6 million less Internet users in the UK.
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/6 million less Internet users in the UK. This is great news. I fully back it. In fact, I totally love it.
I've not got issues with people who download the odd thing here and there. However, there are rodents who download thousands and thousands of pounds/dollars, etc worth of stuff over years.
Round of applause from me.
I've not got issues with people who download the odd thing here and there. However, there are rodents who download thousands and thousands of pounds/dollars, etc worth of stuff over years.
Round of applause from me.
So do I. It's a good first step towards getting stupid people off the Internet.
Of course it's somewhat troublesome they're going to give this kind of power to companies who can charitably be described as incompetent.
Oh and by the way? Stealing other peoples game media is copyright violation. See you later lawbreaker!
Of course it's somewhat troublesome they're going to give this kind of power to companies who can charitably be described as incompetent.
Oh and by the way? Stealing other peoples game media is copyright violation. See you later lawbreaker!
The point is that ISPs will be looking at people who are doing this a lot. It isn't like they have time to watch every person who downloads something. This idea will clearly target the main offenders who are downloading loads of things for free.
I can't wait for this to come into effect.
The only people who should be concerned are the culprits. Anyone not happy with this is a potential culprit.
Someone who happened to once download a "Britney Spears" album, etc will probably never get a warning - let alone a ban.
The system is fair - you a fair amount of warnings before being disconnected.
I can't wait for this to come into effect.
The only people who should be concerned are the culprits. Anyone not happy with this is a potential culprit.
Someone who happened to once download a "Britney Spears" album, etc will probably never get a warning - let alone a ban.
The system is fair - you a fair amount of warnings before being disconnected.
I don't have any problem with people downloading stuff that belongs to hugely successful corporations. And I suspect that neither do the majority of internet users - whether they are willing to admit this or not.
It isn't like they have time to watch every person who downloads something.
They don't have to. That's what computers are for. This idea will clearly target the main offenders who are downloading loads of things for free.
Except nobody downloading loads of things for free is stupid enough to do so on an unencrypted connection. That would be like breaking into Scotland Yard from your home line - anyone smart enough to figure out how to do it, is not also stupid enough to do so from their house.Besides which, chances are good you're going to get a lot of people on bot nets banned, which again is fine by me, but probably not so fine for some Windows user who just got their connection jacked.
I think a lot of people do it openly - which is the probably a reason why the ISPs have been drawn into this. In the UK, downloading films and games, etc is pretty much not seen as a crime by the public. It's seen as a similar crime to parking on double-yellow lines (ie illegal parking), or dropping litter. I don't think it has the same recognition as stealing a game/film from a shop. Personally, I think parents are unconcerned that their children download illegally, but would be unhappy if they were caught stealing from a shop.
Basically, people need to change their attitude to the fact that theft is theft.
Basically, people need to change their attitude to the fact that theft is theft.
There are different degrees of theft, Puki.
Yeh, and I am talking about the people who save thousands of pounds downloading stuff - ie, the main culprits.
Is it wrong to download the latest version of Maya (or some other similarly expensive software) if you can't afford to buy it? I'm honestly not sure. I don't see how doing so harms anyone - it's not like there is the loss of a sale.
Ah, but why should one person pay for something that someone else gets for free? The person who paid for it has a right to be unhappy, considering someone else had it for free. In turn, the seller has a right to be unhappy that they lost a sale.
It is not just companies getting stiffed - it is the people who pay for their stuff who are being stiffed.
It is not just companies getting stiffed - it is the people who pay for their stuff who are being stiffed.
My feelings on this are very mixed. I'm all in favour of banning the thieves from having broadband, but this is the latest in a long line of moves toward a police state. I'm aware that we live in a world where most people are both unable and unwilling to accept responsibility for their own lives and quite like handing it over to other people, but I don't see why those of who are and can should do the same.
Given that this is only ever going to work against computer illiterates using Rapidshare and whatever P2P applications are currently in-vogue, I'd much rather just see Rapidshare-style sites and the P2P sites who cannot or will not filter illegal content shut down. It'd be be a shame if we had to give up what can be a useful service when it is (occasionally) used for legal purposes, but I can't help thinking that giving up Rapidshare and P2P apps is a lot less than giving up what few civil liberties we still have.
Given that this is only ever going to work against computer illiterates using Rapidshare and whatever P2P applications are currently in-vogue, I'd much rather just see Rapidshare-style sites and the P2P sites who cannot or will not filter illegal content shut down. It'd be be a shame if we had to give up what can be a useful service when it is (occasionally) used for legal purposes, but I can't help thinking that giving up Rapidshare and P2P apps is a lot less than giving up what few civil liberties we still have.
I don't think Rapidshare, etc are at fault - they cannot possibly check the uploads - most are archived and can have any file name. ISPs in a similar way cannot always see what the data is - other than it is large. However, ISPs can see the sites that people access. To me, the only solution is via the ISPs.
Is it wrong to download the latest version of Maya (or some other similarly expensive software) if you can't afford to buy it? I'm honestly not sure. I don't see how doing so harms anyone - it's not like there is the loss of a sale.
I'm not sure why "loss" comes into it. Criminal law is all about the person committing the act, not the person it is committed against. If you shoot someone who is already dead, but you believed that they were alive, you can (and likely will) be charged with attempted murder.
In actual fact, the loss is still there, it's just further down the chain. The loss comes in the form of people losing jobs to people who trained on pirate versions, businesses being undercut by business in Russia/Asia using pirate versions, companies spending money supporting "customers" who never bought the software. ( And yes, pirates do contact software developers for support with software they never bought. I get it all the time. )
Puki wrote:
But if a person can't afford to pay for a product then the seller isn't losing a sale. What I mean is that there was never any possibility that the "pirate" could purchase the product in the first place - the "potential sale" never existed. You do raise a good point though: why should a person pay for something that someone else gets for free?
Personally, I am 100% against the commercial use of downloaded software.
Ah, but why should one person pay for something that someone else gets for free? The person who paid for it has a right to be unhappy, considering someone else had it for free. In turn, the seller has a right to be unhappy that they lost a sale.
It is not just companies getting stiffed - it is the people who pay for their stuff who are being stiffed.
It is not just companies getting stiffed - it is the people who pay for their stuff who are being stiffed.
But if a person can't afford to pay for a product then the seller isn't losing a sale. What I mean is that there was never any possibility that the "pirate" could purchase the product in the first place - the "potential sale" never existed. You do raise a good point though: why should a person pay for something that someone else gets for free?
Personally, I am 100% against the commercial use of downloaded software.
