# Beginning of the end?



## gatecrasher3 (Jul 21, 2006)

Sets a rather dangerous president http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322957


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Good isnt it,allow like minded people to arrange their suicides and terrorists to plot but "noo you naughty boy,you cant DL a move you fancy a watch of that youll probably buy afterwards anyway"


----------



## Rickyboy (Oct 14, 2008)

PugIain said:


> Good isnt it,allow like minded people to arrange their suicides and terrorists to plot but "noo you naughty boy,you cant DL a move you fancy a watch of that youll probably buy afterwards anyway"


Don't quote me on this right, but I THINK there are a few people looking into this whole terrorism thing too.

It's a different department apparently.


----------



## ITHAQVA (Feb 20, 2011)

PugIain said:


> Good isnt it,allow like minded people to arrange their suicides and terrorists to plot but "noo you naughty boy,you cant DL a move you fancy a watch of that youll probably buy afterwards anyway"


Money talks, life is cheap.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

There's a million more way to get to that site even when its blocked.

Not going to change a thing!

Let's not forget they shut the site down in 2010 and within a month it was back up in the cayman islands!


----------



## davZS (Jul 3, 2009)

Don't think it will change much to be honest, but let them try, then they think they are doing some good .


----------



## Derbyshire-stig (Dec 22, 2010)

watch customers walk from BT at the first signs of blocking too


----------



## gatecrasher3 (Jul 21, 2006)

Trouble is all the ISP's will no doubt be forced to follow suit.

As said they will struggle to permanently block access to anything but it's still opens the floodgates for others to try and ban anything they fancy.


----------



## Laurie.J.M (Jun 23, 2011)

PugIain said:


> Good isnt it,allow like minded people to arrange their suicides and terrorists to plot but "noo you naughty boy,you cant DL a move you fancy a watch of that youll probably buy afterwards anyway"


It's just the way things go unfortunately. People using illegal downloads as an on-demand service and downloading American TV shows that they otherwise wouldn't be able to watch are the easy target so of course they'll tackle them first and the media will make a big song and dance out of it. Bit-torrents as a file type aren't illegal it's what they're used for that's illegal and to be honest as soon as someone finally puts a stop to it someone else will come up with something much better and just as illegal, maybe the big corporations of the world should be thinking about how make illegal downloading work in their favor rather than wasting their time trying to shut it down as it clearly isn't working.


----------



## Laurie.J.M (Jun 23, 2011)

gatecrasher3 said:


> Trouble is all the ISP's will no doubt be forced to follow suit.
> 
> As said they will struggle to permanently block access to anything but it's still opens the floodgates for others to try and ban anything they fancy.


Peter Mandelson's digital economy bill is the next stage, the original idea was to try and stop illegal downloading by threatening to cut off peoples internet if they're caught doing it, but the way it was written meant that no one could view anything online that they don't own the rights to and if you do your internet will be cut off. Luckily it didn't go through but is apparantly still sitting dormant ready to pounce on us and censor anything we say or do online, it's basically just the next stage of the government trying to control what we can and can't do and watching over our every move, if it ever goes thorough we will be much like North Korea or China when it comes to the internet.


----------



## The_Bouncer (Nov 24, 2010)

Just you wait for the 'every household' Broadband tax - Can see that one coming too..


----------



## gatecrasher3 (Jul 21, 2006)

Laurie.J.M said:


> . People using illegal downloads as an on-demand service and downloading American TV shows that they otherwise wouldn't be able to watch are the easy target so of course they'll tackle them first and the media will make a big song and dance out of it.


That would be a shame. There are many very good American shows that will never air over here that without downloading we would never get to see. Not really a lost revenue to the show makers in that respect.


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

gatecrasher3 said:


> That would be a shame. There are many very good American shows that will never air over here that without downloading we would never get to see. Not really a lost revenue to the show makers in that respect.


No exactly....besides I like to be ahead of the rest with the likes of CSI, Chuck, A Town Called Eureka, Sons of Anarchy etc etc.

