egafd.com

so would you class recording a film off the tv piracy ?

No...But if you sold it and made money off it, more fool the man who bought it I say. Plus, the networks paid for it anyway so any producer knows people are going to record it for their own use. Thing is it was paid for and quite handsomely.


Do you think it's fair to have to buy a film twice just because the media changes ?


I dont think its unfair at all. You bought it first time so I wouldnt argue with that.

I'd expect internet speeds across the board would suddenly become lightning fast

The only things I'd miss would be the ability after reading up on a film or music and then to see snippets of it on youtube

I've never been one to download complete stuff off the net as I strangely find it thoroughly unfulfilling.

Its the same with porn theres no anticipation,no build up,
its just instant consumption

Less has always been more

I've got a few friends that have vast collection sof music,porn,films so any copyright ban online would be water of a ducks back to me.If i really want to see something there will be a way of accessing it for free with or without the internet

I seriously doubt even the billion dollar law suit currently against youtube would even see it taken down just a re-arranging of who gets what slice of the financial pie

The sooner all the players start aiming their efforts at the guys who are benefitting most from copyright usage ie ISPs and leave the punitive approach at the door the better for everyone imho

I don't think there's a comparison Ogre. A person buys the album for let's say ?8, puts it on a torrent site. 8000 people (at least, because he only checked 1 site so there's a very good chance it'll be on others) get it for free. For a small band that's alot of cash gone bye bye - even with the 1000 sales they made. I don't see how taping could've been done on the same scale.

If it's hitting the corporations who inflate the prices then fine. The artists get a shit deal from them anyway ( 1cent for every song downloaded at 99cents, is one offer I've heard about ) and it'd be great if they could do it independently. But when it starts to hit those starting out who are doing it themselves then there can't be any complaints about overpriced CDs/downloads from those stealing it - they're just as bad.

[quote]The sooner all the players start aiming their efforts at the guys who are benefitting most from copyright usage ie ISPs and leave the punitive approach at the door the better for everyone imho[/quote]

How could it filter out every single packet of data and determine if its legal/illegal? Un-encrypted it still isnt possible today, it would require mass amounts of computing power and Encrypted packets would never be possible, the ISPs will never be held responsible.

can someone answer this for me?............

say a new episode of the simpsons plays on sky 1, but i missed it and downloaded it later that day via a torrent site like eztv for myself to watch.....is that still a big no no?

Nah

...Been paid for by the Sky channel..assuming that is where you missed it.

Its bad for the people who nicked it and made it available but I guess this is not as bad because the production has made money from the bradcast anyway

Though technically I'm supposed to say its naughty still

I'm not talking about filtering

That way is for the idiots in government who think the internet can be controlled when all the experts have told them bypassing filters is childs play for the computer savvy


What I'm talking about is the 3rd parties like ISPs who are gaining revenue of the back of all the illegal content swapping hands pay their way

Does anyone doubt their customer base would significantly dwindle overnight if all the illegal content was unavailable?


The courts have up till now largely let the filesharing software developers & ISPs off the hook but if something like the youtube case proves that the bulk of whats online is illegal and their forced to pay their way who knows how far down the chain that will go

No I wouldn't at all. It wasn't there before when I asked all/any company I had shot for, for a dvd or video of my work (very rarely getting one). And even now with these sites I still can't get copies of my work so for me personally I couldn't give a shit !

I think what twingo was getting at is that if you're going to come down hard on the ISPs then you've got to show that they can determine, without much fuss, the difference between an illegal file and a legal one, without actually downloading that same file themselves and eyeballing it.

This reminds me of the Google employees who were jailed in Italy. A clip of a kid with downs syndrome, showing him being bullied was put up in Italy and the court ruled that these employees weren't quick enough to act. Leo Laport, from the tech guy phone-in worked out that Google would have to employ 75000 employees, split into three 8-hour shifts at 25000 workers per shift, just to review every upload YouTube receives globally. That's would he impossible to maintain.

[quote]The courts have up till now largely let the filesharing software developers & ISPs off the hook[/quote]

The filesharing developers have done nothing illegal, so theres nothing for the courts to get involved with. As for ISP's they will almost certainly never be held responsible as the Safe Harbour laws rightly protect them against this, any change to this would be disastrous for the internet in that country and would probably see broadband bills increase ten fold overnight.