While against copyright theft, i cannot help but ponder those few little words..."Another step towards the police state then" :/
If you want to speed up UK internet, dont blame joe down the road for downloading a few gigs, blame the British govt who have ignored the cries for progress and are now wondering why we have some of the worst and most expensive internet provision in europe. Where i live now- in sweden (and its only a 'town'), downloading a few gig like a family video or an OS live CDs is easy, it takes mere minutes not hours or days. Why cant it be like that back home.
If you want to speed up UK internet, dont blame joe down the road for downloading a few gigs, blame the British govt who have ignored the cries for progress and are now wondering why we have some of the worst and most expensive internet provision in europe. Where i live now- in sweden (and its only a 'town'), downloading a few gig like a family video or an OS live CDs is easy, it takes mere minutes not hours or days. Why cant it be like that back home.
I don't think Rapidshare, etc are at fault - they cannot possibly check the uploads
They could take measures if they wanted to. The simple truth is they'd be out of business if no one uploaded copyright material. Essentially they have no business if their services were used for legal means.
In actual fact, the loss is still there, it's just further down the chain. The loss comes in the form of people losing jobs to people who trained on pirate versions, businesses being undercut by business in Russia/Asia using pirate versions, companies spending money supporting "customers" who never bought the software. ( And yes, pirates do contact software developers for support with software they never bought. I get it all the time. )
Education should be free. Piracy is beneficial to developing countries - it helps raise far more people out from of poverty than it puts there.
The biggest culprits for theft you will more than likley find, are those people that expect to sell what they thieve.
The money they make could go anywhere, organized crime, terrorism just to name a few.
EDIT:
I was wrong the biggest culprits for theft are not the ones selling it but buying it.
The money they make could go anywhere, organized crime, terrorism just to name a few.
EDIT:
I was wrong the biggest culprits for theft are not the ones selling it but buying it.
Is it wrong to download the latest version of Maya (or some other similarly expensive software) if you can't afford to buy it?
Yes! Of course it is!There's plenty of cheaper alternatives.
Same example if stealing an Audi TT because you can only afford a Nissan Micra. Granted cars have a higher manufacturing cost after the initial R and D but the principle remains the same.
Personally, I am 100% against the commercial use of downloaded software.
Well that's down to the companies that make the software, 3D Studio have GMax which only works with itself? Surely that's a perfectly reasonable option? Same example if stealing an Audi TT because you can only afford a Nissan Micra. Granted cars have a higher manufacturing cost after the initial R and D but the principle remains the same.
Not really. The principle is different precisely because of these differences.
It could in fact be argued that stealing anything that is free to manufacture (digitally delivered pirated copies) and lacks a physical form (again, digitally delivered pirated copies) is not, in fact, stealing at all.
Let me put it this way: if I physically break into and drive away the car from your driveway, I'm stealing. You won't get any argument from me on this account. However, if I use my own personally owned materials to construct my own personal duplicate of the car that sits in your driveway, would you still consider me to have stolen your car?
By that theory then one should only pay for the manufacture cost of something?
If that is the case you could have 2 objects that perform the same function and cost the same to produce, however, one is excellent design, the other is poor design. By your standards they are of equal value.
If that is the case you could have 2 objects that perform the same function and cost the same to produce, however, one is excellent design, the other is poor design. By your standards they are of equal value.
They will be of equal monetary worth, yes, but "worth" is the product of two types of value: personal and use value. As a result, two items can be worth the same, despite having different personal and use value.
I just cannot make my mind up on this subject. I have not a snotty Snail's trail of sympathy for anybody in Hollywood or for any huge profit making corporation, but I have to hold my hand up and say in principle illegally downloading anything you should pay for is categorically wrong. The world just won't play fair. I don't know which way to swing on this issue...
It's a toughy, isn't it?
So you'd expect to pay the same for both items? That's absurd.
[edit] You're editing your replies! - Even so do you not agree that there should be a premium cost put on something that is infact 'better' even if it's function and physical value are identical?
And lets use the car example and maya.
So you want your own 'version' of maya... So lets start with the UI for example.
The UI of a car is the dashboard, instruments, steering wheel, pedals etc. So how are you going to go about recreating that from materials you have? OK, so you need to manufacture plastics etc, machine edges to and somehow make something look identical... or you can buy one in from VW, or get someone else to make you a dashboard, which again will cost you money.
Same goes with the Maya UI, either code it yourself, buy the UI from Maya, or indeed get someone else to code it best they can...
And so on through each of the components of the product.
By the end of the exercise you might have something that looks a little like Maya, has much of the functionality, but probably won't work as well. And more than likely would have cost you a lot of money to produce.
Just because it isn't physical doesn't mean it's valueless.
[edit] You're editing your replies! - Even so do you not agree that there should be a premium cost put on something that is infact 'better' even if it's function and physical value are identical?
And lets use the car example and maya.
So you want your own 'version' of maya... So lets start with the UI for example.
The UI of a car is the dashboard, instruments, steering wheel, pedals etc. So how are you going to go about recreating that from materials you have? OK, so you need to manufacture plastics etc, machine edges to and somehow make something look identical... or you can buy one in from VW, or get someone else to make you a dashboard, which again will cost you money.
Same goes with the Maya UI, either code it yourself, buy the UI from Maya, or indeed get someone else to code it best they can...
And so on through each of the components of the product.
By the end of the exercise you might have something that looks a little like Maya, has much of the functionality, but probably won't work as well. And more than likely would have cost you a lot of money to produce.
Just because it isn't physical doesn't mean it's valueless.
I also have to pay for an internet connection and a computer with a suitable storage device. These materials cost money too.
I agree with you that a non-physical item can have value, I just don't agree that these things can be stolen. This is because this value is not quantifiable - it's a personal valuation. An opinion. You can share an opinion, but you can't steal one.
I agree with you that a non-physical item can have value, I just don't agree that these things can be stolen. This is because this value is not quantifiable - it's a personal valuation. An opinion. You can share an opinion, but you can't steal one.
I also have to pay for an internet connection and a computer with a suitable storage device. These materials cost money too.
That's really stretching, are you suggesting that the £9.99 for your internet connection that you used for 8 minutes to download the iso and the £60 for the 500gb hdd in your computer is 'payment' for downloading commercial software (of which none of said proceeds go to anyone who wrote the software). I'm pretty sure even you're not convinced my that argument. This is because this value is not quantifiable
Of course it is quantifiable. It took X people Y hours to write the software, getting paid £z per hour. The bottom line is pretty much any software in those terms is a bargain.So Mr Cheap programmer charges £20 per hour. Maya costs £2000 so that's 100 hours, which on a 39 hour week is about 2.5 weeks for one (cheap) guy to write maya?
