertisement there was no legal way of downloading Spiderman, even with permission of the copyright holder.

If the copyright holders wished to allow internet transfer of the film to people for review, etc they could have done just that, no doubt having a plethora of non-disclosure and similar restrictions on how the copy could be used. Neither of us know if that actually happened or not. The general public would not have had any legal method of downloading the film but that is immaterial.

Hans Gruber · 23-02-2005, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If the copyright holders wished to allow internet transfer of the film to people for review, etc they could have done just that, no doubt having a plethora of non-disclosure and similar restrictions on how the copy could be used. Neither of us know if that actually happened or not. The general public would not have had any legal method of downloading the film but that is immaterial.

How very pedantic of you.

Chrysalis · 23-02-2005, 13:40

I think you will find its a lot more then a few thousand, we are talking anyone who uses more then 30gig a month not just 24/7 downloaders, Probably more like 100 thousand.

Have a look at this.

http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?c...=main&id=27123

It also debatable if its even illegal.

ian@huth · 23-02-2005, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But they didn`t, did they? If you were with NTL from the early days of cable modem roll-out there weren`t any caps, so how could they have told customers about them from the beginning? Not to mention the fact that NTL actually did their best not to tell customers by slipping the changes out quietly on a Friday afternoon, and not to mention the fact that the manner in which they did it contravenes their own T&Cs and AUP, so if anyone took them to court then from a legal perspective it could be argued that NTL *haven`t* told customers everything they need to know.

I agree with most of what you are saying but you are missing my point. Right from the start there have been T&Cs that say you should not use your connection for certain activites which included, amongst other things, not using it to transfer copyright material without the copyright holders permission. This term has been overlooked in much of the argument and discussion regarding caps but contravention of it by some customers is the prime reason for caps being introduced.

etccarmageddon · 23-02-2005, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I agree with most of what you are saying but you are missing my point. Right from the start there have been T&Cs that say you should not use your connection for certain activites which included, amongst other things, not using it to transfer copyright material without the copyright holders permission. This term has been overlooked in much of the argument and discussion regarding caps but contravention of it by some customers is the prime reason for caps being introduced.

I also think this "term" was overlooked when they made up that flyer! LMAO

And that's the point I was making, let's not get too self righteousness when condemming (illegal) movie downloaders as NTL themselves have mislead/misinformated people in the past with their advertising.

DieDieMyDarling · 23-02-2005, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

So, they were telling you that you could download movies which is quite correct, you can.

They were also telling you that you could download the Spiderman movie which again is quite correct if you have the copyright holders permission.

It's just like buying a fast car such as the 9 litre V8 Corvette special which averaged 235 mph on Nevada desert roads. It could be advertised quite rightly as being a car that allows you to drive at over 200 mph but try doing that on the M1 and see if you can get away with it.m I don't think that the judge would accept the fact that the advert said you could drive at over 200 mph as being mitigating circumstances for your breach of the law.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but at that time there were NO legal means to download copyrighted films, no matter what way you look at it. So ntl were in fact endorsing illegal use of their service.

The only legal way to download a copyrighted film, would be if the makers (or someone on their behalf) offered the films for download, on a pay by movie basis. There wasn't such a service available, and i don't even think there is now. So at the very least ntl were leading it's users up the garden path with lies, and at worst they were endorsing illegal downloads.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If the copyright holders wished to allow internet transfer of the film to people for review, etc they could have done just that, no doubt having a plethora of non-disclosure and similar restrictions on how the copy could be used. Neither of us know if that actually happened or not. The general public would not have had any legal method of downloading the film but that is immaterial.

So they could sell their phone service saying 'it's perfect for ordering drugs' - and when questioned by the police they could just say 'ah, but if drugs were ever to become legal, our phone service would be perfect for placing orders to your local dealer, however at the moment we do not endorse such things, even though its' in black and white... oops'.

etccarmageddon · 23-02-2005, 16:15

ahhh yes but they were expecting you to ring up the copyright holder and say "hey NTL adverised downloading of spider-man, please can we agree terms so I can do this"!

philquinney · 23-02-2005, 16:23

One possible explanation is that you could use your connection to view the trailer / advert for Spiderman or any other movie for that matter.

Not that I disagree with you all - but its a possible explanation...

Phil.