Pirated media - MPA trying to force BT to prevent access to site
#2
It's ridiculous really, it is the same notion as banning all forums because one forum is a kiddie **** based, similar legislation they are trying to use.
In any case, Usenet users, on the whole are more technical savvy, I can think off the top of my head about five ways round a proposed block, so what are they really trying to achieve?
It will set a dangerous president if it is upheld.
In any case, Usenet users, on the whole are more technical savvy, I can think off the top of my head about five ways round a proposed block, so what are they really trying to achieve?
It will set a dangerous president if it is upheld.
#5
What is your opinion if you download a film, that you already own on bluray, but want a digital copy? It is quicker in some cases to download it than rip it and encode it.
To top it off, Hollywood made record profits last year, but then moan they are losing money because of pirates with no evidence to back that statement up.
#6
If the industry was smart they'd take on this manifesto, but they're not
http://www.dontmakemesteal.com
http://www.dontmakemesteal.com
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imo, a lot of the content is downloaded because 1. the UK and other countries, can not access that content any other way (US TV show for example) and 2, downloaded content is 98% of the time a better product, not being forced to watch FBI warnings and other gruff at the start of films that can last upto 4 minutes.
What is your opinion if you download a film, that you already own on bluray, but want a digital copy? It is quicker in some cases to download it than rip it and encode it.
To top it off, Hollywood made record profits last year, but then moan they are losing money because of pirates with no evidence to back that statement up.
What is your opinion if you download a film, that you already own on bluray, but want a digital copy? It is quicker in some cases to download it than rip it and encode it.
To top it off, Hollywood made record profits last year, but then moan they are losing money because of pirates with no evidence to back that statement up.
So what if Hollywood made record profits, since when did a company making a profit give anyone carte blanche to steal that company's product?
Besides it's not all about big business. Small companies or even individuals develop software, films, programmes etc. and then watch as Joe Public downloads them for free from Torrent sites and the likes. Why is that fair?
There needs to be a culture shift as for some reaosn the Internet generation think nothing of diownloading a film illegally yet they wouldn't steal a DVD from a shop. That is the issue that needs fixing most!
Last edited by f1_fan; 28 June 2011 at 05:22 PM.
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 52 Festive Road
Posts: 28,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#9
Nope, what are they going to do, block Usenet? Usenet is the internet.
It's not stealing though is it, if I rob a film from a shop, I am +1 film the shop is -1 film. If I download a film, I have a film and the uploaded still has a film, it is nothing more than a copyright infringement and this stands true with every court in our land.
Making media available to everyone, every ware at the same time, for reasonable money is doable, it is red tape and a dieing monopoly that is holding it back and ultimately it will not be the consumer that loses out.
There are thousands of people making mega money from music, media and software and have never sold a copy it in there life. The difference is they make something that is very good and people do literally donate hundreds to them to continue doing it.
Oh come on, downloading pirated media is rife and you know it. The above is just the usual arguments trotted out by those happy to break the law and try and justify it.
So what if Hollywood made record profits, since when did a company making a profit give anyone carte blanche to steal that company's product?
Besides it's not all about big business. Small companies or even individuals develop software, films, programmes etc. and then watch as Joe Public downloads them for free from Torrent sites and the likes. Why is that fair?
There needs to be a culture shift as for some reaosn the Internet generation think nothing of diownloading a film illegally yet they wouldn't steal a DVD from a shop. That is the issue that needs fixing most!
So what if Hollywood made record profits, since when did a company making a profit give anyone carte blanche to steal that company's product?
Besides it's not all about big business. Small companies or even individuals develop software, films, programmes etc. and then watch as Joe Public downloads them for free from Torrent sites and the likes. Why is that fair?
There needs to be a culture shift as for some reaosn the Internet generation think nothing of diownloading a film illegally yet they wouldn't steal a DVD from a shop. That is the issue that needs fixing most!
Making media available to everyone, every ware at the same time, for reasonable money is doable, it is red tape and a dieing monopoly that is holding it back and ultimately it will not be the consumer that loses out.
There are thousands of people making mega money from music, media and software and have never sold a copy it in there life. The difference is they make something that is very good and people do literally donate hundreds to them to continue doing it.
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, what are they going to do, block Usenet? Usenet is the internet.
It's not stealing though is it, if I rob a film from a shop, I am +1 film the shop is -1 film. If I download a film, I have a film and the uploaded still has a film, it is nothing more than a copyright infringement and this stands true with every court in our land.
Making media available to everyone, every ware at the same time, for reasonable money is doable, it is red tape and a dieing monopoly that is holding it back and ultimately it will not be the consumer that loses out.
There are thousands of people making mega money from music, media and software and have never sold a copy it in there life. The difference is they make something that is very good and people do literally donate hundreds to them to continue doing it.
It's not stealing though is it, if I rob a film from a shop, I am +1 film the shop is -1 film. If I download a film, I have a film and the uploaded still has a film, it is nothing more than a copyright infringement and this stands true with every court in our land.
Making media available to everyone, every ware at the same time, for reasonable money is doable, it is red tape and a dieing monopoly that is holding it back and ultimately it will not be the consumer that loses out.
There are thousands of people making mega money from music, media and software and have never sold a copy it in there life. The difference is they make something that is very good and people do literally donate hundreds to them to continue doing it.
Look if I write a piece of software and charge £200 for it and someone downloads it and uses it without paying I HAVE lost £200.
The courts can call it copyright infringement if they wish, but I call it theft!!
Eiter way soemthing I created is being used by someone else for free and that is not right!!
#11
If it is a good enough piece of software and you have it patented, you could easy make several hundred thousand pounds selling it to a big company, if it is not so good, then trying to sell it to consumers on a free market isn't going to net you big profits, especially when that product is likely free and open source.
A download doesn't automatically equate to a lost sale either, for many reasons, eg, they might never had any intention to buy it anyway, downloaded it and never used it etc
A download doesn't automatically equate to a lost sale either, for many reasons, eg, they might never had any intention to buy it anyway, downloaded it and never used it etc
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
There are only 2 seemingly appropriate actions to take, 1 is to take action against the website and its owners that make the pirated software/films available, 2 is to take action against those who download.
Its virtually impossible for an ISP to block a site when there are so many other ways around getting to said site.
Tony
Its virtually impossible for an ISP to block a site when there are so many other ways around getting to said site.
Tony
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
The site has already closed down once due to court action from the film companies and Sony, two weeks later it was back up and running and called Newzbin 2. So there will always be someone to bring it back up plus the encrypted lines you use to down load stuff from thier site means its not asw easy to catch people as it is who file share
#15
Scooby Regular
The internet is the great leveler. Let's try and keep it that way.
Why does anyone have a right to stop you sharing whatever information you like if you can do so without stealing actual property? When you share information, you aren't stealing anything. It's a case of copying something which exists and using it for your good. Why shouldn't the average joe be able to circulate this stuff free of charge?
To be honest, justifying it isn't very difficult. Since when did someone have the divine right to a certain sound or set of images? If you can give a cogent answer to that you'll be doing well.
But they're not stealing someone's property, are they? In the same way that someone taking a look at a desk I'd made and copying it wouldn't be stealing from me.
Why does anyone have a right to stop you sharing whatever information you like if you can do so without stealing actual property? When you share information, you aren't stealing anything. It's a case of copying something which exists and using it for your good. Why shouldn't the average joe be able to circulate this stuff free of charge?
But they're not stealing someone's property, are they? In the same way that someone taking a look at a desk I'd made and copying it wouldn't be stealing from me.
#16
Scooby Regular
Again, you had no divine right to the £200 in the first place. You were merely trying to get them to agree to give you it. Once the software was copied, they had no reason to give you the money. If you don't want it copied, it's up to you to ensure that it can't be. Or the other option (which is what you're doing) - try to get force on your side to ensure people aren't allowed to freely copy it: in this case using state legislation and the police, courts etc.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 28 June 2011 at 07:41 PM.
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see I am on to a loser here. Obviously it is perfectly OK for anyone creating any sort of media accessible electornically to have it ripped off by the dishonest numb set of ***** that seem to think the Internet is a freeloaders paradise!!!
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cornwall
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you get burgled then unless they were after bullions in which case it would of been highly thought abought then yes in most cases it is the home owners fault there house was burgled and not the 1 next to it,most cases are because the house/property was insecure or easier to access than the next place
#19
Interesting..
Movie studio Paramount are adept at sending out cease and desist notices, having engaged in the activity for many years. However, while the vast majority are related to solely digital activities such as the unauthorized distribution of movies and TV shows, a recent takedown notice has a very interesting ‘real-world’ twist – the recreation of a physical object from digital data.
As the world is introduced to new technology, things that were previously thought impossible become an everyday occurrence. Telling someone a few hundred years ago that you could deliver a letter to someone on the other side of the world in under a second would result in a rather warm encounter with a stake, yet now with the advent of email its a rather boring event.
Similarly, the developing movie and music industries could not have envisioned their hefty inflammable film reels and cumbersome wax phonograph cylinders being subjected to the same treatment. Times and capabilities change, and with that come new challenges for existing business models.
While the movie industry frets over modern-day illicit digital access to its movies, another relatively small but important front has just opened – the unauthorized amateur creation of related merchandising. These items aren’t being mass-produced by sweat-shops in the Far East, but by creative individuals utilizing the latest in cutting-edge replication equipment – 3D printers.
One such individual, Todd Blatt, a mechanical engineer from Baltimore, offers some rather interesting items featured in the movie Inception, such as the spinning top used by lead character Cobb to test reality.
Blatt makes digital models of the items he sees in movies and sends them off to 3D printing site Shapeways. They recreate the items in a range of materials from plastic to metal and offer them for sale online.
But while the Inception items appear to have flown under the radar, a model Blatt made of another movie prop grabbed the attention of a rather large movie studio.
On June 8th Blatt announced on theRPF.com movie prop fansite that he was recreating the distinctive cube-shaped items from the Stephen Spielberg movie ‘Super 8‘. On June 9th he uploaded the files to Shapeways.
By June 10th, Blatt had received unwelcome contact from Hollywood lawyers and all his posts on theRPF were quickly edited out.
“Paramount Pictures’ lawyers sent me a cease and desist letter on Friday for a model I uploaded on Thursday night, and told me to take it down,” Blatt explained.
“It was a replica white funky cube shaped object from their new movie. I complied. I don’t want to sit in a courtroom for the rest of the year. I am no longer offering these for sale, and am complying with Paramount’s demands.”
The object in Super 8
“It’s purely just a fan creation and only one exists, which I ordered for myself before receiving the C&D letter,” Blatt explains. “There is a company called Quantum Mechanix (QMx) which will be selling licensed replicas soon, and if you’re a fan you should order one from them.”
Sending a cease and desist for this kind of item produced in this fashion is certainly unusual, but it raises interesting points. Currently only creative people like Todd Blatt who are silled at design by trade are easily able to replicate a complex design. Equally, only companies like Shapeways can pull off the hardware side with the required cost-effective ease.
However, just as technology eventually morphed to allow physical film reels and waxy cylinders to be transmitted and reproduced by anyone, in their own homes and with close to zero training, history tells us that we should be prepared for further surprises.
We will all have 3D printers connected to our computers in the not too distant future but when Star Trek-style replicators have already whetted the appetite, man won’t be happy until science-fiction becomes science fact.
Hollywood created the replicator, but will they and other rightsholders be able to kill it? Only stricter copyright laws can provide the solution, or so they would have us believe.
As the world is introduced to new technology, things that were previously thought impossible become an everyday occurrence. Telling someone a few hundred years ago that you could deliver a letter to someone on the other side of the world in under a second would result in a rather warm encounter with a stake, yet now with the advent of email its a rather boring event.
Similarly, the developing movie and music industries could not have envisioned their hefty inflammable film reels and cumbersome wax phonograph cylinders being subjected to the same treatment. Times and capabilities change, and with that come new challenges for existing business models.
While the movie industry frets over modern-day illicit digital access to its movies, another relatively small but important front has just opened – the unauthorized amateur creation of related merchandising. These items aren’t being mass-produced by sweat-shops in the Far East, but by creative individuals utilizing the latest in cutting-edge replication equipment – 3D printers.
One such individual, Todd Blatt, a mechanical engineer from Baltimore, offers some rather interesting items featured in the movie Inception, such as the spinning top used by lead character Cobb to test reality.
Blatt makes digital models of the items he sees in movies and sends them off to 3D printing site Shapeways. They recreate the items in a range of materials from plastic to metal and offer them for sale online.
But while the Inception items appear to have flown under the radar, a model Blatt made of another movie prop grabbed the attention of a rather large movie studio.
On June 8th Blatt announced on theRPF.com movie prop fansite that he was recreating the distinctive cube-shaped items from the Stephen Spielberg movie ‘Super 8‘. On June 9th he uploaded the files to Shapeways.
By June 10th, Blatt had received unwelcome contact from Hollywood lawyers and all his posts on theRPF were quickly edited out.
“Paramount Pictures’ lawyers sent me a cease and desist letter on Friday for a model I uploaded on Thursday night, and told me to take it down,” Blatt explained.
“It was a replica white funky cube shaped object from their new movie. I complied. I don’t want to sit in a courtroom for the rest of the year. I am no longer offering these for sale, and am complying with Paramount’s demands.”
The object in Super 8
“It’s purely just a fan creation and only one exists, which I ordered for myself before receiving the C&D letter,” Blatt explains. “There is a company called Quantum Mechanix (QMx) which will be selling licensed replicas soon, and if you’re a fan you should order one from them.”
Sending a cease and desist for this kind of item produced in this fashion is certainly unusual, but it raises interesting points. Currently only creative people like Todd Blatt who are silled at design by trade are easily able to replicate a complex design. Equally, only companies like Shapeways can pull off the hardware side with the required cost-effective ease.
However, just as technology eventually morphed to allow physical film reels and waxy cylinders to be transmitted and reproduced by anyone, in their own homes and with close to zero training, history tells us that we should be prepared for further surprises.
We will all have 3D printers connected to our computers in the not too distant future but when Star Trek-style replicators have already whetted the appetite, man won’t be happy until science-fiction becomes science fact.
Hollywood created the replicator, but will they and other rightsholders be able to kill it? Only stricter copyright laws can provide the solution, or so they would have us believe.
#20
Scooby Regular
Utter BS, that is like saying it is up to me to prevent my house being burgled and I shouldn't complain when it is as obviously I didn't do enough to stop it.
I can see I am on to a loser here. Obviously it is perfectly OK for anyone creating any sort of media accessible electornically to have it ripped off by the dishonest numb set of ***** that seem to think the Internet is a freeloaders paradise!!!
I can see I am on to a loser here. Obviously it is perfectly OK for anyone creating any sort of media accessible electornically to have it ripped off by the dishonest numb set of ***** that seem to think the Internet is a freeloaders paradise!!!
To be honest I think the world would be slightly improved if, rather than a burglar breaking into your house, they simply observed the possessions through your window and took notes on how to make them for themselves.
It's nothing to do with freeloading. It says more about your attitude that you want people to pay you for the privilege of something they could quite easily get for free... just because you 'thought it up'. Nothing more than disadvantaging others for financial gain, yet you're supposedly anti-Thatcherite - dismantling of the social fabric of Britain ( please). As I said, if you want to take that attitude then you need to make sure it isn't possible for anyone to copy it.
Where's the unwritten rule that musicians and the like are entitled to millions of pounds and nice houses and cars etc from singles and album sales? Oh but they supposedly 'need' that reward, otherwise we would have no music and passion in the arts. Yeah, sure, because it's not as if music has been loved by humans ever since we've been able to make something resembling it or anything.
Musicians would even still be rich without these rights anyway, since touring would still net them a fortune, and you can't copy that.
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
It's nothing to do with freeloading. It says more about your attitude that you want people to pay you for the privilege of something they could quite easily get for free... just because you 'thought it up'. Nothing more than disadvantaging others for financial gain ...
Writing good software takes massive amounts of effort, as does writing a good book, producing a good film, or making a full CD's worth of good music, so telling the people who expended that effort that they're not entitled to recoup a single bit of it in the form of financial recompense isn't just theft, it's downright insulting.
#25
Scooby Regular
If you honestly believe that the only reason people download pirated software (or books, or music, or films), is because they're legally prohibited from making their own just-as-good equivalents by some kind of patent protection on the original (this is what you appear to be saying here), my only advice to you is to put down the crack-pipe and go and stick your head in a bucket of water.
Writing good software takes massive amounts of effort, as does writing a good book, producing a good film, or making a full CD's worth of good music, so telling the people who expended that effort that they're not entitled to recoup a single bit of it in the form of financial recompense isn't just theft, it's downright insulting.
Writing good software takes massive amounts of effort, as does writing a good book, producing a good film, or making a full CD's worth of good music, so telling the people who expended that effort that they're not entitled to recoup a single bit of it in the form of financial recompense isn't just theft, it's downright insulting.
With regards to how good or useful the information being copyrighted is, what difference does that make to the principle concerned (which I've outlined above)?
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Doesn't the very fact you're downloading that information in the first place prove that you think it's worth having, and therefore good or useful? Hoist by your own petard, sunshine.
#27
Scooby Regular
My interpretation of what you actually typed was perfectly valid, so maybe you should try to express what you actually meant slightly more clearly and unambiguously.
Doesn't the very fact you're downloading that information in the first place prove that you think it's worth having, and therefore good or useful? Hoist by your own petard, sunshine.
Doesn't the very fact you're downloading that information in the first place prove that you think it's worth having, and therefore good or useful? Hoist by your own petard, sunshine.
I haven't been hoisted by anything either, as I didn't suggest they weren't of value in the first place. You've misinterprated it, so no, it isn't perfectly valid, it's a completely different argument. Try again.