That's really stretching, are you suggesting that the £9.99 for your internet connection that you used for 8 minutes to download the iso and the £60 for the 500gb hdd in your computer is 'payment' for downloading commercial software (of which none of said proceeds go to anyone who wrote the software). I'm pretty sure even you're not convinced my that argument.
I think you might have missed my point. Relate it back to my last car/software analogy.
Of course it is quantifiable. It took X people Y hours to write the software, getting paid £z per hour. The bottom line is pretty much any software in those terms is a bargain.
Those are research and development costs, and they are seperate from (although related to and of influence upon) the cost of manufacturing a single unit of a commodity. It costs nothing (well, a relatively insignificant amount) to digitally "manufacture" a unit of software. If research and development costs equalled unit costs, then each car would retail for millions of dollars.
Will downloading Mame Roms get you cut off from the net?
I hope not because I love the Mame Set of games.
Plus I download movies also but not the latest ones. For example I've tried and looked everywhere I can think of to find 2 movies I saw when i was a kid. The films were "Time Walker" and "The Dark".
I found The Dark recently on Amazon but it was region 1 and Time Walker I couldn't find anywhere.
The last places I looked were on P2P sites and I found both films on emule. I downloaded and converted the to DVD and they now sit in my collection.
The films are really bad, especially The Dark. It's about a Zombie Alien which shoots lasers out it's eyes. Real bad acting also. Love it. :) Time Walkers about a killer Egyption Mummy-Alien hunting people who stole it's crystals. Real Bad film with again terrible acting and I love it.
:)
I guess I'm a thief but if you can show me where to legally buy these DVD's then I'll buy them. Sure beats a low quality xvid.
I hope not because I love the Mame Set of games.
Plus I download movies also but not the latest ones. For example I've tried and looked everywhere I can think of to find 2 movies I saw when i was a kid. The films were "Time Walker" and "The Dark".
I found The Dark recently on Amazon but it was region 1 and Time Walker I couldn't find anywhere.
The last places I looked were on P2P sites and I found both films on emule. I downloaded and converted the to DVD and they now sit in my collection.
The films are really bad, especially The Dark. It's about a Zombie Alien which shoots lasers out it's eyes. Real bad acting also. Love it. :) Time Walkers about a killer Egyption Mummy-Alien hunting people who stole it's crystals. Real Bad film with again terrible acting and I love it.
:)
I guess I'm a thief but if you can show me where to legally buy these DVD's then I'll buy them. Sure beats a low quality xvid.
I'm assuming they'll mainly be targeting the people that download terabytes of crap every month. Either that or censor the internet, which will never happen.
Would have been nice if the article mentioned what they considered illegal, as a lot of people have different opinions regarding the subject and a lot of gray-space created due to said opinions (one example such as above, being really old titles).
Using the dictionary definition would kill a fair amount of internet users over there I'd say.
Would have been nice if the article mentioned what they considered illegal, as a lot of people have different opinions regarding the subject and a lot of gray-space created due to said opinions (one example such as above, being really old titles).
Using the dictionary definition would kill a fair amount of internet users over there I'd say.
I do think that downloadable versions of products should be cheaper than boxed versions that come with packaging, disks, printed manuals, and have to be manufactured and transported.
I refuse to buy a downloadable game if it isn't less than retail. But thats another subject altogether. But if you use something you really should buy it.
As far as video's go. You can rent them from online services like Netflix, 70,000 dvd's to choose from, 3 at a time for $15 with a 48 hour turnaround. I don't think there is much excuse for stealing films unless they are obscure and practicaly impossible to obtain any other way.
One thing that does annoy me is PC games. They should be avaliable for rent in blockbusters just like console games. I don't see a real arguement for not allowing it now. And since 95% of them are rubbish it would be nice to try before you buy.
Assasins creed isn't going to get a PC demo. (wonders how puki got his ;)
So its a game I don't think I'll be buying, even though I waited a good 6 months anticipating its release on the 360. Seems like a bit of a dud and needs to be tried before buying.
I refuse to buy a downloadable game if it isn't less than retail. But thats another subject altogether. But if you use something you really should buy it.
As far as video's go. You can rent them from online services like Netflix, 70,000 dvd's to choose from, 3 at a time for $15 with a 48 hour turnaround. I don't think there is much excuse for stealing films unless they are obscure and practicaly impossible to obtain any other way.
One thing that does annoy me is PC games. They should be avaliable for rent in blockbusters just like console games. I don't see a real arguement for not allowing it now. And since 95% of them are rubbish it would be nice to try before you buy.
Assasins creed isn't going to get a PC demo. (wonders how puki got his ;)
So its a game I don't think I'll be buying, even though I waited a good 6 months anticipating its release on the 360. Seems like a bit of a dud and needs to be tried before buying.
I'm not sure why "loss" comes into it. Criminal law is all about the person committing the act, not the person it is committed against.
Well copyright infringement is a civil rather than a criminal offence but I take your point regardless. I'm sure certain products benefit from proliferation on the net (InDesign, for example, which is more likely to be bought by employers over Quark if their employees somehow managed to get familiar with it during their formative years) and I know that being able to YouTube a band that I've heard about has prompted many a trip to HMV in my lunch break, so I'd hate to see too much of an authoritarian clamp down because it has the potential to lessen rather than increase the amount people spend.
Also, if we're going to go nuts over copyright then lets have copyright expire after the original time period, eh?
It'll never work as expected.
Does this mean that all these p2p freaks being booted off will mean my internet connection is super speedy at all times? - Nah, I don't think so. Blaming p2p users is just another excuse for crappy infrastructure.
Does this mean that all these p2p freaks being booted off will mean my internet connection is super speedy at all times? - Nah, I don't think so. Blaming p2p users is just another excuse for crappy infrastructure.
Ha, that makes me laugh. The UK government don't seem to know very much about whats happening in their own back yard.
They don't know how many immigrants are in the country, not even close..
They don't know much about the people claiming benefits. They estimate a figure for the number that are illegally claiming, yet they don't know who these people are.
They lose important details by sending this important stuff in the post, and someone steals it.
Actually, making this list is going to make my head explode.
Bottom line is, the government is too incompetent to handle any system like this.
They don't know how many immigrants are in the country, not even close..
They don't know much about the people claiming benefits. They estimate a figure for the number that are illegally claiming, yet they don't know who these people are.
They lose important details by sending this important stuff in the post, and someone steals it.
Actually, making this list is going to make my head explode.
Bottom line is, the government is too incompetent to handle any system like this.
One thing to add into this discussion is what happens if you have an unsecure wireless point (I know you shouldn't, but just supposed it is unsecure, or someone 'navigates' around, so they steal your connection), well what happens if they download movies or music, well you will be cut off while the person who commited the act goes scott free.
Just something to ponder I guess :)
Just something to ponder I guess :)
I don't know, i'm not a leecher but i dislike these control things and it always happens in the name of the usual ones. I wonder when they'll start to shoot those who visit youtube. Enjoy as long as you can...
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4hPnZUMBwA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKtZwWLMp8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKs3t6lB9T8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8bkTusHYeQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWDxUTue4xc
:
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4hPnZUMBwA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKtZwWLMp8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKs3t6lB9T8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8bkTusHYeQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWDxUTue4xc
:
".....this is the latest in a long line of moves toward a police state."
My sentiments exactly. @rob / justluke
I think that bth of you have valid points, although personally i think i agree more with Luke on this one:
To download an app like maya to learn it for getting a job using it *could* be justified, as how else are people supposed to learn something like that with that kind of pricetag? 3D max actually does this with that Max light (or whatever its called) which is free to use indefinitely for non commercial use.
Something like maya or max takes months of full time learning to even partly master it so a 30 day trial is pointless for software this deep. If i was going to consider maya i would want to TRY it properly. If i liked it or wanted to release something then i would honestly buy it. If not i would honestly delete it and not use it. I dont understand why programs like this cannot have for example "500 free hours" rather than 30 days (as you cannot really use it 24/7 can you?). To compare it to the cars doesnt work as you can learn to drive in any car (except an automatic :).
However to download and use any software commercially or to use it for distributing works (weather free or not) is morally and ethically wrong and should be prosecuted. I think the other is a kind of acceptable grey area as most have no choice if they want to get into the industry. These kind of high-end companies make most of their money from the industry, not "Joe" down the road creating a few pictures for his job portfolio to show a company who have spent loads on their software. (and is in effect in the software companies interest in the long run.)
I think that bth of you have valid points, although personally i think i agree more with Luke on this one:
To download an app like maya to learn it for getting a job using it *could* be justified, as how else are people supposed to learn something like that with that kind of pricetag? 3D max actually does this with that Max light (or whatever its called) which is free to use indefinitely for non commercial use.
Something like maya or max takes months of full time learning to even partly master it so a 30 day trial is pointless for software this deep. If i was going to consider maya i would want to TRY it properly. If i liked it or wanted to release something then i would honestly buy it. If not i would honestly delete it and not use it. I dont understand why programs like this cannot have for example "500 free hours" rather than 30 days (as you cannot really use it 24/7 can you?). To compare it to the cars doesnt work as you can learn to drive in any car (except an automatic :).
However to download and use any software commercially or to use it for distributing works (weather free or not) is morally and ethically wrong and should be prosecuted. I think the other is a kind of acceptable grey area as most have no choice if they want to get into the industry. These kind of high-end companies make most of their money from the industry, not "Joe" down the road creating a few pictures for his job portfolio to show a company who have spent loads on their software. (and is in effect in the software companies interest in the long run.)
maya has a p.l.e. wich is free and a full version that has no time limit. here
downloading stuff like maya is illegal. its just like downloading any other software including commercial games which you didn't pay for. you would be mad if everybody downloaded your hard work for free and you expected to make a living off of it
downloading stuff like maya is illegal. its just like downloading any other software including commercial games which you didn't pay for. you would be mad if everybody downloaded your hard work for free and you expected to make a living off of it
maya has a p.l.e. wich is free and a full version that has no time limit.
I wasnt aware of that. However it does kind of prove my point that in some cases companies who create software with enourmous price tags have identified the NEED for people to use it for free. This is a relativelty new concept for hi-end stuff though, years ago when i needed to go for a job using 3D studio MAX (v4.x was the current i think) i had no choice but to download it for learning and to make a portfolio, i did not use it for anything else. I no longer needed it when i got my job because the comapny bought me a licence so they got their sale - no harm done.
As i said, its all about HONESTY of the individual, people will still download stuff wether for "honest" purposes or not. All the policing in the world wont stop it, the pirates will simply find new ways to get round it using unbreakable encryption or something. It will also drive it further underground as sadly the criminals always have and always will be one step ahead.
It sounds to me like another badly thought out "new" law (like the other 1000s created recently), created simply for "appearing" to be acting responsibly, without thinking it through properly (or as an excuse for a deeper agenda). We already have laws in place to allow license inspectors examine a buisiness's software status, why not use them more often instead.
Its stupid and will never work. If ISPs have to start filtering and inspecting every packet it will slow the internet down, not speed it up! Think about it, does the post office open every letter on behalf of the revenue to check for tax fraud? No.
you would be mad if everybody downloaded your hard work for free
Youre completely missing my point but yes I would be if someone was exploiting it. To be honest I would be more annoyed at the persons who cracked it and the people distributing it. However this law wont help me with that in any way, shape or form so whats the point?All it does is basically give the government more controls in place over our basic freedom of information (do you really think THEY care that some foreign firm or the US film industry is loosing out? (which is the vast majority of pirated stuff) and wether policing just britain is gonna help in the slightest?).
well..I'll tell ya one thing..here in Asia, pirate software is a common thing..actually there is a whole shopping malls, just and only for pirate software of any kind, including games..belive it or not but I was very surprised with things I saw...so far im the only person I know that buying licensed stuff...last weekend I spotted even Gamestudio A7, full version, for 2US$, as well as few other commercial stuff for game building...so, for me, its okay to buy let say 3DSMAX, pirated..then use it at home, for learning/mastering purpose, and after that, if im comfortable and projects supported, buy licensed version, what i did by the way..whatever case may be, I bet you guys will be surprised to see how many pirated things selling around..oh yes..I saw B3D too :)
had to skim down after a while
i myself dont download pirate albums etc
A> im on a capped data limit (3 gb (total) for £15 per month) which ive found out ive broken for the first time even though my total listed says other wise and im now paying per mega byte (yes per mega byte) till the next bill date
that wont last long on torrent (my brother is never off it ;) )
B> i only buy albums (and DVD's) when they are cheap
C> if i was a musician with a record deal (not what i am a sonic merchant who kills his bass with hammers files and other things and records it through numerouse FX settings) i'd like to get paid royalties something i would miss out on on all the downloads that go out for 'free'
so im moraly with the artists and against the corporates and lables that take the lions share off the RRP (outside of the retailer)
i myself dont download pirate albums etc
A> im on a capped data limit (3 gb (total) for £15 per month) which ive found out ive broken for the first time even though my total listed says other wise and im now paying per mega byte (yes per mega byte) till the next bill date
that wont last long on torrent (my brother is never off it ;) )
B> i only buy albums (and DVD's) when they are cheap
C> if i was a musician with a record deal (not what i am a sonic merchant who kills his bass with hammers files and other things and records it through numerouse FX settings) i'd like to get paid royalties something i would miss out on on all the downloads that go out for 'free'
so im moraly with the artists and against the corporates and lables that take the lions share off the RRP (outside of the retailer)
I'll stop pirating things when it becomes easier to use retail software than the haxx0red versions. This includes apps and games.
Example one: -
I recently tried to install a retail copy of Deus Ex: Invisible War. It failed miserably.
I installed a warez version which installed perfectly and didn't nag me to find the CD every time I wanted to play.
Example 2: -
I purchased Logic Audio Platinum (quite a while ago, as Logic Audio is now Mac only!) and it came with a copy protection dongle. I use the warez version which doesn't bug me about the dongle (which means I have one less device driver loaded).
Example 3: -
When I bought my monitor, it cost me around £700. It was the best 24" monitor available at the time and it's absolutely fantastic to this day.
When I bought my laptop, there was an option for BluRay drive. I enjoy HD movies, and I prefer BluRay as a format (for technical reasons).
Problem is, if I hook my laptop to my monitor and attempt to watch protected content, it's either going to fail completely or result in a degraded image.
My monitor does not support HDCP.
So, I saved myself somewhere between £200 and £300 on the cost of a BluRay drive and any films I was going to buy (300, Matrix trilogy, Lord of the Rings trilogy, all Star Wars films, Blade Runner, The Cell, ...) assuming, of course, they were available on BluRay!
It's trivial to download these as either 1920x1080 MPEG2 (really transport streams) or the newer codecs (VC-1, MP4 packages etc) and I can watch these in full glory on any output device.
Example one: -
I recently tried to install a retail copy of Deus Ex: Invisible War. It failed miserably.
I installed a warez version which installed perfectly and didn't nag me to find the CD every time I wanted to play.
Example 2: -
I purchased Logic Audio Platinum (quite a while ago, as Logic Audio is now Mac only!) and it came with a copy protection dongle. I use the warez version which doesn't bug me about the dongle (which means I have one less device driver loaded).
Example 3: -
When I bought my monitor, it cost me around £700. It was the best 24" monitor available at the time and it's absolutely fantastic to this day.
When I bought my laptop, there was an option for BluRay drive. I enjoy HD movies, and I prefer BluRay as a format (for technical reasons).
Problem is, if I hook my laptop to my monitor and attempt to watch protected content, it's either going to fail completely or result in a degraded image.
My monitor does not support HDCP.
So, I saved myself somewhere between £200 and £300 on the cost of a BluRay drive and any films I was going to buy (300, Matrix trilogy, Lord of the Rings trilogy, all Star Wars films, Blade Runner, The Cell, ...) assuming, of course, they were available on BluRay!
It's trivial to download these as either 1920x1080 MPEG2 (really transport streams) or the newer codecs (VC-1, MP4 packages etc) and I can watch these in full glory on any output device.
Hello.
It's an interesting method of dealing with the problem, ie, three strikes and you're out. At least people are given warnings that their activities are breaching rules, so they can't turn around and say "I didn't know". I think it will be hard to implement, however.
As with someone else above if I can't find a film somewhere then I'll p2p it. As an example a film called 'Terminal City Ricochet' was released in, ooh, about 1989. I've been looking out for it on vhs, dvd and movie channels ever since. Recently I read that the only place it's available is in film festivals in Canada. As an argument it might be lame, but that's just not fair. So I've p2p'd it - but as with the fellow above if I see it on legitimately on VHS or DVD then I'll buy it.
Equally, if I've bought music on vinyl, I feel within my rights (rightly or wrongly) to download mp3's of the same - mainly because I've already paid the band money for it.
Another area which I think is a bit dodgy is TV shows. I loved the first series of Heroes and downloaded the second series. That won't stop me watching it in the UK when it's on, nor will it stop me buying the DVD's when they're released - eventually the studio will get my money. However, I'm not interested in waiting for it to be released on TV in the UK when it's been syndicated in the states six months previously.
Interesting that people (especially rental agencies) are allowed to sell second hand vhs and DVD's as the studios will get nothing for them. I see no difference (except numbers, obviously) between spreading via p2p and selling second hand. In fact, the latter is probably worse as you've had your enjoyment and you get money back. Facile argument, I know.
I wonder why free porn video sites and the studios involved there don't complain, especially as porn dvd's comparitively more than your average blockbuster?
But as for software? Generally, I think it's out of order but can't help but think sometimes it's, not necessarily justified, but perhaps understandable. Some places are just plain greedy - too much for the initial software and then charges on top for upgrades. I wonder how much would be spent by someone who purchased Photoshop from version 1 and upgraded all versions to the current - would that be considered a fair amount? What about if someone says "I won't download the latest version of software just previous versions"? By the way, this is just hypothetical. I think the argument for using warez sites to get fixed software/dongle removed is perfectly reasonable.
Goodbye.
It's an interesting method of dealing with the problem, ie, three strikes and you're out. At least people are given warnings that their activities are breaching rules, so they can't turn around and say "I didn't know". I think it will be hard to implement, however.
As with someone else above if I can't find a film somewhere then I'll p2p it. As an example a film called 'Terminal City Ricochet' was released in, ooh, about 1989. I've been looking out for it on vhs, dvd and movie channels ever since. Recently I read that the only place it's available is in film festivals in Canada. As an argument it might be lame, but that's just not fair. So I've p2p'd it - but as with the fellow above if I see it on legitimately on VHS or DVD then I'll buy it.
Equally, if I've bought music on vinyl, I feel within my rights (rightly or wrongly) to download mp3's of the same - mainly because I've already paid the band money for it.
Another area which I think is a bit dodgy is TV shows. I loved the first series of Heroes and downloaded the second series. That won't stop me watching it in the UK when it's on, nor will it stop me buying the DVD's when they're released - eventually the studio will get my money. However, I'm not interested in waiting for it to be released on TV in the UK when it's been syndicated in the states six months previously.
Interesting that people (especially rental agencies) are allowed to sell second hand vhs and DVD's as the studios will get nothing for them. I see no difference (except numbers, obviously) between spreading via p2p and selling second hand. In fact, the latter is probably worse as you've had your enjoyment and you get money back. Facile argument, I know.
I wonder why free porn video sites and the studios involved there don't complain, especially as porn dvd's comparitively more than your average blockbuster?
But as for software? Generally, I think it's out of order but can't help but think sometimes it's, not necessarily justified, but perhaps understandable. Some places are just plain greedy - too much for the initial software and then charges on top for upgrades. I wonder how much would be spent by someone who purchased Photoshop from version 1 and upgraded all versions to the current - would that be considered a fair amount? What about if someone says "I won't download the latest version of software just previous versions"? By the way, this is just hypothetical. I think the argument for using warez sites to get fixed software/dongle removed is perfectly reasonable.
Goodbye.
If they have any sense they will only target people who are ripping the arse out the system ATM. I seriously doubt they could or would monitor every download.
There are people downloading terabytes of stuff every month which causes the ISP's greif and annoys the content companies. As we, the customers have to pay for all this stuff ultimately I wouldn't be too upset to see them do something about these people.
Darkheart
There are people downloading terabytes of stuff every month which causes the ISP's greif and annoys the content companies. As we, the customers have to pay for all this stuff ultimately I wouldn't be too upset to see them do something about these people.
Darkheart
I am all in favour of curbing people continuously downloading terrabytes of information because of the congestion and bandwidth hogging that this creates quite apart from the fact that it is, given current laws, theft.
In certain circumstances I see nothing wrong with the occasional download for personal use only.
However it must be said that Software developers & Performing artists and the agents that leech,sorry represent them have a massive advantage over say a builder, plumber or electrician etc when it comes to charging for their work.
Because their work can be recorded in either an analogue or digital format they can sell and resell and continue to resell the same bit of work over and over ad infinitum getting paid over and over again for the original, one off, bit of work they did.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here but perhaps an actor, musician or other performing artist should be paid per live performance only - recorded works should be freely available and would act as publicity for people to go and see them live - tough on the cinema-only actors but hey - they've lived off the fat of the land far too long and manu of them couldn't hack it in a live situation anyway.
As for Software developers we should be allowed to sell as much as we want as watching the live performance of a programmer would not be very entertaining !! ;)
In certain circumstances I see nothing wrong with the occasional download for personal use only.
However it must be said that Software developers & Performing artists and the agents that leech,sorry represent them have a massive advantage over say a builder, plumber or electrician etc when it comes to charging for their work.
Because their work can be recorded in either an analogue or digital format they can sell and resell and continue to resell the same bit of work over and over ad infinitum getting paid over and over again for the original, one off, bit of work they did.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here but perhaps an actor, musician or other performing artist should be paid per live performance only - recorded works should be freely available and would act as publicity for people to go and see them live - tough on the cinema-only actors but hey - they've lived off the fat of the land far too long and manu of them couldn't hack it in a live situation anyway.
As for Software developers we should be allowed to sell as much as we want as watching the live performance of a programmer would not be very entertaining !! ;)
This kind of problem seems to be a very english one where people get pushed in all kinds of ways. England seems to be a new proving ground for all kinds of far out schemes whether its CCTV and people telling you off for littering over the PA system. $50 daily congestion Tax for driving gas guzzler vehicles in london.
They are only just now trying to ban 3500 commonly used dodgy crowd dispersal gadget called the mosquito that only target certain age groups indiscriminately.
Makes me glad I left the place that is slowly becoming some kind of police state.
They are only just now trying to ban 3500 commonly used dodgy crowd dispersal gadget called the mosquito that only target certain age groups indiscriminately.
Makes me glad I left the place that is slowly becoming some kind of police state.
LOL. This will be impossible to enforce properly.
When I look at something on youtube for example, it is cached to the harddrive and you have download it (for good if you save it using a utility) but the user isn't aware of that it is on their harddrive and because you are forced to cache it on your machine, how does anyone know you were able to save it permanentely?
90% of Youtube is copyrighted clips from TVs and movies and entire episodes of pretty much everything, is it me breaking the law by looking at something on there?
And I download mame roms, I own 20 arcade machines some of which are broke. Who's going to investigate as to whether I even own the things I am downloading?
It's a nice idea but ultimately impossible. The most common thing people download on the Internet is porn but people seem to forget that even porn has copyrights that are infringed. They may as well just shut down the Internet.
And let's say somehow they did, piracy would just go back to how it was before the Internet and P2P existed, posted disks through the post.
Good luck with that guys, you'll really need it!
When I look at something on youtube for example, it is cached to the harddrive and you have download it (for good if you save it using a utility) but the user isn't aware of that it is on their harddrive and because you are forced to cache it on your machine, how does anyone know you were able to save it permanentely?
90% of Youtube is copyrighted clips from TVs and movies and entire episodes of pretty much everything, is it me breaking the law by looking at something on there?
And I download mame roms, I own 20 arcade machines some of which are broke. Who's going to investigate as to whether I even own the things I am downloading?
It's a nice idea but ultimately impossible. The most common thing people download on the Internet is porn but people seem to forget that even porn has copyrights that are infringed. They may as well just shut down the Internet.
And let's say somehow they did, piracy would just go back to how it was before the Internet and P2P existed, posted disks through the post.
Good luck with that guys, you'll really need it!
It isn't like they have time to watch every person who downloads something.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAa
I am sorry but for all you "England Prevails, down with the USA" jagg-offs I must say that every time I read news like this it reminds me of V For Vendetta.
bottom line is that this leaves the door open for interpretation. Meaning they can flag all sorts of URLs and deem them "illegal" just as the proxy here at my work does. Now some of the sites I go to I know don't have illegal content on them however can be home to illegal material (like file storage sites), but I am still flagged when I click on a link to someone's image or demo that is hosted at that site which is 'known to house illegal material'.
Good luck to you all if this goes through. Your going to find yourself on the telephone to your ISP very often as you have to constantly and consistently explain why your pop-up blocker didn't stop that one window to that illegal warez site.
Youtube is an excellent example.
But tell me this. How does the ISP know what your downloading? If you download a passworded .rar file, they can't gain access to this surely? Therefore, to lead on from that, surely distributing illegal material inside special fiel formats or compressed, passworded files is the way forward for pirated material?
But tell me this. How does the ISP know what your downloading? If you download a passworded .rar file, they can't gain access to this surely? Therefore, to lead on from that, surely distributing illegal material inside special fiel formats or compressed, passworded files is the way forward for pirated material?
Here's a bit of a news item from the pages of The Mirror
The major ISPs talked about a vountary scheme to police piracy. But couldn't decide what to do if customers claimed their connection was hijacked.
We will know more about this issue when MPs discusse it next week. (If they "do" do something about this, then why can't they do something about all the other problems in the U.K.)
The ISP Association warned customers' bills could rise under the plans. It asked "Where is the money for this? ISPs are not the police"
The major ISPs talked about a vountary scheme to police piracy. But couldn't decide what to do if customers claimed their connection was hijacked.
We will know more about this issue when MPs discusse it next week. (If they "do" do something about this, then why can't they do something about all the other problems in the U.K.)
