Is Using Bit Torrents a Good Idea? [Archive]

NeilC

24th August 2006, 07:52 AM

That link is not proof. First of all it makes not mention of Bittorrent and secondly it states: "The studios claimed the movies "Are We There Yet?" and "Million Dollar Baby" were used in June 2005 without their permission and distributed to the public online."

The pertinent phrase is "distributed to the public online".

THAT is how they caught her. Not from the downloading. She may have d/l'd them on any P2P system and left them in the shared folder. The MPAA's software searched for the movies, found them and downloaded them which gave them irrefutable evidence of her possession and dissemination. The large amount of money in the lawsuit is presumably for damages related to the loss of potential revenue attributable to the movie firms. Just stealing and watching a movie is not worth thousands of dollars to anyone.

Re: Bittorrent - as far as I know nobody has been sued for downloading. They have been done for seeding. However, the nature of Bittorrents is that whilst you are downloading you are automatically uploading, no matter how little of the file you have downloaded. Your IP is public. So in theory it is trivial to gather lists of IPs of people downloading/uploading the file. For some reason this hasn't been enough for suits yet. Maybe if they MPAA can only get a bit of the file off you they cannot prove in a court that you have the file. OR....maybe they can but are just concentrating on the seeders first before getting around to the massive backlog of leecher. If they did that they could make more money from lawsuits than the movie ever made!

It's potentially risky with potentially a very bad outcome but for some reason which remains unclear it hasn't happend yet.

You can get modified torrent clients which allow downloading with no uploading. Depending on where you live (some countries only have laws against dissemination) that might protect you, in a very selfish way. Other P2P systems appear to be quite safe if you don't upload but are usually very slow for movies.

thomps1d

24th August 2006, 07:53 AM

Any kind of file sharing of copyrighted material is technically a no-no. Realistically, though, there are a lot of copyrighted files that you won't ever see anyone getting pursued for - brief sound clips from games, movies, etc should be completely fine.

In fact, I'm not sure on the deal with digital media, but I know with printed media in Canada you are generally allowed to keep a temporary copy of up to 10% of a printed work and not be prosecuted for violation of any copyrights. Your mileage on this may vary - I know that this is the case at the university I attend, but it may just be a special exception for an academic institution. And like I said, I don't know if that applies to the case at hand - digital media is always fairly hazy when it comes to this sort of thing.

De_Bunk

24th August 2006, 09:15 AM

The problem is finding the torrents...

Thats who are getting shut down..the sites who list them...

And then some torrent sites insist you download their 'torrent' software...which is a bit dubious in some circumstances...

DB

ZirconBlue

24th August 2006, 09:21 AM

Oh, really? Could you show me a person that got into trouble for downloading movies? Ever? Anywhere in the world?

Bit Torrent rocks.

Yes. As we all know, as long is you don't get caught it is OK to violate copyrights.:rolleyes:

BenK

24th August 2006, 09:46 AM

That link doesn't make it clear she used Bit Torrent to download the movies. She could well have been on a P2P system.

What do you think Bit Torrent is?

geni

24th August 2006, 09:58 AM

I was trying to get the radio commercials from San Andreas in a sound file and the only place I could find them was The Pirate Bay, so I installed Azureus so I could download the torrents. That worked only partially, but anyway now I'm wondering if I'm legally safe to download say, movies from major studios.

Probably not.

I live in Canada and I'm pretty that downloading music is still not illegal

Why?

but based on this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_torrent#Copyright_enforcement) I'm wondering if downloading copyrighted material from bit torrents could ever get me into trouble. What do you think?

It could.

geni

24th August 2006, 09:59 AM

Oh, really? Could you show me a person that got into trouble for downloading movies? Ever? Anywhere in the world?

Do you want to be a test case?

kevin

24th August 2006, 11:34 AM

Method of copying does not matter, it's the copying itself that may be illegal. Some methods are just more watched than others. Torrents aren't as centralized as other P2P systems so currently they mainly go after the sites that link or host torrents.

Canada is in a bit of gray area at the moment. Tradionally they've had a tax on blank media that is distributed to artists and covers the cost of copying, so copies are legal. However that tax on MP3 players was thrown out by their courts recently.

http://news.com.com/No+iPod+tax+for+Canada/2100-1041_3-5809117.html

Azure

24th August 2006, 11:44 AM

In Canada I don't think that the copyright holders can get your name from your ISP but they can send a complaint to them. What your ISP does with that may vary, they would at least send you a stern warning and depending on the complaints cut off your service.

LINK (http://news.com.com/Judge+File+sharing+legal+in+Canada/2100-1027_3-5182641.html)

Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers.

Dustin Kesselberg

24th August 2006, 07:14 PM

I've got a few links here dealing with lawsuits or fines against people for downloading or uploading movies or music files

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-05-04-students_x.htm

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--download-char0823aug23,0,7348176.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

http://www.legalreader.com/archives/001829.html

http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/3451.asp

ReFLeX

24th August 2006, 10:04 PM

LINK (http://news.com.com/Judge+File+sharing+legal+in+Canada/2100-1027_3-5182641.html)
Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers.
I'd still be reluctant, even based on that.

NeilC

25th August 2006, 02:05 AM

If you're worried about it then don't do it.

In terms of you getting caught and sued for it in Cananda, the risk at the moment is miniscule.

AmateurScientist

25th August 2006, 05:24 AM

Maybe if they MPAA can only get a bit of the file off you they cannot prove in a court that you have the file. OR....maybe they can but are just concentrating on the seeders first before getting around to the massive backlog of leecher. If they did that they could make more money from lawsuits than the movie ever made!

The reason the MPAA, the RIIA, BMI, or any other industry group sues over copyright infringement is not to make money from it. They sue to protect their interest in the copyright. Lawsuits are deterrents to piracy in that there is a risk associated with piracy, however large or small. The lawsuits are there not only to stop the particular defendants from profiting from or continuing their infringement, but also to serve as a deterrent to others from doing the same.

The suits themselves are rarely, if ever, a net profit for the plaintiffs.

AS

tkingdoll

25th August 2006, 05:37 AM

I think it's perfectly OK to download a movie illegally as long as you are also willing to let me come into your house and take the stuff you worked hard to buy. Fair's fair, after all.

Johnny Pixels

25th August 2006, 06:43 AM

I think it's perfectly OK to download a movie illegally as long as you are also willing to let me come into your house and take the stuff you worked hard to buy. Fair's fair, after all.

Technically that's not the same, because if you copy something, then the original still exists, you haven't taken anything, apart from the potential that you might have paid for that item. That's why piracy is copyright infringement, and not theft.

tkingdoll

25th August 2006, 07:03 AM

Technically that's not the same, because if you copy something, then the original still exists, you haven't taken anything, apart from the potential that you might have paid for that item. That's why piracy is copyright infringement, and not theft.

Yes, but a very popular argument for file-sharing is that the makers of films, music, etc, are really rich and shouldn't complain when the little guy wants something for nothing (see the Metallica case for details).

The difficulty is this:

1) Films, directors, actors, script writers etc are often greenlit on the basis of their previous movie's box office performance and DVD sales.

2) A movie is financed by various means. It could be financed from studio profits, private financing, sponsorship, etc. That money is given on the assumption of Return on Investment (ROI). No ROI, no funding.

3) Both of the above issues are particularly vital for independent movies, because they don't have the major studio backing, ROI is essential for their investors. And as we all know, the independent movies are the good ones! Sure, studio movies can afford to absorb a little loss, I'm sure if you just want to watch the big summer blockbusters then your conscience is clear. But if you liked Donnie Darko, why would you want to screw the movie-makers?

No profit, no new movies. Unless you really like product placement, that's one area where it doesn't matter, the sponsors just want the largest exposure possible. Personally product placement disgusts me and ruins every film except Wayne's World.

Ian Osborne

25th August 2006, 07:19 AM

And the major studios are soooo respectful of other people's intellectual properties... (http://randi.org/jr/120701.html)

(Scroll down and read the section illustrated with a Leap of Faith movie poster.)

Johnny Pixels

25th August 2006, 07:34 AM

Yes, but a very popular argument for file-sharing is that the makers of films, music, etc, are really rich and shouldn't complain when the little guy wants something for nothing (see the Metallica case for details).

The difficulty is this:

1) Films, directors, actors, script writers etc are often greenlit on the basis of their previous movie's box office performance and DVD sales.

2) A movie is financed by various means. It could be financed from studio profits, private financing, sponsorship, etc. That money is given on the assumption of Return on Investment (ROI). No ROI, no funding.

3) Both of the above issues are particularly vital for independent movies, because they don't have the major studio backing, ROI is essential for their investors. And as we all know, the independent movies are the good ones! Sure, studio movies can afford to absorb a little loss, I'm sure if you just want to watch the big summer blockbusters then your conscience is clear. But if you liked Donnie Darko, why would you want to screw the movie-makers?

No profit, no new movies. Unless you really like product placement, that's one area where it doesn't matter, the sponsors just want the largest exposure possible. Personally product placement disgusts me and ruins every film except Wayne's World.

I agree that making movies is only really good for the studios, and independant film makers, script writers and the little people that do a lot of the work don't get as much out of it as they should. That's why if I like a small company film, or a singer/band or whatever, I will buy it. I've got a couple of CDs from local bands, that I would never dream of downloading, because I like their music and think they should be rewarded for it.

I think the entertainment industries problem is that it is out to make as much money as it can, and sometimes forgets why it exists in the first place.

It's almost as if they are some kind of cargo cult, because they see an independant or groundbreaking film, or band or whatever, and then try to saturate the market with as many copies of that, without trying to understand what actually made that popular. Look at the number of girl groups that suddenly got signed or manufactured after the success of the spice girls, look at the number of guitar bands after the success of Busted, look at the number of reality TV shows after the success of Big Brother, look at the number of first person shooters after the success of Doom. The industry tries to replicate without innovation, and I don't think that they should be rewarded for that. They should be rewarded for taking risks. That's why I don't feel guilty for downloading mass produced stuff, but I will go all out to pay money for good, innovative ideas.

I also think the entertainment industry needs to stop wasting money on copy protection, because it penalises people that actually pay for things. I can't watch the majority of new DVDs on my laptop, because the copy protection doesn't work with my DVD drive. For games that I've bought, I have to dig out the CD/DVD to play them. For people that download things, they can watch them in whatever way they want, and don't have the hassle of finding CDs to play games. My brother spent £30 on Half-Life 2, only to have Valve accuse him of having a pirate version, and banned his account so he couldn't play the game legally. That doesn't encourage people to buy things.

I think I'm way off on a tangent now.

geni

25th August 2006, 07:59 AM

I think the entertainment industries problem is that it is out to make as much money as it can, and sometimes forgets why it exists in the first place.

It exists to make money. If you don't like this cuba is thataway.

It's almost as if they are some kind of cargo cult, because they see an independant or groundbreaking film, or band or whatever, and then try to saturate the market with as many copies of that, without trying to understand what actually made that popular. Look at the number of girl groups that suddenly got signed or manufactured after the success of the spice girls,

Since the music industry manufactored the spice girls I think they had a very good idea as to what caused it's sucess.

look at the number of guitar bands after the success of Busted, look at the number of reality TV shows after the success of Big Brother, look at the number of first person shooters after the success of Doom.

Ah try again. by you standard doom was a ripoff of Wolfenstein 3D which was the game that started the FPS craze (although of course things like Hovertank 3D predated it).

The industry tries to replicate without innovation, and I don't think that they should be rewarded for that.

Under US law slaveish copying does not produce a new copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

They should be rewarded for taking risks.

Every new game and band is a risk. Have you any idea how may record lables and game companies have gone bancrupt over the years.

That's why I don't feel guilty for downloading mass produced stuff, but I will go all out to pay money for good, innovative ideas.

It appears that you want the mass produced stuff. Would you rather it didn't exist and we only got one new song every few months?

Johnny Pixels

25th August 2006, 08:52 AM

It exists to make money. If you don't like this cuba is thataway.

Ok, I can't deny that, but does it not also exist to entertain?

Since the music industry manufactored the spice girls I think they had a very good idea as to what caused it's sucess.

One part of the music industry did, and then the rest tried to imitate, rather than find their own combination that worked. There were companies that did little more than get a group of girls, stick them in a house, market them, but then completely fail, because while they copied the Spice Girls model, they didn't have the spice girls. It's like getting a group of young men from Liverpool that play guitars, dressing them up in suits and putting them in the cavern club, and then wondering why you haven't got the next Beatles. In fact it's the whole concept of the next "X" that is at fault, because the next big thing is never a copy of X, it's always something different. The next Beatles wasn't anything like the Beatles. The next big thing was something different.

Ah try again. by you standard doom was a ripoff of Wolfenstein 3D which was the game that started the FPS craze (although of course things like Hovertank 3D predated it).

But it is true that there are innovators and imitators in the world of 3D shooters. Unfortunately I don't remember the names of too many of the imitators, because they are just trying to hitch a ride on the band wagon.

Under US law slaveish copying does not produce a new copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

No, but formulaic films do, and they make money, because people think they want more of the same, but it usually turns out that more of the same just waters it down. Example 1: Jaws, films get progresively worse, but people still try to make natural monster horror films. Jaws wasn't primarily a film about a shark, but that's what imitators will try to make copies of. Example 2: Terminator 1, film about a killer robot from the future. Terminator 2, film about a robot from the future trying to protect a vulnerable person from another killer robot from the future. These were both good films, but also, they were not about killer robots from the future, they were about human frailties and fears. Terminator 3, included all the action elements of Terminator 3, but forgot the rest. It took the big truck chase, the explosions, the metal morphing robot, the police shooting up Arnie, it had all the same things in it, but in doing so, it missed the parts in between.

Every new game and band is a risk. Have you any idea how may record lables and game companies have gone bancrupt over the years.

That's because record companies try to make something work, rather than finding something that works. They've gone from finding bands and singing them, to finding people and making them into bands. That's why bands fail, because the record companies have saturated their own market. Most other markets, a business tries to find a niche that they can call their own and expand in. The entertainment industry all fights for the teenage girl market by shotgunning as many Westlife-bands as they can until one sticks. That's like Ford keep releasing a new car every month until one catches someones attention. I admit that part of the fault of this is the public, particularly teenage girls, because they can't get enough of twenty something men, but then that's a result of the record companies throwing all their eggs into the teengage girl basket, so there's nothing for other age groups, so there is no other market than teenage girls. I believe that after Live 8 someone estimated how much Pink Floyd could make if they reformed. They're not a teenage girls band, and there is more than jsut that market. The record companies need to expand their horizons a little instead of digging their own holes.

It appears that you want the mass produced stuff. Would you rather it didn't exist and we only got one new song every few months?

