Court rules UK ISP's must block The Pirate Bay

17810121326

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    The sad part is these free loaders are putting peoples jobs at risk and they just don't care so long as they can carry on getting something for nothing. What a sad indictment of society. Wonder if they had jobs how they would feel if their livelihood was threatened? Mind you I'm asking a question of conscience of people who clearly don't have one. :o

    Add a few paragraphs about illegal immigrant gay single parent benefit scroungers, and the Daily Mail would snap that up.

    If the human race was as fair and conscientious as you think they should be, we wouldn't need speed cameras, airport security or a Police force. It isn't, and so we do.

    I find it amusing that you should use the word "conscience" when talking about an industry that is notorious for not having one.
  • StigglesStiggles Posts: 9,618
    Forum Member
    Faust wrote: »
    The sad part is these free loaders are putting peoples jobs at risk and they just don't care so long as they can carry on getting something for nothing. What a sad indictment of society. Wonder if they had jobs how they would feel if their livelihood was threatened? Mind you I'm asking a question of conscience of people who clearly don't have one. :o

    Proof please? Just one shred of proof of anyone losing their jobs or any artists suffering and having to sell a mansion or 2 will suffice please.

    PS:- Bet you cant......:D
  • StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Stiggles wrote: »
    Proof please? Just one shred of proof of anyone losing their jobs or any artists suffering and having to sell a mansion or 2 will suffice please.

    PS:- Bet you cant......:D

    I can give you a very easy (theoretical) example:
    If you are a game developer running your own independent software house, your profits could be directly liked to sales. For every person that copies your game rather than pay for it, it effects your income. How would you feel then?

    The stereotypical view of Simon Cowell-esque millionaires making money from media is not helpful. As the news this week shows, the people 'at the top' in any industry make a lot of money, be that banking, utilities, manufacturing etc. I'm not going to defend high executive pay.
  • StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Neda_Turk wrote: »
    Easy for people with money to spend to be self-righteous isn't it?

    How lacking in consciousness about how other people live are they?

    Still, I'm asking a question about people who don't care about others and their situations.

    If people have money to spend on broadband, they aren't exactly on the breadline are they? It's amazing how many 'poor' people can afford to smoke and have a Sky subscription, but have to resort to downloads rather than buy a DVD.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    Neda_Turk wrote: »
    Easy for people with money to spend to be self-righteous isn't it?

    How lacking in consciousness about how other people live are they?

    Still, I'm asking a question about people who don't care about others and their situations.

    Get a grip! :D If you don't have the money to spend buying music/films etc then just do without - there is no requirement in life to have them.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    Stiggles wrote: »
    Proof please? Just one shred of proof of anyone losing their jobs or any artists suffering and having to sell a mansion or 2 will suffice please.

    PS:- Bet you cant......:D

    Are you living in a fantasy world? Only the people at the very top have the big incomes - all the others have to work hard for a living =, backing singers, session musicians, studio engineers, jobing muscicians - they all rely on the ever decreasing pot of money as well.

    People need to get away from the idea that it's only super rich people that are being affected by this.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alan1302 wrote: »
    Get a grip! :D If you don't have the money to spend buying music/films etc then just do without - there is no requirement in life to have them.
    Must be a depressing and dull life for someone to stare at a wall all night in silence.

    "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" and all that.

    And anyone who thinks the blocking of the Pirate Bay is just about tackling piracy, it isn't. I believe I have explained the way Claire Perry MP and ultimately the Government would love to go with censorship in the UK - piracy is just a ruse, and a precedecent has already been set with debates around SOPA and PIPA.

    I would not consider freedom and free speech an "extra" where someone poor should "just do without - there is no requirement in life to have them".
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    I would not consider freedom and free speech an "extra" where someone poor should "just do without - there is no requirement in life to have them".

    Freedom and free speach is available for anyone in the country - free music/videos/films is not. That's just a fact of life and it doesn't mean you just have to stare at a wall alnight...unless you really are dull and enjoy that kind of thing.
  • StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And anyone who thinks the blocking of the Pirate Bay is just about tackling piracy, it isn't. I believe I have explained the way Claire Perry MP and ultimately the Government would love to go with censorship in the UK - piracy is just a ruse, and a precedecent has already been set with debates around SOPA and PIPA.
    Conspiracy theorists unite!
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    Conspiracy theorists unite!
    That's not a conspiracy theory because it doesn't fit your thoughts, that's a statement Perry made on public record on the Today programme last Tuesday on BBC Radio 4! And from what I recall, the RIAA and MPAA were very dismissive of critics of SOPA and PIPA, dissming said opponents as supporters of piracy.

    Unless now anything said against the Daily Mail, BPI, PRS For Music, media conglomerates and the Government is now being dismissed as conspiracy theorists and "anti-capitalist extremists" who "condone" piracy, pornography, child grooming and other Internet related illegal and immoral activity?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    Faust wrote: »
    The sad part is these free loaders are putting peoples jobs at risk and they just don't care so long as they can carry on getting something for nothing. What a sad indictment of society. Wonder if they had jobs how they would feel if their livelihood was threatened? Mind you I'm asking a question of conscience of people who clearly don't have one. :o

    But you keep saying that. It may be true, but where?. Where is the evidence that big media companies are shedding jobs because of piracy? (independent links will do).

    And as for bringing conscience into it, I am afraid that is a non starter too. Do the big media companies have a conscience?. There are many, many examples of these big global companies using highly immoral tactics themselves. Of course two wrongs don't make a right, but you can hardly accuse those who pirate of having no conscience or morals given the behaviour of the big record companies especially. If you want to take the moral high ground in issues such as this it pays for the industry to put it's own morals in order before using that argument I am afraid. The big media companies and their anti piracy groups have no problems trying to sue 12 year old girls, no problems bullying governments into toeing the line and censoring parts of the internet they don't like, no problems pirating each other's product on a massive scale when it benefits them, no problems paying shady companies and lawyers to use bullying tactics and threats to get people to pay without going to court, no problems with these companies acting on their behalf not actually paying the money they raise to them or their artists, no problems trying to sue any new startup companies with a better business model out of existence instead of working with them and no problem bribing governments around the World to introduce ever draconian laws to protect their business.

    Where was your industry's conscience when it all went south for Andrew Crossley of ACS Law?. The industry was happy to work with him when it looked like his abhorrent tactics might work, but as soon as thing started to go wrong they ran for the hills and left him to be thrown to the wolves. Where were the lawyers of the big media companies who could have helped him fight the court cases?.

    Your own industry needs to get it's own house in order and then it can take the moral high ground and talk about conscience. That's one of the major problems with this argument, people (especially teenagers and hardcore pirates) simply wont accept an industry known for it's vast corruption and often immoral practices trying to preach to them about conscience and morals.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    Stig wrote: »
    Conspiracy theorists unite!

    So anyone who is against such proposals, even from a point of view of anti-censorship and freedom of the internet, is a conspiracy theorist?.

    I see how it works. If you are against some of the more draconian parts of anti-terror legislation for any reason then you must be a terrorist supporter, if you are against ever increasing censorship in the name of protecting children then you must be a paedophile sympathiser, if you are against ever increasing censorship of the internet in the name of fighting piracy you must be a pirate yourself. Is that how it goes?
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    So anyone who is against such proposals, even from a point of view of self-censorship and freedom of the internet, is a conspiracy theorist?.

    I see how it works. If you are against some of the more draconian parts of anti-teror legislation for any reason then you must be a terrorist supporter, if you are against ever increasing censorship in the name of protecting children then you must be a paedophile sympathiser, if you are against ever increasing censorship of the internet in the name of fighting piracy you must be a pirate yourself. Is that how it goes?
    that would appear to be the logical sequence in Stig's mind yes.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    But you keep saying that. It may be true, but where?. Where is the evidence that big media companies are shedding jobs because of piracy? (independent links will do).

    And as for bringing conscience into it, I am afraid that is a non starter too. Do the big media companies have a conscience?. There are many, many examples of these big global companies using highly immoral tactics themselves. Of course two wrongs don't make a right, but you can hardly accuse those who pirate of having no conscience or morals given the behaviour of the big record companies especially. If you want to take the moral high ground in issues such as this it pays for the industry to put it's own morals in order before using that argument I am afraid. The big media companies and their anti piracy groups have no problems trying to sue 12 year old girls, no problems bullying governments into toeing the line and censoring parts of the internet they don't like, no problems pirating each other's product on a massive scale when it benefits them, no problems paying shady companies and lawyers to use bullying tactics and threats to get people to pay without going to court, no problems with these companies acting on their behalf not actually paying the money they raise to them or their artists, no problems trying to sue any new startup companies with a better business model out of existence instead of working with them and no problem bribing governments around the World to introduce ever draconian laws to protect their business.

    Where was your industry's conscience when it all went south for Andrew Crossley of ACS Law?. The industry was happy to work with him when it looked like his abhorrent tactics might work, but as soon as thing started to go wrong they ran for the hills and left him to be thrown to the wolves. Where were the lawyers of the big media companies who could have helped him fight the court cases?.

    Your own industry needs to get it's own house in order and then it can take the moral high ground and talk about conscience. That's one of the major problems with this argument, people (especially teenagers and hardcore pirates) simply wont accept an industry known for it's vast corruption and often immoral practices trying to preach to them about conscience and morals.

    So you think they are not shedding jobs because of piracy? Why do you think they are shedding jobs then?

    Surely it’s pretty obvious that is people are downloading music/films without paying for them all the time then less money goes into a company and so the company sheds jobs as it can’t afford to have as many people on the pay roll. If not why do you think they are slimming down their operations and merging companies together?

    Can people who are doing something that would be classed as immoral, pirating/copying/distributing music/films, then complain that a company is also immoral?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alan1302 wrote: »
    So you think they are not shedding jobs because of piracy? Why do you think they are shedding jobs then?

    Surely it’s pretty obvious that is people are downloading music/films without paying for them all the time then less money goes into a company and so the company sheds jobs as it can’t afford to have as many people on the pay roll. If not why do you think they are slimming down their operations and merging companies together?

    Can people who are doing something that would be classed as immoral, pirating/copying/distributing music/films, then complain that a company is also immoral?

    Despite the "pirate's" best efforts, The Avengers has managed to set a box office record, even though a version of the movie was leaked online before its official release.

    How do you explain that?

    Every company is "slimming down" and becoming more efficient. Name one industry where this isn't the case.

    One example is that scenes which used to need an army of set/model builders and makeup artists, can now be done by a few digital artists using VFX.
  • alcockellalcockell Posts: 25,160
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alan1302 wrote: »
    So you think they are not shedding jobs because of piracy? Why do you think they are shedding jobs then?

    Surely it’s pretty obvious that is people are downloading music/films without paying for them all the time then less money goes into a company and so the company sheds jobs as it can’t afford to have as many people on the pay roll. If not why do you think they are slimming down their operations and merging companies together?

    Can people who are doing something that would be classed as immoral, pirating/copying/distributing music/films, then complain that a company is also immoral?
    The middlemen are also accused of creative ways of burying revenue from even the legit online retailers - as can be seen by complaints from artists. Even though the retailers are playing aboveboard with licensors.

    There is also the argument that your industry's own actions have, to an extent, brought this on yourselves. Price-gouging during the 80s and 90s is well-remembered.

    It's a global market now. if you facilitated stuff being released widely in open publicly-specced formats, got the FOSS community on your side (eg when they offer to put DRM logic into Moonlight - LET THEM), phased out the idea of region-locking etc...

