[Aspiringlawstudent]

Aside from the issue of being able to get around it incredibly easily, my ISP isn't even involved.

[biffyclyro27]

when will they learn....

[TheHansa]

(Original post by jacksonliam)
No it doesn't. Downloading a file is not illegal or stealing, irrespective of its contents. Digital information does not have a cost associated with it, the actual file cost them nothing for me to receive.

Yes, it is if the contents have been copyrighted hurrr

(Original post by jacksonliam)
The song had certain development costs, the producer profits from the song being publicly performed, broadcast and privately purchased.
But just because I have not purchased the song, does not mean I have stolen it, nothing has been taken from the producers.

The definition (arguing semantics is always a refuge of one who has lost an online argument) did not have anything to do with whether or not someone has lost something, only that someone has gained something of someone elses without their permission. As the definition below shows, notice the without permission or right bit.

(Original post by jacksonliam)
Steal verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

(Original post by jacksonliam)
Take verb (used with object)
to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action: to take a cigarette out of a box; to take a pen and begin to write.

I can quote dictionaries too...

(Original post by jacksonliam)
The pirate bay do ignore take down requests and obviously can be used to find a link to parts of a file containing copyrighted material. However, that does not mean that UK residents should be censored from accessing the site.

The UK government shouldn't take it on themselves to force the user end ISPs (who just buy traffic from their upstream ISP) to censor what their customers are allowed to access.

They refuse to comply with the law as it stands in this country basically, so residents in this country should not access it.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Your point being?

Well, because shutting the site down doesn't help people. Y'see the issue?
Selling albums gets the Artist very little for themselves, where artists'll make their money is touring. Now tell me, if the albums are free to listen to, or as highly priced as they are - which one's gonna get them the more fans? The one where it's free?
If they have more fans, they can shift more gig tickets, put on more shows, shift more merchandise and do you see where this is going, what the outcome will be?
They'll make more money in the area where they actually see the slightest bit of the money coming.

That's for the artist to decide not you.

[7589200]

Lmao good luck. It's costing jobs, ok...well those jobs don't need to be there then. Supply has met demand and these jobless people are useless middlemen who contribute nothing.

[jacksonliam]

(Original post by HarveyCanis)
How is file-sharing any different than buying second-hand from a shop? You're downloading something someone else has already paid for. Unless I'm missing something.

Its not, not really. The content creators get the same amount of cash from both. Its why the game industry is trying to stop second hand sales (killing off all game shops in the process).

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Aside from the issue of being able to get around it incredibly easily, my ISP isn't even involved.

If they buy their traffic from BT wholesale they might be. Anyway its bad news for everyone, as once some ISPs lay down and take it, id imagine all of them will be forced to join the club.

[biffyclyro27]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Why is it so bad that companies are preventing people taking for free and without their permsission, what they have made (aka stealing)?

Because it's not prevention, and it will never be prevention. It's just causing a slight inconvenience to those who use thepiratebay. and a massive inconvenience and unnecessary cost to the ISP's.

If the music/film/TV industry actually paid any attention to current trends, they would realise that they can circumnavigate piracy through alternative revenue streams. If there was a decent movie streaming service which was like £10 - 15 a month, I would probably pay that to get streaming HD videos. But there isn't. Lovefilm and Netflix are both ****e.

[Pwn4g3_P13]

(Original post by whyumadtho)

BBC News

"Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting mus
"As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price."

This. I proudly use Spotify premium and bittorrent for hard copies/unavailable songs

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by TheHansa)
That's for the artist to decide not you.

I never said it was for me to decide, but this whole piracy really harms the artist thing gets my goat - it doesn't. If they couldn't pirate something, most people just wouldn't buy it, they pirate it because the prices are ridiculous. Stop bleating about how piracy harms artists and trying to just stop piracy, instead actually work out why people pirate and sort yourselves out to make the legal option a lot better - there'd be pretty much no bloody problem.

[thetobbit]

(Original post by jacksonliam)
BT is thinking about their position and plusnet _IS_ BT.


You're forgetting that piratebay don't manufacture the files, they don't even have access to the files! They have a NAME that the user provided and something pointing to somewhere people might get bits of a file.

Its not like youtube where they can scan every single upload... Do you think torrents that even have the NAME of something like a song or a movie should be deleted? What about "My thoughts on Lady Gaga - Edge of Glory.docx". Should my video titled "Titanic" come down from youtube? Its not a simple as checking every file, especially as the pirate bay dont even have the file!


And its a very good point, I agree entirely! New games are still far too expensive, but Steams deals on 2 year old games are fantastic!

Aye the only downside to Steam is that new games are just as expensive as anywhere else and you sometimes get old games at stupidly high price (Call of duty 1, while an excellent game, is like 14 quid)

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
I never said it was for me to decide, but this whole piracy really harms the artist thing gets my goat - it doesn't. If they couldn't pirate something, most people just wouldn't buy it, they pirate it because the prices are ridiculous. Stop bleating about how piracy harms artists and trying to just stop piracy, instead actually work out why people pirate and sort yourselves out to make the legal option a lot better - there'd be pretty much no bloody problem.

SO you're saying that artists who have access to agents and market research are less able to make informed decisions as to how to increase profits than you do?

[KCosmo]

The people writing legislation on this often don't have the faintest clue about how it actually works. They're genuinely surprised that blocking "site X" doesn't immediately halt all downloads/torrents

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by TheHansa)
SO you're saying that artists who have access to agents and market research are less able to make informed decisions as to how to increase profits than you do?

No. The artist has pretty much no say on what to set the price - I'm saying the record companies (and occasionally the artist) are blinded by greed and subscribe to the "want it now" behaviour we've allowed ourselves to be entrenched in.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by biffyclyro27)
Because it's not prevention, and it will never be prevention. It's just causing a slight inconvenience to those who use thepiratebay. and a massive inconvenience and unnecessary cost to the ISP's.

If the music/film/TV industry actually paid any attention to current trends, they would realise that they can circumnavigate piracy through alternative revenue streams. If there was a decent movie streaming service which was like £10 - 15 a month, I would probably pay that to get streaming HD videos. But there isn't. Lovefilm and Netflix are both ****e.

Good. The reason for piracy people have been giving is how inconvenient it is to obey the law, so hopefully this will go some way to stop this.

[nixonsjellybeans]

Damn internet facists!! paha
In all seriousness now the plan needs a rethink

[mikeyd85]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Good. The reason for piracy people have been giving is how inconvenient it is to obey the law, so hopefully this will go some way to stop this.

Hardly.

I use a site that searches multiple torrent sites. If one goes down, I use another. No problem at all.

Edit: Site statistic: Indexing 24,558,385 active torrents from 72,438,580 pages on 31 domains.

Speaking of which, even though I have Sky and it's on tonight, the new Game of Thrones is out...

[TheHansa]

(Original post by mikeyd85)
Hardly.

I use a site that searches multiple torrent sites. If one goes down, I use another. No problem at all.

Speaking of which, even though I have Sky and it's on tonight, the new Game of Thrones is out...

Once one gets blocked it will easy to do the same with the rest which is why there has been such stonewall opposition it sets a legal precedent. A better solution would be arresting those who create these though.

[fire2burn]

The block will be about as effective as trying to use a small sandcastle to prevent an incoming tide. Every man and his pet dog knows that ISP restrictions can easily be bypassed. All that has been achieved is a waste of the courts time and a waste of ISP resources.

[mikeyd85]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Once one gets blocked it will easy to do the same with the rest, a better solution would be arresting those who create these though.

Not really.

Say you block my website - IllegalStuff.Com and it's on IP address 173.194.34.60. All I do then is open IllegalStuffs.com on 173.194.35.61, have it point at the same database et voila, I'm up and running in the UK. The govt. is no where near responsive enough to stop that.

[f1mad]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Once one gets blocked it will easy to do the same with the rest...

It's not difficult to create one after another.

You do know this will cause a major rise in rebellious groups just like the Anonymous, who will wreak havoc?

The internet is not a very wise place for any government to get involved in.