I'm glad I can download music legally here, because I just don't really care enough to buy it. It's faster and easier just to p2p all of it.
I thought it was more of a gray-space here po? I've yet to find an official declaration on the bandwidth policies in Canada outside of your own ISP's contract.
Wouldn't this violate some privacy laws. Basically the ISP's would have to look at the traffic to see what it is you're downloading to determine if it's copyright, which really is the same as phone surveillance, which in most democratic countries requires a court order or something similar.
Secondly, most ISP's won't want to enforce this as, it costs them money to watch the traffic and they'll loose customers from it.
Secondly, most ISP's won't want to enforce this as, it costs them money to watch the traffic and they'll loose customers from it.
I always love hearing how people from "enlightened" socialist countries bemoan the "thieves" for "stealing" "their" bandwidth.
Elite snobs who raise themselves above the poor people and complain that they are using the precious pipe for nefarious stealing when at the sametime, maybe, if they weren't taxed to near poverty they would be able to use the internet for legitimate "legal" purposes.
Note: excessive quotes were used in the above to denote eye rolling :)
Nothing is free. Not software, not the internet and definitely not time.
It really makes me sick to hear about illegal music downloads, SW downloads etc ... I believe in fair use. If I buy something I should be able to duplicate it for my own purposes. Full stop.
Just because you can't afford something does not entitle you to steal and rationalize that you would never have bought it anyway so who cares?
Elite snobs who raise themselves above the poor people and complain that they are using the precious pipe for nefarious stealing when at the sametime, maybe, if they weren't taxed to near poverty they would be able to use the internet for legitimate "legal" purposes.
Note: excessive quotes were used in the above to denote eye rolling :)
Nothing is free. Not software, not the internet and definitely not time.
It really makes me sick to hear about illegal music downloads, SW downloads etc ... I believe in fair use. If I buy something I should be able to duplicate it for my own purposes. Full stop.
Just because you can't afford something does not entitle you to steal and rationalize that you would never have bought it anyway so who cares?
If they "do" do something about this, then why can't they do something about all the other problems in the U.K.
I thought i hit the nail on the head there in the center and at the bottom of my last post. Well some googling brings up:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html
Specifically:
The ruling stipulates that:
* Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.
* Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.
Apparently uploading is illegal:
http://www.news.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html
But don't the two contradict each other with regards to uploading?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html
Specifically:
The ruling stipulates that:
* Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.
* Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.
Apparently uploading is illegal:
http://www.news.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html
But don't the two contradict each other with regards to uploading?
Just because you can't afford something does not entitle you to steal and rationalize that you would never have bought it anyway so who cares?
That's true enough, but it's still important to recognise that they aren't necessarily lost sales in order to keep the touted figures in perspective. >Those are research and development costs, and they are
>seperate from (although related to and of influence upon) the
>cost of manufacturing a single unit of a commodity. It costs
>nothing (well, a relatively insignificant amount) to
>digitally "manufacture" a unit of software.
Just because it's digital, doesn't mean that distribution is without costs. Bandwidth costs money you know.
>seperate from (although related to and of influence upon) the
>cost of manufacturing a single unit of a commodity. It costs
>nothing (well, a relatively insignificant amount) to
>digitally "manufacture" a unit of software.
Just because it's digital, doesn't mean that distribution is without costs. Bandwidth costs money you know.
It's going to be interesting to see what kind of 'digital' oriented legislation we'll have in 30 years time, when the majority of politicians in office would have actually grown up in the digital age.
I'm sure that there's more than a few politicians out there that haven't even been in the same *room* as a computer with internet access, let alone use it regularly... Yet these very same people mandate the laws that affect everyone.
One of the underlaying problems with all of these debates is that copyright have morphed tremendously over the years. *originally* it was intended to be a limited-time (7 years, IIRC) exclusive ownership by the creator, enforced by the goverment -- to foster the creation of new arts. (making it worth the time of the creators to create something)
The trade-off of this limited time protection was that after it expires, the items would be released to the public domain, for the greater common good.
Yet over the years copyright has been extended and extended, until it reach todays state where it is essentially unlimited for all practical purposes.
the media producers ended up with a great deal: essentially permanent ownership, without having to hold up their end of the original bargain.
Do you really think that Hollywood would decide to just stop producing movies should their copyrights expire after, say, a decade or two?
(Think about those MAME rom's Amon mentioned above -- Despite the fact that it's impossible to purchase them from the original producers and that there is about 0 economical viability for those games in todays market, it will still be technically illegal to download them for decades to come. I guess it's their ball, and they're taking it home.)
I'm sure that there's more than a few politicians out there that haven't even been in the same *room* as a computer with internet access, let alone use it regularly... Yet these very same people mandate the laws that affect everyone.
One of the underlaying problems with all of these debates is that copyright have morphed tremendously over the years. *originally* it was intended to be a limited-time (7 years, IIRC) exclusive ownership by the creator, enforced by the goverment -- to foster the creation of new arts. (making it worth the time of the creators to create something)
The trade-off of this limited time protection was that after it expires, the items would be released to the public domain, for the greater common good.
Yet over the years copyright has been extended and extended, until it reach todays state where it is essentially unlimited for all practical purposes.
the media producers ended up with a great deal: essentially permanent ownership, without having to hold up their end of the original bargain.
Do you really think that Hollywood would decide to just stop producing movies should their copyrights expire after, say, a decade or two?
(Think about those MAME rom's Amon mentioned above -- Despite the fact that it's impossible to purchase them from the original producers and that there is about 0 economical viability for those games in todays market, it will still be technically illegal to download them for decades to come. I guess it's their ball, and they're taking it home.)
Downloading copyrighted movies is not stealing technically nor morally. The real question is whether our society wants to live in scarcity or post scarcity. By the way, why should developers "get mad" if their work is being downloaded by lots of people? I would be happy if that would happen (you can download, modify and share my game http://www.stuntmoto.org with a pretty free license.)
Here's a good lecture about copyrights:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2541736281918823479
Here's a good lecture about copyrights:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2541736281918823479
Downloading copywrited material is certainly not immoral. Copywrite law most definately is.
why should developers "get mad" if their work is being downloaded by lots of people?
What do you do for a day job? If you were a plumber would you fix pipes for free? Besides, you WANT to give it away for nothing. Nothing at all wrong with that.
Downloading copywrited material is certainly not immoral. Copywrite law most definately is.
Depends what you use the material for, im personally not against downloading but if you like what you download or use it then you should show some respect for those that made it, otherwise its stealing, simple as that. (unless just "cheekily borrowing it for proper evaluation" or simply doing it for cd/dongle replacement/convenience which IMO is not theft) D4NM4N: Surely the correct plumbing analogy would be the homeowner fixing their own pipes?
