[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by Stig

This is a very long thread considering there is no debate: everyone seems to be 'pro piracy'.

There's a difference between 'anti-censorship' and 'pro-piracy'.

[anniebrion]

Originally Posted by Stig

This is a very long thread considering there is no debate: everyone seems to be 'pro piracy'.

I use TPB mainly to download TV Programmes that I cannot record from Sky due to recording clashes or where the schedule misses out episodes ie No Ordinary Family on Watch went fro E1 to E3 so I had to find E2 on TPB.

Technically this is pirating but IMO I've already paid to see the programme so I see nothing wrong with downloading

[Stig]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

There's a difference between 'anti-censorship' and 'pro-piracy'.

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.

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by Stig

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.

The media companies have fought against the internet since day one. They shut down Napster in 2001, yet it's only in the last few years that they (reluctantly) launched music services that give customers what they were asking for all along: Low prices with no DRM playback restrictions.

Digital music sales have since exploded and are expected to overtake physical sales, if they haven't already.

The side effect of this is that the profit margin for digital sales is much lower, and rather than buy a CD with 3 good tracks and 7 so-so ones, customers can now pick and choose which tracks they want, causing album sales to take a nose-dive.

The music industry are finally getting their act together, so where are the services where people can legally purchase, at a fair price, the latest TV shows or movies and play them unrestricted on the device of their choosing?

There just aren't any.

[zx50]

Originally Posted by Stig

This is a very long thread considering there is no debate: everyone seems to be 'pro piracy'.

As far as I know, piracy is when you sell what you've downloaded. Not many people sell what they've downloaded.

[alcockell]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

The media companies have fought against the internet since day one. They shut down Napster in 2001, yet it's only in the last few years that they (reluctantly) launched music services that give customers what they were asking for all along: Low prices with no DRM playback restrictions.

Digital music sales have since exploded and are expected to overtake physical sales, if they haven't already.

The side effect of this is that the profit margin for digital sales is much lower, and rather than buy a CD with 3 good tracks and 7 so-so ones, customers can now pick and choose which tracks they want, causing album sales to take a nose-dive.

The music industry are finally getting their act together, so where are the services where people can legally purchase, at a fair price, the latest TV shows or movies and play them unrestricted on the device of their choosing?

There just aren't any.

Oh... and only have to buy it ONCE.

[Stig]

Originally Posted by zx50

As far as I know, piracy is when you sell what you've downloaded. Not many people sell what they've downloaded.

Oooo, semantics. There's a novel addition the debate.

[Thine Wonk]

Originally Posted by Stig

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.

Well if the serious and organised crime agency stick to things like that I'm sure nobody will have a problem.

If and when they start messing about with copyright issues on behalf of rights holders with old fashioned business models then I'd have a problem with it. The record companies seem to want to close down sharing on an infrastructure specifically built FOR sharing.

Sometimes you have to make a business out of things people want, rather than bitching and wining and trying to stop technology advancing. The music industry didn't like the piano, didn't like VHS and now doesn't like a global infrastructure built around nodes designed to share information and content.

They are under some stupid delusion that they can stop sharing on this infrastructure which is NEVER going to happen.

The internet has made many companies rich and contributed billions to the global economy and made a fortune for those involved in it. The music industry should take a leaf out of Apple's book, or Amazon and look at the success of selling online, rather than that trying to fight it.

If they had put all the money they have put into anti-piracy into projects like iTunes, Netflix and Spotify they would have made a fortune.

What's worse is they are constantly nagging and bribing government to try and restrict the free and open internet, which most sensible people feel is wrong.

There are lots of examples where people can get things free but still pay for them if there's added value, if it's easier or more convenient and if the price is right. Newsgroup subscriptions, bottled water, email services, anti-virus products, software, etc.etc.etc. People do subscribe and buy content, but historically it's often full of copyright notices, DRM'd to hell, not allowed in your country, restricted, and awkward to do, so the easier simpler and more convenient way was to download it via torrents or newsgroups.

People buy expensive things when cheaper alternatives are available. It's just about the record companies adding value and doing it right and giving people reasons to buy from them.

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

The internet has made many companies rich and contributed billions to the global economy and made a fortune for those involved in it. The music industry should take a leaf out of Apple's book, or Amazon and look at the success of selling online, rather than that trying to fight it.

The music industry has just about got it right. If for some reason I wanted Justin Bieber's latest audio nightmare, I could just pop to Amazon, download it for 89p and keep it forever. Not all record companies are OK with selling DRM-free MP3s, but hopefully this will change.

There is NO lawful service anywhere that will let you do that with movies or TV shows, and until there is people will keep using the unlawful service, safe in the knowledge that if certain precautions are taken, they will never be caught.

[johnnybgoode83]

Originally Posted by Stig

This is a very long thread considering there is no debate: everyone seems to be 'pro piracy'.

Not pro piracy. We are anti any form of censorship.

[johnnybgoode83]

Originally Posted by zx50

As far as I know, piracy is when you sell what you've downloaded. Not many people sell what they've downloaded.

Actually piracy is what happens off the coast of Somalia on a regular basis. What we are talking about is copyright infringement.

[paulbrock]

talking of semantics, how is stopping people offering other people's work censorship exactly?

it's rather different from the govvernment/courts stopping people saying or writing their own stuff.

It seems to be no more censorship than stopping someone selling dodgy DVDs in the pubs.

[GetFrodo]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

It seems to be no more censorship than stopping someone selling dodgy DVDs in the pubs.

A great man once said "I disapprove of someone selling dodgy DVDs in the pubs, but I will defend to the death his right to sell me one."

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

It seems to be no more censorship than stopping someone selling dodgy DVDs in the pubs.

Not a good analogy.

The Pirate Bay weren't selling anything or even hosting anything.

A better analogy would be a bloke in a pub handing out lists of places where people can pick up free dodgy DVDs.

[johnnybgoode83]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

talking of semantics, how is stopping people offering other people's work censorship exactly?

it's rather different from the govvernment/courts stopping people saying or writing their own stuff.

It seems to be no more censorship than stopping someone selling dodgy DVDs in the pubs.

It's the first step on a very slippery slope.

First it's sites facilitating copyright infringement. How long before it will be political blogs or sites speaking out against government policy? Certain politicians have already expressed a desire to censor political blogs.

[Nyota]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

There's a difference between 'anti-censorship' and 'pro-piracy'.

Quite.

I'm also anti greed. I spent my teen years being really ripped off in terms of music - albums tended to cost close to £15 back then.

It's also incredibly frustrating that there are so many films and TV shows that aren't legally available in the UK, and might never be.

I consider myself "pro fairness" when it comes to the sharing and accessibility of media.

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by johnnybgoode83

It's the first step on a very slippery slope.

First it's sites facilitating copyright infringement. How long before it will be political blogs or sites speaking out against government policy? Certain politicians have already expressed a desire to censor political blogs.

also not a good comparison. It's not illlegal to speak out aganist government policy or share political views. It is illegal to aid and abet copyright infringement, which is why those that run Pirate Bay were found guilty in a Swedish court. It doesn't matter that they don't host content themselves, or even that they've switched to not even hosting the torrent files. The site is illegal and should be closed down.

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by Nyota

I consider myself "pro fairness" when it comes to the sharing and accessibility of media.

I trust that fairness extends to paying for what you download.

[johnnybgoode83]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

also not a good comparison. It's not illlegal to speak out aganist government policy or share political views. It is illegal to aid and abet copyright infringement, which is why those that run Pirate Bay were found guilty in a Swedish court. It doesn't matter that they don't host content themselves, or even that they've switched to not even hosting the torrent files. The site is illegal and should be closed down.

My point was about censorship. It starts out using 'piracy' or 'terrorism' as an excuse and pretty soon it spreads into anything the government doesn't like.

[johnnybgoode83]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

I trust that fairness extends to paying for what you download.

Show me a site where I can legally download and/or stream US pace TV shows from the UK and I will gladly pay for it.

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by johnnybgoode83

Show me a site where I can legally download and/or stream US pace TV shows from the UK and I will gladly pay for it.

I can show you plenty of ways to put your money in the hands of the rights owners....

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by johnnybgoode83

My point was about censorship. It starts out using 'piracy' or 'terrorism' as an excuse and pretty soon it spreads into anything the government doesn't like.

does it? Is there historical precedent for censorship starting with piracy/terrorism and then spreading into "anything the government doesn't like"?

(I'll add that I've not yet heard a convincing explanation that shutting down Pirate Bay IS censorship.)

[zx50]

Originally Posted by Stig

Oooo, semantics. There's a novel addition the debate.

Well, just saying.

[zx50]

Originally Posted by johnnybgoode83

Actually piracy is what happens off the coast of Somalia on a regular basis. What we are talking about is copyright infringement.

Well, according to Wikipedia:

"Piracy"
The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603. The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized manufacturing and selling of works in copyright. Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale." Piracy traditionally refers to acts intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...t#.22Piracy.22

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

I can show you plenty of ways to put your money in the hands of the rights owners....

That's not what he asked for and you know it.

If the Pirate Bay are aiding and abetting copyright infringement, then so are Google, Bing and every other internet search engine.

In fact Google is much more useful than TPB for finding files since TPB only deals with torrents. Using Google one could find links for just about every method of file sharing from Torrents, to ED2K to Rapidshare (oops, did I just aid and abet too? someone had better censor me before DS gets blocked).

When will they block Google do you think?