    A lot of what you call "piracy" is driven by people wanting your content - but they can't get it legitimately in their market - or there are too many hoops around it. People want to play that content whenever, wherever and on a device of their own choice. Make it easy to obtain, beat the pirates on service - and you'll reap the benefits. Like the music industry is now.
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    alan1302 wrote: »
    So you think they are not shedding jobs because of piracy? Why do you think they are shedding jobs then?

    Surely it’s pretty obvious that is people are downloading music/films without paying for them all the time then less money goes into a company and so the company sheds jobs as it can’t afford to have as many people on the pay roll. If not why do you think they are slimming down their operations and merging companies together?

    Can people who are doing something that would be classed as immoral, pirating/copying/distributing music/films, then complain that a company is also immoral?

    presumably the banking, automotive, building, agricultural and every other sector is shedding jobs because of piracy too?

    or without piracy the entertainment sector would be immune from the economic down turn and the reduction in labour brought about by the use of technology?
  • StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    that would appear to be the logical sequence in Stig's mind yes.
    Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    Can we have a rational debate please? The Internet is already 'censored'. As quoted above, sites selling people's credit card details are removed. Child porn sites are blocked. Browsing the web via a mobile data contract already has an 'opt in' for adult content. These are the current realities.

    There are people who try to kill a logical debate on the realities of content filtering by suggesting there is some kind of governement plan to censor the Internet. The UK and US are surely the most 'pro free speech' governments in the world. The UK and US also have the largest media industries. There is a compromise to be found.
  • alcockellalcockell Posts: 25,160
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jittlov wrote: »
    Despite the "pirate's" best efforts, The Avengers has managed to set a box office record, even though a version of the movie was leaked online before its official release.

    How do you explain that?

    Every company is "slimming down" and becoming more efficient. Name one industry where this isn't the case.

    One example is that scenes which used to need an army of set/model builders and makeup artists, can now be done by a few digital artists using VFX.
    Jittlov, could it be that the massive box office was partially *because* of people viewing the workprint that made it out?
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    Stig wrote: »
    Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    Can we have a rational debate please? The Internet is already 'censored'. As quoted above, sites selling people's credit card details are removed. Child porn sites are blocked. Browsing the web via a mobile data contract already has an 'opt in' for adult content. These are the current realities.

    There are people who try to kill a logical debate on the realities of content filtering by suggesting there is some kind of governement plan to censor the Internet. The UK and US are surely the most 'pro free speech' governments in the world. The UK and US also have the largest media industries. There is a compromise to be found.

    balls.

    nobody is trying to kill the debate they just fundamentally disagree with your point of view.

    it's ironic that you accuse people of trying to kill the debate when you have thus far contributed nothing to the debate, except to criticise everyone in this thread and the very nature of their discussion:
    Stig wrote: »
    This is a very long thread considering there is no debate: everyone seems to be 'pro piracy'.
    Stig wrote: »
    SOCA recently closed down 36 websites selling credit card details. Are you 'anti' that?

    Any freedoms have to have sensible limits before they infringe on the freedom of others. What I'm saying is there is lots of ranting but few suggestions for a better solution. Saying "there's nothing you can do about it" is a poor argument.
    Stig wrote: »
    Oooo, semantics. There's a novel addition the debate. :rolleyes:
    Stig wrote: »
    As far as I know there is no government on the planet (including China and the Middle Eastern states) who block VPN, so the chances of this happening in the UK are nil.

    This type of paranoia does not help the digital media debate.
    Stig wrote: »
    You can't be bothered to read the thread then? :p
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17951067
    Stig wrote: »
    I can give you a very easy (theoretical) example:
    If you are a game developer running your own independent software house, your profits could be directly liked to sales. For every person that copies your game rather than pay for it, it effects your income. How would you feel then?

    The stereotypical view of Simon Cowell-esque millionaires making money from media is not helpful. As the news this week shows, the people 'at the top' in any industry make a lot of money, be that banking, utilities, manufacturing etc. I'm not going to defend high executive pay.
    Stig wrote: »
    If people have money to spend on broadband, they aren't exactly on the breadline are they? It's amazing how many 'poor' people can afford to smoke and have a Sky subscription, but have to resort to downloads rather than buy a DVD.

    who is putting words in someone's mouth. who is undermining the debate. who is making sweeping assumptions and who has contributed nothing to move the debate forward?
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    Jittlov wrote: »
    Despite the "pirate's" best efforts, The Avengers has managed to set a box office record, even though a version of the movie was leaked online before its official release.

    How do you explain that?

    Every company is "slimming down" and becoming more efficient. Name one industry where this isn't the case.

    One example is that scenes which used to need an army of set/model builders and makeup artists, can now be done by a few digital artists using VFX.

    That’s easy to explain – most people still down download illegaly off the net so still need to go to the cinema to see the latest film. Also lots of people actually enjoy going to the cinema to watch a film on a huge screen which is impossible for most people to do at home. Also ticket prices have increased in recent years at cinemas but attendances have not so box office receipts on big films are up but the number of people visiting hasn’t. Also 3D screenings cost more to watch which has helped push box office grosses higher than they have been before, as has inflation.

    Also looking at huge blockbuster films is not the best way to look at things at they skew the market – look at the smaller budget, more niche films and see how they are faring. Are they doing as well?

    Yes, most, if not all industries are slimming down but the entertainment industry seems to be doing it a lot more than most – they are putting their money into few projects and so require less people.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    alcockell wrote: »
    The middlemen are also accused of creative ways of burying revenue from even the legit online retailers - as can be seen by complaints from artists. Even though the retailers are playing aboveboard with licensors.

    There is also the argument that your industry's own actions have, to an extent, brought this on yourselves. Price-gouging during the 80s and 90s is well-remembered.

    It's a global market now. if you facilitated stuff being released widely in open publicly-specced formats, got the FOSS community on your side (eg when they offer to put DRM logic into Moonlight - LET THEM), phased out the idea of region-locking etc...

    A lot of what you call "piracy" is driven by people wanting your content - but they can't get it legitimately in their market - or there are too many hoops around it. People want to play that content whenever, wherever and on a device of their own choice. Make it easy to obtain, beat the pirates on service - and you'll reap the benefits. Like the music industry is now.

    My industry? If I facillitated stuff being opened up publicly? Think you may have confused me with Richard Branson or someone.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    I can give you a very easy (theoretical) example:
    If you are a game developer running your own independent software house, your profits could be directly liked to sales. For every person that copies your game rather than pay for it, it effects your income. How would you feel then?

    The big assumption there is that every person who copies your game would have otherwise purchased it.

    The anti-piracy forces operate under the same assumption: that every download is a lost sale.

    Of course this is not the case, but since there is no way of knowing who would have otherwise paid, it's easier to assume that everybody would.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    flagpole wrote: »
    presumably the banking, automotive, building, agricultural and every other sector is shedding jobs because of piracy too?

    or without piracy the entertainment sector would be immune from the economic down turn and the reduction in labour brought about by the use of technology?

    Well, obviously banking is struggling because of ho they managed their money which has affected every other industry – so no obviously not due to piracy – although piracy off the coast of Somailia has affected shipping costs…

    Without piracy the entertainment industry would not be immune from the economic downturn – that would be a stupid thing to say…nothing is immune to it. It would be better placed to protect itself and the jobs that it supports without piracy though.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    Jittlov wrote: »
    The big assumption there is that every person who copies your game would have otherwise purchased it.

    The anti-piracy forces operate under the same assumption: that every download is a lost sale.

    Of course this is not the case, but since there is no way of knowing who would have otherwise paid, it's easier to assume that everybody would.

    That is a problem that there is in deciding how much of a problem piracy is within the industry. It will fall somewhere in between those two – obviously someone that pirates something would not necessarily have bought it but then on the other hand they may have.

    Where do you think it falls?
Sign In or Register to comment.