No because besides the fact that most of the population wouldnt know a u-bend from a gasket, the point is if its not done by a certified plumber then the house insurance may decide to not pay up if it floods the place. (not that thats relevent in any way)
That would be the analogy for people listening to their own singing, watching their own home movies and writing + using their own software :)
That would be the analogy for people listening to their own singing, watching their own home movies and writing + using their own software :)
on the 'lost' dvd's and by lost i dont mean the show
ive been trying to find someone selling frtiz langs metropolis at a price that isnt £20
an 80ish year old film £20 last summers blockbuster 5 for £30
art films have always been deemed niche markets and 'deserving' of a higher price tag to off set their limited saleability
its a catch 22
i want to watch certain films because ive heard they are good
i'm not paying too much for a film i may only see once and isnt available to rent
some of these films no one i know has heard of let alone might have it to let me borrow it
but if they lowered the price more and more people would take a chance on art/indi films
and on CD's
i spent nearly £100 in fopp cos they do alot of cd's for £5 most were from 97 or there abouts and if hmv or virgin stocked em they would probably be near £10
if i payed £10 would the recording artist get more money than the £5 i bought their CD for?
I doubt it
some have a royalties restructuring policy when cd's get 'bargain bin' priced others dont
so im guessing that only the shop would gain from my purchcase
if a franchise that almost went belly up last year or two ago (fopp) can have its remaining outlets survive and thrive selling cd's and dvd's for £5 on average it makes you wonder about the big guns
ive been trying to find someone selling frtiz langs metropolis at a price that isnt £20
an 80ish year old film £20 last summers blockbuster 5 for £30
art films have always been deemed niche markets and 'deserving' of a higher price tag to off set their limited saleability
its a catch 22
i want to watch certain films because ive heard they are good
i'm not paying too much for a film i may only see once and isnt available to rent
some of these films no one i know has heard of let alone might have it to let me borrow it
but if they lowered the price more and more people would take a chance on art/indi films
and on CD's
i spent nearly £100 in fopp cos they do alot of cd's for £5 most were from 97 or there abouts and if hmv or virgin stocked em they would probably be near £10
if i payed £10 would the recording artist get more money than the £5 i bought their CD for?
I doubt it
some have a royalties restructuring policy when cd's get 'bargain bin' priced others dont
so im guessing that only the shop would gain from my purchcase
if a franchise that almost went belly up last year or two ago (fopp) can have its remaining outlets survive and thrive selling cd's and dvd's for £5 on average it makes you wonder about the big guns
I'm really interested to see how all this turns out since I don't think it won't be possible.
I hate it when people say downloading stuff illegally is like a robber coming into your house and stealing your properly. That is utter crap.
If it was true then a robber would have to steal your TV whilst leaving an exact copy of where your TV used to be. And if you think of it like that, it's an entirely different sort of crime.
I fail to see how banning illegal downloading is going to to be inversely proportional to lost sales.
I have seen and loved all 3 lord of the rings films but have successfully never paid a penny to the studio's that make them, by thanks to watching them on TV for free, or watching a friend's DVD.
Except my mate who downloaded the first movie off a torrent, liked it and then went out and bought the triple box set and various action figures because of seeing the film. I can watch in awe at the scenery, marvel at the breathtaking special effects and become totally engrossed in a fantasticly made trilogy from a classic book, all whilst knowing I didn't give a single thing to the company who made it! :) So who's the criminal there?
There's too many other factors to consider than to simply say illegal downloading = lost profit.
Especially since people outside of the UK can carry on downloading things illegally and then just post stuff to their mates in the UK (or simply just buy the dodgy stuff from Ebay instead of even having to waste bandwidth downloading)
Chat clients like MSN Messenger, Skype etc have peer to peer communications don't they? I don't see how an ISP would be able to know what file transfers you could do within those programs.
ANd surely online games could easily have a downloadble peer to peer system implemented into them as a mask for illegal downloading?
And as Ross C says, media can be password protected, or an archived rar media in general. How will you know what someone is downloading?
Illegal downloading may go back to the crazily numbered anonymous ftp connections of the olden days.
I remember years ago when Geocities websites were all the rage, to stop illegal downloading of mp3s they used to have a bot which searched for uploaded mp3s and then delete them.
Then people would say "save this dot jpeg and rename it to an em pee three to get them to work".
For every clever idea there is a clever dodge.
Besides, this will be impossible to implement properly. If it were possible then things like downloading Child porn would have become exstinct long ago.
It's a shame we can't ban the government from operating for 3 months from losing 2.5million user details.
Again, will be very interesting to see what happens.
I hate it when people say downloading stuff illegally is like a robber coming into your house and stealing your properly. That is utter crap.
If it was true then a robber would have to steal your TV whilst leaving an exact copy of where your TV used to be. And if you think of it like that, it's an entirely different sort of crime.
I fail to see how banning illegal downloading is going to to be inversely proportional to lost sales.
I have seen and loved all 3 lord of the rings films but have successfully never paid a penny to the studio's that make them, by thanks to watching them on TV for free, or watching a friend's DVD.
Except my mate who downloaded the first movie off a torrent, liked it and then went out and bought the triple box set and various action figures because of seeing the film. I can watch in awe at the scenery, marvel at the breathtaking special effects and become totally engrossed in a fantasticly made trilogy from a classic book, all whilst knowing I didn't give a single thing to the company who made it! :) So who's the criminal there?
There's too many other factors to consider than to simply say illegal downloading = lost profit.
Especially since people outside of the UK can carry on downloading things illegally and then just post stuff to their mates in the UK (or simply just buy the dodgy stuff from Ebay instead of even having to waste bandwidth downloading)
Chat clients like MSN Messenger, Skype etc have peer to peer communications don't they? I don't see how an ISP would be able to know what file transfers you could do within those programs.
ANd surely online games could easily have a downloadble peer to peer system implemented into them as a mask for illegal downloading?
And as Ross C says, media can be password protected, or an archived rar media in general. How will you know what someone is downloading?
Illegal downloading may go back to the crazily numbered anonymous ftp connections of the olden days.
I remember years ago when Geocities websites were all the rage, to stop illegal downloading of mp3s they used to have a bot which searched for uploaded mp3s and then delete them.
Then people would say "save this dot jpeg and rename it to an em pee three to get them to work".
For every clever idea there is a clever dodge.
Besides, this will be impossible to implement properly. If it were possible then things like downloading Child porn would have become exstinct long ago.
It's a shame we can't ban the government from operating for 3 months from losing 2.5million user details.
Again, will be very interesting to see what happens.