UK File sharers to be "cut off"

  • 151 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for AirGuitarist87
AirGuitarist87

9499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 AirGuitarist87
Member since 2006 • 9499 Posts

The UK government has published new measures that could see people who illegally download films and music cut off from the net.

The amendment to the Digital Britain report would see regulator Ofcom given greater powers to tackle pirates.

The technical measures are likely to include suspending the net accounts of "hardcore copyright pirates".

It is believed that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has intervened personally to beef up the policy.

The Digital Britain report, published in June, gave Ofcom until 2012 to consider whether technical measures to catch pirates were necessary.

However, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released on Tuesday, that timeframe is now considered "too long to wait".

Source.

What do you think? I recon this will cause some major problems with areas that are very grey.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
Good, it serves them right.
Avatar image for ryrulez
ryrulez

11605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 ryrulez
Member since 2008 • 11605 Posts
There was something about this like a year or so a go and the decided not to do it because it would too expensive but with Darth Mandelson at the forefront he will push this through, just so he's a bit more evil then he'll go build a death star.
Avatar image for corwinn01
corwinn01

842

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 corwinn01
Member since 2004 • 842 Posts

Good deal piracy sucks.

Avatar image for Fried_Shrimp
Fried_Shrimp

2902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Fried_Shrimp
Member since 2009 • 2902 Posts
Good, it serves them right.MetalGear_Ninty
Everyone used to copy VHS and Cassettes in the 80's. It's totally hypocritical.
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
jimmyjammer69

12239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 jimmyjammer69
Member since 2008 • 12239 Posts
So ISP's will be forced to hand over details of their clients' online activities? ...or will it most likely boil down to stern letters?
Avatar image for Evil_Saluki
Evil_Saluki

5217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#7 Evil_Saluki
Member since 2008 • 5217 Posts

Whatever I suppose. As long as at the same time they work just as hard to protect secure sites for the people who do pay for the goods.

Avatar image for AirGuitarist87
AirGuitarist87

9499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 AirGuitarist87
Member since 2006 • 9499 Posts
Good, it serves them right.MetalGear_Ninty
I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.
Avatar image for Foolz3h
Foolz3h

23739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#9 Foolz3h
Member since 2006 • 23739 Posts

Watch salesnotgo up!

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Good, it serves them right.AirGuitarist87
I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.

Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.
Avatar image for jwsoul
jwsoul

5467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#11 jwsoul
Member since 2005 • 5467 Posts
[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Good, it serves them right.Funky_Llama
I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.

Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.

Yeah but thats a really hard thing to judge.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="jwsoul"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.

Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.

Yeah but thats a really hard thing to judge.

Which is why there shouldn't be a blanket law cutting people's internet off for doing something that's not necessarily wrong.
Avatar image for AirGuitarist87
AirGuitarist87

9499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#13 AirGuitarist87
Member since 2006 • 9499 Posts
[QUOTE="jwsoul"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.

Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.

Yeah but thats a really hard thing to judge.

Not really. If it's not licensed in this country then it cannot be sold in the shops. If it cannot be sold in the shops then it becomes an importing issue. If it cannot be imported then where else can you get it from?
Avatar image for skelebull3000
skelebull3000

2724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 skelebull3000
Member since 2004 • 2724 Posts

It's not going to work. Regardless of what they do, people are going to find a way around it.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Good, it serves them right.Fried_Shrimp
Everyone used to copy VHS and Cassettes in the 80's. It's totally hypocritical.

I didn't. Thus I'm not a hypocrite. :|
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Good, it serves them right.Funky_Llama
I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.

Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.

That doesn't make it right. Nobody is entitled to any piece of music, movies etc.

People have to learn to live without.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.MetalGear_Ninty
Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.

That doesn't make it right. Nobody is entitled to any piece of music, movies etc. People have to learn to live without, or pay up.

But when paying up isn't an option, the artist will not be getting any money from you no matter what happens, so pirating does no harm to them and helps you, so has an overall positive effect in that case. There's no reason to object to piracy when it doesn't deprive anyone of money.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means.Funky_Llama
That doesn't make it right. Nobody is entitled to any piece of music, movies etc. People have to learn to live without, or pay up.

But when paying up isn't an option, the artist will not be getting any money from you no matter what happens, so pirating does no harm to them and helps you, so has an overall positive effect in that case. There's no reason to object to piracy when it doesn't deprive anyone of money.

Then what you've described there isn't pirating at all. If all parties involved were complicit with the release of the mateial then it wouldn't be a copyright issue.
Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Good, it serves them right.AirGuitarist87
I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.

Well they only detect general P2P activity so you could be punished for updating WoW
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That doesn't make it right. Nobody is entitled to any piece of music, movies etc. People have to learn to live without, or pay up.MetalGear_Ninty
But when paying up isn't an option, the artist will not be getting any money from you no matter what happens, so pirating does no harm to them and helps you, so has an overall positive effect in that case. There's no reason to object to piracy when it doesn't deprive anyone of money.

Then what you've described there isn't pirating at all. If all parties involved were complicit with the release of the mateial then it wouldn't be a copyright issue.

I was referring to when a company is sitting on the copyright for something but isn't selling it - in which case getting it via bittorrent is still piracy, and still by this law grounds for your connection being cut off.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]But when paying up isn't an option, the artist will not be getting any money from you no matter what happens, so pirating does no harm to them and helps you, so has an overall positive effect in that case. There's no reason to object to piracy when it doesn't deprive anyone of money.Funky_Llama

Then what you've described there isn't pirating at all. If all parties involved were complicit with the release of the mateial then it wouldn't be a copyright issue.

I was referring to when a company is sitting on the copyright for something but isn't selling it - in which case getting it via bittorrent is still piracy, and still by this law grounds for your connection being cut off.

But your still screwing over the copyright company. If they don't want to sell it, then that is there choice. They paid the money to have the authority to make that choice.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Then what you've described there isn't pirating at all. If all parties involved were complicit with the release of the mateial then it wouldn't be a copyright issue.MetalGear_Ninty

I was referring to when a company is sitting on the copyright for something but isn't selling it - in which case getting it via bittorrent is still piracy, and still by this law grounds for your connection being cut off.

But your still screwing over the copyright company. If they don't want to sell it, then that is there choice. They paid the money to have the authority to make that choice.

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I was referring to when a company is sitting on the copyright for something but isn't selling it - in which case getting it via bittorrent is still piracy, and still by this law grounds for your connection being cut off.

Funky_Llama

But your still screwing over the copyright company. If they don't want to sell it, then that is there choice. They paid the money to have the authority to make that choice.

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.

It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
jimmyjammer69

12239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 jimmyjammer69
Member since 2008 • 12239 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But your still screwing over the copyright company. If they don't want to sell it, then that is there choice. They paid the money to have the authority to make that choice. MetalGear_Ninty

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.

It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Theft: The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Where is the depriving if the other loses nothing, not even potential income?
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#25 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But your still screwing over the copyright company. If they don't want to sell it, then that is there choice. They paid the money to have the authority to make that choice. MetalGear_Ninty

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.

It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Regardless of any moral issues, it's absolutely not theft and isn't legally classified as such. It's copyright infringement. Secondly, the book thing is a bad analogy. If I take your book, you don't have the book anymore; if you pirate Spore, it's not like some legatimate customer will suddenly lose their game.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#26 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.Funky_Llama
It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Theft: The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Where is the depriving if the other loses nothing, not even potential income?

You're are depriving them of the ability to do what they want with their own property.
Avatar image for AirGuitarist87
AirGuitarist87

9499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#27 AirGuitarist87
Member since 2006 • 9499 Posts

It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

MetalGear_Ninty

The law is never retrospective. You cannot punish someone for a law that might come into place or for "stealing" something that might be put on sale at some point in the future.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.Funky_Llama
It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Regardless of any moral issues, it's absolutely not theft and isn't legally classified as such. It's copyright infringement. Secondly, the book thing is a bad analogy. If I take your book, you don't have the book anymore; if you pirate Spore, it's not like some legatimate customer will suddenly lose their game.

No, the analogy is completey legitimate. I said that 'you'd put it back' and not take it permanently from me. It wouldn't actually deprive me of the book in any sense.
Avatar image for skelebull3000
skelebull3000

2724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 skelebull3000
Member since 2004 • 2724 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But your still screwing over the copyright company. If they don't want to sell it, then that is there choice. They paid the money to have the authority to make that choice. MetalGear_Ninty

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.

It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Well, technically you wouldn't be taking the book but just making a copy of it. Otherwise piracy would be known as actual theft rather than copyright violation.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#30 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

MetalGear_Ninty

Regardless of any moral issues, it's absolutely not theft and isn't legally classified as such. It's copyright infringement. Secondly, the book thing is a bad analogy. If I take your book, you don't have the book anymore; if you pirate Spore, it's not like some legatimate customer will suddenly lose their game.

No, the analogy is completey legitimate. I said that 'you'd put it back' and not take it permanently from me. It wouldn't actually deprive me of the book in any sense.

It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

AirGuitarist87

Stealing has got nothing to do with whehter something is on sale or not. But the point remains that pirating in this way can deprive people of profit.

NB: Gamespot is playing up, so I had to cut your post when quoting

Avatar image for skelebull3000
skelebull3000

2724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 skelebull3000
Member since 2004 • 2724 Posts

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

MetalGear_Ninty

Stealing has got nothing to do with whehter something is on sale or not. But the point remains that pirating in this way can deprive people of profit.

NB: Gamespot is playing up, so I had to cut your post when quoting

I can't see who you're actually quoting... damn GS.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Regardless of any moral issues, it's absolutely not theft and isn't legally classified as such. It's copyright infringement. Secondly, the book thing is a bad analogy. If I take your book, you don't have the book anymore; if you pirate Spore, it's not like some legatimate customer will suddenly lose their game.Funky_Llama

No, the analogy is completey legitimate. I said that 'you'd put it back' and not take it permanently from me. It wouldn't actually deprive me of the book in any sense.

It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I don't really see how it constitutes screwing them over. No matter what happens, they get absolutely nothing from you because they're not selling it. Consequently, bittorrenting it has no effect on them, or their income, or whatever, at all - and how something that makes no difference to them can be 'screwing them over' is beyond me. And yes, they have the legal choice to sell it - but in not doing so, they give people the moral choice to pirate it.AirGuitarist87
It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

Well, technically you wouldn't be taking the book but just making a copy of it. Otherwise piracy would be known as actual theft rather than copyright violation.

Well it just depends on what definition of theft you use, really.
Avatar image for watblud
watblud

330

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 watblud
Member since 2008 • 330 Posts
slightly harsh... if my younger sis was to carry on using limewire then I will loose internet access? That seems fair to people?
Avatar image for skelebull3000
skelebull3000

2724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 skelebull3000
Member since 2004 • 2724 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] No, the analogy is completey legitimate. I said that 'you'd put it back' and not take it permanently from me. It wouldn't actually deprive me of the book in any sense.MetalGear_Ninty

It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.

Do you know that the punishment for piracy is harsher than stealing a car and giving it back in 10 days in some countries? It also has a harsher punishment than leaving an HIV infected needle in the middle of a busy park.

Avatar image for skelebull3000
skelebull3000

2724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 skelebull3000
Member since 2004 • 2724 Posts

[QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] It is still theft no matter how you look at it.

Hypothetically, say if I owned a copy of a nice book you always wanted to read. I had stopped reading the book; you asked me if I could lend the book to you, and I said 'no', even though doing so would not harm me in the slightest. That would not give you the moral authority to take my book when I was not looking and start reading it before putting it back from where you got it.

Also, just because the copyright owners may not want to sell the product now, does not mean the will not want to sell it in the future, thereby by pirating you'd be depriving them of profit potentially, when they chose to sell.

MetalGear_Ninty

Well, technically you wouldn't be taking the book but just making a copy of it. Otherwise piracy would be known as actual theft rather than copyright violation.

Well it just depends on what definition of theft you use, really.

In this case one has to use the law's definition of theft and piracy isn't considered theft.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#38 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.

Do you know that the punishment for piracy is harsher than stealing a car and giving it back in 10 days in some countries? It also has a harsher punishment than leaving an HIV infected needle in the middle of a busy park.

Well that's just plain wrong. I'm not a fan of piracy by any means, but I think that is just ludicrous.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

Well, technically you wouldn't be taking the book but just making a copy of it. Otherwise piracy would be known as actual theft rather than copyright violation.

Well it just depends on what definition of theft you use, really.

In this case one has to use the law's definition of theft and piracy isn't considered theft.

You use the English law definition of theft though. Other countries have different definitions.
Avatar image for AirGuitarist87
AirGuitarist87

9499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#40 AirGuitarist87
Member since 2006 • 9499 Posts

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

MetalGear_Ninty

Stealing has got nothing to do with whehter something is on sale or not. But the point remains that pirating in this way can deprive people of profit.

NB: Gamespot is playing up, so I had to cut your post when quoting

Well when it comes to pirating, it must be on sale for it to constitute as piracy. And it can only be put on sale if it has been licensed by the companies to the respective countries. Like I said earlier, this falls more under importing than it does pirating. And it's ok about the quoting thing. :P
Avatar image for skelebull3000
skelebull3000

2724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#41 skelebull3000
Member since 2004 • 2724 Posts

[QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Well it just depends on what definition of theft you use, really.MetalGear_Ninty

In this case one has to use the law's definition of theft and piracy isn't considered theft.

You use the English law definition of theft though. Other countries have different definitions.

Most IP's affected by piracy happen to be in the Western hemisphere. At least most record labels and film labels.

Avatar image for AirGuitarist87
AirGuitarist87

9499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#42 AirGuitarist87
Member since 2006 • 9499 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] You use the English law definition of theft though. Other countries have different definitions.

Seeing as this law is being implemented in England, I feel it's fair.
Avatar image for AS-All-Star
AS-All-Star

304

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 AS-All-Star
Member since 2008 • 304 Posts

Not to worry, can't be enforced accurately enough to be used effectivley. I've had letters from Virgin Media before telling me I was suspected of downloading copyrighted material. All they had to go on was that I had downloaded a large amount of data over a short time, even though that was the Windows 7 Beta from the actual windows website.

Though I'll admit i have used BitTorrent, but only for old films or music that have come into the free domain...

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#44 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] No, the analogy is completey legitimate. I said that 'you'd put it back' and not take it permanently from me. It wouldn't actually deprive me of the book in any sense.MetalGear_Ninty

It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.

I don't really know how I'd be able to say for certain that you wouldn't be needing it given the chance that you might wake up or something. Either way - although in this case it doesn't really matter, you are still being deprived of your property and as such it's still a bad analogy. Just because you weren't intending to use it in the near future doesn't mean you're not being deprived of it when it's taken from you.
Avatar image for bean-with-bacon
bean-with-bacon

2134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 bean-with-bacon
Member since 2008 • 2134 Posts
My main concern is why the punishment for piracy is so disproportionately high, stealing an actual CD will probably cop you a couple thousand dollar fine, a lady was fined 2 million for downloading 24 songs, it is absolutely retarded. The entertainment industries need to adapt instead of trying to fight it, why on earth would anyone download a song legally when they can get a higher quality one for free with much less hassle?
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
jimmyjammer69

12239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 jimmyjammer69
Member since 2008 • 12239 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] No, the analogy is completey legitimate. I said that 'you'd put it back' and not take it permanently from me. It wouldn't actually deprive me of the book in any sense.MetalGear_Ninty

It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.

Property is based on the idea of depriving another person of something in the first place; hence "La propriété, c'est le vol" (property is theft). When you lay claim to ownership of a pen, you're doing nothing more than instating an exclusive right of use. The idea of property stems from the idea of exclusivity and unshareability (:?). However, what we're arguing about is intangible and one person's use doesn't infringe in any way on another's. Intellectual property recognises this, which is why when you buy any electronic media, you're doing nothing more than entering into a licence to use. Since the licence is not a limited object, it's not property and can't be involved in theft. VandalVideo could probably tell you much more about the legal status of copyright violation but try as you might, you can't turn copyright infringement into theft.

On a side note, maybe I've missed something, but what's wrong with someone using your book while you're not looking if they could cause no damage to your book to the extent that they don't even leave a fingerprint? The only argument I can think against that is that you feel they would be trespassing on your right to deprive them of knowledge.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="skelebull3000"]

Most IP's affected by piracy happen to be in the Western hemisphere. At least most record labels and film labels.

Yes, but there's different definitions within the western hemisphere
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] You use the English law definition of theft though. Other countries have different definitions.AirGuitarist87
Seeing as this law is being implemented in England, I feel it's fair.

To be fair, when talking about theft, I was talking about piracy in a general sense at that time.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#48 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

Funky_Llama

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.

I don't really know how I'd be able to say for certain that you wouldn't be needing it given the chance that you might wake up or something. Either way - although in this case it doesn't really matter, you are still being deprived of your property and as such it's still a bad analogy. Just because you weren't intending to use it in the near future doesn't mean you're not being deprived of it when it's taken from you.

When I woke up you could have just given the book back, so in that sense there is no way that I would have been deprived of the book through your actions. The analogy fits.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#49 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]It would deprive you of the book, and in a very real sense. >_> You'd be deprived of your copy of the book for the duration that I'd stolen it. Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of their copy of whatever it is you're downloading for any length of time.

How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.

Property is based on the idea of depriving another person of something in the first place; hence "La propriété, c'est le vol" (property is theft). When you lay claim to ownership of a pen, you're doing nothing more than instating an exclusive right of use. The idea of property stems from the idea of exclusivity and unshareability (:?). However, what we're arguing about is intangible and one person's use doesn't infringe in any way on another's. Intellectual property recognises this, which is why when you buy any electronic media, you're doing nothing more than entering into a licence to use. Since the licence is not a limited object, it's not property and can't be involved in theft. VandalVideo could probably tell you much more about the legal status of copyright violation but try as you might, you can't turn copyright infringement into theft.

On a side note, maybe I've missed something, but what's wrong with someone using your book while you're not looking if they could cause no damage to your book to the extent that they don't even leave a fingerprint? The only argument I can think against that is that you feel they would be trespassing on your right to deprive them of knowledge.

IP is property. The word property is inherent within the term IP. People still own IPs which makes it wrong for other people to take elements of their authority away from them. What's wrong with the guy in the book scenario is that he used the other guy's book without permission, plain and simple.
Avatar image for Hungry_bunny
Hungry_bunny

14293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Hungry_bunny
Member since 2006 • 14293 Posts
That's stupid and crazy. Pirating is bad, but cutting somebody off from the Internet without a fair trial is insane... Internet has become too important to allow it to be taken away by some private company, like an ISP, or some biased blood-thirsty digital rights movement that easily. Not even a government launched organization should have the right to do that.