UK ISP's must block The Pirate Bay
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
This argument makes little sense. I'd agree that someone who downloads something to watch it does assign some value. This value would be roughly equal to the bandwidth used to acquire it - probably a fraction of a penny in most cases.
Given that I have a fixed monthly cost for bandwidth that I would pay regardless of illegal downloading or not, I'd argue I would have paid exactly £0.00. I could write a cheque for that to the relevant rights society, but I doubt they would cash it.rxtx said:
You call it theft, you can be as wrong as you like, nobody else cares.
Like the obese, if you gorge and consume without the notion of value, you will weigh yourself down, and you will get what you desire, i.e cheap, valueless, ruffage.In reality I suspect it's just some petty, childish "got one up on the man" rebellion thing.
0000 said:
mattnunn said:
You are deliberatly obscuring the point.
You do permanently deprive the owner of the material you steal of the value which they and you have put on it.
If I've downloaded it for free, I haven't put any value on it that they're deprived of.You do permanently deprive the owner of the material you steal of the value which they and you have put on it.
Gorge away, you only have one life, eat, consume, be happy - if that's what you like.
davepoth said:
hairykrishna said:
This argument makes little sense. I'd agree that someone who downloads something to watch it does assign some value. This value would be roughly equal to the bandwidth used to acquire it - probably a fraction of a penny in most cases.
Given that I have a fixed monthly cost for bandwidth that I would pay regardless of illegal downloading or not, I'd argue I would have paid exactly £0.00. I could write a cheque for that to the relevant rights society, but I doubt they would cash it.mattnunn said:
rxtx said:
You call it theft, you can be as wrong as you like, nobody else cares.
Like the obese, if you gorge and consume without the notion of value, you will weigh yourself down, and you will get what you desire, i.e cheap, valueless, ruffage.In reality I suspect it's just some petty, childish "got one up on the man" rebellion thing.
mattnunn said:
You are deliberatly obscuring the point.
You do permanently deprive the owner of the material you steal of the value which they and you have put on it. You do not have the right to consume an experience or service you have not paid for. if you are so desperate to consume the experience that you deliberatly and knowingly break the law then you obviously value the experience you have (or will) gain. You value it, yet you do not pay the value for it, you deprive the rightful distibutor or owner of the value which you yourslef put on it.
And, let's repeat this, it's you who place the value on the item by it's useage, by consuming the service or experience provided you inherently deny the owner and provider the value you yourself have placed on it.
The theft act and wording of legislation aside, that is a very changeable marker of right and wrong anyway, you need to enquire into your own transaction, call it what you will, I call it theft.
Save your breath mate, the majority view seems to be that if it is possible to consume something for free that it is perfectly OK to do so, the irony being that everyone is so keen to see criminals strung up/buggered in prison/shot etc. There are a lot of hypocritical pikies on here.You do permanently deprive the owner of the material you steal of the value which they and you have put on it. You do not have the right to consume an experience or service you have not paid for. if you are so desperate to consume the experience that you deliberatly and knowingly break the law then you obviously value the experience you have (or will) gain. You value it, yet you do not pay the value for it, you deprive the rightful distibutor or owner of the value which you yourslef put on it.
And, let's repeat this, it's you who place the value on the item by it's useage, by consuming the service or experience provided you inherently deny the owner and provider the value you yourself have placed on it.
The theft act and wording of legislation aside, that is a very changeable marker of right and wrong anyway, you need to enquire into your own transaction, call it what you will, I call it theft.
mattnunn said:
The value of CD's and DVDs is within their content, not the physical item, the value of anything is inherent in its useage, a CD sat on a shelf and never listened to has no value, other than it's recycle value.
To own something is to use, appreciate and value it.
If you illegally download a film and wathc it, you have used it, owned it, you have used it's value - you should pay for it - you theif.
How many times do you think someone should have to buy their content over and over again whenever a new format is invented?To own something is to use, appreciate and value it.
If you illegally download a film and wathc it, you have used it, owned it, you have used it's value - you should pay for it - you theif.
davepoth said:
mattnunn said:
rxtx said:
You call it theft, you can be as wrong as you like, nobody else cares.
