Just for the record noiz, you say quality is poor? Based on what? You can get incredibly good quality rips, even on piratebay. Will it affect me? Not really no.
I used to get 1080p rips, which in theory should have been awesome, but compared to the original source, they were shocking. My idea of poor quality is not being able to see each and every single pore on Johnny Depp's face in Pirates of the Caribbean lol Aside from the fact I think they're poor quality, there's the whole thieving someone else's intellectual property side of it. Whilst I'm all up for breaking EULAs on software like Windows 7, pirating the software or whatever I don't agree with.
Just because it's 1080p doesn't mean it will be good quality, need to pay attention to other things such as bitrate aswell Why are you ok with breaking the EULA on windows but not downloading it?
Oh ffs, I know what makes a good quality video My point was no matter what bitrate/resolution is used, to my eyes, it looks inferior quality. And I'm fine with downloading Windows 7, at least the legal ISOs. It's the cracked copies I don't agree with. I legally obtained each and every copy of Windows 7 I have, which in my eyes means I can bend the rules slightly and install a fresh copy for myself from an OEM key. Bent the rules slightly, but I have paid for the software and I doubt Microsoft would particularly mind given how many copies of Windows 7 I've bought. However, if I had not paid for those copies (ie getting them via a cracked torrent) that's completely illegal as it doesn't just break their EULA but it breaks the law as well. Bending the EULA like I do doesn't warrant any sort of legal recourse as far as I'm aware.
Doesn't really affect me while I don't use it but I was more concerned about the fact that I had, without my knowledge, moved too China Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2
No it isn't. If you download a Blu-Ray Rip at 720p(4GB) then this is just as good as Sky HD. You could also get a DVD Rip for around 2GB.
I'm on O2 so technically it should affect me, I sometimes use it like a catch-up TV service as someone else mentioned. If it was blocked it would be a minor inconvenience until I used an alternative.
A lot of the reactions to this move (here and elsewhere on the internet) remind me of what Martin Niemöller said about the Nazis. Just because you're not personally affected by TPB or Newzbin being cut off by ISPs, doesn't make it an issue you ought to ignore. I know the "slippery slope" argument is not the best one, but it's a bit scary in this context.
Exactly, I would argue piracy affected the entertainment industry far more back in the days when you had to physically buy something. My uncle was ripping his LPs on to cassette for my dad nearly 40 years ago, and everyone who has ever kept a recording from the TV for longer than the statutory limit is technically breaking the rules. But there was bugger-all they could do about it in those days. Now that it's been made simpler (i.e. you no longer need to know the person with the source material), it has become far more straightforward to be draconian. Will it limit piracy? No. But it will remove one of the more conspicuous players from plain view in the UK for a while. I miss mix tapes. Dwarfer - that graphic refers to the zeroes and ones, but the underpinning principle of digital piracy is the theft of the copyright holder's right to be paid for every copy of their work.
It is a bit of a paradigm shift, I'll admit, but bear with me: Piracy is theft. No, hear me out. You are enjoying the use of a product, information or service (e.g. entertainment) that someone else has likely spent a lot of effort, time and money on putting together. In remuneration of his efforts he wants to sell or rent out the resulting product or service. Guy's got to eat and all that. By making a copy or using said product, information or service without paying for it, you are depriving the producer of the remuneration for his hard work. Now you can argue that if you couldn't have pirated the product or service, you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, and that the producer still has the product or service to sell; so he has lost nothing. But by piracy you have gained something for nothing that someone else has worked hard to produce, and would like to have been rewarded for. To argue that a product or service is only worth what people are prepared to pay for it is a cop-out also; if you don't think it's worth paying for, don't copy and use it. To put it in terms that you might relate to better: imagine you fix computers for a living. You trained for it (and paid for that training in time, money and effort), you bought the tools and reference manuals and you regularly spend time sharpening up on the latest developments in the computer repair trade. Someone gets you to fix their computer. When you have done so, they refuse to pay. They argue that they don't think that just fixing a PC for 30 minutes is worth the fee you charge. You argue that you are charging for knowing of what parts to fix, a knowledge which takes years of training to acquire. They then argue that if they could not have got the computer repaired for free, they would have thrown it out anyway, and besides, they haven't actually taken anything from you: you still own the knowledge and tools required to fix computers and make a living at it, so no loss sustained, right? Except that you would feel robbed, wouldn't you? Of course you would. Because the dude has stolen something from you: your time, effort and expertise.
It won't affect me but I am a little annoyed this was pushed through because of the music industry. I realise that they are loosing revenue in an ever digital service based economy but like any other business you should begin diversifying music streaming websites for instant.
I have to disagree with that image. To the pirate it just seems like that since they don't see the result of their theft. But they are attaining something with a value attached for free that would otherwise generate money for someone else, so effectively the money is being stolen because it certainly isn't being copied . Beaten to it by Nexxo, for the sake of checking my spelling! Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk 2
I completely agree with Nexxo, Lysaer and Shirty. Theft doesn't just mean removing the original. And if it did, you could probably argue that you're technically stealing the copyright as you'd be distributing it as you see fit, something only the copyright holder can do legally. As for the above statement, to me anything that is copied and torrented is poor quality. Unless it's a pure 1:1 copy in ISO format. But then file sizes are huge (especially for blu-ray) which IMO makes it worth paying for something like Lovefilm so you just don't have to mess around waiting for stuff to download.
The premise of the "Piracy is not theft" argument is flawed - you can steal intellectual property without "removing" it because it is not always a physical thing; whether one copy or a million copies of a song exist, all copies are the intellectual property of the owner and acuiring them without permission is theft. I'm not trying to take the moral high ground with piracy - I've done it myself - it's just annoying when piracy is so tenuously justified. When you pirate, you steal; get over it. On topic, I really don't see why ISPs are bothering to do this - it's not going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things. Dide file sharing stop when Megaupload folded? No. If people are going to stop file sharing and pirating, they need to make that change willingly and voluntarily, not by having their hands tied.
Personally I only download full dvd iso's. Dvd players these days are good enough, to upscale a dvd to quality that is more than good enough. Plus, I can't be arsed dealing with bd rips where the audio is out of sync, or my wd tv, can't decode the audio. A 4.5gb iso takes a few hours to download if it's well seeded.
I totally agree with what you're saying here, although I do have a little nagging question. What happens if said person works for a much larger, greedier company who decides to knowingly charge a premium price for the service to acheive a larger profit. You know it's too much to pay, but most of the competition charges a similar price for a service the increases year on year. I understand that you're trying to explain that Piracy is theft (to which I agree, the key word there is Pirate), but the entertainment industry beating people with the blocked ISP stick is not the best method in the world to get them off torrent sites. It's not like the ever increasing cost of fuel, to which you have no choice but to agree to the price hikes if you wish your hot water or electricity to remain. In my opinion Cinema prices are disgustingly expensive, the suggested £45-£50 for a Retail copy of a game is disgusting. I don't agree with these prices, so I don't see/play them until they are priced at a more reasonable cost. There's also the almost digust from the Entertainment industry, in regards to second hand goods. It's totally legally, but is almost as scorned at as Piracy. Pulling back on the corporate scorn and lowering prices is the key to controlling Piracy, but I don't need to tell you that.
More and more I'm convinced that draconian copywrite law is the problem here. Oh and it's lovely to hear the large record companies telling us that pirates are profiting off of other people's hard work. It's a bit odd though because I thought that was what they did.