I would rather have one good new song every few months than having 100 awful songs come out every week. Robbie Williams new Song was released to for radio play in July I believe. It doesn't become available for purchase until September. The hype has now gotten to a full 2 months of radio play before the song is released, purely so that everyone goes and buys it the first chance they get, so that it can go straight to number one. The recording industry have created a situation where records are forced in to the number one spot, anything less is deemed a failure. They then seem surprised when good, independent music fails to climb the charts and get noticed, because they've forced it out with their mass marketing plans. Therefore smaller artists fail to get any recognition, and record companies will not invest in them, because they will need to put in so much extra money to force them into the top spot because they've already spent so much forcing them out.

Azure

25th August 2006, 09:01 AM

I'd still be reluctant, even based on that.

Indeed.

We also pay a levy fee here in Canada on all blank Cd's. Most of that fee goes to Canadian Recording Artists, which in a way justifies people downloading music for free and putting it on those CDs.

Ian Osborne

25th August 2006, 09:07 AM

We also pay a levy fee here in Canada on all blank Cd's. Most of that fee goes to Canadian Recording Artists, which in a way justifies people downloading music for free and putting it on those CDs.
Can't you order from the USA over the net?

geni

25th August 2006, 09:21 AM

Ok, I can't deny that, but does it not also exist to entertain?

Only insofar as that allows it to make money.

One part of the music industry did, and then the rest tried to imitate, rather than find their own combination that worked. There were companies that did little more than get a group of girls, stick them in a house, market them, but then completely fail, because while they copied the Spice Girls model, they didn't have the spice girls. It's like getting a group of young men from Liverpool that play guitars, dressing them up in suits and putting them in the cavern club, and then wondering why you haven't got the next Beatles. In fact it's the whole concept of the next "X" that is at fault, because the next big thing is never a copy of X, it's always something different. The next Beatles wasn't anything like the Beatles. The next big thing was something different.

Did you download any of that music? if you did it appears that produced something you wanted. If not then the point is irrelivant.

But it is true that there are innovators and imitators in the world of 3D shooters. Unfortunately I don't remember the names of too many of the imitators, because they are just trying to hitch a ride on the band wagon.

Please define innovators. You listed doom. While the Doom engine has a number of features that don't appear in Wolfenstein 3D they are both FPS and Wolfenstein 3D came first.

No, but formulaic films do, and they make money, because people think they want more of the same, but it usually turns out that more of the same just waters it down. Example 1: Jaws, films get progresively worse, but people still try to make natural monster horror films. Jaws wasn't primarily a film about a shark, but that's what imitators will try to make copies of. Example 2: Terminator 1, film about a killer robot from the future. Terminator 2, film about a robot from the future trying to protect a vulnerable person from another killer robot from the future. These were both good films, but also, they were not about killer robots from the future, they were about human frailties and fears. Terminator 3, included all the action elements of Terminator 3, but forgot the rest. It took the big truck chase, the explosions, the metal morphing robot, the police shooting up Arnie, it had all the same things in it, but in doing so, it missed the parts in between.

You'bve just admited there were differences in Terminator 3. you may not have liked those differences but that is your problem.

That's because record companies try to make something work, rather than finding something that works. They've gone from finding bands and singing them, to finding people and making them into bands.

Please be explaining why we get all these just notable bands who have mangaged to release albums on wikipedia. They were formed by friends getting together.

That's why bands fail, because the record companies have saturated their own market.

Have you considered the posibilty that a large number of them are not very good?

Most other markets, a business tries to find a niche that they can call their own and expand in.

There are record lables that try this. Vee-Jay Records for example. Didn't do them any good in the long run.

The entertainment industry all fights for the teenage girl market by shotgunning as many Westlife-bands as they can until one sticks.

Please be explaining how Lordi got a record contract. Dito The Levellers. Dito The Outcast Band. Dito Prussian Blue (both of them). Dito Nizlopi. How long would you like this list to be?

I believe that after Live 8 someone estimated how much Pink Floyd could make if they reformed. They're not a teenage girls band, and there is more than jsut that market. The record companies need to expand their horizons a little instead of digging their own holes.

logicaly creating bad music would be the most effective way to stop downloading. I mean you don't download any of this stuff you are complaining about do you?

I would rather have one good new song every few months than having 100 awful songs come out every week.

1 song every few months. That is probably going to keep about say 10 musicians in employment. what are you going to do with the rest?

Therefore smaller artists fail to get any recognition, and record companies will not invest in them, because they will need to put in so much extra money to force them into the top spot because they've already spent so much forcing them out.

Am failing to see what this has to do with downloading. Don't like music industry practices? start your own company or make your own music.

Azure

25th August 2006, 09:29 AM

Can't you order from the USA over the net?

Yes you can, but who would orders CD's over the internet when they cost .40 more in our local Costco?

asthmatic camel

26th August 2006, 05:09 AM

BenK

26th August 2006, 05:27 PM

The quality of downloaded movies tends to be so poor that it's hardly worth the trouble. The files are huge, take forever to download and soon cause you to hit any cap that your ISP may apply to your account. I can't really see the point of buying expensive equipment and then using it to watch blurry movies (unless it's porn, obviously.)

Actually you can often download copies that are the same as the DVD, they'll strip out the extras but the main movie is exactly the same. The download will be large of course, 4.5 GB. If you like you can burn the image to a DVD and watch it on on your home theater. Your ISP's cap may or may not be firm, I've more than tripled my cap and they haven't stopped my service or charged me extra.

Ryokan

26th August 2006, 05:48 PM

The quality of downloaded movies tends to be so poor that it's hardly worth the trouble.

This isn't true. You can download entire DVDs if you wish, with the same quality as DVDs you buy in stores.

The files are huge, take forever to download and soon cause you to hit any cap that your ISP may apply to your account.

That all depends on what line you have. Superfast broadband is becoming both common and cheap. And are there still ISPs that have download caps? If my ISP had a download cap I'd change ISP right away.

I can't really see the point of buying expensive equipment and then using it to watch blurry movies (unless it's porn, obviously.)

And again, you're mistaken about this.

Meffy

26th August 2006, 05:54 PM

I'm using a torrent now to download, then distribute, the musical performances of three online friends who made their music available specifically for this purpose. I would neither download nor distribute any material whose copyright holder hadn't agreed to it. I believe in taking back the torrent for legal uses.

asthmatic camel

26th August 2006, 05:56 PM

Actually you can often download copies that are the same as the DVD, they'll strip out the extras but the main movie is exactly the same. The download will be large of course, 4.5 GB. If you like you can burn the image to a DVD and watch it on on your home theater. Your ISP's cap may or may not be firm, I've more than tripled my cap and they haven't stopped my service or charged me extra.

I know how to strip down and compress DVDs; it's hardly rocket science. The point is that it's far less trouble to hire a DVD from the shop for a few days for next to nothing, watch it and and become exceedingly bored after ten minutes.

Perhaps I'm a snob but, there are few movies I've watched which have really caught my attention; movies are churned out by the thousand, every year.

BenK

26th August 2006, 08:02 PM

I know how to strip down and compress DVDs; it's hardly rocket science.

So you're an expert now :rolleyes:

asthmatic camel

26th August 2006, 08:15 PM

So you're an expert now :rolleyes:

No. I know how to strip down and compress a DVD. I know how to copy one. Where did I state that I'm an expert?

Plus, I agree with Teek that stealing peoples' work is unethical. Maybe you enjoy working for nothing?

geni

27th August 2006, 03:21 AM

WildCat

27th August 2006, 07:21 AM

files are huge, take forever to download and soon cause you to hit any cap that your ISP may apply to your account.
That must be a non-US thing. I've never heard of caps here, my dsl account is unlimited and I d/l and u/l a lot of large torrent files. All legal however!

Almo

27th August 2006, 07:41 AM

BitTorrent is way more reliable as a transfer protocol than gnutella (Limewire uses this). But this is partially because a torrent needs to be hosted on a tracker. I've found that when I needed to host a large mpg for my friends, BT was the best way to do it.

Movie studios and record companies do monitor this stuff, and officially, they can peg you for sharing one copyrighted file, but juries are hard to convince that this is actually worth procecuting.

I think BT has an encryption feature that makes you harder to detect, but still, it's fundamentally stealing to download something instead of buying it. Like my friend said, "you don't expect people to give you a car, do you?"

I personally use BT to download music I am curious about, then I buy it if I like it.

asthmatic camel

27th August 2006, 07:42 AM

That must be a non-US thing. I've never heard of caps here, my dsl account is unlimited and I d/l and u/l a lot of large torrent files. All legal however!

Yep, it's a non US thing. Over here, most ISPs impose a download cap which is nowhere near big enough to allow regular movie downloads. Take a look (http://www.ukoffer.com/broadband.php?source=adwords&gclid=CJaBhruMgIcCFRlSQgodS03RHg)

jjramsey

27th August 2006, 07:43 AM

I believe in taking back the torrent for legal uses.

I don't know if that's exactly "taking back" the torrent. IIRC, BitTorrent's been used to download Linux ISOs every since it was around, which is (usually) perfectly legit.

WildCat

27th August 2006, 07:54 AM

Yep, it's a non US thing. Over here, most ISPs impose a download cap which is nowhere near big enough to allow regular movie downloads. Take a look (http://www.ukoffer.com/broadband.php?source=adwords&gclid=CJaBhruMgIcCFRlSQgodS03RHg)
What they do here usually is limit your upload speed so you can't become a server (at least not a prolific one). Some may also limit your download speed. So shop around!

My upload speed is capped at 300k.

asthmatic camel

27th August 2006, 08:25 AM

Correct, WildCat. Occasionally I'll use a P2P to download an mp3 or video clip that I can't find elsewhere; mostly ancient (I'm an old fart.) The creators of such tend to be far more ancient and rotting in a box; theyre not going to be too worried, are they?

I do have problems with copyright law and the prices charged by copyright holders for their products, though; £30 for a DVD which can be viewed on TV for nothing? Count me out.

£3,000,000 contracts for TV presenters, whose wages I'm forced to pay for if I wish to watch TV? Count me out; especially when they happen to be Jonathan Ross or Carole Smillie.

[/rant]

Ryokan

27th August 2006, 10:15 AM

Yep, it's a non US thing.

No ISP in Norway has a cap, either.

69dodge

27th August 2006, 06:31 PM

[...] but still, it's fundamentally stealing to download something instead of buying it.Is it fundamentally stealing to download something instead of not downloading it? No one is worse off and the downloader is better off.

Of course, it would be pretty impractical to try to enforce a law that allowed only those people to download a movie who wouldn't buy it anyway, but still, there are undoubtedly very many such people and very many such movies, and it seems such a waste for them not to enjoy them when no one benefits from their lack of enjoyment.

Like my friend said, "you don't expect people to give you a car, do you?"If a method were discoverd that could copy cars very cheaply, the way we can now copy digital information, so that an unlimited number of cars could be produced for the same total cost as is now required for the limited number of cars that are currently produced, I'd hope society figured out a way to finance car production which allows everyone who wants a car to have one. We already have some way of raising the necessary cash, after all, as cars do currently get made, so it shouldn't be that hard.

Some number of movies are currently being made, at some cost, and some number of people get to watch them. For the same cost, the same number of movies could be made, and many more people could watch them. Shouldn't we try to figure out some way to allow that to happen legally?

I read a couple of pieces by Bertrand Russell recently that seem relevant.

Here's a quote from On Sales Resistance (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/Hearst_Essays/On_Sales_Resistance.html):

All this topsy-turvydom is due to the fact that everything economic is looked upon from the standpoint of the producer rather than of the consumer. In former times, it was thought that bread is baked in order to be eaten; nowadays we think that it is eaten in order to be baked. When we spend money, we are expected to do so not with a view to our enjoyment of what we purchase but to enrich those who have manufactured it. [...] And so everything is done for the sake of something else. We make money not in order to enjoy what it provides but in order that in spending it we may enable others to make money which they will spend in enabling yet others to make money which.... But the end of this is bedlam.And one from Political Ideals (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2528/br_polideal.htm):

We may distinguish two sorts of goods, and two corresponding sorts of impulses. There are goods in regard to which individual possession is possible, and there are goods in which all can share alike. The food and clothing of one man is not the food and clothing of another; if the supply is insufficient, what one man has is obtained at the expense of some other man. This applies to material goods generally, and therefore to the greater part of the present economic life of the world. On the other hand, mental and spiritual goods do not belong to one man to the exclusion of another. If one man knows a science, that does not prevent others from knowing it; on the contrary, it helps them to acquire the knowledge. If one man is a great artist or poet, that does not prevent others from painting pictures or writing poems, but helps to create the atmosphere in which such things are possible. If one man is full of good-will toward others, that does not mean that there is less good-will to be shared among the rest; the more good-will one man has, the more he is likely to create among others. In such matters there is no possession, because there is not a definite amount to be shared; any increase anywhere tends to produce an increase everywhere.

There are two kinds of impulses, corresponding to the two kinds of goods. There are possessive impulses, which aim at acquiring or retaining private goods that cannot be shared; these center in the impulse of property. And there are creative or constructive impulses, which aim at bringing into the world or making available for use the kind of goods in which there is no privacy and no possession.

The best life is the one in which the creative impulses play the largest part and the possessive impulses the smallest.

jjramsey

27th August 2006, 07:01 PM

Is it fundamentally stealing to download something instead of not downloading it?

Describing it as stealing may be inaccurate, but nonetheless, it doesn't pass the "What if everyone did that" test.

LawnOven

27th August 2006, 07:21 PM

Describing it as stealing may be inaccurate, but nonetheless, it doesn't pass the "What if everyone did that" test.

What if everyone did that?

kevin

27th August 2006, 07:27 PM

Some number of movies are currently being made, at some cost, and some number of people get to watch them. For the same cost, the same number of movies could be made, and many more people could watch them. Shouldn't we try to figure out some way to allow that to happen legally?

This doesn't make sense. If a movie cost Z and is sold to X people at rate Y such that Z <= X*Y then a profit is made. If Y is reduced and X increased a profit can still be made. If Y is zero then no profit can ever be made.

In other words, yes if a method of distribution is found that increases viewership then the price can be lowered, but it can't be made zero.

Now there are other ways to make money by allowing some free distribution. For example, bit torrents of music from both the 2005 and 2006 SXSW are available, with the artists permissions. This free distribution of some of a bands music is great for those bands. And bands can give away even more if they decide that they really want to make money from touring. That's a bit harder to do with movies where a touring option isn't really available.

Movies could go the way of books. The Baen free library makes free online versions of some of their books available.

http://www.baen.com/library/

You'll notice a cute trick of making one or two of the books of a trilogy (or longer series) available. That certainly encourages people to buy the third book. Movies certainly seem to want to go in for the multiple movies these days. If free versions of the initial movie were released perhaps interest could be driven up for a 2nd and 3rd movie that made most of it's money in initial release.

I do think we need to shorten copyright duration. Life of the author or 80 years whichever is longer is what I think it should be. Also the anti-reverse engineering parts of the DMCA need to be removed.

But so long as a work remains under copyright, then it is the copyright owner's decision as to how copies are distributed. Taking that right away from the copyright owner prior to expiration of the copyright is wrong. Any rationalization of it is just that, rationalization of an unethical decision.

kevin

27th August 2006, 07:29 PM

oh yeah forgot:

2005 sxsw music (almost 3GB of MP3):
http://2005.sxsw.com/geekout/fest4pod/

2006 sxsw music (not sure on size, but about 1000 songs):
http://2006.sxsw.com/toolbox/schedules/ipod/

Azure

27th August 2006, 07:49 PM

I often download CD's in a torrent file in order to listen to them, which I then use to decide whether the CD is worth buying.

69dodge

27th August 2006, 08:16 PM

Describing it as stealing may be inaccurate, but nonetheless, it doesn't pass the "What if everyone did that" test.Not everyone can do that. Some people would pay the asking price if they couldn't get it any other way, so if those people downloaded it they'd be dowloading-it-instead-of-paying-for-it. Only those who wouldn't pay for it in any case can download-it-instead-of-not-downloading-it.

Earthborn

27th August 2006, 08:29 PM

Describing it as stealing may be inaccurate, but nonetheless, it doesn't pass the "What if everyone did that" test.The "What if everyone did that?" test just isn't a very good argument (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60766) in moral issues.

69dodge

27th August 2006, 08:30 PM

This doesn't make sense. If a movie cost Z and is sold to X people at rate Y such that Z <= X*Y then a profit is made. If Y is reduced and X increased a profit can still be made. If Y is zero then no profit can ever be made.

In other words, yes if a method of distribution is found that increases viewership then the price can be lowered, but it can't be made zero.It can't be made zero for everybody. It could be made zero for some people.

Currently, there are lots of people who pay zero. They just don't get to watch the movie. In what way would things be worse if the same people paid zero and did get to watch it? I can see only improvement. No one has less than he had before, and some people have more.

ReFLeX

27th August 2006, 10:49 PM

I think my cognitive dissonance from the ethics of the situation has overcome my desire to save a few dollars on the couple of movies I would download.

Azure

27th August 2006, 10:52 PM

I think my cognitive dissonance from the ethics of the situation has overcome my desire to save a few dollars on the couple of movies I would download.

Put that together with the idea that Hollywood can't make movies worth 'buying' and you have a perfect reason to download them.

Plus you're justified in doing so. :D

Kimpatsu

28th August 2006, 01:21 AM

If the movie is already available on DVD, why not buy it? I do, and I'm a huge downloader... of TV shows and movies that are unavailable in this country. Note that the Pirate Bay, Isohunt, and Mininova all add spyware to your HDD when you access their sites, but SpyDoctor quickly wipes them again, and these sites have no ratio monitoring (so you can leech without seeding if you're really selfish). Scene Machine is offline at the moment, but Peer Hub and others are also good.
For anyone interested, in May 2005 an American TV executive gave a speech in Australia in which he not only admitted to using BT himself, he said that BT was a good thing. You can read a transcript and download a video of the speech (using BT, naturally!) here: http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html

Angus McPresley

28th August 2006, 06:06 AM

The difficulty is this:

1) Films, directors, actors, script writers etc are often greenlit on the basis of their previous movie's box office performance and DVD sales.

2) A movie is financed by various means. It could be financed from studio profits, private financing, sponsorship, etc. That money is given on the assumption of Return on Investment (ROI). No ROI, no funding.

3) Both of the above issues are particularly vital for independent movies, because they don't have the major studio backing, ROI is essential for their investors. etc etc

All of this assumes that you would have bought the movie otherwise. If you wouldn't have, this argument holds no water.

Not to mention, the formats they sell movies in these days are, simply put, defective. You can't copy them for personal use, even though that is a legal activity. For that reason, though I still purchase CDs and movies from artists I want to support, I feel no guilt over d/l-ing a copy over P2P...

jjramsey

28th August 2006, 02:01 PM

The "What if everyone did that?" test just isn't a very good argument (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60766) in moral issues.

In the example you gave in the link, "What if everyone did that?" was clearly a moot question, because for all practical purposes the majority simply couldn't. It is still true that "What if everyone did that?" is still a very rough test, but that doesn't mean that it is totally useless.

Let's face it. Piracy is a parasitic activity. The market can tolerate it so long as there are enough paying customers, but there is a tipping point.

Kimpatsu

28th August 2006, 03:51 PM

Let's face it. Piracy is a parasitic activity. The market can tolerate it so long as there are enough paying customers, but there is a tipping point.
Which is an argument for a new distribution paradigm, not against BT per se.

jjramsey

28th August 2006, 05:01 PM

Which is an argument for a new distribution paradigm

In the meantime, we're stuck with the old distribution paradigm, and most artists who make a living from their work use it.

not against BT per se.

Never said it was. As I noted before, BT easily has legit uses.

Kimpatsu

28th August 2006, 06:30 PM

In the meantime, we're stuck with the old distribution paradigm, and most artists who make a living from their work use it.
We're not "stuck" with anything. If, however, you mean that the producers are too bloody lazy, or too technophobic, to embrace new media, then you are right, but that's another issue. (Note also that it's not the artists, but the producers, who are moribund on this issue.) As Mark Pesce told a gathering of Australian producers last May, "if you can't think of how to make money from (BT), you shouldn't be producers". The problem is that the 40YO+ suits he was addressing proved during the Q&A that they still only think in terms of 1-2-many broadcasting, rather than many-to-many P2P. IOW, they just don't get (or are unwilling to embrace) new paradigms. Men any older than I am have a visceral sense of dread that overwhelms their inner conservative convictions that what's now should be forever. A new broom needs to sweep them out of their corner offices and parachute in younger, more dynamic and, crucially, more net-savvy producers who will embrace BT to the benefit of us all. We are, after all, discussing the killer ap for broadband here.
Never said it was. As I noted before, BT easily has legit uses.
Yes, and acquiring TV and movies unavailable in this country is one of them.

geni

28th August 2006, 07:08 PM

We're not "stuck" with anything. If, however, you mean that the producers are too bloody lazy, or too technophobic, to embrace new media, then you are right, but that's another issue. (Note also that it's not the artists, but the producers, who are moribund on this issue.) As Mark Pesce told a gathering of Australian producers last May, "if you can't think of how to make money from (BT), you shouldn't be producers".

Sounds good untill you stop and think what the most logical course is (lower the production costs up the advertising and use as much product placement as you posibly can).

Kimpatsu

28th August 2006, 07:12 PM

Sounds good untill you stop and think what the most logical course is (lower the production costs up the advertising and use as much product placement as you posibly can).
That wasn't what Mr. Pesche suggested, and he's a professional producer. Have you actually watched the video (link above)?
Reducing production costs--i.e., making shows on the cheap--leads to the law of diminishing returns. In order to save money and make a quick buck, the WB slashed the budget for Charmed in its final season, and they heamorrhaged viewers. Product placement has always been with us; despite 70% of people using PCs, TV heros regularly use Macs, because of the PP deals Apple has with certain TV stations. Also look at the amount of PP in James Bond movies. As for advertising, what exactly are you thinking of when you say "up" it?

geni

28th August 2006, 07:43 PM

That wasn't what Mr. Pesche suggested, and he's a professional producer. Have you actually watched the video (link above)?

I've seen his suggestion. It would work quite well. In about 1995. Today people can and probably will edit stuff to remove the ads. If the tactic becomes widespread an adstripper softwear will become popular.

Reducing production costs--i.e., making shows on the cheap--leads to the law of diminishing returns. In order to save money and make a quick buck, the WB slashed the budget for Charmed in its final season, and they heamorrhaged viewers.

You are going to be reducing the quality of your product what with these ads on the screen and large amounts of product placement. No point in going above a certian quality.

Product placement has always been with us; despite 70% of people using PCs, TV heros regularly use Macs, because of the PP deals Apple has with certain TV stations. Also look at the amount of PP in James Bond movies.

you aint seen nothing yet.

As for advertising, what exactly are you thinking of when you say "up" it?

Snakes on a plane. Viral advertising will increase in popularity. With the loss of a centeralised distribution model it becomes even more important to go to you audence and tell them what is there.

Kimpatsu

28th August 2006, 07:53 PM

I've seen his suggestion. It would work quite well. In about 1995. Today people can and probably will edit stuff to remove the ads. If the tactic becomes widespread an adstripper softwear will become popular.
Then what would you suggest as advertising? Also, how are you going to wipe a McDonald's logo from the vid without leaving a Golden Arches-shaped hole in the image? Remember, the logo will be on the vid before distribution. If it's possible, please tell me how to wipe those ads for "what's on next" from the bottom of the screen during SG1 or CSI, because they're far more intrusive and annoying than the station bug.
Snakes on a plane. Viral advertising will increase in popularity. With the loss of a centeralised distribution model it becomes even more important to go to you audence and tell them what is there.
Viral advertising sounds great. It was how the new Doctor Who took off so fast. we just need the suits on board.

geni

29th August 2006, 10:47 AM

Then what would you suggest as advertising? Also, how are you going to wipe a McDonald's logo from the vid without leaving a Golden Arches-shaped hole in the image?

depends what it is covering

Remember, the logo will be on the vid before distribution.

In theory.

If it's possible, please tell me how to wipe those ads for "what's on next" from the bottom of the screen during SG1 or CSI, because they're far more intrusive and annoying than the station bug.

I haven't seen them and since they are reducing program quality they are clearly not an effective solution.

Viral advertising sounds great.

Not from where I'm sitting. Cleaning it off wikipedia is a pain.

It was how the new Doctor Who took off so fast.

So nothing to do with nostalgia and decades of conventional advertising?

we just need the suits on board.

Why? Stangely when flickr started up I doubt anyone was talking about getting AP or Getty on board.

Kimpatsu

29th August 2006, 06:52 PM

depends what it is covering
Surely a large blank in the corner of the screen is always going to be more irritating than an actual McDonalds (Nike/Windows, etc.) logo?
In theory.
What do you mean, "in theory"? It will have to be for upload.
I haven't seen them and since they are reducing program quality they are clearly not an effective solution.
But you advocated them, as opposed to an ad in the top right hand corner replacing the station bug. Are you sure you've never seen what I mean? They come up immediately after a return from a CM break, and tell you "Up next...", replete with images from the next show in the schedule.
Not from where I'm sitting. Cleaning it off wikipedia is a pain.
How do you "clean it off Wikipedia"? Surely the ad is embedded in the b/cast stream itself.
So nothing to do with nostalgia and decades of conventional advertising?
The leak onto the internet a month before broadcast led to new interest in countries where the show had never aired before. Again, view the Pesce vid.
Why? Stangely when flickr started up I doubt anyone was talking about getting AP or Getty on board.
Because the suits are the ones who determine advertising policy. Once again, watch the vid.

geni

30th August 2006, 02:36 AM

Surely a large blank in the corner of the screen is always going to be more irritating than an actual McDonalds (Nike/Windows, etc.) logo?

no. Not if the logo is flashing or rotating or whatever. And of course if you use a semi transparent logo that gives lots of attack points.

What do you mean, "in theory"? It will have to be for upload.

See the doctor who stuff.

But you advocated them, as opposed to an ad in the top right hand corner replacing the station bug. Are you sure you've never seen what I mean? They come up immediately after a return from a CM break, and tell you "Up next...", replete with images from the next show in the schedule.

Not really a feature of the BBC.

How do you "clean it off Wikipedia"? Surely the ad is embedded in the b/cast stream itself.

Viral advertising isn't.

The leak onto the internet a month before broadcast led to new interest in countries where the show had never aired before. Again, view the Pesce vid.

You would need to provide evidence that would not have happened anyway.

Because the suits are the ones who determine advertising policy.

Produce your own content and you can set your own advertising policy.

Kimpatsu

30th August 2006, 02:45 AM

no. Not if the logo is flashing or rotating or whatever. And of course if you use a semi transparent logo that gives lots of attack points.
That's already happening in terrestrial broadcasts everywhere but the UK. Just see US TV or Japanese TV or Australian TV or... You can't escape it.
See the doctor who stuff.
What about the DW "stuff"? What do you mean by "stuff" anyway? Could you be more explicit. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Not really a feature of the BBC.
So you would rather buy a licence than get TV for free?
Viral advertising isn't.
No, viral ads are word of mouth. What's your objection?
You would need to provide evidence that would not have happened anyway.
Not at all; you're now asking me to prove a negative. That BT is the killer app for BB is evident in that it has massively increased BB takeup, and is cited as the primary reason by people for switching to BB.
Produce your own content and you can set your own advertising policy.
Not if you don't understand the options available. I repeat, the suits currently in charge of production think only of the 1-2-many paradigm, and hence are moribund.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 04:52 AM

All of this assumes that you would have bought the movie otherwise. If you wouldn't have, this argument holds no water.

Bought the movie, paid to see it at the cinema, rented the DVD, watched it on TV (for which you need a licence in the UK, and everywhere else will carry advertising to support the cost of showing the movie). There are many ways to see a film legitimately.

I don't find any meaning in the idea "I don't like this, even though it cost someone to make it, so I'm not going to pay for it".

If it's not very good, why do you want to watch it anyway?

What it comes down to is this: at the moment, some people think they can pick and choose which laws to keep and which laws to break. The laws they choose to break are often the ones which carry the least risk of getting caught.

I've never thought that the best way of protesting a law is to break it. But I don't think this is about protesting the law. I think people illegally download movies or get pirate DVDs because they want to get away with having something for nothing.

Kimpatsu

30th August 2006, 04:58 AM

Bought the movie, paid to see it at the cinema, rented the DVD, watched it on TV (for which you need a licence in the UK, and everywhere else will carry advertising to support the cost of showing the movie). There are many ways to see a film legitimately.

I don't find any meaning in the idea "I don't like this, even though it cost someone to make it, so I'm not going to pay for it".

If it's not very good, why do you want to watch it anyway?

What it comes down to is this: at the moment, some people think they can pick and choose which laws to keep and which laws to break. The laws they choose to break are often the ones which carry the least risk of getting caught.

I've never thought that the best way of protesting a law is to break it. But I don't think this is about protesting the law. I think people illegally download movies or get pirate DVDs because they want to get away with having something for nothing.
Really? Because statistics have proven repeatedly that downloading actually increases people's desire to purchase the DVD of whatever. The download serves to whet their appetites. Expats like me use BT to obtain programmes that are otherwise unavailable. (Oh, and we are not prepared to wait. In this day and age, release dates must be simultaneous worldwide.) I still buy the DVDs, though. Dr. Who and Buffy the Vampire Slayer are cases in point: downloaded when available, and then purchased the DVD sets six months later. No loss to the company. If I'm going to be able to discuss these shows topically online, however, I must be able to see them at the same time as everyone else.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 05:06 AM

Really? Because statistics have proven repeatedly that downloading actually increases people's desire to purchase the DVD of whatever.

Link to those statistics, please?

Also, increasing desire to do something is not the same as actually doing it, yes? Can you show the correlation between people who illegally download movies and increased DVD and cinema box office sales from those same people? That would be closer to proof - a survey which asks "do you download movies" followed by "do you buy the DVD of the movie you like?" is fairly meaningless. I buy the DVD of movies I like after I've seen them at the cinema, for which I paid. You seem to be arguing for letting people see the whole movie for free first, so they can decide whether or not to buy the DVD.

I completely agree about simultaneous release dates (same goes for games, too), and the industry has been far too slow in realising how important it is, but it's changing quite rapidly now. When movies are released simultaneously across the world, do you really think piracy will decrease? Or will the same people still want to get something for nothing?

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 05:14 AM

Seeing as I'm asking you for statistics, I thought I'd supply some of my own for the UK:

BVA/IPOS SURVEY 2005
Latest figures from the British Video Association/ IPSOS show that the total loss to the whole audio visual industry through copyright theft, including file sharing, home burning and borrowing other people’s fake DVDs is more than £818 million. £450 million of this is the value of lost DVD sales, £277 million is lost box office takings and £74 million is from loss to the rental sector.

And some worldwide figures from the Motion Picture Association:

MPAA studios lost $6.1 billion to piracy in 2005, which is consistent with a piracy study conducted by Smith Barney in 2003 that predicted the motion picture industry would lose $5.4 billion to piracy in 2005.

Of the $6.1 billion in lost revenue to the studios, $1.3 billion came from piracy in the United States and $4.8 billion internationally, with nearly half of that loss occurring in Europe. About $2.4 billion was lost to bootlegging, $1.4 to illegal copying and $2.3 billion to Internet piracy.

Darat

30th August 2006, 05:21 AM

asthmatic camel

30th August 2006, 05:23 AM

Kimpatsu, the vast majority of actors, musicians and artists lead very insecure, precarious lives and are far from wealthy. There is no doubt that illegal downloads adversely affect the flow of funds which make it possible for them to survive.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 05:36 AM

Just in regards to those figures tkingdoll - have you got details how they are worked out? I'm always slightly dubious since being slightly involved in early days of compiling figures about piracy of video games. Back then it was often calculated that every pirated copy should be recorded as a lost sale. But this of course assumes that every pirate copy represents a lost sale at the retail price which I've always argued is a rather large assumption to make - unless you want the "lost revenue" figure as high as possible.

Sadly not, I just have the final report. It's perfectly possible they were calculated that way, though, yes. And I'm sure the industry does want that lost revenue figure to be as high as possible.

So, let's adjust them ourselves, just in case. Shall we be generous and say half?

That's a mere $1.15 billion lost to the industry from illegal downloads alone.

Ian Osborne

30th August 2006, 05:44 AM

What it comes down to is this: at the moment, some people think they can pick and choose which laws to keep and which laws to break. The laws they choose to break are often the ones which carry the least risk of getting caught.
That's a fair point, but check this out (http://randi.org/jr/120701.html), if you didn't when I linked to it earlier (scroll down and read the section illustrated with a Leap of Faith movie poster). These are the people who are telling us piracy is theft.

Likewise, remember a few years back when UK chain stores decided, unilaterally, to ignore the Sunday trading laws? I bet they'd still prosecute a shoplifter caught on a Sunday.

People are indeed choosing which laws they want to break. But if you're a big corporation, no one cares.

geni

30th August 2006, 05:44 AM

That's already happening in terrestrial broadcasts everywhere but the UK. Just see US TV or Japanese TV or Australian TV or... You can't escape it.

and you think this is a good thing?

What about the DW "stuff"? What do you mean by "stuff" anyway? Could you be more explicit. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

It was leaked.

So you would rather buy a licence than get TV for free?

Well it doesn have some interesting effects on the market. There are certianly conditions under which I'm prepared to pay for something being ad free. Judging by the donations the wikimedia foundation recives I'm not theonly one.

No, viral ads are word of mouth. What's your objection?

So this wesite doesn't exist:

http://www.subservientchicken.com/

Part of a viral ad campain. Viral advertising is more than word of mouth.

Not at all; you're now asking me to prove a negative.

No I'mm asking you to bck up your claim.

That BT is the killer app for BB is evident in that it has massively increased BB takeup, and is cited as the primary reason by people for switching to BB.

People were switching before bit torrent came along.

Not if you don't understand the options available. I repeat, the suits currently in charge of production think only of the 1-2-many paradigm, and hence are moribund.

So produce your own. Or don't you have real faith in this brilliant new money makeing opertunity?

NeilC

30th August 2006, 06:37 AM

Just in regards to those figures tkingdoll - have you got details how they are worked out? I'm always slightly dubious since being slightly involved in early days of compiling figures about piracy of video games. Back then it was often calculated that every pirated copy should be recorded as a lost sale. But this of course assumes that every pirate copy represents a lost sale at the retail price which I've always argued is a rather large assumption to make - unless you want the "lost revenue" figure as high as possible.

Oh just to add - if you don't pay what someone asks for their work it is stealing - plain and simple.

I don't think it's on the same level as direct physical theft.

As you said, just because someone uses a pirated game or movie, it doesn't mean they would have bought it. Not by a long shot. If one downloads only things one would never pay for in the first place then nobody is being harmed. Whereas with plain and simple stealing, someone is.

On these figures. I wonder what price they assume for the supposed lost revenue. Do they assume the most expensive movie theatre price or a discount online DVD store? Big difference.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 06:50 AM

If one downloads only things one would never pay for in the first place then nobody is being harmed. Whereas with plain and simple stealing, someone is.

That's a terrible attitude. How the hell do you qualify whether or not you "would have bought it otherwise"?

Here's how the world works:

- People spend time and money making things to entertain other people.
- They put those things on the market for a price.
- If you want the thing, you buy it.
- If you don't want it, you don't buy it.
- If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Why is it OK to say "I don't want it, so I'll have it anyway but without paying for it"?

And why is it OK to say "I can't afford it, so I'll have it anywy but without paying for it"?

Joe Random

30th August 2006, 11:04 AM

I’ve downloaded movies I had no intention of paying to see in any form, including via NetFlix. I agree completely that this is in fact illegal, and if methods were put in place tomorrow to stop it my life wouldn’t really change. I’d still not pay to see certain movies, only I’d suddenly not able to see them for free – no real loss to me.

My only objection is when cases like mine are used to inflate ‘lost revenue’ figures. No, what I’ve done isn’t strictly legal, but at the same time you can’t say that my downloading of Aeon Flux cost the studio my $9.00 ticket or $20.00 DVD purchase.

At the same time there have been a few movies and more than a few CDs I’ve downloaded which I then went on to buy, simply because the download allowed me to see that it was a product I wanted, and for which I had no qualms about compensating the artists and other entities in the supply chain. If the free downloads for these were stopped tomorrow I’d be buying probably about 20% fewer DVDs and 70%-90% fewer CDs per month. Not that this makes the download itself suddenly ‘legal’, however in the end there is a financial benefit to everyone for these cases.

I honestly feel a true measurement of how much piracy costs the entertainment industry is impossible to arrive at. First you would have to have an accurate measurement of how many downloaded copies of the object being measured exist. Then you would have to have an accurate count of how many of those downloads would have purchased the item in some form (including rental via monthly subscription services like NetFlix) had the download not been available.

I do agree that free downloads are costing people money, but I strongly feel that the numbers thrown out by either side in the issue are grossly weighted to their respective positions, as true numbers are pretty much undeterminable.

Edit to clarify : I’m in no way suggesting that my M.O. is typical of most downloaders - I really don't know how common or uncommon people like me are overall. I know personally of some people who go on to buy pretty much everything they’ve downloaded, as well as some who have GBs of files they have no intention of ever acquiring legally. The fact that not everyone who downloads does so with the same intent/lack thereof to purchase is another reason why accurate numbers on how much piracy costs the industry are not possible to the extent the supporters/detractors would have us believe.

Marquis de Carabas

30th August 2006, 11:14 AM

My new student werker, wise beyond his years, just offered up this analogy to those who get mad over downloading of copyrighted materials...

It's like a prostitute getting mad that some other woman gave it away for free.

Marc L

30th August 2006, 11:50 AM

I can't really see the point of buying expensive equipment and then using it to watch blurry movies (unless it's porn, obviously.)

Actually, it's much better, imo, to cough up a nominal pay per minute fee and download streaming videos. They're better quality, and you don't use up your hard drive space.

Marc

Almo

30th August 2006, 11:56 AM

Our ISP has no official cap, but they throttle the hell out of your download if you use too much. I haven't run into this, but a friend has. I think it was... :( Can't remember. But it was something big like 15 GB a week to trigger it.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 11:59 AM

My new student werker, wise beyond his years, just offered up this analogy to those who get mad over downloading of copyrighted materials...

Prostitution is not legal. Buying DVDs is. Giving away sex for free is legal. Downloading a movie is not. Your colleague has it backwards.

Marquis de Carabas

30th August 2006, 12:01 PM

Prostitution is not legal. Buying DVDs is. Giving away sex for free is legal. Downloading a movie is not. Your colleague has it backwards.
In some places, prostitution is legal, but no matter. If you think his statement was at all a commentary on legality, you have entirely missed his point.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 12:10 PM

In some places, prostitution is legal, but no matter. If you think his statement was at all a commentary on legality, you have entirely missed his point.

No, I get the point he was trying to make, but the legality is entirely relevant because it's only that that makes something a legitimate industry. And a legitimate industry HAS to have the right to protect itself. If you reduce the complaints of a legimate industry protecting its revenue streams to simply 'getting mad', then you then do the entire concept of business a disservice.

His comparison may raise a few chuckles, but it's not accurate, because the prostitute is selling something different to the woman giving it away for free (it's not the same vagina).

A more accurate comparison would be a prostitute complaining that a potential customer has sex with her while she was asleep.

If the people who want free movies only download those movies that have been made for free distribution, then his comparison stands up.

Marquis de Carabas

30th August 2006, 12:23 PM

His comparison may raise a few chuckles, but it's not accurate, because the prostitute is selling something different to the woman giving it away for free (it's not the same vagina).
P:Dsy is p:Dsy.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 12:34 PM

P:Dsy is p:Dsy.

Oh my god! You are in so much trouble! :D

Although.......by that logic, Weekend at Bernies is as good as City of God, right?

fsol

30th August 2006, 12:55 PM

Weekend at Bernies 2 maybe....

Ian Osborne

30th August 2006, 01:18 PM

In some places, prostitution is legal, but no matter. If you think his statement was at all a commentary on legality, you have entirely missed his point.
You could argue the pirate is like a rapist laughing because he doesn't have to pay.

Personally, I'd rather make a distinction between a leeching pirate, who never pays for anything, and someone who's basically honest but isn't above supplementing his legal entertainments collection with the odd bootleg. It's not a black and white issue. And after what Warner Bros did to Randi, are we really going to let them occupy the high moral ground?

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 01:21 PM

You could argue the pirate is like a rapist laughing because he doesn't have to pay.

You know, I originally wrote "like a guy who rapes a prostitute" rather than the "has sex with her while she's asleep", but then I thought - do I really want to compare movie piracy to rape? :D

Although, having sex with a hooker in her sleep is rape, now I think about it. So I did compare movie piracy to rape! :eye-poppi

Marquis de Carabas

30th August 2006, 01:24 PM

I was fully expecting a rape comparison, but really, I think downloading music is more akin to gassing Jews.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 01:26 PM

I was fully expecting a rape comparison, but really, I think downloading music is more akin to gassing Jews.

Yes, and the Nazis were well known for their movie piracy. People who download movies are like the SS. Or if they're under 18, the Hitler Youth.

Kimpatsu

30th August 2006, 04:00 PM

Seeing as I'm asking you for statistics, I thought I'd supply some of my own for the UK:
And some worldwide figures from the Motion Picture Association:
The MPAA stats are just lies. http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=5459_0_9_0_C They make up numbers to bolster their hidebound case.
Anyway, movies aren't relevant here; we're talking about TV shows.

tkingdoll

30th August 2006, 06:10 PM

The MPAA stats are just lies. http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=5459_0_9_0_C They make up numbers to bolster their hidebound case.
Anyway, movies aren't relevant here; we're talking about TV shows.

We've already discussed how the survey figures are possibly inflated, and we halved them in the interests of fairness. The alternative position would be to claim that the movie industry loses no, or little money, to piracy, which would be a ridiculous claim. It doesn't matter if it's one billion, or ten, movie makers do not make films for free distribution, and it is not legal to download pirate versions of them. Until the law changes, or movie makers decide to not have an issue with people taking their product without paying, then there is no defence for it. You only have the luxury of deciding which laws to break and which to keep, because at present there is little mechanism in place to catch you.

Kimpatsu

30th August 2006, 06:21 PM

Why is it OK to say "I don't want it, so I'll have it anyway but without paying for it"?
Why would anyone take something if they don't want it? By definition, people don't download what they don't want.
And why is it OK to say "I can't afford it, so I'll have it anywy but without paying for it"?
You're still thinking in terms ofthe outdated 1-2-1 paradigm. The consumer shouldn't be paying anything for receipt; all costs should be covered by advertising. Hence commercial TV and Spiral Frog.
I suppose you opposed cassette recorders and the video recorder when they came out, didn't you?

Kimpatsu

30th August 2006, 06:22 PM

We've already discussed how the survey figures are possibly inflated, and we halved them in the interests of fairness. The alternative position would be to claim that the movie industry loses no, or little money, to piracy, which would be a ridiculous claim. It doesn't matter if it's one billion, or ten, movie makers do not make films for free distribution, and it is not legal to download pirate versions of them. Until the law changes, or movie makers decide to not have an issue with people taking their product without paying, then there is no defence for it. You only have the luxury of deciding which laws to break and which to keep, because at present there is little mechanism in place to catch you.That doesn't mean it's wrong, just illegal. As I keep saying, the paradigm needs to change. If advertisers covered the costs, viewing would be free at the point of download--like TV. Or would you prefer the BBC model?

Marc L

31st August 2006, 09:45 AM

I mentioned this jokingly in reference to porn, where you can rent a streaming video with pay per minute. Are there authorized sites that do this for movies/tv? That way, one can pay a nominal fee for a movie and watch it. The benefits to the viewer is not having to pay the high price of movie tickets/leave the house, and the studio still gets a cut of the action.

Certainly that's a better solution to piracy?

Marc

tkingdoll

31st August 2006, 11:36 AM

Why would anyone take something if they don't want it? By definition, people don't download what they don't want.

If you look back through this thread, you will see several people claiming that they only download stuff that they wouldn't have paid for otherwise. If you refuse to pay for the cinema or DVD (rental or purchase), I think it's fair to say you don't really want the film.

If you are saying that people are downloading things they really do want, what is their excuse for not paying the market price for them? Do they think there is an unending pot of money that will keep funding the things they like even though they are opting out of the commercial cycle?

If you want something that has a price tag, you have to pay for it. Why anyone thinks they are above that is beyond me. It's up there with petty housebreaking and shoplifting. "I place no value on the ethics of this so it's OK for me to do it".

You say it doesn't mean it's wrong, just illegal. Well, I don't about you, but I'm pretty sure society teaches that it's wrong to break the law. If you don't like the law, protest it through the proper channels.

There is no defence for breaking the law just because you want something for free.

Kimpatsu

31st August 2006, 03:49 PM

Kimpatsu

31st August 2006, 03:51 PM

If you look back through this thread, you will see several people claiming that they only download stuff that they wouldn't have paid for otherwise. If you refuse to pay for the cinema or DVD (rental or purchase), I think it's fair to say you don't really want the film.

If you are saying that people are downloading things they really do want, what is their excuse for not paying the market price for them? Do they think there is an unending pot of money that will keep funding the things they like even though they are opting out of the commercial cycle?

If you want something that has a price tag, you have to pay for it. Why anyone thinks they are above that is beyond me. It's up there with petty housebreaking and shoplifting. "I place no value on the ethics of this so it's OK for me to do it".

You say it doesn't mean it's wrong, just illegal. Well, I don't about you, but I'm pretty sure society teaches that it's wrong to break the law. If you don't like the law, protest it through the proper channels.

There is no defence for breaking the law just because you want something for free.
Tell that to Nelson Madela, Ghandi, and Emmeline Pankhurst, all of whom broke the law to accomplish justice.
At least if people download what they want, the seed-to-leach ratio improves with BT.

tkingdoll

31st August 2006, 03:58 PM

Tell that to Nelson Madela, Ghandi, and Emmeline Pankhurst, all of whom broke the law to accomplish justice.
At least if people download what they want, the seed-to-leach ratio improves with BT.

What exactly is the justice (on a par with equal rights, women's suffrage, etc) that you are seeking?

Also, those people broke the law publicly, in protest, to make their point, and were fully prepared to take the consequences of their actions to further their cause.

Presumably, then, you are declaring to all the companies whose products you have illegally downloaded that you are doing so as a political protest against..er...whatever you are protesting against, and that you will be willing to be fined or go to jail in order to bring your cause further into the public conciousness. I look forward to the news reports.

Kimpatsu

31st August 2006, 04:07 PM

What exactly is the justice (on a par with equal rights, women's suffrage, etc) that you are seeking?

Also, those people broke the law publicly, in protest, to make their point, and were fully prepared to take the consequences of their actions to further their cause.

Presumably, then, you are declaring to all the companies whose products you have illegally downloaded that you are doing so as a political protest against..er...whatever you are protesting against, and that you will be willing to be fined or go to jail in order to bring your cause further into the public conciousness. I look forward to the news reports.
Yeah, a true martyr, that's me.
The injustice of opposition to content distribution, that's what.

69dodge

31st August 2006, 10:27 PM

Here's how the world works:

- People spend time and money making things to entertain other people.
- They put those things on the market for a price.
- If you want the thing, you buy it.
- If you don't want it, you don't buy it.
- If you can't afford it, you can't have it.That's the way the laws currently work. Why should they work that way?

What is our ultimate goal?

And why is it OK to say "I can't afford it, so I'll have it anywy but without paying for it"?I'm not sure what you mean by "OK". It's not legal. The reason it perhaps should be legal is simple: someone gains something and no one loses anything. Surely that's desirable!

El Greco

1st September 2006, 01:03 AM

The question is this: If software, movie and music downloading were legal, would we have much diminished production of the above (quantitatively and qualitatively) ?

My guess is no.

NeilC

1st September 2006, 02:31 AM

Why is it OK to say "I don't want it, so I'll have it anyway but without paying for it"?

And why is it OK to say "I can't afford it, so I'll have it anywy but without paying for it"?

Well seeing as I didn't say any of those things I don't feel compelled to defend then.

I simply stated that the downloading of movies/software is not equivalent to direct theft.

The difference is how much harm comes to the person who owns the copyright. Someone steals £100 from my pocket I have lost £100. If a 15 year old downloads a professiobal video editing suite costing £6000 then who has been harmed? The 15 year old was never going to pay £6000. So the software originator loses nothing. One one side £100 loss, on the other no loss.

Therefore I conclude that they are not morally equivalent. And furthermore I believe most people consider this to be true on some level or another. Most people have borrowed a CD (not allowed under copyright laws of many countries) or taped an album or photocopied parts of a book at some point in their life and many of those people would never even think of stealing say £5 from someone.

DreadNiK

1st September 2006, 02:37 AM

The question is this: If software, movie and music downloading were legal, would we have much diminished production of the above (quantitatively and qualitatively) ?

My guess is no.

I think you have to take these things seperately:

Software, in terms of expensive programs, could quite easily be harmed. In terms of games, the effect would probably be less so. But more and more people are getting hi speed broadband connections, so if enough people pirate software, less profit will be made = less money put into it to start with.

Movies, I would agree with your 'no' more. People will still go to the cinema to see blockbusters, collectors will still want the physical media, and maybe superstars' ridiculous fees would be forced to drop. Independant\low budget movies could take a hit though.

Music, I would have agree with your 'no'. I suspect we'd get less crap, and more amateur/home produced music of better and better quality. Live performances will still be around, merchandise, everything else.

I agree with those who say the paradigm needs to be changed. I think there should be 'entertainment licensing' whereby you pay a yearly rate to download media. If a count was kept of what was downloaded, then the proceeds of the yearly fees could be divided appropriately.
Advertising could also be used to supplement profits.

ZirconBlue

1st September 2006, 08:20 AM

Most people have borrowed a CD (not allowed under copyright laws of many countries) or taped an album or photocopied parts of a book at some point in their life and many of those people would never even think of stealing say £5 from someone.

I don't know about other parts of the world, but in the US it is perfectly legal to borrow a CD. Further a fee is assessed on blank cassette tapes, video tapes, and audio-cdr's to cover the (theoretical) loss of a sale due to copying material onto these media.

For those who might want to actually download tv programs legally, I understand that the networks are allowing many of their programs to be distributed freely via sites such as YouTube.

Kimpatsu

1st September 2006, 09:09 AM

My point is simple.
I prefer seeing movies on the big screen, so give me the movies at the same time as they open elsewhere. A six month delay is unacceptable.
I am willing to pay for TV (although advertising would be better), but that option is not available. BTW, from whom exactly am I stealing when the TV shows in question are simply never available in the country where I live?
Finally: why can't I download music legally?

NeilC

1st September 2006, 09:11 AM

You saying that copying a CD is legal in the USA?

geni

1st September 2006, 10:15 AM

My point is simple.
I prefer seeing movies on the big screen, so give me the movies at the same time as they open elsewhere. A six month delay is unacceptable.

So make your own movies.

I am willing to pay for TV (although advertising would be better), but that option is not available. BTW, from whom exactly am I stealing when the TV shows in question are simply never available in the country where I live?

The owners of the IP (assumeing you are not in Iran). They may at some point wish to sell the program to someone in that country.

Finally: why can't I download music legally?

Err you can. iTunes certianly operates in japan. I assume there are other simular companies.

geni

1st September 2006, 10:21 AM

I think you have to take these things seperately:

Software, in terms of expensive programs, could quite easily be harmed.

Most of the expensive stuff is aimed at bussiness though.

In terms of games, the effect would probably be less so. But more and more people are getting hi speed broadband connections, so if enough people pirate software, less profit will be made = less money put into it to start with.

The open source mob complicates things but I doubt we would see the same rate of graphics upgrades and completely new games of reasonable quality would be less common.

Movies, I would agree with your 'no' more. People will still go to the cinema to see blockbusters, collectors will still want the physical media, and maybe superstars' ridiculous fees would be forced to drop. Independant\low budget movies could take a hit though.

You destory the stright to video market and with the loss of the video market budgets would have to fall. See various films outside the english speaking world for a likely result.

Music, I would have agree with your 'no'. I suspect we'd get less crap, and more amateur/home produced music of better and better quality. Live performances will still be around, merchandise, everything else.

No we would get myspace.

I agree with those who say the paradigm needs to be changed. I think there should be 'entertainment licensing' whereby you pay a yearly rate to download media. If a count was kept of what was downloaded, then the proceeds of the yearly fees could be divided appropriately.

that would have the same problems with inforcement as todays paradigm.

Advertising could also be used to supplement profits.

Don't we have enough advertising?

Marc L

1st September 2006, 10:36 AM

That's the way the laws currently work. Why should they work that way?

What is our ultimate goal?

I'd say that the ultimate goal is for people to be able to make money off of their product. Also to reward people for producing quality product. If everything is free (via downloading), there's really no incentive for someone to produce good material. By selling CD's, the artists see what sells, and they not only know what to produce, they have the incentive (monetarily) to produce it.

Yes, tracking what people download will tell artists and producers what's popular, but without the monetary compensation, there's no real incentive to do it.

Marc

Marc L

1st September 2006, 10:41 AM

You saying that copying a CD is legal in the USA?

To the best of my knowledge, making copies of CD's is legal. ISTR a while back that a law was passed regarding software (back when we still used floppy disks), that you could make a back-up copy of the software, as long as both copies weren't running at the same time.

I'm not sure how this connects with CD's, though. My guess would be that when you make a copy of a CD, you're usually making only one copy of a CD that you've already paid for. Again, I'm guessing that the law allows that, just not distribution of CD's.

It's similar to recording a show off of television. You can tape your favorite program, for watching at home, you just can't distribute it or charge others to watch it.

Marc

geni

1st September 2006, 10:53 AM

No, there's no such site, because the suits are still stuck in the 20th century.

Really? I assume you know that Rupert Murdoch owns myspace.

DreadNiK

1st September 2006, 10:57 AM

Most of the expensive stuff is aimed at bussiness though.

So? If it is legal, what difference would that make?[/QUOTE]

The open source mob complicates things but I doubt we would see the same rate of graphics upgrades and completely new games of reasonable quality would be less common.

So you agree to some extent.

You destory the stright to video market and with the loss of the video market budgets would have to fall. See various films outside the english speaking world for a likely result.

Again, sounds like a degree of agreement.

No we would get myspace.

Firstly, myspace has some very good unsigned music on it. Secondly...live performances?

that would have the same problems with inforcement as todays paradigm.

Ban all p2p software except the regulated one and impose much harsher penalties. Even if that didn't work so well or you didn't do it, it would only be the download meter/profit allocation that would be affected by today's paradigm's problems. The license fee would suffer from today's licensing fee problems.

Don't we have enough advertising?

Maybe.

Major Billy

1st September 2006, 11:03 AM

That's a terrible attitude. How the hell do you qualify whether or not you "would have bought it otherwise"?Do you avoid libraries and buy every book you read?

geni

1st September 2006, 01:28 PM

So? If it is legal, what difference would that make?

Business has a greater interest in useing legal softwear.

Firstly, myspace has some very good unsigned music on it.

It also has large amounts of rubish

Secondly...live performances?

Not all music works well in live performance and venues are limited. Not everyone wants to tour either.

Ban all p2p software except the regulated one and impose much harsher penalties. Even if that didn't work so well or you didn't do it, it would only be the download meter/profit allocation that would be affected by today's paradigm's problems. The license fee would suffer from today's licensing fee problems.

Ban P2P? not really feasible.

tkingdoll

1st September 2006, 02:51 PM

Do you avoid libraries and buy every book you read?

?? Libraries are illegal sources of books?

And actually, I do buy every book I read, yes.

Kimpatsu

1st September 2006, 04:59 PM

So make your own movies.
Don't be stupid. Or give me $200 million.
The owners of the IP (assumeing you are not in Iran). They may at some point wish to sell the program to someone in that country.
Tool ate, and too uncertain. "Maybe"? And there must be no delay, remember.
Err you can. iTunes certianly operates in japan. I assume there are other simular companies.
Only for J-Pop. Not Western music.

geni

1st September 2006, 05:36 PM

Don't be stupid. Or give me $200 million.

You don't need $200 million. It is posible to render a movie on desktop computers.

Tool ate, and too uncertain. "Maybe"? And there must be no delay, remember.

Why no delay?

Only for J-Pop. Not Western music.

Have you look hard enough?

Kimpatsu

1st September 2006, 06:09 PM

You don't need $200 million. It is posible to render a movie on desktop computers.
You try rendering Spider-Man on a desktop.
Why no delay?
Why shoudl I have to wait?
Have you look hard enough?
All your base are belong to us.

69dodge

2nd September 2006, 05:26 AM

I'd say that the ultimate goal is for people to be able to make money off of their product. Also to reward people for producing quality product. If everything is free (via downloading), there's really no incentive for someone to produce good material. By selling CD's, the artists see what sells, and they not only know what to produce, they have the incentive (monetarily) to produce it.

Yes, tracking what people download will tell artists and producers what's popular, but without the monetary compensation, there's no real incentive to do it.Well, I did ask, but the question was somewhat rhetorical.

The ultimate goal can't be making money. Why is counterfeiting illegal? If it were made legal, everyone could have as much money as they wanted. But something isn't quite right with this plan, obviously.

When I said "ultimate", I meant more ultimate than that. Why do we want to give artists an incentive to produce art? Because we want everyone else to have art to enjoy.

So, preventing some people from enjoying the art is precisely the opposite of our goal. Perhaps it---or, at least, the threat of it---might be necessary, if we can't think of any other way to encourage the initial production of the art. But clearly it should be thought of as a very last resort, and not, as many people seem to think of it, as the way that things just naturally ought to work.

Getting something for nothing is good. The more people who can get things for free, and the more things that can be gotten for free, the better off the world will be, overall.

69dodge

2nd September 2006, 05:30 AM

?? Libraries are illegal sources of books?No.

But if they were made illegal, authors would be able to sell more copies of their books. Is this a good reason to make libraries illegal?

geni

2nd September 2006, 07:06 AM

You try rendering Spider-Man on a desktop.

You appear to be stuck in the 20th century yourself.

Why shoudl I have to wait?

Because you are not paying not to.

jjramsey

2nd September 2006, 08:57 AM

tkingdoll

2nd September 2006, 09:30 AM

No.

But if they were made illegal, authors would be able to sell more copies of their books. Is this a good reason to make libraries illegal?

When a book costs $100 million to make, then libraries will have to charge $5 a day for it just like video stores do :rolleyes:

ReFLeX

2nd September 2006, 09:36 AM

When a book costs $100 million to make, then libraries will have to charge $5 a day for it just like video stores do :rolleyes:

Unless the book is more than a few months old, then it's $5 for a week.:p

tkingdoll

2nd September 2006, 09:39 AM

Unless the book is more than a few months old, then it's $5 for a week.:p

Libraries in the USA charge?