They will never stop it happening...if they shut one site down another will pop up..christ i bet the owners/creators of these sites are already working on what to move onto next....alwasy 10 steps ahead of the game!


----------



## centenary (Sep 5, 2010)

nick_mcuk said:


> No exactly....besides I like to be ahead of the rest with the likes of CSI, Chuck, A Town Called Eureka, Sons of Anarchy etc etc.
> 
> They will never stop it happening...if they shut one site down another will pop up..christ i bet the owners/creators of these sites are already working on what to move onto next....alwasy 10 steps ahead of the game!


This latest ruling isnt about shutting sites down though. Its ordering the ISP's, in this case BT, to block access to a particular site via their operating system.

In other words, they arent closing the site down they are stopping their users accessing the site.

Undoubtedly, other ISP's will be targeted now this case in the courts has been successful.

OK, some people may be able to find a way around it even if they can somehow still get to the site via a blocked ISP but many other people will give up the ghost.

Just my observations.


----------



## adamck (Dec 2, 2010)

Whats to stop the blocked websites just moving to a new host? or playing with their IP everytime they get blocked?
I agree that there are millions of worse websites out there that need blocking, howcome you can view guides on how to build bombs, pedophile websites and all kinds of other really bad illegal material, but they choose to just block the pirating ones?

Alot of files are uploaded via filehosting sites now ,you can call he file anyting, compress it with anything and make it any length/filesize.
They will never stop filesharing and piracy, just like they cant stop the chinese copying every clothing and electronic brand worth copying...

They should concentrate on the evil pedo sites etc... which cause real problems!


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Paedophile networks are generally very hard to take down as they use Tor and other stuff to hide all the tracks, there was a post on reddit from a self confessed paedophile who was horrified at some of the stuff that he saw on the paedophile forums, but said they are near impossible to take down unless you get to the person that is running it (which is extremely hard to find).

There have been numerous reports over the years (and a recent one which the researchers aren't allowed to publish as it was funded by a movie firm of some sort and the result was not what they wanted) which have shown that pirates are the best customers.

The music and film industries continue to increase profits but aren't increasing enough for their liking and are blaming piracy. They don't take in to account the growth of the gaming industry either which has grown exponentially which will reduce peoples available money to buy films/music. But now the gaming industry is complaining about piracy and putting DRM in to everything.

All in all, this either ends badly for the consumer or really badly for the consumer.

Thanks to piracy I have bought boxsets, DVDs/Blurays and games that I wouldn't of otherwise.


----------



## adamck (Dec 2, 2010)

jamest said:


> Paedophile networks are generally very hard to take down as they use Tor and other stuff to hide all the tracks, there was a post on reddit from a self confessed paedophile who was horrified at some of the stuff that he saw on the paedophile forums, but said they are near impossible to take down unless you get to the person that is running it (which is extremely hard to find).
> 
> There have been numerous reports over the years (and a recent one which the researchers aren't allowed to publish as it was funded by a movie firm of some sort and the result was not what they wanted) which have shown that pirates are the best customers.
> 
> ...


I wasnt talking about taking them down, more about blocking them via the ISP just like what they have done against the piracy sites.

If you block access then they are as good as down to the majority of UK users, which helps the situation.

As for piracy...
If a film is viewable, it can be recorded, if a song can be heard, its also recordable, they will never stop it! with or without special software!


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

adamck said:


> I wasnt talking about taking them down, more about blocking them via the ISP just like what they have done against the piracy sites.
> 
> If you block access then they are as good as down to the majority of UK users, which helps the situation.


You can't realisitically do that. ISP blocking is usually done through DNS which redirects the hostname (domain) to a diffierent host (displaying a blocked message).

Even if they could do this for any of these website, there is nothing stopping anyone going through a proxy/VPN through another ISP or through a different country which doesn't have a ban.

All restrictions are eventually bypassed.


----------



## gatecrasher3 (Jul 21, 2006)

jamest said:


> You can't realisitically do that. ISP blocking is usually done through DNS which redirects the hostname (domain) to a diffierent host (displaying a blocked message).
> 
> Even if they could do this for any of these website, there is nothing stopping anyone going through a proxy/VPN through another ISP or through a different country which doesn't have a ban.
> 
> All restrictions are eventually bypassed.


True enough and I would image a quick Google search would confirm the Newzbin IP address negating the need for DNS.


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

tbh technically speaking as some other techy ones on here have said business will continue as usual just through getting to it via other means.

I did alot in this area for my IT law module which focused primarily on digital piracy. and somewhat my result and conclusion is that its a stalemate tbh.

i must admit the ones that have caused most grief from my research are the film industry who have tbh in the majority taken a sledge hammer approach in comparison with some other official bodies representing these areas where at least some form of education has taken place to at least try and refrain some parties from doing so.

as for the downloaders themselves i can understand the reasoning and even what some points some have highlighted above. But tbh there are so many legal statutes involved it is mad just for reference in my report for this i covered: -

the CDPA 1988 
the DEA 2010
the DPA 1998
HRA 1998
CMA 1990 ( going abit off topic for this but that is in relation to 4chans/anonmyous "return fire" should i say)

Now i will make it clear i dont agree with the DEA 2010 for numerous reasons firstly it was brought about in a wash up period of parliament so no full real debate took place. Secondly as some have highlighted alot of it is controversial. thirdly in recent court events talktalk and bt who wanted it repeled basically had their arguments thrown out of court. there points for refernce: -

•	That there is a burden for monitoring subscribers which must be put in writing, something the UK has failed to notify the European Commission (EC).

•	Incompatibility of the Act with EU Electronic Commerce Directive, which according to the two companies the DEA violates.

•	It contradicts the EU Privacy and Electronic Commissions Directive which outlines data processing for ISP's among other groups.

•	Finally they are disproportionate in that they infringe: - 
The free movement of services under the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union; 
b. Article 3(4) of the E-Commerce Directive; 
c. Article 15(1) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive; 
d. UK Human Rights Act 1998 and to Articles 8 and/or 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights relating to privacy and freedom of expression.

But atm tbh it has no teeth to seriously worry about as it needs another piece of legal statute to make it viable. All current other cases have been under OTHER legislation. For reference the controversial sections of the DEA 2010 are numbers 7- 10

My report word count did not even have enough to say all i wanted in legal statute terms. if i could of i would of covered the RIP Act does not sound much but trust me that should be killed to.

CDPA wise alot of cases for individuals will be civil cases because they are primary offences under the CDPA, although if you are found to be making economic gain it is a civil and CRIMINAL cases possibly.

The DPA is a funny bit of legislation as alot of peoples understanding is that it is there to protect you but in certain circumstances it can be easily used for other purposes under section 35...you might just want to take a look 

The HRA under Article 8 is a right to privacy, now this is where problems really begin: -

_"unless in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals or for the protections of the rights and freedoms of others." _

hmm....

ill ignore the CMA as thats off topic...

regarding the EU in all of this i have found many U turns tbh as of 2009 they were all for defending users rights freedom of the internet under Human Rights blah blah....but by the end of 2010 this had changed somewhat to a crackdown more or less.

FYI the majority of the Scandinavian countries the internet is a human right there :thumb: ass for blocking whether you class it as breaching that right is a good question..clearly in this instance it has been found to not be in breach

The RIP Act is an nasty little sh*bag tbh as it gives alot of power to the police really. without getting to drawn in you basically have to hand over everything or face prison. ISP's are basically forced to monitor already:speechles

as for blocking a site well it is about the only thing that they can do...it will spread to other ISP's but tbh the powers are already there and have been for some time...its is most certainly or has been never in the consumers favour the only real change on the brow of the hill is full legal back for backups in the CDPA :tumbleweed:

i would not think to much about it tbh its been coming for along time...the piracy days are most certainly darkening tbh.

As for certain "solicitors" and a certain company "Media CAT" i use the term loosely esp where it involves one Andrew Crosbey.... some will know that name well. it got let off basically because the organisation had closed and he got naff all of a fine as well to boot from the SRA. 

At least the people who had alledged to of D/L'ed material illegally did not get prosecute and it went the other way.

oh for reference if anyone is interested in reading up on how IP addresses were forced to be handed over from ISPs to Media cat and such groups onto these "solicitors" then look at Norwich Pharmacal Orders.

but as for the governments stance i do believe piracy (well in its current form digitally) is over. The only reason i also believe tbh is BT and talktalk have made themselves a target through saying feck off on every note tbh. but there again its the consumer that losses but £££££ from the others to government talks...

oh and if anyone is interested in actually reading what i wrote for my IT law on this area get in contact it is all very interesting 

Edit: looking into this further section 97A:-



> [97A Injunctions against service providers]
> 
> [(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.
> 
> ...





> The Studios have made it clear that this is a test case: if they are successful in obtaining an order against
> BT, then they intend to seek similar orders against all the other significant ISPs in the
> UK. The other ISPs were informed of the present application in case they wished to
> intervene, but have not done so.


and tbh this is the second case involving this website....


----------



## Th3Doctor (Feb 2, 2010)

Rant begins...

I still can't believe anyone thinks it's acceptable to download anything illegally, let alone people on DW who obviously have the funds to buy the Movies/Music/TV shows their stealing. As, if you did not pay for the item you are stealing, basically it makes you no better than a scum bag shoplifter, your just doing it digitally.

I work as a senior graphic designer for a major studio in London. I specialize in DVD/BLURAY sleeve back/front design. Plus out door/magazine/POP advertising. I can assure those of you who think this is a victimless crime are dead wrong. It's not. 

You are not sticking one to "The Man" on his big yacht, your stealing from the little people like myself, that are the first to be laid off as times get tougher. Caused by people like yourselves who think it's alright to just steal a movie, then kid yourself you will buy it at later date, if it's any good.

If the TV show is not shown it your country just wait for it to be available, it won't kill you. If the movie is only available at the pictures pay to see it then if it's any good buy it on blu-ray. 

Jesus, DVD's are only about £9 for gods sake, just wait and buy it. As all the time people just keep stealing and not giving money back, the industry will just get smaller and smaller until there is just Adam Sandler movies being made with ****ty little budgets. Also look how much special packaging there used to be for movies - now, I know as I see what comes into the studio - there is just amray sleeve after sleeve being printed Nothing really interesting.

Sorry in advance to anyone like myself reading this who has morals and like I do, finds it abhorrent that normal people who earn a decent wage just steal movies as they just don't want to buy them. This rant was not directed at you.

And to all those who are thieves - Remember that picture the black kid put up on Face book of the things he had extracted illegally from a HMV store in Tottenham? You are just the same. The only difference? You're not smashing windows to get what you want.

...Rant ends


----------



## stargazer (Aug 9, 2006)

Ninga59 Is that the declaration of war you have their?....:lol:

I had to crack open the popcorn reading through that


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

stargazer said:


> Ninga59 Is that the declaration of war you have their?....:lol:
> 
> I had to crack open the popcorn reading through that


hey tbh on some aspects i find it mad...im reading the court case right now i LOVE this area of law and tbh i might be a techy but i dont care so much about the outcomes anymore :lol: just how they get there why and there is always arguments in this area.

actually i speak for myself im involved in small IPR problem now! :lol: want my IT law report its 20 odd pages of this?


----------



## stargazer (Aug 9, 2006)

Ninja59 said:


> hey tbh on some aspects i find it mad...im reading the court case right now i LOVE this area of law and tbh i might be a techy but i dont care so much about the outcomes anymore :lol: just how they get there why and there is always arguments in this area.
> 
> actually i speak for myself im involved in small IPR problem now! :lol: want my IT law report its 20 odd pages of this?


Well it was an interesting read, if i may say


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

stargazer said:


> Well it was an interesting read, if i may say


oh btw it was a declaration for a riot :doublesho:lol: im printing the judgement as i type right now! 67 pages but im so interested!


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Th3Doctor said:


> I still can't believe anyone thinks it's acceptable to download anything illegally, let alone people on DW who obviously have the funds to buy the Movies/Music/TV shows their stealing. As, if you did not pay for the item you are stealing, basically it makes you no better than a scum bag shoplifter, your just doing it digitally.


So you see as 100% a crime and there is no benefit to the studios etc?



Th3Doctor said:


> Caused by people like yourselves who think it's alright to just steal a movie, then kid yourself you will buy it at later date, if it's any good.


I don't kid myself, I do buy it if I think it is of value. There is far too much crap that comes out.



Th3Doctor said:


> If the TV show is not shown it your country just wait for it to be available, it won't kill you.


Please give a good logical reason why I have to wait in some cases 6 months+ to see a TV series rather than being able to download it?

There have been numerous films on BluRay/DVD that I have bought purely because I pirated it, if I hadn't of had the oppurtunity to pirate it, I would never have bought it and in some cases recommended it to friends who then went on to purchase it.

The TV/Film industry needs something like Steam where everything is in one place and I can buy the TV shows or films easily and slightly cheaper than going to a brick and mortar store. I don't really care about the actual discs or DVD covers etc, I like quick access to what I buy, most of my collection is still in its shrink wrap as I have perfectly good (in most cases better as I'm not forced to sit through all the crappy antipiracy warnings) copies which I got off the internet.

I recently bought the Arrested Development boxset off Amazon. What is the first thing I see when I put the DVD in. An antipiracy message (the video with the girl on the computer), the irony being if I had pirated the 3 series, I wouldn't be seeing it.

You can't put this totally to blame on the pirates, the industry as a whole needs to shift itself in to the digital world. Apple and Amazon gave the music industry a huge kick which helped sales. Then Spotify came along which users love and artists hate as Spotify is taking virtually all the money.


----------



## MickPontoon (Aug 8, 2011)

they cant stop me i have teh interwebs


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

They proved that people who download spend more per person per year than people that don't.

It's like the free previews they do at the cinema a couple of days before they come out. People see it for free and recommend it to friends.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

jamest said:


> Please give a good logical reason why I have to wait in some cases 6 months+ to see a TV series rather than being able to download it?


This is the downloading that I don't see it as being justifiable to be banned. My partner watches Supernatural, and only just now in the UK they are airing Season 6. Season 7 starts over the next week or so in the US!

Why, when I pay for all my TV services just like the Yanks, should I have to wait nearly 12 months to watch a series? I could stomach Stargate Universe, which was only 4 days behind IIRC, but when you're talking 12 months between airings then WTF do the studios think is going to happen?

They're their own worst enemy in this regard. Yes, downloading of films is a different argument (although ****s sake, really, months between the cinema and Blu-Ray? I don't want to go to the cinema, to sit next to someone who's seen it before and is chuntering along to all the lines before they're on, drink excessively priced drinks that are overly watered down and eat popcorn because it's that or £20 on sweets? I'd give anything to be able to watch it in my recliners, on my 50" TV, through my surround sound, drinking my beer. Again, their own worst enemy. To Th3Doctor - your anger is misdirected. You want to aim it at the studios, and the companies who make it difficult NOT to download it illegally. I'm on the verge of downloading Dark of the Moon, because I paid a fortune to see it but fell ill through the screening, and consequently had to 'watch' most of it through my eyelids, sweating, and feeling uncomfortable. I won't get my money back, and I'm not paying to watch it again - I suspect you can see both sides of that argument. I'd pay to buy the film, but we're yet to even know when it's coming out over here for either download or disc purchasing...

As has been said, the music industry saw it was on the verge of collapse unless it worked out how to 'get with the times'. It's high time the TV and Movie studios worked this out as well.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

ardandy said:


> They proved that people who download spend more per person per year than people that don't.
> 
> It's like the free previews they do at the cinema a couple of days before they come out. People see it for free and recommend it to friends.


Absolutely. I've downloaded a couple of films in the past, and I now own them on Blu-Ray. I have a reasonably high end HT system, and a cracking TV, so all the excessive compression shows up - I'll then go out and buy myself the legit copy on Blu-Ray so that I've got that good quality that I want.

If people released these things in reasonable timeframe then I'd not have downloaded them. Either way, you got your money out of me anyway...


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Bit of a grey area imo. 

I often download music because:

1. The tracks/albums are so rare in some cases they are no longer in print, so virtually impossible to buy even if i wanted to.
2. It's not released in this country for whatever reason.
3. Unreleased music (which you can't buy because it's unreleased obviously lol). Much of the unreleased music i have are original versions of released stuff (different production/beats etc) i.e. nearly 99% of 2Pac's material after his death that was officially released are remixes that are no way in the same league are the original unreleased tracks.
4. Much of the albums that comes out are actually quite poor. Back in the day, a few good singles were released & you go and buy the album & realise that the other tracks on the album is 'filler' material. So downloading an album and listening to it properly means try before you buy. How else do you listen to an album properly before purchasing it?

IMO the record 'industry' need to look at themselves and take much of the blame for declining sales by releasing substandard product & not investing long term wise in proper talent not a fad/gimmick artist, churn out a few songs and an average album & move on to the next big thing (the X-factor generation).
Remember when CD singles cost £3.99? They used to have numerous remixes then at some point the industry decided that 3 tracks on a single (usually Radio, Instrumental & album version) for whatever reason! 
Who really thinks that's value for money?

Don't get me wrong, if i download it & really like it and i believe that it deserves my money then i do buy it. If i don't, chances are it just gets deleted.

The internet has also allowed me to open up to other genres & artists that i would never would have got into.

The other side though is albums/albums or unfinishedtracks being released too early on the net. This means that the artist sometimes has to go and change their work so it's different to what was released on the net (Neptunes Lap Dance is an eg). An the album sometimes has to be forced to be released earlier than intended and therefore rushed to make use of the hype/buzz before it dies down.
Also there are always those who download/copy & have no intention of buying even if they like & keep it.


----------



## Laurie.J.M (Jun 23, 2011)

I really don't see why we should be made to wait several months to a year to watch stuff, we basically only get to have it when the yanks have finished with it. Lost wasn't too bad because Sky One were only a couple of days behind and when it was the final episode they decided to air it in the UK at 5am on a weekday morning so it would go out at same time as it went out in the US, and I think Falling Skies went out on FX about a week behind TNT in the US. 

With Family Guy and American Dad we're made to wait ages, in the US the new season starts at the end of September and normally ends around May, only after then do BBC3 get to show it. Storm Chasers which is another favourite of mine is just about to start its 5th season in the US but Discovery stopped showing it here after season 1, this means I have to download it if I want to watch it.

If anyone wants something a little less illegal the VPN (Virtual Private Network) is a good way to get American TV on demand because it allows access to HULU, Hot Spot Shield is the best VPN client I've used.


----------



## anthonyh90 (Mar 30, 2011)

what happens if we download a movie that we already own in order to have a copy for on the move. Surely movie studios don't expect you to buy the same content twice.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

anthonyh90 said:


> what happens if we download a movie that we already own in order to have a copy for on the move. Surely movie studios don't expect you to buy the same content twice.


There are ways of copying between media formats without downloading. However this too is technically illegal in the UK, I believe?


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Not anymore. Just changed the law last month I believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14384815


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

ardandy said:


> Not anymore. Just changed the law last month I believe.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14384815


Missed that one, cheers!


----------



## anthonyh90 (Mar 30, 2011)

OvlovMike said:


> There are ways of copying between media formats without downloading. However this too is technically illegal in the UK, I believe?


yeah i seen that. apparently it was also illegal to rip your own music to your computer aswell, before the law was changed


----------



## Laurie.J.M (Jun 23, 2011)

Most DVD's can be copied and made compatible with most devices but Blu-Ray disks that don't come with either a DVD or Digital copy are a real pain if your computer doesn't have a Blu-ray drive, downloading the content off the internet is about the only way to solve this.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

anthonyh90 said:


> yeah i seen that. apparently it was also illegal to rip your own music to your computer aswell, before the law was changed


Yup. The majority of people's iPods were technically full of illegal copies of music. Mine included.

The government can take a running jump if they think I'm buying my 1,800 CDs again.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Its basically about greed.I dont see too many of these black rappers with their silly gold teeth and big cars struggling for cash.Infact they look like most of them could pay off our national debt!
Personally I think owning about 300 cds more than makes me allowed to dl the odd movie or mp3.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Richard Branson had the best idea.

Pay a monthly sum of £x which lets you download anything you want. That money get's distributed to the relevant places.

Like a site licence for films & music.


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

kh904 said:


> Bit of a grey area imo.


Not really. Copyright/IPR is exactly that your breaking copyright UNLESS it is out of its time period...end of the day you have not bought the rights to its use for the purposes allowed.

i do agree and understand in part with what you are saying though and i take your pov, but it does not change the breach of copyright, however it is done (physically whilst for example with what has been said above and doing it from your chair).

I take other peoples view i know the research done, and have seen it before so i know what people are referring to. BUT legally it does not change the matter.

The crooks of the problem primarily *IMHO* stem from the legal statutes and precedent having the inability to keep up with modern tech.

I have just read every single (yes 67 pages worth) of arguments put forward by BT to NOT have the injunction passed and tbh they started well with wording over identifying and ensuring subscribers/users had been contacted etc. but the latter arguments were pretty wet and desperate tbh.

One thing i can make clear though is expect it for other ISP's ASAP. Sadly this ruling matches other quite well in other countries.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

This is the problem in my mind re: newsbin.

Go to google and type in "transformers 3 nzb" or torrent.

It comes up with places you can get the film from. So should google be banned as newzbin lists things (not actual files) and so does google?


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

ardandy said:


> This is the problem in my mind re: newsbin.
> 
> Go to google and type in "transformers 3 nzb" or torrent.
> 
> It comes up with places you can get the film from. So should google be banned as newzbin lists things (not actual files) and so does google?


its only pointing to illegal content and being a "mere conduit" google (i can see your point though) technically speaking newzbin was newzbin2 (as the actual case was NOT the original site) and also newzbin was technically holding files to get the information/media and was being a source or gateway i suppose.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

The reason Google isn't cracked down on (other than being huge) is that they adhear to the DMCA regulations of taking down content once it is reported. Sites like Newzbin and Pirate Bay were there for one sole reason, whereas Google just has it as an accidental by-product.

I pirate films, TV. I used to pirate music and games (a lot).

The music and gaming industry have improved (although not much).

Music wise a lot of the labels do reasonably good deals now on band tshirts/CD's for pretty much the same price as a tshirt so I take advantage of it and go to shows. A step forward in the right direction.

The gaming industry stopped me from pirating thanks to Valve when they fixed up Steam (used to be crap). I have bought games which I'm probably not going to play just because they were cheap and they were there, easy system, all my games are in one place and I can easily back them up to an external drive so I don't lose them or redownload them from any computer I want.

That is what I want from the TV and film industries. Charge me xx amount to watch it once, charge me yy to own it and watch it whenever, wherever I like. Just don't make xx or yy more expensive than buying a DVD/BluRay.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Newzbin use dmca takedown.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

ardandy said:


> Newzbin use dmca takedown.


Didn't realise that.

Problem is the music/film industry don't think the DMCA goes far enough and think that filters should be put in place to stop it going up originally like Google use on YouTube to flag copyrighted works being uploaded.


----------



## dominic84 (Jan 27, 2007)

There will be a work around to any block. IMO they should have targetted the 'mass market' peer-to-peer services because the users of those systems are far less likely to know how to circumvent the blocks put in place.

Ironically, a friend of mine who downloads a lot of movies (far more than he would actually ever buy), does in fact go out and purchase DVD copies of the films he downloads and really likes...

But I also think that LoveFilm and other paid download services are a step in the right direction, the same way Spotify et al are great for open access to music for a flat rate monthly fee.

It's all about balance between media downloads and distribution in physical formats.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Newzbin have never received a dmca request so it's pointless in some ways.

Plus dmca is American law, bt is English and newzbin2 is hosted in Sweden! So they can't stop it, only try to block it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-180-black-market-iPad--gets-piece-wood.html


----------

