Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 8 Apr 2010.
I didn't use the word "deprived" in relation to their net worth I used it quite clearly in reference to anyone NOT getting paid for THEIR work. Not everyone who receives copyright royalties is rich. Try looking in the mirror to find said "stupid person."
It is entirely irrelevant how much money they have. I don't care if they have 200 silly money cars, it is still THEIR idea and not yours. If it were my idea I would want it protected and be able to receive proper compensation for my work, and not what you think is proper but what a contract or the market determines. Funny, I think you would want to be paid for your work too or should your employer just keep your pay check because you have had too many bags of crisps and all those poor starving kids could use it instead of you... Maybe you're just a leech on the public dole.
Your failed class warfare based on jealousy argument doesn't even rise to a pathetic at best rating.
Nope, your assumption is making an ass out of you. I have listened to friends music but I didn't burn it. No, I didn't try to return opened DVDs because they sucked. I only buy movies I have seen so I know what I'm getting and I get them on discount. I don't have a huge collection, just one that meets my standards. Justifying your illegal behavior by implying everyone does it like you and your friends is sad. I have made copies of my music so I don't harm the disc because they are, in many cases, impossible to replace, i.e. Mobilfidelity discs.
But knutjb your not entitled to make copies of your music so you don't harm the disc because 'they' said so, and that reason is because you are NOT allowed to have a 2nd copy of the disc you bought as you only paid for one, and you can't rip it to MP3 either but I bet you have (you'll say no you haven't) but we all know you have. Your waffling on about justifying illegal behaviour yet if you rip that cd of yours OR copy it (like you said you did do) then you are also trying to justify your illegal behaviour by saying 'I have made copies of my music so I don't harm the disc' don't even go there! Your just as bad as everyone else so I'd sit your self righteous ass back down if I were you.
Who you talking to ryall? Who said I've the right to steal from them? Which is what you implied the second you typed 'Just because someone's richer than you doesn't give YOU the right to steal from them' I never said I did your assuming (just like the f*cking stupid government and their Digital Economy sh*t) wrongly assuming might I add, shall I take it your an MP who voted for the bill and i'm guilty until I can prove i'm innocent? Didn't think so......
Oh and you've just contradicted EVERYTHING you said by saying you'd rather download a movie than BUY the DVD and have to sit through unskippable anti-piratism ads then you say it's funny how legitimate consumers are the ones who suffer most.
What exactly are you crying about , because didn't you just say you'd rather download a movie than BUY IT on a DVD, which makes you a pirate, if you were so against it all you'd be sitting there smiling at the anti-piratism ads with a cup of horlicks in one hand and a custard cream in the other waiting for someone to pat you on the back because you've been a good boy and bought the DVD, but oh no you won't do that will you because YOU don't want to be forced to watch those anti-piratism ads so you'd rather resort to piracy! Which you implied as soon as you typed 'I'd rather download a movie than than BUY IT on DVD',
What a mug
At the same time, just because someone (a company) is rich enough to pay off the media to say how great and innovative their new film is does not give them the right to rip us off. "2012" and "Avatar" were both so hyped up that I considered going to the cinema or buying them on DVD when released. However, wary of propaganda, I thought I'd have a sneak peek first... I'm glad I did. It would've been such a waste of my hard-earned money. In my opinion, those movies sucked so badly they weren't even worth the bandwidth or time, and I'm glad I didn't spend a single cent on them (or watched them fully).
Advertisements (except the volume) I can understand, but I fully agree with the legitimate customers suffering: the unskippable anti-"piracy" ads on DVDs piss me off - I just bought the damn thing, and thanks to the "entertainment" industry's propaganda I'm well aware that sharing my newly-bought DVD is a direct cause of cute bunnies being tortured to death by the ghost of Jeffrey Dahmer.
The crippling DRM on just about anything else doesn't help their cause either: it's regularly reported that it's a lot easier to play a game or use an MS Windows OS that's been "pirated" and has had the DRM removed than use a legitimate, accuse-you-of-being-a-"pirate"-once-a-week copy. When you piss off your legitimate customers enough, they're not going to stay legitimate customers.
For example, I have only bought three DVDs in the past few years, because those three didn't have any DRM (coincidently, also no anti-"piracy" ads) on them. Others I wanted to buy had DRM so they weren't worth my money - if I can't play them on my player of choice, what's the point in having them? (Didn't download them either, because what's the point of having their product?)
Now, as I don't understand the UK system: is this thing going into action now?
@gnutonian - This bill started in the House of Lords (from Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State), not the House of Commons, so it is slightly different just in that the Commons and Lords bits are the other way around. If you check here you can see that the Ping Pong and Royal Assent happened on Thursday, so yes, it is now law.
However the courts can still decide whether it is a legal law. If it violates some other law (in the UK or EU) then it might not be enforceable.
My dear friend, what else do you expect to result from a system which places the acquisition of wealth as the goal of all human endeavour?
When capitalism was thought up, the assumption was that it would be a self regulating system. However, those great thinkers didn't count on the fact that, when profit is the only goal, people will think of ways to play the system, at the customer's expense. Eg: deliberately 'gimping' a product in order to be able to sell it over multiple iterations.
Rich, the courts decided years ago that, the laws covering theft do not apply to copyright infringement. That is why the new term was coined and new legislation passed which addresses it specifically. SO, unlike what the record industry would have you think, in legal terms, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT (just like theft is not copyright infringement. There have been occasions where the distinction has been made in court:
Full article here
Ravenheart: No I didn't.
Gnutonian: Couldn't agree more, how many pirates has DRM inconvienienced? How about legitimate consumers?
This is what O2 are saying and TalkTalk... who appear to be fighting against it.
They say people will switch to less transparent methods - encrypted newsgroups and so on (or just Rapidshare etc. using SSL tunnelling that costs £10 a month! As long as the newsgroup provider or SSL provider is in the States, the British authorities cannot get a warrant to go a fishing trip!
Bottom line, anyone with any sense that wants to download in private, has a choice of methods. All the ISP sees, is garbled, encrypted data. Useless to them.
Perhaps we should call it 'Cloning'
If I clone an MP have I stolen him?
You've not seen natal?
I would say there are only hundreds of them and millions of us, but they have the military and police don't they? So really what those few think means more than what the actual country they are supposed to be representing think. That's funny, we all accept being bullied don't we, or better yet; terrorised. Ironic huh?
I forgot to mention I don't eat crisps , oh and for the record if I did I've give a packet to those starving kids your going on about, oh and guess what I am NOT a leech on the 'Public' dole, but you probably are.
Class warfare as well you say? Don't talk crap, it has nothing to do with class warfare you self righteous pompous pr*ck.
Qoth the digital economy bill:
The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical
obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State
considers it appropriate in view of—
an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under
section 124G; or 25
any other consideration."
In black and white. For 'any other consideration' they can impose any 'technical obligation' on your ISP. In plain language they can cut you off or throttle your bandwidth for literally any reason. Defend that.
Bring it on.
Just one more reason to emigrate. Shame I can't afford to.
To me, the real issue in this debate is not whether the user is wrong to download copyrighted material illegally or not, the problem is that we, the consumers, are going to be blamed and prosecuted because media companies cannot, or simply don't want to adapt to a new format.
The digital bill is not going to help new artist to make more profits, any new artist knows how to use new formats and new technologies to promote their work. I think, as it stands, the digital bill only help major companies as it allows them to stay in an old, more profitable marketing format.
If the media industry cannot follow the trends and won't adapt to new technologies, well, tough ****! the consumers should not be blamed for the media industry's inability to create new ways to promote and sell their content.
This being said, most of what the digital bill wants to prevent is probably what made the industry move forward, everybody heard the statistics stating the illegal file sharers were more likely to buy legit content.
I am the first concerned by this, and I try to buy as much as my tastes and budget allows.to me, it seems that the quality of what has made available in the last ten years has gone down, either because there are more choice, or because the media are riddled with s***, all in all, I like to know what I am going to buy, downloading allows me to spend my money better.
very little of the digital economy bill deals with copyright infringement, that is a very small part of the bill, you need to read it
Well, my post doesn't really say what I mean... I'm only french...
This though sums my thought and I could not agree more on what is being said:
Nick Doody talks about Britain's Digital Economy Bill on Youtube
That's what I meant.
heh, who uses P2P anymore? rapidshare, hotfile, usenet Cheesecake
Separate names with a comma.