Ian Osborne

2nd September 2006, 09:42 AM

Libraries in the USA charge?
I think that was a remark about what video rental stores charge. And Canada is not the USA ;)

tkingdoll

2nd September 2006, 09:54 AM

I think that was a remark about what video rental stores charge. And Canada is not the USA ;)

Oh, I get it now! Hee hee. :blush:

And you are quite right, ReFlex's profile does state he is in Canada. Whoops!

Vitnir

2nd September 2006, 09:59 AM

tkingdoll

2nd September 2006, 10:02 AM

So because I missed the premiere of Battlestar Galactica on TV I now have to buy the DVD-box? I'm not going to feel guilty about downloading that, perhaps feeling guilty admitting I watch it but not because its illegal.

Why not rent it? That's what I do with TV shows I missed.

You have to realise that if the makers are releasing it for sale and rental on DVD, then they are making a very clear statement that this show is available to you, at any time, for a fee.

Why not just nick the DVD from your local store?

Ian Osborne

2nd September 2006, 10:15 AM

You have to realise that if the makers are releasing it for sale and rental on DVD, then they are making a very clear statement that this show is available to you, at any time, for a fee.
If you recorded the show when it was on TV, would you feel morally obliged to wipe the tape/disc as soon as the DVD is released?

jjramsey

2nd September 2006, 10:42 AM

tkingdoll

2nd September 2006, 10:44 AM

If you recorded the show when it was on TV, would you feel morally obliged to wipe the tape/disc as soon as the DVD is released?

I don't record TV shows. Next question! :D

Ian Osborne

2nd September 2006, 10:55 AM

I don't record TV shows. Next question! :D
Then address the previous one as a hypothetical instead of dodging it.

tkingdoll

2nd September 2006, 11:01 AM

Then address the previous one as a hypothetical instead of dodging it.

Anyone who knows me (and there are a few folks here who could back this up) knows that I do take a very high standpoint on this issue, so in all seriousness, if I had, hypothetically, recorded a TV show that later became available to buy legitimately, then yes, I would get rid of my copy. But I fully expect I am in a minority in this.

Of course, back when I had a TV aerial, if you wanted to tape something it would have to be on VHS, and goodness knows I'd have jumped at the chance to replace the nasty quality, degrading format with a proper copy.

I own hundreds of DVDs and easily a thousand CDs, all legit. Sometimes people send me pirated material, which I discard without listening to and buy or rent it instead, so I guess that's similar to the question you pose.

ZirconBlue

2nd September 2006, 03:05 PM

You saying that copying a CD is legal in the USA?

IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge, yes -- under some circumstances. You can make backup copies legally. Additionally, I believe you can make copies of your CDs and give them to others. You can not sell copies, and you cannot distribute digital copies via the internet. (This is all to the best of my recollection, and may reflect a faulty recollection of the details of the DMCA.)

Vitnir

2nd September 2006, 03:52 PM

Why not download it from iTunes?

I find iTunes very confusing but I cant find anything but free commentaries to episodes by the producer in the Swedish music store and the US one wont let me buy.

Johnny Pixels

2nd September 2006, 05:05 PM

Anyone who knows me (and there are a few folks here who could back this up) knows that I do take a very high standpoint on this issue, so in all seriousness, if I had, hypothetically, recorded a TV show that later became available to buy legitimately, then yes, I would get rid of my copy. But I fully expect I am in a minority in this.

But you're only allowed to recorded TV shows for time-shifting purposes, not for keeping until you can buy them.

Marc L

2nd September 2006, 08:15 PM

Well, I did ask, but the question was somewhat rhetorical.

Ah. Oh well, I felt the need to preach, and your post was easy :)

The ultimate goal can't be making money. Why is counterfeiting illegal? If it were made legal, everyone could have as much money as they wanted. But something isn't quite right with this plan, obviously.

When I said "ultimate", I meant more ultimate than that. Why do we want to give artists an incentive to produce art? Because we want everyone else to have art to enjoy.

Granted.

So, preventing some people from enjoying the art is precisely the opposite of our goal. Perhaps it---or, at least, the threat of it---might be necessary, if we can't think of any other way to encourage the initial production of the art. But clearly it should be thought of as a very last resort, and not, as many people seem to think of it, as the way that things just naturally ought to work.

On the other hand, just how many people out there can't afford a CD? Or, at the very least, don't have friends who can. Failing that, how many people do you know who don't own a radio? Shoot, the majority of my knowledge of modern music (which is not much at all) comes from listening to the radio in the car on the way to work. I don't, as a rule, buy CD's or watch MTV/VH1.

Getting something for nothing is good. The more people who can get things for free, and the more things that can be gotten for free, the better off the world will be, overall.

See, I'd definitely have to disagree here. Certainly, I'd rather have something for free rather than pay for it, however, most of the items that I'd require for a decent lifestyle don't grow on trees. Someone has to produce them, and those people are entitled to be compensated for their work. In order to compensate them, you need to have money, which comes from charging for the product they've produced.

By paying producers, they're encouraged to produce more. If they do something well, you give them more money. If they produce a product you especially like, you encourage them to produce it more (thus increasing supply and driving down prices). When people are compensated for what they produce, they begin to innovate. They make new and improved products, adding to people's overall quality of life. If there is no compensation, then there's no incentive to produce. While my wife may sometimes knit a scarf for a friend as a gift without expectation of payment, she's not likely to start mass-producing them and handing them out to passers-by without expecting some form of compensation.

Marc

Kimpatsu

2nd September 2006, 09:13 PM

You appear to be stuck in the 20th century yourself.
Let's see you render Spider-Man using a home PC, then.
Because you are not paying not to.
Circular argument. The internet has made not waiting an option, therefore I shall naturally avail myself of it. A better question (albeit rhetorical) is, why can't the suits embrace the reality?

delphi_ote

2nd September 2006, 09:24 PM

I think BT has an encryption feature that makes you harder to detect, but still, it's fundamentally stealing to download something instead of buying it. Like my friend said, "you don't expect people to give you a car, do you?"
Stealing? It may be unethical, but it's not stealing. I'm really tired of hearing that word in this context.

Kimpatsu

2nd September 2006, 11:23 PM

Stealing? It may be unethical, but it's not stealing. I'm really tired of hearing that word in this context.
Quite right. How can I steal what is not otherwise available to me? I'm sick of repeating this: the choice is not between buying a DVD or downloading the TV show, it's between downloading the TV show or not being able to receive it at all.

delphi_ote

2nd September 2006, 11:42 PM

Quite right. How can I steal what is not otherwise available to me? I'm sick of repeating this: the choice is not between buying a DVD or downloading the TV show, it's between downloading the TV show or not being able to receive it at all.
There are a lot of other problems with calling this stealing as well. If theft of $16.95 from the company that owns the copyright, literally every copy I make of that file in violation of its copyright creates $16.95.

Forging money is not stealing money. It dilutes the value of legitimate currency, but not unti you put it into circulation. Conceptually, I think there's a strong analogy between forging currency and copyright infringement.

Kimpatsu

3rd September 2006, 12:51 AM

Forging money is not stealing money. It dilutes the value of legitimate currency, but not unti you put it into circulation. Conceptually, I think there's a strong analogy between forging currency and copyright infringement.
If US and UK TV stations want to make money from their shows, why don't they add universal advertising in place of the regualr stations bugs? Which is what Steve Tempe suggested in the first place.

geni

3rd September 2006, 05:26 AM

Let's see you render Spider-Man using a home PC, then.

Why would I want to? Spiderman is a movie for the 20 century big budget and limted opertunities for advertising (although you probably could render it via something like seti@home there is still the question of why you should want to).

Come on. If you think you've got this britiant new paragrim for makeing money out of IP start useing it.

Circular argument. The internet has made not waiting an option, therefore I shall naturally avail myself of it.

The internet has made spending out 419 scams an option. Will you avail yourself of that as well?

A better question (albeit rhetorical) is, why can't the suits embrace the reality?

Most people don't. And again Murdoch owns myspace These mythical "suits" you like to blame everything on are just acting logicaly. Companies have finite advertising budgets therefor it is logical to try and find outher revinue streams. Thus killing of BT is the most logical source. The weakness of BT is the problem of finding stuff. Make that imposible and they've won (surfice to say they are playing a lot nicer than I would but then they do tend to try and stay within the law).

Kimpatsu

3rd September 2006, 06:20 AM

Why would I want to? Spiderman is a movie for the 20 century big budget and limted opertunities for advertising (although you probably could render it via something like seti@home there is still the question of why you should want to).
Which is precisely my argument. First you tell me to make my own movies, now you admit it can't be done. Which is it?
Come on. If you think you've got this britiant new paragrim for makeing money out of IP start useing it.
Despite being "britiant", I can't start "useing" it, becasue I'm not a TV producer.
Why would I want to? Spiderman is a movie for the The internet has made spending out 419 scams an option. Will you avail yourself of that as well?[/QUOTE]
Nice strawman. Next you'll be suggesting that because there's gay porn on the internet, I should avail myself of that as well. Just ebcause something's available on the internet doesn't compel me to use it; only that I should have the choice. (Even if it's a con, like Nigeria....)
Most people don't. And again Murdoch owns myspace These mythical "suits" you like to blame everything on are just acting logicaly. Companies have finite advertising budgets therefor it is logical to try and find outher revinue streams. Thus killing of BT is the most logical source. The weakness of BT is the problem of finding stuff. Make that imposible and they've won (surfice to say they are playing a lot nicer than I would but then they do tend to try and stay within the law).
They are most certainly NOT acting logically, as Mr. Tempe demonstrated. They just don't understand how the internet functions, a fact made perfectly clear by their own foot-in-mouth Q&A in the video. You DID watch the video, didn't you...?

geni

3rd September 2006, 07:09 AM

Which is precisely my argument. First you tell me to make my own movies, now you admit it can't be done. Which is it?

You are aware that movies other than spiderman 2 exist? Movies have been rendered on desktop computers. It can be done. It has been done (you could also do things like stop motion animation).

Despite being "britiant", I can't start "useing" it, becasue I'm not a TV producer.

And Jimmy Wales was not an encyclopedia editor. So what.

Nice strawman. Next you'll be suggesting that because there's gay porn on the internet, I should avail myself of that as well. Just ebcause something's available on the internet doesn't compel me to use it; only that I should have the choice. (Even if it's a con, like Nigeria....)

You do not have the choice. I can probably find quite a few things on the net that are illegal in Japan.

They are most certainly NOT acting logically, as Mr. Tempe demonstrated. They just don't understand how the internet functions, a fact made perfectly clear by their own foot-in-mouth Q&A in the video. You DID watch the video, didn't you...?

Didn't see any .ogg files. I don't watch movie clips of stuff. Loose change and the like show they are far to easy to manipulate. Anyone can be made to look a fool with a bit of skillfull editing.

geni

3rd September 2006, 07:10 AM

If US and UK TV stations want to make money from their shows, why don't they add universal advertising in place of the regualr stations bugs? Which is what Steve Tempe suggested in the first place.

Regualar stations bugs? Which UK are we talking about here?

Kimpatsu

3rd September 2006, 08:19 AM

You are aware that movies other than spiderman 2 exist? Movies have been rendered on desktop computers. It can be done. It has been done (you could also do things like stop motion animation).
I'm not interested in crappy amateur productions, only in high-quality ones.
And Jimmy Wales was not an encyclopedia editor. So what.
You were the one who said that I should make money out of BT. I'm the one who pointed out that I'm not in the business.
You do not have the choice. I can probably find quite a few things on the net that are illegal in Japan.
And it's illegal to call Kim Jong Il a liar in North Korea. Just because somethign is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
Didn't see any .ogg files. I don't watch movie clips of stuff. Loose change and the like show they are far to easy to manipulate. Anyone can be made to look a fool with a bit of skillfull editing.
IOW, you don't have a clue what this discussion is actually about. Pity we had to come this far before you admitted it. :rolleyes:

geni

3rd September 2006, 10:43 AM

I'm not interested in crappy amateur productions, only in high-quality ones.

Then you had better start respecting intellectual property.

You were the one who said that I should make money out of BT. I'm the one who pointed out that I'm not in the business.

Not at the moment. You belive that this method of money makeing is being under utilised. Utilise it.

And it's illegal to call Kim Jong Il a liar in North Korea. Just because somethign is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

Japan is a democracy. There are legit ways to change the law. Or there is legit protest.

IOW, you don't have a clue what this discussion is actually about. Pity we had to come this far before you admitted it. :rolleyes:

It is you wanting something for nothing except perhaps for the servie of viewing ads. In order to justify this you have to demonise so called suits.

Kimpatsu

3rd September 2006, 03:48 PM

Who says I don't spect intellectual property?
You are still thinking like this is the 20th century.
As for Japan, there are democracies and there are democracies. The monolithic system here is like something you have never encountered.

geni

3rd September 2006, 04:17 PM

Who says I don't spect intellectual property?

If you did you wouldn't take your course of actions.

You are still thinking like this is the 20th century.

From somewho who still thinks in terms of big budgets and the holywood machine I find this odd.

As for Japan, there are democracies and there are democracies. The monolithic system here is like something you have never encountered.

I belive it was pretty popular in parts of europe at one point. Even states that are basicaly one party tend to have to listen to the people.

tygirwulf

4th September 2006, 01:28 AM

If you really want to stop piracy, you need to find a way to stop the piracy groups and their chain of distribution. People like you or me don't usually have the resources to grab a copy of a game from the plant that duplicates the master copy, crack the copy protection, copy the disk, and distribute it to private ftp servers, where it is then downloaded by couriers and uploaded to other ftps, newsgroups and torrented before the game or whatever is even officially released.

Piracy is a very serious business these days, and I imagine doing any damage to the big piracy groups will take a lot of funding, coordination and espionage.

69dodge

4th September 2006, 06:41 AM

But if [libraries] were made illegal, authors would be able to sell more copies of their books. Is this a good reason to make libraries illegal?

There's a problem with this argument. At a library, one can borrow a book for a limited time. At a bookstore, one gets the book permanently. It's that difference between libraries and bookstores that keeps the latter in business.I'm not sure how this response relates to what I wrote. I wasn't talking about bookstores at all, just libraries and authors.

The point of my question was to show that we currently have additional goals besides just allowing authors to make money. We have decided that libraries should be legal, because the existence of libraries allows more people to read more books than they otherwise could afford to, and we consider this to be a good thing overall, even though it does reduce authors' income somewhat.

So, to be consistent, discussions about the desirability of making activities like filesharing legal should likewise take into account the advantage to the filesharers of increased availability of the files, and not only the disadvantage to the files' creators of reduced income.

Darat

4th September 2006, 07:08 AM

I'm not sure how this response relates to what I wrote. I wasn't talking about bookstores at all, just libraries and authors.

The point of my question was to show that we currently have additional goals besides just allowing authors to make money. We have decided that libraries should be legal, because the existence of libraries allows more people to read more books than they otherwise could afford to, and we consider this to be a good thing overall, even though it does reduce authors' income somewhat.

But it is still a "one book - one person" - libraries are not allowed to make as many copies of the book they want and give the copies away and never have them returned. Libraries (at least in the UK) provide an increased income for the authors.

So, to be consistent, discussions about the desirability of making activities like filesharing legal should likewise take into account the advantage to the filesharers of increased availability of the files, and not only the disadvantage to the files' creators of reduced income.

The difference is that a library still has to buy a book whilst the file-sharing we are talking about would be the same as the library merely obtaining a copy of the book and paying nothing to author either via the purchase of the book or lending fees, and the library then making copies available to anyone who asked for it. What you would then have is something not totally dissimilar to a library rather then a library.

Libraries are a lending mechanism - perhaps if you introduced a digital rights method that would mean you can lend your files to someone else (and of course not access them whilst they are on loan) then your library analogy may have some bearing on the theft of an artist's work.

DreadNiK

4th September 2006, 07:14 AM

What if a 'maximum pure profit' level was set for an IP (if this is possible?). Then whoever wants to own a copy of something before this level has been reached will have to pay, and those who are willing to wait, don't?

Just throwing this idea out for it to be picked to pieces...

jjramsey

4th September 2006, 08:44 AM

The point of my question was to show that we currently have additional goals besides just allowing authors to make money. We have decided that libraries should be legal, because the existence of libraries allows more people to read more books than they otherwise could afford to, and we consider this to be a good thing overall, even though it does reduce authors' income somewhat.

And my point was that libraries have enough disadvantages (especially that the book is only lent for a limited time, not given away permanently) for their patrons that people see it in their own obvious self-interest to buy books as well as borrow them. It's a stable system that makes libraries no threat to authors' livelihoods. Free downloaded material does not inherently have disadvantages that would make its possessors buy an author's works out of obvious self-interest, aside from the small threat of punishment if one is caught. There is no immediate disincentive to be a parasite.

69dodge

5th September 2006, 12:05 AM

Libraries (at least in the UK) provide an increased income for the authors.How do you know this?

Suppose a library buys a book. You're saying that of all the people who, over the years, borrow that book from the library, only one of them would have bought their own copy if that were the only way they could read it?

I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if that were true.

The difference is that a library still has to buy a book whilst the file-sharing we are talking about would be the same as the library merely obtaining a copy of the book and paying nothing to author either via the purchase of the book or lending fees, and the library then making copies available to anyone who asked for it. What you would then have is something not totally dissimilar to a library rather then a library.

Libraries are a lending mechanism - perhaps if you introduced a digital rights method that would mean you can lend your files to someone else (and of course not access them whilst they are on loan) then your library analogy may have some bearing on the theft of an artist's work.Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. (Or maybe I'm just wrong, of course. That's also a possibility.) But it seems to me like you're focusing on details rather than looking at the big picture.

I'm not proposing a specific set of laws. I don't know what would work well. I'm just trying to see if we can at least agree on what "work well" means. What are we trying to accomplish in the end?

Copying the existing system should not be a goal in itself. We're used to the idea of lending simply because lending makes sense for a physical object: if one person has a printed book, it's physically impossible for another person to have the same copy. Lending digital information, on the other hand, is terribly artificial: a copy of the information is created anyway, because doing so is so easy, and then in addition all sorts of hardware and software infrastructure is needed to ensure that only one person at a time can access the information that they all actually have. What makes this approach the "right" way to do things? Just the fact that in its effects it's similar to what our previous experience with physical objects has gotten us used to?

In our attempts to make sure that authors get paid, we shouldn't forget that the whole reason we want them to get paid to write books is so that other people---as many other people as possible---will have books to read. If we truly didn't care about that, we would just tell prospective authors to go do something else more useful with their time.

Darat

5th September 2006, 01:18 AM

How do you know this?

Suppose a library buys a book. You're saying that of all the people who, over the years, borrow that book from the library, only one of them would have bought their own copy if that were the only way they could read it?

I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if that were true.

The PLR - http://www.plr.uk.com/enhancedindex.htm - in the UK an author receives money every time a book of theirs is lent out.

...snip...

Copying the existing system should not be a goal in itself. We're used to the idea of lending simply because lending makes sense for a physical object: if one person has a printed book, it's physically impossible for another person to have the same copy. Lending digital information, on the other hand, is terribly artificial: a copy of the information is created anyway, because doing so is so easy, and then in addition all sorts of hardware and software infrastructure is needed to ensure that only one person at a time can access the information that they all actually have. What makes this approach the "right" way to do things? Just the fact that in its effects it's similar to what our previous experience with physical objects has gotten us used to?

I agree however even though I didn't bring libraries into the discussion I do think they show how a system that allows wide access to an artist's work can be made to work both for the artist and the general public. (Indeed some libraries and even museums in the UK lend other works then books - everything from paintings to sculptures.)

In our attempts to make sure that authors get paid, we shouldn't forget that the whole reason we want them to get paid to write books is so that other people---as many other people as possible---will have books to read. If we truly didn't care about that, we would just tell prospective authors to go do something else more useful with their time.

I don't see it like this. I see it as "value added" economics. An author for example adds value to the paper that a book is made from and then trades the value they've added. If you look at it this way then the medium itself becomes irrelevant. So in the instance of a digital book - the author adds value to the memory device it is stored in and that is what we pay the author for. If we don't agree with the amount of "value added" that the author wants to trade then we have the option not to trade with the author, we do not however have the right to steal the "value" the author added.

El Greco

5th September 2006, 01:41 AM

Whatever we may say, here's what will happen: There will be found NO way to stop warez, P2P or any other medium that will emerge in order to facilitate what is currently known as "piracy". Eventually all software, music and movies will be legally freely distributed. Companies will resort to other ways of selling their products. Software companies may start offering a decent customer service with immediate responses to registered users. They may also start offering *gasp* a guarantee for every damage their products may cause. Movie companies will be selling spectacular shows in large theaters. Releasing media with collectibles that can't be copied, like figures, booklets or any other stuff, will become much more common. At a later stage they may be releasing media bundled with special hardware required to enjoy that media, eg special 3D glasses that work only with one movie. Music companies will rely more on live shows and will also start to give more collectibles with the media they sell.

I don't see any other realistic future.

NeilC

5th September 2006, 07:02 AM

Check this out.

I recently got an email from my ISP here in the UK stating that they had changed their terms and conditions. They can do this. I can't.

In the new terms they have a Fair Use Policy which explains that some people "selfishly" download large files during peak hours such as movies and music which makes the network slower for everyone else. And that such people will have their service removed!

Bear in mind that you pay extra for the "unlimited download" option.

I happen to be on the business broadband which is not affected by this particular term but I was reminded that I am still expected to respect copyright laws and breach of this is a breach of contract which results in my service stopping.

So maybe they can stop P2P.

Obviously this is pretty outrageous. Like it's my fault their system isn't fast enough to cope. Like I should give a toss about other users when I'm paying for unlimited downloads.

Any idea what sort of monitoring ISPs use? Do they just record MBs and port numbers or do they keep filenames? I never knew they watched so closely.

tkingdoll

5th September 2006, 07:06 AM

Splossy, presumably the people they are referring to do not have the unlimited download package? Otherwise they couldn't restrict their downloads unless they demonstrably broke copyright laws.

NeilC

5th September 2006, 07:13 AM

No they are referring to all BT users, except for BT Broadband Lite which appears to be limited.

tkingdoll

5th September 2006, 07:26 AM

No they are referring to all BT users, except for BT Broadband Lite which appears to be limited.

How can they limit people paying for an unlimited package? Are you sure? That sounds...absurd. I have the regular package and I haven't received any such communication, I must say. BT Broadband Options 1 and 2 are both limited IIRC. Perhaps that's who they are referring to.

ETA I just checked their website and all 3 options are limited - I can't see an unlimited package at all.

NeilC

5th September 2006, 07:30 AM

I just called them about this.

I pointed out that seeing T&Cs are a legal document that surely it should be more specific. I asked how I was to know what "appropriate" use was and that the whole thing was so vague that it came down entirely to their opinion rather than anything quantified. Without being quantified how could I agree to it sincerely? He didn't know the answers to any of it and said it was just a "general email designed to free up some bandwidth" and that I'd need to be downloading huge amounts of files and even then they probably wouldn't even bother about it. Says he.

I then asked how they knew what sort of files I downloaded and what size they were. I asked did they keep track of the names of files? I asked exactly what kind of information they kept on me. He refused to answer saying they were not at liberty to tell me. I reminded him of the Data Protection act and he then said I'd need to write a letter to the Chairman to find out.

Is it just me or is this not just a bit dodgy? Changing terms after purchase and wording them so nobody can be sure if they break them.

El Greco

5th September 2006, 07:32 AM

I recently got an email from my ISP here in the UK stating that they had changed their terms and conditions. They can do this. I can't.

Time to change ISP, and make a lot of fuss about this as well.

tkingdoll

5th September 2006, 07:35 AM

It's hard to say. They make it quite clear on their website that if you exceed your monthly limit you may be charged. He's right about not giving you the information over the phone though, you need to write to them with a Subject Access Request - basically say that you want all the information on file relating to you. They will charge you £10 for it, and have to respond within 40 days.

That's under the Data Protection Act, NOT the Freedom of Information Act, which only covers public bodies.

NeilC

5th September 2006, 07:36 AM

How can they limit people paying for an unlimited package? Are you sure? That sounds...absurd. I have the regular package and I haven't received any such communication, I must say. BT Broadband Options 1 and 2 are both limited IIRC. Perhaps that's who they are referring to.

ETA I just checked their website and all 3 options are limited - I can't see an unlimited package at all.

I think they must be offering different packages to the one I took out. My package had no download limits. Must check my emails - they've probably changed that at well!

This is what I got:

"This email is to let you know about changes to our BT Business Broadband terms and conditions.

Fair Use Policy
Under section 11.7 of our terms and conditions, we have introduced a Fair Use Policy. Our Fair Use Policy will manage inappropriate use and will make sure the service is used fairly by everyone"

This is the Fair Use Policy:

"Fair Use Policy

BT Business Broadband's Fair Use Policy is designed to make sure that your broadband service is great value, fast and reliable whenever you use it.

Why do we have a Fair Use Policy?
At peak times, a lot of customers use the shared network bandwidth at any one time.

A very small number of our customers use their broadband service inappropriately, for example when sending or downloading very large files, or using 'peer to peer' and file sharing software (which may be sending and receiving video and other large files constantly). This means that service quality for all users is affected, making it slower for everyone to access the internet or send and receive emails, especially at peak times (between 6pm and midnight, Monday to Friday).

The vast majority of our customers use their service considerately and their usage levels during peak hours don't disproportionately affect the shared network capacity. Even though only a very small number of our customers use the service inappropriately, their activity does greatly affect the service. Our Fair Use Policy manages inappropriate use and makes sure the service can be used fairly by everyone.

How does the Fair Use Policy work?
If you regularly use the service inappropriately during peak hours, and we believe this is unfairly affecting other customers' use of the service, we'll manage your bandwidth during peak times (which could result in reduced service speeds).

How do I know if the Fair Use Policy affects me?
Our Fair Use Policy applies to all our customers (except BT Business Broadband Lite customers). But it'll only actually affect you if you're one of the very few customers who make inappropriate use of our service.

If you don't use peer to peer or file sharing software and you're not, for example, constantly downloading videos or very large files, you're unlikely to be affected by our Fair Use Policy.

What else do I need to bear in mind?
All BT Business Broadband users must comply with relevant copyright and intellectual property laws.

Please note that some activities, such as using peer to peer or file sharing software, may contravene these laws. Under our terms and conditions, any illegal use of your service will be a breach of your contract and will allow us to end your service."

As you can see it's aimed squarely at P2P users.

tkingdoll

5th September 2006, 08:21 AM

Ah right. It only refers to Business customers, that's why I couldn't find an unlimited package.

Yes, they offer two 'unlimited' packages to Business customers, so it does seem a bit cheeky to sell them as such then change the T&Cs to impose limits, even if those limits are never reached by 99% of customers.

I expect that this is actually a measure designed to deal with professional pirates, it's highly unlikely that most people would place much of a strain in normal business practices.

Fair Use policies are very common, it's just a shame they've had to apply this retroactively, it does look cheeky. But, for example, a supermarket "buy 1 get 1 free" offer or similar is very often restricted to one redemption per customer. And supermarkets often restrict the amount you can buy of each good, particularly when there are water shortages or petrol panics.

If the behaviour of one or two customers is likely to have a negative effect on the service offered to everyone else, then they're within their rights to take action. Restaurants do the same with 'all you can eat' buffets.

69dodge

7th September 2006, 08:27 AM

The PLR - http://www.plr.uk.com/enhancedindex.htm - in the UK an author receives money every time a book of theirs is lent out.That's interesting. I don't think libraries in the US work like that. Who pays?

I agree however even though I didn't bring libraries into the discussion I do think they show how a system that allows wide access to an artist's work can be made to work both for the artist and the general public. (Indeed some libraries and even museums in the UK lend other works then books - everything from paintings to sculptures.)Wide access is good---the wider the better.

I don't see it like this. I see it as "value added" economics. An author for example adds value to the paper that a book is made from and then trades the value they've added. If you look at it this way then the medium itself becomes irrelevant. So in the instance of a digital book - the author adds value to the memory device it is stored in and that is what we pay the author for. If we don't agree with the amount of "value added" that the author wants to trade then we have the option not to trade with the author, we do not however have the right to steal the "value" the author added."Trade"? "Steal"? These words seem inappropriate. What does the author lose when a copy of his book is made?

It's all just a big bluff. The author doesn't really care if people make a copy of his book. He doesn't lose anything by their reading his book, as compared to their not reading it. The only reason he says they mustn't read it without paying him is that he hopes that, faced with that choice, they'd decide to pay him.

Some people would, and some people wouldn't. The ones who wouldn't are being deprived of reading the book for no good reason.

It seems obvious to me that, as it costs nothing to copy a digital book, everyone who wants a copy should get one. The only questions that need to be answered are, how much money should the author get for writing the book in the first place, and who should pay this cost? These questions aren't necessarily easy to answer, but they are the ones that need to be answered, and not "who should get to read the book?".

Everyone should get to read it who wants to read it, because copying it costs nothing.

geni

7th September 2006, 09:33 AM

It's all just a big bluff. The author doesn't really care if people make a copy of his book. He doesn't lose anything by their reading his book, as compared to their not reading it. The only reason he says they mustn't read it without paying him is that he hopes that, faced with that choice, they'd decide to pay him.

There are other reasons to enforce your copyright. Infringe some mine in certain ways and I will come after you.

Some people would, and some people wouldn't. The ones who wouldn't are being deprived of reading the book for no good reason.

If you are not interested in paying you are not interested enough.

It seems obvious to me that, as it costs nothing to copy a digital book, everyone who wants a copy should get one. The only questions that need to be answered are, how much money should the author get for writing the book in the first place, and who should pay this cost? These questions aren't necessarily easy to answer, but they are the ones that need to be answered, and not "who should get to read the book?".

They are very easy to answer through the concept of the free market.

Everyone should get to read it who wants to read it, because copying it costs nothing.

Everyone who wants to read it must think it has value. It is not unreasonable to ask people to pay for something that has value

69dodge

8th September 2006, 03:14 AM

There are other reasons to enforce your copyright.For example?

If you are not interested in paying you are not interested enough.I'm interested enough to pay some smaller amount than the asking price. What benefit does anyone get from my not having that option?

They are very easy to answer through the concept of the free market.What's free about preventing people from copying stuff that they want to copy?

Is there a single unambiguous definition of "free market"? How long do copyrights last, in this ultimate "free market"?

If DreadNiK's suggestion were made law, would the system not be as "free" as the current one? Prospective writers could freely choose whether or not to create a book, just as now prospective readers can (must) choose whether or not to buy it.

Everyone who wants to read it must think it has value. It is not unreasonable to ask people to pay for something that has valueIt's unreasonable to ask them to pay more than they're willing to pay, and to prevent them from reading it when they refuse.

It might seem reasonable to expect a buyer to pay as much money as he's willing to pay. But then doesn't it also seem reasonable to expect a seller to accept as little money as he's willing to accept? What do we do if the former amount is greater than the latter? Which it always is in the case of digital information, because once the information has been created, its creator has no reason, other than bluffing, not to accept any price no matter how small. It costs him nothing if someone somewhere makes an additional copy.

geni

8th September 2006, 03:43 AM

For example?

keeping linux under the GPL

I'm interested enough to pay some smaller amount than the asking price. What benefit does anyone get from my not having that option?

you get to spend your money on something you can afford.

What's free about preventing people from copying stuff that they want to copy?

what is free about not letting people steal stuff.

Is there a single unambiguous definition of "free market"? How long do copyrights last, in this ultimate "free market"?

Heh. you can have a free market with any length.

If DreadNiK's suggestion were made law, would the system not be as "free" as the current one? Prospective writers could freely choose whether or not to create a book, just as now prospective readers can (must) choose whether or not to buy it.

Profit caps do not in any way shape or form result in a free market.

It's unreasonable to ask them to pay more than they're willing to pay, and to prevent them from reading it when they refuse.

Why?

It might seem reasonable to expect a buyer to pay as much money as he's willing to pay. But then doesn't it also seem reasonable to expect a seller to accept as little money as he's willing to accept? What do we do if the former amount is greater than the latter? Which it always is in the case of digital information, because once the information has been created, its creator has no reason, other than bluffing, not to accept any price no matter how small. It costs him nothing if someone somewhere makes an additional copy.

Suppose I don't want to give my stuff to nazis?

Kimpatsu

8th September 2006, 08:10 AM

If you did you wouldn't take your course of actions.
That is not true; it is merely a specious assumption on your part.
Remember: the choice is not is not between paying for a show or pirating it; the choice is between watching the show using BT, or not watching it at all.

geni

8th September 2006, 08:17 AM

That is not true; it is merely a specious assumption on your part.
Remember: the choice is not is not between paying for a show or pirating it; the choice is between watching the show using BT, or not watching it at all.

Not true there are various ways you could buy it. Of course you may not want to pay that much but that is a seperate issue.

Kimpatsu

8th September 2006, 09:21 AM

Not true there are various ways you could buy it.
Oh, really? I just finished watching this week's episode of the Bill. The one in which Superintendent Heaton plans to fire Tony Stamp. Care to tell me where I can buy it? :rolleyes:

geni

14th September 2006, 01:57 PM

Oh, really? I just finished watching this week's episode of the Bill. The one in which Superintendent Heaton plans to fire Tony Stamp. Care to tell me where I can buy it? :rolleyes:

From whoever holds the copyright.

Ryokan

14th September 2006, 02:06 PM

Oh, really? I just finished watching this week's episode of the Bill. The one in which Superintendent Heaton plans to fire Tony Stamp. Care to tell me where I can buy it? :rolleyes:

You could just wait until the DVD's come out. That's what I do...

(Yeah, right!)

Kimpatsu

14th September 2006, 04:39 PM

From whoever holds the copyright.
Oh, so they've produced a DVD, have they? Care to tell me where I can buy it? I can'ty find it on Amazon...

Kimpatsu

14th September 2006, 04:40 PM

You could just wait until the DVD's come out. That's what I do...
(Yeah, right!)
Waiting is bad, remember?
Take "Big Brother", for example. How can you vote on who to expel from the house unless you watch it at the same time as everybody else?

Ian Osborne

15th September 2006, 01:17 AM

Let's get this straight. It's OK to record this week's episode of The Bill to watch next Tuesday, and it's OK to borrow a your neighbour's copy if you forget to set your video, but downloading it is morally wrong. What is it about the Internet that makes the simple act of watching a TV programme at a time other than its original broadcast so indefensible?

geni

15th September 2006, 01:52 AM

Oh, so they've produced a DVD, have they? Care to tell me where I can buy it? I can'ty find it on Amazon...

What does produceing a DVD have to do with anything?

geni

15th September 2006, 01:54 AM

and it's OK to borrow a your neighbour's copy if you forget to set your video,

Evidence?

but downloading it is morally wrong.

Morallly?

What is it about the Internet that makes the simple act of watching a TV programme at a time other than its original broadcast so indefensible?

Quite an interesting selection of laws it really depends where you are.

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 02:13 AM

What does produceing a DVD have to do with anything?
If there's no DVD, then BT is the only way I can watch the programme. :rolleyes:

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 02:16 AM

Evidence?
You mean that you don't even use a VCR? What century are you living in?
Morallly?
Isn't that what you're arguing?
Quite an interesting selection of laws it really depends where you are.
Japan, where nobody gives a flying monkey about Western copyright.

Ian Osborne

15th September 2006, 02:52 AM

Evidence?
Could you, and the others that believe downloading recent TV shows to watch once (as opposed to compiling entire series to get out of buying commercial DVDs) clarify your position here? I presume you'd have no objection to setting your video to record a show while you were out? And if you forgot to set it, would borrowing a copy a neighbour recorded be within what you consider acceptable?

Morallly?
Isn't that what we're talllking about here?

Almo

15th September 2006, 01:28 PM

Ryokan

15th September 2006, 02:30 PM

You mean that you don't even use a VCR? What century are you living in?

Well, if you're still using a VCR, that probably means you are in the wrong century :p

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 04:58 PM

Well, if you're still using a VCR, that probably means you are in the wrong century :p
Touché!

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 05:00 PM

Anecdotal Evidence:

A friend of mine had a collection of CDs. Clearly, he's a person willing to purchase music. Once he had a decent computer, he ripped all his CDs, and sold them. Then, he never paid another cent for music; he downloaded every new piece of music he got. THAT is lost revenue.

I'm not arguing about how much revenue is lost, or any details like this. The simple fact is, artists need to be paid. The current distribution methods are CDs, and legal iTunes-type downloads. Circumventing these methods cuts artists out of money.

Saying these distribution methods are flawed does not change the fact that it is CURRENTLY how most recording artists earn money.
If your friend did that, firstly, he's breaking the rules of the downloading community. Secondly, we're talking about TV shows, not music. Anyway, that said, the really important point here is that your friend was able to purchase the CDs in the first place. BT is for downloading TV shows that are unavailable where you live. IOW, it is a godsend for expats, and for people who live in countries where the show in question is not broadcast.

geni

15th September 2006, 07:15 PM

If there's no DVD, then BT is the only way I can watch the programme. :rolleyes:

That isn't the case.

geni

15th September 2006, 07:21 PM

You mean that you don't even use a VCR? What century are you living in?

This one.

Isn't that what you're arguing?

I try to avoid morality issues. I just dislike dishonest or ilogical rationalisations.

Japan, where nobody gives a flying monkey about Western copyright.

Really? So your major TV channels reguarly broadcast say holywood films without paying for the rights?

I'm don't deal with Japanse law much but Japan has signed the Berne Convention so the normal rules of international copyright law apply.

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 07:27 PM

That isn't the case.
Oh? Care to tell me another method, then?

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 07:30 PM

This one.
Then don't be a Luddite, and embrace the reality that the genie is out of the bottle, and BT is here to stay.
I try to avoid morality issues. I just dislike dishonest or ilogical rationalisations.
You avoid morality issues? So, IOW, you're just posting here to be bolshie?
I also dislike dishonest and illogical reationalisations, which is why I never make them.
Really? So your major TV channels reguarly broadcast say holywood films without paying for the rights?

I'm don't deal with Japanse law much but Japan has signed the Berne Convention so the normal rules of international copyright law apply.
Yes. Were you not aware of this? Japan has pissweak copyright laws, and regularly rip off Western artsits with cover versions of pop songs and Japanese remakes of movies. Hollywood hates it, but can't do anything about it.

geni

15th September 2006, 07:44 PM

Then don't be a Luddite, and embrace the reality that the genie is out of the bottle, and BT is here to stay.

I can think of a number of ways of killing it. Some are even legal.

You avoid morality issues? So, IOW, you're just posting here to be bolshie?
I also dislike dishonest and illogical reationalisations, which is why I never make them.

I dissagree.

Yes. Were you not aware of this? Japan has pissweak copyright laws, and regularly rip off Western artsits with cover versions of pop songs and Japanese remakes of movies. Hollywood hates it, but can't do anything about it.

You've just described a situation with strong fair use laws rather than week copyright laws. Remakes are not the issue I was asking about direct coppies

geni

15th September 2006, 07:47 PM

Oh? Care to tell me another method, then?

Well lets see. Contact the produces and buy the rights for japanese distribution. Form a fan clup allowing you to spread the cost. Move to Iran which doesn't appear to have signed a number of internation IP treaties.

Kimpatsu

15th September 2006, 09:00 PM

I can think of a number of ways of killing it. Some are even legal.
Impossible. That really IS a Luddite proposition. You are never going to destroy the killer app for broadband.
I dissagree.
But can offer no argument as to why?
QUOTE=geni;1926826]You've just described a situation with strong fair use laws rather than week copyright laws. Remakes are not the issue I was asking about direct coppies [/QUOTE]
Which is why there are so many ripped DVDs for sale here...?

ReFLeX

16th September 2006, 08:02 AM

Well lets see. Contact the produces and buy the rights for japanese distribution. Form a fan clup allowing you to spread the cost. Move to Iran which doesn't appear to have signed a number of internation IP treaties.
I want to watch the show Third Watch but it's only been released on DVD in Japan. I don't have time for forming fan clubs or moving to Iran.

Kimpatsu

16th September 2006, 08:42 AM

A more pertinent question is, why DON'T producers make money out of BT? (If they don't know how, they're in the wrong job.) It's blindingly obvious how they could, but as their ages paints them as Luddites, they can't shake of the entrenched view that TV should be 1-2-many, rather than P2P.

geni

20th September 2006, 06:36 PM

Impossible. That really IS a Luddite proposition. You are never going to destroy the killer app for broadband.

You lack imagination. FUD can be prety effective when need be. Starting to track down random people and very publicly prosicute them is one option. Buying up ISPs (that will likely happen anyway and of course it has with things like AOL) then useing that control to control what people upload or how much people upload. Buy infrastucture at the same time so indepedant ISPs have to play by your rules.
If that isn't your style you could flood the system with missnamed downloads (yes the file might have the right name for X but it turns out to be 30 mins of white noise)

If you are not worried about the law you find a way to add viruses to those files (experence suggests that on windows machines at least this will be posible) and point out the opertunities to 419 scammers.

Which is why there are so many ripped DVDs for sale here...?

Probably the companies don't think the cost benifit analyis looks to good.

Kimpatsu

20th September 2006, 10:05 PM

What a waste of time and money. Face the fact that BT is here to stay, and is in fact the kilelr app for BB. Instead, why not think of how to make money out of it, as suggested above numerous times. This conservative attitude of "what's now is forever is how TV should be run" is going to find you left behind as the new, 21st-century paradigm expands.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch the new season of CSI...

geni

21st September 2006, 05:58 AM

What a waste of time and money.

Not really. most of the money will be spent anyway in much the same way that companies that own newspapers own TV stations and Myspace.

Face the fact that BT is here to stay, and is in fact the kilelr app for BB.

There are plently of other reasons to have broad band.

Instead, why not think of how to make money out of it, as suggested above numerous times.

No one is stopping you from trying to make money out of it.

This conservative attitude of "what's now is forever is how TV should be run" is going to find you left behind as the new, 21st-century paradigm expands.

It's you who is thinking 20th century. You are just explioting the fact that certain inforcement systems haven't caught up yet. They will.

69dodge

22nd September 2006, 10:14 PM

No one is stopping you from trying to make money out of it.And then he can use that money to buy videos legally! Which he could have just downloaded in the first place! That's not backwards at all! No siree!

The important thing is making money! (Never mind that the only thing money is good for is buying stuff.)

Seriously. It's better if everyone who wants to watch a movie gets to watch it than if some people who want to watch it don't get to watch it. So why have we arranged our economic and legal systems so that the movie's creator can make more money by artificially restricting who can watch it than by making it available to everyone? Doesn't that seem a bit counterproductive?

Kimpatsu

22nd September 2006, 10:32 PM

No one is to download videos/DVDs that are available where they are. Only TV shows and movies that are not available locally. Them's the rules.

Skylark

24th September 2006, 05:18 AM

I personally use BT to torrent animes; there's heaps of overhead so if the series is about 2 GB I can expect the total downloads to be around 6 GB (I usually follow the x 3 rule; it's usually less than this, but worst case scenario, so eh). However it's a lot faster than direct download, and I have no way to buy a lot of the stuff I want (anyone that can find "Serial Experiments Lain" on DVD with an English sub in Australia give me a link), so BT is the only option. I would do it anyway even if it wasn't the only option; what can I say, I like fast, free anime. :P

American

24th September 2006, 08:20 PM

1) Films, directors, actors, script writers etc are often greenlit on the basis of their previous movie's box office performance and DVD sales.

They are fools for remaining at jobs that produce a product completely devalued by technology.

2) A movie is financed by various means. It could be financed from studio profits, private financing, sponsorship, etc. That money is given on the assumption of Return on Investment (ROI). No ROI, no funding.

Foolish investment.

3) Both of the above issues are particularly vital for independent movies, because they don't have the major studio backing, ROI is essential for their investors. And as we all know, the independent movies are the good ones! Sure, studio movies can afford to absorb a little loss, I'm sure if you just want to watch the big summer blockbusters then your conscience is clear. But if you liked Donnie Darko, why would you want to screw the movie-makers?

They all need to get new jobs. McDonald's is hiring.

No profit, no new movies.

There is no tragedy or unfairness in a world where movies are unprofitable.