Like the obese, if you gorge and consume without the notion of value, you will weigh yourself down, and you will get what you desire, i.e cheap, valueless, ruffage.In reality I suspect it's just some petty, childish "got one up on the man" rebellion thing.
Stealing has several entries, second being
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Now you're obviously stuck fast to the legislative definition of theft as laid down in the theft act 1968, right?
I'm not lawyer, but I am married to one, and I can tell you language, common thinking and normal people are pretty far removed from the language of legislation and legal speak.
Oakey said:
mattnunn said:
The value of CD's and DVDs is within their content, not the physical item, the value of anything is inherent in its useage, a CD sat on a shelf and never listened to has no value, other than it's recycle value.
To own something is to use, appreciate and value it.
If you illegally download a film and wathc it, you have used it, owned it, you have used it's value - you should pay for it - you theif.
How many times do you think someone should have to buy their content over and over again whenever a new format is invented?To own something is to use, appreciate and value it.
If you illegally download a film and wathc it, you have used it, owned it, you have used it's value - you should pay for it - you theif.
You want to consume the new format, you pay the price.
mattnunn said:
Your not forced to adopt the new format, my dad still watches VHS and listens to vinyl, he prefers it, he values the grainy picture and popping audio, he's as mental as me!
You want to consume the new format, you pay the price.
But earlier you said we were paying for the content, not the medium... I already paid for the content, why should I pay again? and again? and again?You want to consume the new format, you pay the price.
mattnunn earlier said:
The value of CD's and DVDs is within their content, not the physical item, the value of anything is inherent in its useage, a CD sat on a shelf and never listened to has no value, other than it's recycle value.
hairykrishna said:
davepoth said:
hairykrishna said:
This argument makes little sense. I'd agree that someone who downloads something to watch it does assign some value. This value would be roughly equal to the bandwidth used to acquire it - probably a fraction of a penny in most cases.
Given that I have a fixed monthly cost for bandwidth that I would pay regardless of illegal downloading or not, I'd argue I would have paid exactly £0.00. I could write a cheque for that to the relevant rights society, but I doubt they would cash it.Cost of Broadband/Infinity
always works out as 0.
On the assumption that I download 2 gigabytes a day (not unusual with online gaming and a bit of youtube and Iplayer) I'd get through 60gb a month without even doing anything naughty. That assigns a value of somewhere around 30-50p to a gb. A downloaded film is somewhere around 1gb depending on quality (I wouldn't bother with HD as I have a small screen) so could be considered to have a value of around 30-50p to me by that definition.
However if I maxxed out my broadband at 65mbps (7 megabytes a second) for a typical 30 day month, I could download 18 Terabytes, or 18,000 different films. That would indeed make the value £0.0016 per film.
Oakey said:
mattnunn said:
Your not forced to adopt the new format, my dad still watches VHS and listens to vinyl, he prefers it, he values the grainy picture and popping audio, he's as mental as me!
You want to consume the new format, you pay the price.
But earlier you said we were paying for the content, not the medium... I already paid for the content, why should I pay again? and again? and again?You want to consume the new format, you pay the price.
mattnunn said:
Okay, well the dictionary has theft as the act of stealing.
Stealing has several entries, second being
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Now you're obviously stuck fast to the legislative definition of theft as laid down in the theft act 1968, right?
I'm not lawyer, but I am married to one, and I can tell you language, common thinking and normal people are pretty far removed from the language of legislation and legal speak.
I think your OH will tell you that statute has precedence over the dictionary in court; the dictionary is only used when the justices wish to determine the meaning of a phrase that has no defined legal meaning. Stealing has several entries, second being
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Now you're obviously stuck fast to the legislative definition of theft as laid down in the theft act 1968, right?
I'm not lawyer, but I am married to one, and I can tell you language, common thinking and normal people are pretty far removed from the language of legislation and legal speak.
To put it another way the dictionary has no force unless you intend to throw the book at someone.
mattnunn said:
I didn't I said you were paying for the value you yourself place on it, if I said content it was in the context of the useage experience.
matt nunn said:
If you illegally download a film and wathc it, you have used it, owned it, you have used it's value - you should pay for it - you theif.
You need to make your mind up what your argument is.Is the value to the author in the form of the mediums content?
Or is the value what the consumer places on it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff