The Government wants to jail online pirates for 10 years
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Drewski
Audi makes enough money selling cars conventionally, so why shouldn't I just take one from the dealership?
How is that any different?
How is that any different?
Except piracy and conventional theft are not comparable. Piracy would be more like going to the dealership, making a copy of the car, and leaving the original there and driving off in your copy.
Original post by Fango_Jett
Except piracy and conventional theft are not comparable. Piracy would be more like going to the dealership, making a copy of the car, and leaving the original there and driving off in your copy.
You are stealing content that would not have existed had the company / artist / whatever not created it in the first place.
It is theft.
I'll agree it's a different kind of theft, but it's definitely theft.
Just don't seed your torrents and you'll be fine - I know it feels pretty greedy or immoral to do so, but if i torrent has over 500 seeds or something I don't bother, less than that and I'll seed for a week.
Original post by Drewski
You are stealing content that would not have existed had the company / artist / whatever not created it in the first place.
It is theft.
I'll agree it's a different kind of theft, but it's definitely theft.
It is theft.
I'll agree it's a different kind of theft, but it's definitely theft.
No, you are not stealing their work at all. Are you depriving the company of their work? Are you restricting access to the creators? Are you physically removing products from them? No. Of course not. The only think that could even remotely be considered stolen, is the potential revenue, but this is a pathetic argument in itself.
Are you also against libraries and second hand DVD music stores? Both of these either A) Let people access copyright material for free or B) Profit off of the copyrighted works of others.
Original post by Fango_Jett
No, you are not stealing their work at all. Are you depriving the company of their work? Are you restricting access to the creators? Are you physically removing products from them? No. Of course not. The only think that could even remotely be considered stolen, is the potential revenue, but this is a pathetic argument in itself.
Are you also against libraries and second hand DVD music stores? Both of these either A) Let people access copyright material for free or B) Profit off of the copyrighted works of others.
Are you also against libraries and second hand DVD music stores? Both of these either A) Let people access copyright material for free or B) Profit off of the copyrighted works of others.
In both those instances the goods have been paid for, so are not a comparison.
In this instance you are talking about gaining direct benefit from something someone has produced and not providing any compensation for it. That is theft.
Original post by Drewski
You are stealing content that would not have existed had the company / artist / whatever not created it in the first place.
It is theft.
I'll agree it's a different kind of theft, but it's definitely theft.
It is theft.
I'll agree it's a different kind of theft, but it's definitely theft.
No its not theft the uploader has bought the material and has decided to share the material with other people.It is like saying that it would be theft for someone to buy a car and let other people ride the car or that its theft when a family member puts on a DVD and you watch it you are effectively really a pirate as you haven't paid to watch it.
Original post by Drewski
In both those instances the goods have been paid for, so are not a comparison.
In this instance you are talking about gaining direct benefit from something someone has produced and not providing any compensation for it. That is theft.
In this instance you are talking about gaining direct benefit from something someone has produced and not providing any compensation for it. That is theft.
What about those rubbish pirated links which are made using a secret video camera next to one's seat in the cinema? You have to pay for the cinema ticket (and the money from that goes to the producers) in order to film the movie while it is going on, so that you can distribute it to others online.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
In both those instances the goods have been paid for, so are not a comparison.
In this instance you are talking about gaining direct benefit from something someone has produced and not providing any compensation for it. That is theft.
In this instance you are talking about gaining direct benefit from something someone has produced and not providing any compensation for it. That is theft.
Uploaders and File distributors pay for content and then allow other people access it for free, no different from a library. By your criteria, that is perfectly accessible.
Oh, so why are people who buy second hand DVD's excluded? They benefit and do not compensate the person who had produced the work. What about people who borrow DVD's from a family member or a friend? They provide no monetary gain or compensation to the content producer.
Original post by leinad2012
Ahahahahahaha, bitch please the government will do **** all about it. Considering half the country accesses pirated material, I get the feeling putting 30mil people in jail for 10 years may not help reduce the deficit
D
DYou idiot. They won't target people downloading; only the uploaders and the people distributing the copyright material.
If you want me to try and make you feel better about stealing, I'm not going to.
At best what's going on is morally questionable, at worst it's illegal.
Sharing a DVD in the comfort of your own home is covered by the license you tacitly accept when you buy it. Sharing it online with multiple people you don't know isn't. It violates the licensing, so is a criminal act.
Companies that do share things, whether they be libraries, film rentals, even airlines with in flight entertainment, must pay for the ability to share files. If you as a file distributor are going to do that, then fair enough. But then you're not a pirate and have nothing to fear from these measures.
If you're not going to do that, you're acting illegally and should be stopped.
At best what's going on is morally questionable, at worst it's illegal.
Sharing a DVD in the comfort of your own home is covered by the license you tacitly accept when you buy it. Sharing it online with multiple people you don't know isn't. It violates the licensing, so is a criminal act.
Companies that do share things, whether they be libraries, film rentals, even airlines with in flight entertainment, must pay for the ability to share files. If you as a file distributor are going to do that, then fair enough. But then you're not a pirate and have nothing to fear from these measures.
If you're not going to do that, you're acting illegally and should be stopped.
Original post by Willdono
You idiot. They won't target people downloading; only the uploaders and the people distributing the copyright material.
And there are thousands of them it isn't going to happen.
Add the fact most sites are either on foreign servers or those putting them online aren't living in the UK and there is sweet **** all the government can do about it
Original post by Drewski
If you're not going to do that, you're acting illegally and should be stopped.
Under current laws - this is correct.
From a human viewpoint - i disagree, why should they? If a person pirates a film and they wouldn't have bought it anyway, why should they be denied the pleasure of watching that film just because 'the law says so'? No one else is harmed and the content creator is also unharmed so this is a scenario of 'being closer to pareto efficiency' or maybe even a win-win scenario.
Original post by GuppyFox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578180
Does anyone else think 10 years is a bit extensive and much?
In all fairness it's for the uploaders and distributors - not the people accessing and downloading/streaming pirated material. But how long will it take for them to spread this law to those accessing?
I agree with thoughts that for the less well-off people would either pirate or not buy at all, and most people who can afford it will buy it legitimately. Why should people be punished in a scenario where only the consumer gains whilst the firms don't notice a difference or if anything a gain too from increased exposure?
Does anyone else think 10 years is a bit extensive and much?
In all fairness it's for the uploaders and distributors - not the people accessing and downloading/streaming pirated material. But how long will it take for them to spread this law to those accessing?
I agree with thoughts that for the less well-off people would either pirate or not buy at all, and most people who can afford it will buy it legitimately. Why should people be punished in a scenario where only the consumer gains whilst the firms don't notice a difference or if anything a gain too from increased exposure?
100% this. If I could buy it I would, but I can't, so I don't! It is amazing how many people think that this is just an excuse and not the actual truth of the matter. Of course, companies should be supported for the products they provide, and I absolutely would buy most, if not all of my digital content if I had the money, but someone like me with very little money faces the choice of piracy, or simply not having anything at all.
Wouldn't make a difference.
Government only target those that heavily seed torrents allowing thousands of users to download off their connection. It doesn't mean much to the average user. There are seeders worldwide so it wouldn't significantly slow down download speeds much for us in the UK.
The only thing this will do is just make these people smarter and evade detection.
Government only target those that heavily seed torrents allowing thousands of users to download off their connection. It doesn't mean much to the average user. There are seeders worldwide so it wouldn't significantly slow down download speeds much for us in the UK.
The only thing this will do is just make these people smarter and evade detection.
Original post by Drewski
If you want me to try and make you feel better about stealing, I'm not going to.
At best what's going on is morally questionable, at worst it's illegal.
Sharing a DVD in the comfort of your own home is covered by the license you tacitly accept when you buy it. Sharing it online with multiple people you don't know isn't. It violates the licensing, so is a criminal act.
Companies that do share things, whether they be libraries, film rentals, even airlines with in flight entertainment, must pay for the ability to share files. If you as a file distributor are going to do that, then fair enough. But then you're not a pirate and have nothing to fear from these measures.
If you're not going to do that, you're acting illegally and should be stopped.
At best what's going on is morally questionable, at worst it's illegal.
Sharing a DVD in the comfort of your own home is covered by the license you tacitly accept when you buy it. Sharing it online with multiple people you don't know isn't. It violates the licensing, so is a criminal act.
Companies that do share things, whether they be libraries, film rentals, even airlines with in flight entertainment, must pay for the ability to share files. If you as a file distributor are going to do that, then fair enough. But then you're not a pirate and have nothing to fear from these measures.
If you're not going to do that, you're acting illegally and should be stopped.
Libraries do not pay royalties or any kind of licence to copyright holders.
You haven't addressed second hand sales either, which allow people to benefit from a work without compensating the copyright owners. Why can't people simply put their owned copies online and "sell" it to people on the internet with an ad or a small donation? The only difference between them and the second hand stores would be the medium.
Original post by GuppyFox
Under current laws - this is correct.
From a human viewpoint - i disagree, why should they? If a person pirates a film and they wouldn't have bought it anyway, why should they be denied the pleasure of watching that film just because 'the law says so'? No one else is harmed and the content creator is also unharmed so this is a scenario of 'being closer to pareto efficiency' or maybe even a win-win scenario.
From a human viewpoint - i disagree, why should they? If a person pirates a film and they wouldn't have bought it anyway, why should they be denied the pleasure of watching that film just because 'the law says so'? No one else is harmed and the content creator is also unharmed so this is a scenario of 'being closer to pareto efficiency' or maybe even a win-win scenario.
If one person and one person only was going to do that I'd understand your point of view.
But it's not going to be just one.
As soon as you suggest it's ok for one to do it, everyone wants to do it. Soon enough you get one person paying to see the film and 3 million watching it online for nothing. Instead of making £20m, it makes £10. Then you're hurting everyone along the way who's gone in to making that film, the studio maybe doesn't notice so much, it's owned by big investors so can handle the odd commercial flop, but all the minor companies that specialise in small areas? They're shafted. Soon enough they can't carry on and films are no longer made without them.
Original post by GuppyFox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578180
Does anyone else think 10 years is a bit extensive and much?
In all fairness it's for the uploaders and distributors - not the people accessing and downloading/streaming pirated material. But how long will it take for them to spread this law to those accessing?
I agree with thoughts that for the less well-off people would either pirate or not buy at all, and most people who can afford it will buy it legitimately. Why should people be punished in a scenario where only the consumer gains whilst the firms don't notice a difference or if anything a gain too from increased exposure?
Does anyone else think 10 years is a bit extensive and much?
In all fairness it's for the uploaders and distributors - not the people accessing and downloading/streaming pirated material. But how long will it take for them to spread this law to those accessing?
I agree with thoughts that for the less well-off people would either pirate or not buy at all, and most people who can afford it will buy it legitimately. Why should people be punished in a scenario where only the consumer gains whilst the firms don't notice a difference or if anything a gain too from increased exposure?
Haha the government is still trying to turn "piracy" into a big bad deal?
Yeah I can see how non-physical copies of something nobody pays for = copyright infringement.
10 years? So the government is willing to pay taxpayer money to lock up people for a non-crime for 10 years?
More Tory nonsense.
Firstly this will still do nothing to curb piracy, they can't nick someone overseas, and the government is constantly 5 steps behind the "pirates".
Secondly it's correct that this sort of legislation smacks of undue vested-interest-groups influence over the state, having Hollywood and other big (and old backwards) film and music industry dictating terms to the government instead of moving with the times. Lol.
Thirdly it's full-retard to try and control culture, which music and media is part of.
Using copyrights to ensure a creator (often not the case with big movie/music/TV) can profit from his work is one thing, but you try and control access to culture you're fighting an impossible battle and just going to lose and look the fool.
Fourthly if someone isn't going to pay for media in the first place then you have lost zilch. I have a Youtube playlist for these exact reasons, I can't afford the big buy-ins for a movie/album all the time, nor can I afford the constantly little 1000 hen-peck singles purchases either. I feel like government forgets that there is a post-global economic crisis still going on and a living wage crisis, people simply can't afford industry greed for the sake of it.
I am however happier to spend money on a subscription type service like Sky or Spotify, Netflix, etc, which are also growth-areas soooooo maybe big Hollywood and Big Music should think about their position more carefully.
Original post by leinad2012
Ahahahahahaha, bitch please the government will do **** all about it. Considering half the country accesses pirated material, I get the feeling putting 30mil people in jail for 10 years may not help reduce the deficitD
DNever underestimate the stupidity of government, lets not forget they banned recreational drugs that were used by a substantial portion of the population.
The current government is made up of people who are technologically illiterate, no matter how much legislation they pass, the government (or anyone else for that matter) will never get my IP unless I want them to have it. Things like TOR and i2p are simply unbreakable by government on any meaningful scale.
Original post by Drewski
If one person and one person only was going to do that I'd understand your point of view.
But it's not going to be just one.
As soon as you suggest it's ok for one to do it, everyone wants to do it. Soon enough you get one person paying to see the film and 3 million watching it online for nothing. Instead of making £20m, it makes £10. Then you're hurting everyone along the way who's gone in to making that film, the studio maybe doesn't notice so much, it's owned by big investors so can handle the odd commercial flop, but all the minor companies that specialise in small areas? They're shafted. Soon enough they can't carry on and films are no longer made without them.
But it's not going to be just one.
As soon as you suggest it's ok for one to do it, everyone wants to do it. Soon enough you get one person paying to see the film and 3 million watching it online for nothing. Instead of making £20m, it makes £10. Then you're hurting everyone along the way who's gone in to making that film, the studio maybe doesn't notice so much, it's owned by big investors so can handle the odd commercial flop, but all the minor companies that specialise in small areas? They're shafted. Soon enough they can't carry on and films are no longer made without them.
Except this is complete and utter bull. People have been pirating since the dawn of taped releases. Do you even know many millions and millions of pirated DVD's, CD'd, VCD's are sold around the world? It's not as though it's been one or two movies being pirated to death. It's been pretty much every single even somewhat popular release has been pirated constantly, and publishers and authors are absolutely swimming in it.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Which OS are you using?
- Finding a job in the UK from abroad
- Rate my poem please -Pirate
- Self-Studying Further Maths Resources
- Revision - Planet Lacey
- 2023 King's Speech
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- I am an international student from China and I want to apply for the PGCE course.
- Should I give up my social housing and go private?
- A levels after sixth form
- One of my parents is not a UK citizen and doesn't have a National Insurance Number
- Heriot-Watt halls
- How much student finance in third year of undergraduate degree?
- A level resits
- thoughts on sats?
- Rate my new DnD backstory - provide your own
- 18 in year 12
- I got A*AA for my A-Levels - ask me anything.
- history 2023 predictions gcse questions
- How was your last day at school and collage?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
