Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digital Economy Act 2017

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by cold fusion View Post
    It's not stealing though. Stealing requires one party to have had the item taken so it's not longer in their possession. With piracy the content owners still have the original content. Thus what pirates are doing is copying without concent.

    To use the Ferrari example again, it's like taking a photo of someones Ferrari without their permission.
    It's nothing like taking a photo of a Ferrari

    By streaming a movie, you are viewing without consent, you are experiencing that content in the exact same way as the way the copyright holder intended for you to experience it, in exchange for money.

    You're obtaining something (in this case, the rights to view something) without paying for it. It's stealing.
    Originally posted by coiler
    He'll have the local FBI round his house with all that hash!
    Originally posted by BigIan88
    turn off that sexy nonsense
    Originally posted by Salad Soup
    turns out if you touch a stripper too much and try and get back in after being kicked out, they dont like that!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RandomPC View Post
      I'm not sure about that analogy. It's more like buying a cheap copy of a Ferrari rather than the real thing, so even though you haven't stolen the car from them Ferrari lose out on the potential income. Plus having you driving around in a fake will ruin the image for those who can afford a real one.
      I don't really think your analogy was any better than mine tbh. But no analogy is perfect. The point is no item was stolen.

      The argument about loss of earning is a tough one though. In my opinion there are two types of pirates:

      1. those who do so because they don't want to pay

      2. those who want to pay but either don't like legal services or find the legal services too expensive

      In the case of the former, content owners haven't lost any income because those pirates wouldn't ever have been a customer. In the case of the latter, the content owners have lost income but it's their own fault for not producing a competitive product or pricing customers out of the market.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by omega View Post
        It's nothing like taking a photo of a Ferrari

        By streaming a movie, you are viewing without consent, you are experiencing that content in the exact same way as the way the copyright holder intended for you to experience it, in exchange for money.
        Which is the same copyright law as my example would be breaking. Say if that Ferrari was a custom model and the owner sold photos and posters of it but instead of buying a photo you took your own photo? Same law. Piracy is literally just taking a copy of something. Hence why it's covered under copyright law. The clue is in the name - our legal rights regarding the copying intellectual property.

        Originally posted by omega View Post
        You're obtaining something (in this case, the rights to view something) without paying for it. It's stealing.
        Again, stealing requires an item to lost to the owner. The owner still possess the content that you've streamed. You have not stolen the item, you have copied it.

        It is very important that people don't confuse copying with stealing because it's covered under different laws, they have different practical implications for the owners, and historically the morality behind physical property vs intellectual property has altered quite significantly over the years.

        Comment


        • #19
          OK It is like travelling on a train or bus without paying the fare.
          It is like a tramp sneaking in the back of your car and playing with you wife/girl friend while you are driving.
          In neither case has the owner or genuine user been deprived of the "goods", but I doubt you would be happy, especially in the second example.
          I've not failed. I've just found 10.000 ways that don't work!
          Dave Burnett

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Burn-IT View Post
            OK It is like travelling on a train or bus without paying the fare.
            It is like a tramp sneaking in the back of your car and playing with you wife/girl friend while you are driving.
            In neither case has the owner or genuine user been deprived of the "goods", but I doubt you would be happy, especially in the second example.
            The second example is clearly absurd because my wife is hardly likely to provide me with access to her goods after she's been expertly pleasured by a tramp.

            joking aside, all analogies break apart in serious ways but the crux of the matter is piracy is just unlawful copying. Not stealing, not defecating in a policeman's helmet and then handing that back to his grieving wife. It is simply just copying content without consent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by cold fusion View Post
              It is very important that people don't confuse copying with stealing because it's covered under different laws, they have different practical implications for the owners, and historically the morality behind physical property vs intellectual property has altered quite significantly over the years.
              It's Theft of Services then, to be picky. It's still Theft and something colloquially referred to as stealing, pinching, nicking, whatever
              Originally posted by coiler
              He'll have the local FBI round his house with all that hash!
              Originally posted by BigIan88
              turn off that sexy nonsense
              Originally posted by Salad Soup
              turns out if you touch a stripper too much and try and get back in after being kicked out, they dont like that!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by omega View Post
                It's Theft of Services then, to be picky. It's still Theft and something colloquially referred to as stealing, pinching, nicking, whatever
                It's not even theft of service. That would require the pirate to be using a service without paying. If you pirate a movie (for example) you wouldn't be copying it from Netflix or any of the legal distribution channels (or if you did then you've paid for the service anyway). The content owners literally incur no additional costs if you pirated the movie than if you didn't.

                Arguably the biggest costs incurred would be from ISP with regards to bandwidth traffic. But that too isn't theft of service since anyone who didn't keep up with their broadband payments would get cut off pretty quickly (and probably have a visit from the bailiffs too).

                Comment


                • #23
                  btw as an example of people getting p'd off with companies and what they charge.. you can get all 380 premier league games for 2.30 a month.. in a different country.
                  FILM QUIZ!!!!? Name the film from the quote!!
                  "Right. Better clench up, Legolas"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by cold fusion View Post
                    It's not even theft of service. That would require the pirate to be using a service without paying. If you pirate a movie (for example) you wouldn't be copying it from Netflix or any of the legal distribution channels (or if you did then you've paid for the service anyway). The content owners literally incur no additional costs if you pirated the movie than if you didn't.

                    Arguably the biggest costs incurred would be from ISP with regards to bandwidth traffic. But that too isn't theft of service since anyone who didn't keep up with their broadband payments would get cut off pretty quickly (and probably have a visit from the bailiffs too).
                    So should we not pay for anything which is available digitally?
                    Originally posted by coiler
                    He'll have the local FBI round his house with all that hash!
                    Originally posted by BigIan88
                    turn off that sexy nonsense
                    Originally posted by Salad Soup
                    turns out if you touch a stripper too much and try and get back in after being kicked out, they dont like that!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cold fusion View Post
                      It's not even theft of service. That would require the pirate to be using a service without paying. If you pirate a movie (for example) you wouldn't be copying it from Netflix or any of the legal distribution channels (or if you did then you've paid for the service anyway). The content owners literally incur no additional costs if you pirated the movie than if you didn't.

                      Arguably the biggest costs incurred would be from ISP with regards to bandwidth traffic. But that too isn't theft of service since anyone who didn't keep up with their broadband payments would get cut off pretty quickly (and probably have a visit from the bailiffs too).
                      If you pirate a movie, then you've obtained it from somewhere, it's not yours to own surely? If you watch a pirated movie then you've received 'stolen goods'

                      This is the problem, people using the letter of the law to try and justify something that's clearly wrong.



                      Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by omega View Post
                        So should we not pay for anything which is available digitally?
                        I didn't say that either. Plenty of things are immoral but also not stealing. However I do think piracy is "less bad" than stealing. I also think content holders charge too much and provide too poor a service so are just as much to blame for the proliferation of piracy as those that provide the services for people to pirate. And I think the lobbying content owners do to extend copyright law and penalise pirates as just as immoral as those who pirate. Take Disney for example; they've made their fortune from retelling stories that exist in the public domain yet are ferocious at protecting their own intellectual property. This is why I sympathise with people who do pirate movies and music. Because the industry is largely victimises their own customers (eg the famous unskippable anti-piracy adverts on DVDs which, ironically, featured background music they forgot to licence).

                        However I don't agree with people who pirate independent artists or movie makers. But the greedy corporations who screw over their consumers; the corporations that expect their customers to rebuy all the same content every time a new platform comes out and dictates to them how they can and cannot play the content they've bought; well they can all rot in hell for all I care. If you treat your customers like **** then you have to expect your customers will disappear. And if you try to force a monopoly on a market place while offering a **** service then you can hardly complain if an illegal service manages to fill the void that your customers desperately wanted. This "piracy problem" is of their own making.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shawry View Post
                          If you pirate a movie, then you've obtained it from somewhere, it's not yours to own surely? If you watch a pirated movie then you've received 'stolen goods'
                          Again, It's not stolen so you're not dealing with stolen goods. You're copying something without permission. That's literally all that's happening.
                          Originally posted by shawry View Post
                          This is the problem, people using the letter of the law to try and justify something that's clearly wrong.
                          I'm not justifying piracy. What's happening is you and Omega are trying to redefine the English language to justify piracy being wrong. Which isn't needed. An action doesn't have to be defined as "stealing" for it to be a misdemeanour. The very fact that I've repeated stated "without consent" and "without permission" proves that I acknowledge that piracy is wrong. But that still doesn't make it stealing.

                          Where I sympathise with piracy isn't anything to do with the letter of the law, it's to do with the way copyright holders operate. I don't agree with piracy but I do think the copyright holders are as much to blame. Much like how I don't agree with the lengths some protesters go to but I might agree with the message they're conveying.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think people rather unfairly get on a high horse regarding this issue. Simply put, working classes are struggling to feed their families nevermind have any luxuries in life. Therefore, they are not realistically going to take out expensive subscriptions anyway, so them using Kodi or illegal boxes is not costing the right holders money. It is the same way I used to pirate lots of games as a kid, because my parents were not in a position to buy them and I didn't have income. However, by downloading them I was able to continue to enjoy gaming and when I started working I was able to buy them legally. Same thing for music and films, used Limewire etc like everyone else I knew. However, all my games are now paid for legitimately and I pay for Sky TV, BT Sport, Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime. Bottom line is that demonising those who legitimately cannot afford such services is downright wrong. The majority of people will pay for content if it is affordable to them.
                            Gaming PC: GTX 680 | FX-8320 | 12GB | Asus Crosshair Formula IV | Crucial BX100 250gb and OCZ Agility 3 60gb |1.5tb Storage| Fractal Design Arc R2 | Enermax 700w | Custom Watercooling
                            Laptop: HP Elitebook 2570p - i5 2.8Ghz, 8gb Phone: Huawei P8

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              just take the movies as an example...
                              almost a tenner to go and watch a film. even if you only go once a month, that's 240 per year for a couple to go and watch films and that puts it in "luxury" category of things not needed.
                              if it was still a few pounds here or there, even up to a fiver a ticket it wouldn't be so bad and would actually be affordable..

                              that's 240 per year before my wife decides she wants a drink and popcorn every time which is another of life misery's the price they charge for them. chuck another hundred quid on there comfy.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Popcorn is literally the most marked up item in the UK as it is bought by weight, then popped and sold by volume.

                                Absolute rip off.

                                But then are cinemas really to blame? They don't make much money off the screening itself. It's the food and 3D glasses that earn them the cash

                                So we are once again back at the problem of Hollywood charging too much for their movies. The whole industry is top heavy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X