Downloading to be made illegal?
Discussion
Jinx said:
ATG said:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You might want to mention that genocide is more serious than downloading too?
How would you define "stealing" in such a way that it didn't include illegally obtaining a copy of copyrighted material? I am genuinely intrigued.
[facetious mode]How would you define "stealing" in such a way that it didn't include illegally obtaining a copy of copyrighted material? I am genuinely intrigued.
Ok I'll give it a shot
[suffles though notes on classic argument structure]
Stealing taking without permission from legal owner.
Copying does not equal taking.
Hence copying does not equal stealing......
[/facetious mode]
Copyright - is exactly as it says on the tin. It gives you the right to copy and depending on the terms distribute copies. Those that do not possess this copyright do not have the right to make and distribute copies (even if they happen to have written, produced and performed it) . If they do they are in breach of copyright - not thieves.
TBH ATG I think we are never going to agree on this one - shall we go back to the religious debate?
Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 13th February 13:30
it, OK. 
As long as you can play it through your speakers or view it on a screen, the 1st step analog back to digital will be all that is needed to make reasonable copies.
If people want to copy they will always copy. Forcing them to buy won't mean they buy it.
Expect to see plenty more open source programs if this ever gets off the ground, and expect to see heavy DRM that does little to help legitimate buyers, while the downloaders still just buy what they will.
I think the last 10 CD's and albums I bought I downloaded first, and I've downloaded maybe 30 in the last two years, and the other 20 were deleted.
I'd just not risk buying something without listening...
I do notice alot more try before you buy online now which is good. Not keen on the prices we pay though. I can get a super flexible hard copy CD almost as cheap as a DRM infested digital download I can't do anything with.
Dave
If people want to copy they will always copy. Forcing them to buy won't mean they buy it.
Expect to see plenty more open source programs if this ever gets off the ground, and expect to see heavy DRM that does little to help legitimate buyers, while the downloaders still just buy what they will.
I think the last 10 CD's and albums I bought I downloaded first, and I've downloaded maybe 30 in the last two years, and the other 20 were deleted.
I'd just not risk buying something without listening...
I do notice alot more try before you buy online now which is good. Not keen on the prices we pay though. I can get a super flexible hard copy CD almost as cheap as a DRM infested digital download I can't do anything with.
Dave
if someone tries to sell me music on any format that contains DRM,will not buy or use it and if find it is on there, will get a refund as it will probably not work on my pc, aka my music player
so all torrents are bad ? or maybe just the perception that some of the old record companies want to put around ?
check out http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/
Seems iTunes is taking his music, selling it and not paying him, so he has seeded flac and mp3 of his latest tune on multiple torrent sites for people to download for free and give him money if they want. listening to bits and may well do so
Think a lot of the record companies got upset that after changing a collection from records to CD's people are content not to keep spending money to the same amount and actually want quality for a change ?
Torrent clients that are available have encryption as standard, how will an isp determine a linux download from something not legal ? if encrypted, they have choice of breaking the encryption on the fly... blocking all torrents including legal torrents or doing nothing.. maybe a few other options as well
the independent music companies seem to be grabbing the internet and using it, whilst the incumbent music companies go whining to nu labia and the tories.... who to vote for now ?
so all torrents are bad ? or maybe just the perception that some of the old record companies want to put around ?
check out http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/
Seems iTunes is taking his music, selling it and not paying him, so he has seeded flac and mp3 of his latest tune on multiple torrent sites for people to download for free and give him money if they want. listening to bits and may well do so
Think a lot of the record companies got upset that after changing a collection from records to CD's people are content not to keep spending money to the same amount and actually want quality for a change ?
Torrent clients that are available have encryption as standard, how will an isp determine a linux download from something not legal ? if encrypted, they have choice of breaking the encryption on the fly... blocking all torrents including legal torrents or doing nothing.. maybe a few other options as well
the independent music companies seem to be grabbing the internet and using it, whilst the incumbent music companies go whining to nu labia and the tories.... who to vote for now ?
It's all bollarks, the ISP's don't really want to get involved in monitoring the access of ALL it's users. Costs will rocket and those who don't monitor will just get all the customers for being cheaper and not monitoring.
Seems stupid, though our government dragging it's feet with making BT unbundle the local loops put us behind, now having all our traffic screened and force no security by forcing no encryption, along with broadband costs going up... great.
If the companies want to prevent downloads etc, start selling films on-line sooner, and for reasonable cost.
No DRM, no anything, just let me have it. DRM will just be something that pisses legitimate users off, while not stopping those copying it for long anyway.
Look at modern games on PC's etc. It's easier for me to use a cracked game, no DVD in the drive, no long codes or daft registration, it just runs from the HDD... lovely.
Buy the bloody thing and you are treated like a criminal!
Backwards!
Dave
Seems stupid, though our government dragging it's feet with making BT unbundle the local loops put us behind, now having all our traffic screened and force no security by forcing no encryption, along with broadband costs going up... great.
If the companies want to prevent downloads etc, start selling films on-line sooner, and for reasonable cost.
No DRM, no anything, just let me have it. DRM will just be something that pisses legitimate users off, while not stopping those copying it for long anyway.
Look at modern games on PC's etc. It's easier for me to use a cracked game, no DVD in the drive, no long codes or daft registration, it just runs from the HDD... lovely.
Buy the bloody thing and you are treated like a criminal!
Backwards!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
It's all bollarks, the ISP's don't really want to get involved in monitoring the access of ALL it's users. Costs will rocket and those who don't monitor will just get all the customers for being cheaper and not monitoring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm
"UK net firms are resisting government suggestions that they should do more to monitor what customers do online.
The industry association for net providers said legal and technical barriers prohibit them from being anything other than a "mere conduit"."
Marf said:
Mr Whippy said:
It's all bollarks, the ISP's don't really want to get involved in monitoring the access of ALL it's users. Costs will rocket and those who don't monitor will just get all the customers for being cheaper and not monitoring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm
"UK net firms are resisting government suggestions that they should do more to monitor what customers do online.
The industry association for net providers said legal and technical barriers prohibit them from being anything other than a "mere conduit"."
As soon as they are regulated/required to take responsibility for content, they are then liable via the consumer for content recieved (ie, a consumer could hold the ISP liable for not blocking content that is not meant to be accessible).
Either way, the ISP can sit safe and free from what users do with their bandwidth. As soon as they are given responsibility for usage, they are liable for usage irrespective...
I think that is where they will ultimately resist it. They can't be nannies for every byte of data sent over the internet, it'd cost billions and billions, and who is going to pay?
Dark ages for the UK's comms/internet again if we get this crap. So the usual Labour policy direction then.
up every scrap of infrastructure.Dave
Marf said:
Mr Whippy said:
It's all bollarks, the ISP's don't really want to get involved in monitoring the access of ALL it's users. Costs will rocket and those who don't monitor will just get all the customers for being cheaper and not monitoring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm
"UK net firms are resisting government suggestions that they should do more to monitor what customers do online.
The industry association for net providers said legal and technical barriers prohibit them from being anything other than a "mere conduit"."
I kind of think if the press release was that the ISP's were being called upon to collect user-generated funds from sales of digital files of which they would get a healthy cut, then the Industry Association would say this is a great idea and they are overcoming the technical details to bring this service to their customers ASAP...!
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff