The whole thing is daft psychology. If it was called the keep your childten safe from abuse site, they would leave it alone. Because it is called the Prrate Bay it must be evil because pirates are evil.
I have got a few things from there, none of them at all illegal or avoiding royalties.
Youtube has more copyright material put onto it each day than the Pirate Bay has had since it started. Also more people watch copyright stuff on Youtube per hour than have looked at Pirate Bay stuff ever.
.. and have then often gone on to pop another tab in their browser and bought said content from Amazon...
I bought several boxsets after watching some episodes on Youtube...
You guys are all missing the point. Of course anyone can get around the ban, but the Judge is demonstrating that the principal of stealing peoples work is not nice and not approved of.
Suppose you are a builder and build a new house, would it be ok for squatters to move in and take full future ownership of it for free? Who pays the brickies, architects, electricians, carpenters? Are they expected to roll over and just let it happen?
I feel really sorry for people whose work is stolen without payment.
Sure, I am as bad as anyone else, but none of us can afford to continue to sanction intellectual theft, surely?
As Virgin have said, the way is to encourage "all win" solutions - they cite Spotify as one such. In the meantime we should lobby for legal, convenient and cost fair ways of downloading what we want or need. Not laughing at the poor souls who are getting mugged for their artistic output.
Suppose you are a builder and build a new house, would it be ok for squatters to move in and take full future ownership of it for free? Who pays the brickies, architects, electricians, carpenters? Are they expected to roll over and just let it happen?
I feel really sorry for people whose work is stolen without payment.
Sure, I am as bad as anyone else, but none of us can afford to continue to sanction intellectual theft, surely?
As Virgin have said, the way is to encourage "all win" solutions - they cite Spotify as one such. In the meantime we should lobby for legal, convenient and cost fair ways of downloading what we want or need. Not laughing at the poor souls who are getting mugged for their artistic output.
Copying songs/video illegally does not directly deprive anyone of anything. I take your house, and you no longer have a roof over your head. I copy your song, you still have your song.
The argument that a pirated piece is a lost sale seems mostly spurious - studies show that people who copy lots also purchase lots. It is a minefield of economics and morality and the copyright-holders (nb rarely the artists) resorting to "You wouldn't steal a car" rhetoric is taking the piss.
Copying songs/video illegally does not directly deprive anyone of anything. I take your house, and you no longer have a roof over your head. I copy your song, you still have your song.
The argument that a pirated piece is a lost sale seems mostly spurious - studies show that people who copy lots also purchase lots. It is a minefield of economics and morality and the copyright-holders (nb rarely the artists) resorting to "You wouldn't steal a car" rhetoric is taking the piss.
Beat me to it. I hate the stupid and inaccurate analogies the pro censorship crew come up with.
I've stopped using The Pirate Bay because of the fact that it uses magnet links. I prefer downloading actual torrent files. Have now started using another torrent site which is good for seeds.
You guys are all missing the point. Of course anyone can get around the ban, but the Judge is demonstrating that the principal of stealing peoples work is not nice and not approved of.
Suppose you are a builder and build a new house, would it be ok for squatters to move in and take full future ownership of it for free? Who pays the brickies, architects, electricians, carpenters? Are they expected to roll over and just let it happen?
I feel really sorry for people whose work is stolen without payment.
Sure, I am as bad as anyone else, but none of us can afford to continue to sanction intellectual theft, surely?
As Virgin have said, the way is to encourage "all win" solutions - they cite Spotify as one such. In the meantime we should lobby for legal, convenient and cost fair ways of downloading what we want or need. Not laughing at the poor souls who are getting mugged for their artistic output.
It's not theft. You still have said item if I make an identical copy of it.
You guys are all missing the point. Of course anyone can get around the ban, but the Judge is demonstrating that the principal of stealing peoples work is not nice and not approved of.
Suppose you are a builder and build a new house, would it be ok for squatters to move in and take full future ownership of it for free? Who pays the brickies, architects, electricians, carpenters? Are they expected to roll over and just let it happen?
I feel really sorry for people whose work is stolen without payment.
Sure, I am as bad as anyone else, but none of us can afford to continue to sanction intellectual theft, surely?
As Virgin have said, the way is to encourage "all win" solutions - they cite Spotify as one such. In the meantime we should lobby for legal, convenient and cost fair ways of downloading what we want or need. Not laughing at the poor souls who are getting mugged for their artistic output.
These real world or 'bricks and mortar' analogies (literally in this case ) are generally off the point. It's like explaining the sea bed in terms of a sand pit, or cheese in terms of chalk.
With digital media it's trivial to copy and share files, so it's hard to form a coherent argument for unique access to something designed to be accessed universally. That's a problem for producers of popular media, and no doubt something might be done about it. But it's not a problem house-builders will ever face in the real world, which is why with respect it's not a suitable analogy.
Something the internet does facilitate is controlled access to unique experience, something happening right now. It's how camgirls make their money, and online gaming companies, and I reckon that's where the music industry should set up its turnstile; allowing access to live music all around the world. Recorded music will probably seem a bit 'passé' eventually.
These real world or 'bricks and mortar' analogies (literally in this case ) are generally off the point. It's like explaining the sea bed in terms of a sand pit, or cheese in terms of chalk.
something better might be nicking a game DVD from the EA factory and leaving £1 behind to cover the material cost. After all, that's all it costs to make, right?
Shutting down Napster was meant to end piracy. This was 12 years ago and yet piracy is as rife today as it was back then. Probably even more so. It therefore stands to reason that blocking access to The Pirate Bay will have little to no impact on piracy. The pirates will always pirate, no matter what. If you went further back in time, you'd find them with cassettes copying there friends albums. It's a practice that will never ever be stopped.
Exactly. Piracy is not a new thing. It's been going even before the internet. I used to copy songs from CDs to cassettes so we could play them in the car or I could listen to them on my Walkman (this was in the 90s and even in the early '00s up to about late 2002) My friend sometimes copied the songs for me if she had the CD with the song(s) I wanted. Anyone remember the days of pirate videos? I'm sure the same argument about piracy came up when VCRs came out first. What next, closing down libraries (public ones, not university ones) because they allow you to photocopy and borrow books and even DVDs/CDs? I used to take out a lot of books from libraries as a kid and I even took out the odd video. Sometimes I even bought the book or video if I really liked it.
something better might be nicking a game DVD from the EA factory and leaving £1 behind to cover the material cost. After all, that's all it costs to make, right?
Or going into the factory with your laptop and making a copy of said DVD and leaving the original behind. That would be closer.
Or going into the factory with your laptop and making a copy of said DVD and leaving the original behind. That would be closer.
whats the difference? You're not 'depriving' EA of the game either way, they can just burn another. And if you pay for the physical media, they don't lose on materials, right?
is one action more acceptable than the other? if so, why? what difference does it make if EA make a copy and you take it, or you make a copy and take it?
Copying songs/video illegally does not directly deprive anyone of anything. I take your house, and you no longer have a roof over your head. I copy your song, you still have your song.
The argument that a pirated piece is a lost sale seems mostly spurious - studies show that people who copy lots also purchase lots. It is a minefield of economics and morality and the copyright-holders (nb rarely the artists) resorting to "You wouldn't steal a car" rhetoric is taking the piss.
I'm going to start selling harry potter books then...royalty free.
Stealing from no one right?
Also I'll go and copy some patented inventions, who are they to complain, if I didn't steal their house its not stealing!
Spurious is trying to find a language loophole for what is just theft.
I'm going to start selling harry potter books then...royalty free.
Stealing from no one right?
Definitely not theft (look up the law). Copyright infringement yes. I think it was clear that I was referring to copying for personal use and not to making a business of it.
Also I'll go and copy some patented inventions, who are they to complain
Using patented technology for private use is perfectly fine, there is an explicit clause that allows this (Patents Act 1977, Section 60(5)(a) if you must know). So indeed, "who are they to complain". Doing so commercially is different and you would be liable to be up against court proceedings to make you stop/get a licence and pay damages.
Spurious is trying to find a language loophole for what is just theft.
Again, it is not theft. If you want to look it up, start with the Theft Act 1968, the very first paragraph (my emphasis):
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
And I used the word "spurious" in the context of rights holders massively inflating or even inventing the cost to their industry of piracy. Nothing to do with the the technicalities of the legality of piracy.
I'm sure there are sensible discussions to be had about the legal, moral and economic issues that surround piracy, but apparently not with you, pocatello.
Actually most crimes are theft, though perhaps not in the legal sense.
If I kill you, I steal your life, it is "theft" of your future existence.
If I squat in your house, it is "theft" of possible rental income.
If I copy lots of your work without remuneration, I have deprived you of at least some amount of remuneration, however slight - "theft" of some possible future income.
Perhaps I had a strong religious upbringing which helped develop my moral compass, but I can't be convinced its right to take for free something other people would expect to pay for and not call it "theft".
Some people just don't want to admit they are thieves and will use any arguement to justify a cost saving made by stealing a record or film rather than paying for it.
Let's stop the theft Vs copy infringement bullshit as it has been done to death and we got no where, and get back to the OP about internet censorship in the guise of stopping 'piracy' and 'terrorism'.
I repeat my previous point because control is what it is really about and it cannot get said enough.
Let's stop the theft Vs copy infringement bullshit as it has been done to death and we got no where
agreed, just playing with semantics.
and get back to the OP about internet censorship in the guise of stopping 'piracy' and 'terrorism'.
I repeat my previous point because control is what it is really about and it cannot get said enough.
censorship? No-one has been prevented from publishing their own work, on their own site, or any manner of other legitimate sites. THAT'S a word far too commonly trotted out as well. e.g. "DS deleted my post! censorship :mad: like living under a fascist regime"
I think the comparisons elsewhere with China are terribly naive as well.
And what does terrorism have to do with blocking thepiratebay?
Yes, control is part of it. People shouldn't be free to break laws just because its on the Internet. But, like with megaupload before it, we're not seriously buying TPBs crap about them being the good guys?
My old college lecturer once told me that the Internet in the UK is already controlled to a very small extent. Certain extremist websites are blocked for UK users for example.
Piracy is an issue, but that doesn't stop me. I do it because I can, and because I can't afford the total costs of the content I've downloaded. However, I still wouldn't steal a physical item from a shop, or steal a car, etc.
Putting a block on The Pirate Bay will almost certainly not effect the amount of file sharing in the UK. People move on. Whether its a different torrent searching site, or a different method of pirating.
Also, blocking The Pirate Bay is showing that the UK will bow under pressure from the entertainment industry.
You guys are all missing the point. Of course anyone can get around the ban, but the Judge is demonstrating that the principal of stealing peoples work is not nice and not approved of.
Suppose you are a builder and build a new house, would it be ok for squatters to move in and take full future ownership of it for free? Who pays the brickies, architects, electricians, carpenters? Are they expected to roll over and just let it happen?
I feel really sorry for people whose work is stolen without payment.
Sure, I am as bad as anyone else, but none of us can afford to continue to sanction intellectual theft, surely?
As Virgin have said, the way is to encourage "all win" solutions - they cite Spotify as one such. In the meantime we should lobby for legal, convenient and cost fair ways of downloading what we want or need. Not laughing at the poor souls who are getting mugged for their artistic output.
You can't compare Internet piracy with houses. If it was possible to CTRL-C then CTRL-V a property, house prices would fall and thousands of brickies would be out of a job.
Media piracy is nothing new. I used to copy my friends albums back in the early 90's to listen to on my walkman, my Mum still has cassettes that she taped from her brothers vinyl's back in the 70's complete with budgie tweeting in the background. The trouble is the Internet has made it very easy to copy digital files so more and more people are doing so.
There are many arguements to the reasons why people pirate, but at the end of the day if someone is going to pirate something, then they will. No matter what you ban, what DRM you put onto things or how cheap you make it, if someone doesn't want to pay for it, they won't.
There are many arguements to the reasons why people pirate, but at the end of the day if someone is going to pirate something, then they will. No matter what you ban, what DRM you put onto things or how cheap you make it, if someone doesn't want to pay for it, they won't.
I'm not sure that's true. There seems to be almost a mythical quality assigned to piracy, no-one can ever stop or even reduce it and it will always be around. Do we assign such qualities to speeding, or tax dodging?
Playing whack-a-mole with one or two sites might not be the best approach, but they are not wrong to try.
Comments
I bought several boxsets after watching some episodes on Youtube...
Here is what it is really about -
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/what-they-want-is-control
It is for the claimants to worry about things like proxies, not the judge. He just rules on the case that the claimants bring.
Or did you mean that most judges use proxies? I couldn't possibly comment.
Suppose you are a builder and build a new house, would it be ok for squatters to move in and take full future ownership of it for free? Who pays the brickies, architects, electricians, carpenters? Are they expected to roll over and just let it happen?
I feel really sorry for people whose work is stolen without payment.
Sure, I am as bad as anyone else, but none of us can afford to continue to sanction intellectual theft, surely?
As Virgin have said, the way is to encourage "all win" solutions - they cite Spotify as one such. In the meantime we should lobby for legal, convenient and cost fair ways of downloading what we want or need. Not laughing at the poor souls who are getting mugged for their artistic output.
Copying songs/video illegally does not directly deprive anyone of anything. I take your house, and you no longer have a roof over your head. I copy your song, you still have your song.
The argument that a pirated piece is a lost sale seems mostly spurious - studies show that people who copy lots also purchase lots. It is a minefield of economics and morality and the copyright-holders (nb rarely the artists) resorting to "You wouldn't steal a car" rhetoric is taking the piss.
Beat me to it. I hate the stupid and inaccurate analogies the pro censorship crew come up with.
It's not theft. You still have said item if I make an identical copy of it.
Yeah but don't copy my post or I will sue yo ass!!!
I own everything posted on DS
With digital media it's trivial to copy and share files, so it's hard to form a coherent argument for unique access to something designed to be accessed universally. That's a problem for producers of popular media, and no doubt something might be done about it. But it's not a problem house-builders will ever face in the real world, which is why with respect it's not a suitable analogy.
Something the internet does facilitate is controlled access to unique experience, something happening right now. It's how camgirls make their money, and online gaming companies, and I reckon that's where the music industry should set up its turnstile; allowing access to live music all around the world. Recorded music will probably seem a bit 'passé' eventually.
something better might be nicking a game DVD from the EA factory and leaving £1 behind to cover the material cost. After all, that's all it costs to make, right?
Exactly. Piracy is not a new thing. It's been going even before the internet. I used to copy songs from CDs to cassettes so we could play them in the car or I could listen to them on my Walkman (this was in the 90s and even in the early '00s up to about late 2002) My friend sometimes copied the songs for me if she had the CD with the song(s) I wanted. Anyone remember the days of pirate videos? I'm sure the same argument about piracy came up when VCRs came out first. What next, closing down libraries (public ones, not university ones) because they allow you to photocopy and borrow books and even DVDs/CDs? I used to take out a lot of books from libraries as a kid and I even took out the odd video. Sometimes I even bought the book or video if I really liked it.
Or going into the factory with your laptop and making a copy of said DVD and leaving the original behind. That would be closer.
whats the difference? You're not 'depriving' EA of the game either way, they can just burn another. And if you pay for the physical media, they don't lose on materials, right?
is one action more acceptable than the other? if so, why? what difference does it make if EA make a copy and you take it, or you make a copy and take it?
I'm going to start selling harry potter books then...royalty free.
Stealing from no one right?
Also I'll go and copy some patented inventions, who are they to complain, if I didn't steal their house its not stealing!
Spurious is trying to find a language loophole for what is just theft.
Definitely not theft (look up the law). Copyright infringement yes. I think it was clear that I was referring to copying for personal use and not to making a business of it.
Using patented technology for private use is perfectly fine, there is an explicit clause that allows this (Patents Act 1977, Section 60(5)(a) if you must know). So indeed, "who are they to complain". Doing so commercially is different and you would be liable to be up against court proceedings to make you stop/get a licence and pay damages.
Sigh. Yes I clearly said that nothing is theft unless it involves a house. Grow up.
Again, it is not theft. If you want to look it up, start with the Theft Act 1968, the very first paragraph (my emphasis):
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
And I used the word "spurious" in the context of rights holders massively inflating or even inventing the cost to their industry of piracy. Nothing to do with the the technicalities of the legality of piracy.
I'm sure there are sensible discussions to be had about the legal, moral and economic issues that surround piracy, but apparently not with you, pocatello.
If I kill you, I steal your life, it is "theft" of your future existence.
If I squat in your house, it is "theft" of possible rental income.
If I copy lots of your work without remuneration, I have deprived you of at least some amount of remuneration, however slight - "theft" of some possible future income.
Perhaps I had a strong religious upbringing which helped develop my moral compass, but I can't be convinced its right to take for free something other people would expect to pay for and not call it "theft".
Some people just don't want to admit they are thieves and will use any arguement to justify a cost saving made by stealing a record or film rather than paying for it.
Let's stop the theft Vs copy infringement bullshit as it has been done to death and we got no where, and get back to the OP about internet censorship in the guise of stopping 'piracy' and 'terrorism'.
I repeat my previous point because control is what it is really about and it cannot get said enough.
agreed, just playing with semantics.
censorship? No-one has been prevented from publishing their own work, on their own site, or any manner of other legitimate sites. THAT'S a word far too commonly trotted out as well. e.g. "DS deleted my post! censorship :mad: like living under a fascist regime"
I think the comparisons elsewhere with China are terribly naive as well.
And what does terrorism have to do with blocking thepiratebay?
Yes, control is part of it. People shouldn't be free to break laws just because its on the Internet. But, like with megaupload before it, we're not seriously buying TPBs crap about them being the good guys?
Piracy is an issue, but that doesn't stop me. I do it because I can, and because I can't afford the total costs of the content I've downloaded. However, I still wouldn't steal a physical item from a shop, or steal a car, etc.
Putting a block on The Pirate Bay will almost certainly not effect the amount of file sharing in the UK. People move on. Whether its a different torrent searching site, or a different method of pirating.
Also, blocking The Pirate Bay is showing that the UK will bow under pressure from the entertainment industry.
You can't compare Internet piracy with houses. If it was possible to CTRL-C then CTRL-V a property, house prices would fall and thousands of brickies would be out of a job.
Media piracy is nothing new. I used to copy my friends albums back in the early 90's to listen to on my walkman, my Mum still has cassettes that she taped from her brothers vinyl's back in the 70's complete with budgie tweeting in the background. The trouble is the Internet has made it very easy to copy digital files so more and more people are doing so.
There are many arguements to the reasons why people pirate, but at the end of the day if someone is going to pirate something, then they will. No matter what you ban, what DRM you put onto things or how cheap you make it, if someone doesn't want to pay for it, they won't.
I'm not sure that's true. There seems to be almost a mythical quality assigned to piracy, no-one can ever stop or even reduce it and it will always be around. Do we assign such qualities to speeding, or tax dodging?
Playing whack-a-mole with one or two sites might not be the best approach, but they are not wrong to try.