#28
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
1. 'Theft' of copyright material without the physical media isn't real theft, because the original owner isn't deprived of an original physical possession.
(my comment: remember folks, nothing you see on your screen is real, because the actual physical object it's displayed on hasn't actually moved or changed. None of this virtual stuff is really there at all!)
2. Burglars could make themselves more popular if they ceased to actually be burglars, and instead laboriously made copies of things other people own (my comment: they of course couldn't do this by simply looking at pictures of those things in magazines or on websites, they'd still have to break into people's houses for it to work properly )
3. It's unreasonable for people to demand payment for the resale of copyright material, when their only claim to 'ownership' of it was that they created that material using nothing but their own brain power.
(my comment: who cares if I spent 6 months sweating over an old type-writer, painstakingly researching this or that subject to write next summer's can't-put-down novel, or months straining my eyes into the small hours in front of a bank of computer screens coding a game that'll keep you and your friends entertained for hours every weekend for the next two years, so far as Glesgakiss is concerned my time and effort isn't worth ****)
4. Anyone who demands such payment for copyright material is solely responsible for preventing any and all persons from obtaining it without payment, and by sole virtue of the fact that any person might find some means of doing so immediately forfeits all right of complaint about it.
(my comment: it's not glesgakiss's fault I didn't market my music, or software, or book, on a medium that wasn't harder to rip off, it's mine! I mean, what was stopping me from completely re-designing the CD or CD-ROM format so people wouldn't be able to rip them as ISOs and upload them to the web? It only took Sony and Philips 5 years and a few tens of millions of dollars to come up with the original formats, so what's my excuse for not doing it all over again, only with security built-in?)
5. It's completely unreasonable that anyone who makes their living from an activity which involves nothing more than the use of their brain power to have any expectation of being able to market that activity as they see fit or to earn fair recompense from it.
(my comment: hey, just because you spent hundred and thousands of hours of your time thinking something up doesn't give you the right to say what the end product is worth, that's for people like glesgakiss to decide)
6. Musicians in particular, among the various professions who make their living from activities involving the use of their brain power, have even less right to market their activity as they see fit, and should in fact only be allowed to earn financial recompense for it from live performances.
(my comment: who cares if a lot of concert tours operate at a loss or barely scrape even, musicians shouldn't be too proud to eat at soup kitchens - they're only in it 'for the art', after all.)
So, have I missed anything?
Last edited by markjmd; 29 June 2011 at 02:06 AM. Reason: edited for spelling
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Imo, a lot of the content is downloaded because 1. the UK and other countries, can not access that content any other way (US TV show for example) and 2, downloaded content is 98% of the time a better product, not being forced to watch FBI warnings and other gruff at the start of films that can last upto 4 minutes.
What is your opinion if you download a film, that you already own on bluray, but want a digital copy? It is quicker in some cases to download it than rip it and encode it.
To top it off, Hollywood made record profits last year, but then moan they are losing money because of pirates with no evidence to back that statement up.
What is your opinion if you download a film, that you already own on bluray, but want a digital copy? It is quicker in some cases to download it than rip it and encode it.
To top it off, Hollywood made record profits last year, but then moan they are losing money because of pirates with no evidence to back that statement up.
Oh come on, downloading pirated media is rife and you know it. The above is just the usual arguments trotted out by those happy to break the law and try and justify it.
So what if Hollywood made record profits, since when did a company making a profit give anyone carte blanche to steal that company's product?
Besides it's not all about big business. Small companies or even individuals develop software, films, programmes etc. and then watch as Joe Public downloads them for free from Torrent sites and the likes. Why is that fair?
There needs to be a culture shift as for some reaosn the Internet generation think nothing of diownloading a film illegally yet they wouldn't steal a DVD from a shop. That is the issue that needs fixing most!
So what if Hollywood made record profits, since when did a company making a profit give anyone carte blanche to steal that company's product?
Besides it's not all about big business. Small companies or even individuals develop software, films, programmes etc. and then watch as Joe Public downloads them for free from Torrent sites and the likes. Why is that fair?
There needs to be a culture shift as for some reaosn the Internet generation think nothing of diownloading a film illegally yet they wouldn't steal a DVD from a shop. That is the issue that needs fixing most!
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 3,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Movie Distributors should adopt the same method as music distributors.
Since I've been able to purchase MP3's for pennies on line, I've not once downloaded one illegally.
Surely if the film industry adopted a similar scheme, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It WOULD mightily upset retailers though.
Since I've been able to purchase MP3's for pennies on line, I've not once downloaded one illegally.
Surely if the film industry adopted a similar scheme, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It WOULD mightily upset retailers though.