Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Illegal downloaders to be targeted by lawyers demanding cash.

61 replies

StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 28/11/2009 15:46

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm

I must admit I'm a bit worried after downloading a few DS games. Although I'd like to point out I'm not doing it anymore. Do you think I can blame it on DD if we get a letter.

OP posts:
wannaBe · 30/11/2009 11:18

the difference IMO between copying a tape or a record though is that you would probably copy a mate's tape or record, and while it's still piracy on a smaller scale it doesn't compare to someone opening up their mp3 collection to the entire www for sharing purposes.

Tortington · 30/11/2009 11:20

2 sites are gone this morning, one is 'down for maintenance'

BadgersPaws · 30/11/2009 11:30

The thing with taping is that the copy would be imperfect, it wouldn't be as good as the original. So if you taped a friend's LP what you had didn't sound as good. You could then copy it for another friend from your tape, but the quality would become worse. So the further from the original copy you go the worse what you had sounded, so there was a good reason to buy the album.

With digital copies the reproduction is perfect, so one person can end up spreading the game/music/movie to hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who then have very little incentive to buy the real thing.

This isn't about turning the internet off but just making people realise that what they're doing is wrong.

Software is expensive, and on many platforms the developers get no benefit from the cost of the box that it's running on.

Why should you be able to take their work without paying for it?

You are talking about people spending months working on something, a whole company working towards something with no one making extreme amounts of money and then people thinking "I don't like the cost of that, I'll just take it."

That is as indefensible as hacking in and taking it. Either way the company is deprived of the income of it's work.

As I've asked before how would anyone feel if their boss come pay day said to them "Oh I was just trying out your work, I'm not going to pay you?"

It doesn't "stir up enthusiasm" for the product and if people do then buy more it probably won't be from the people whose efforts they stole.

If a company believes that it can "stir up enthusiasm" then let them make the decision themselves to distribute free copies of something. Don't take it upon yourselves to deprive someone else of their income because you believe it's to their benefit.

fabhead · 30/11/2009 11:32

wannabe if you read that article it is supporting exactly what I am saying - that with the technology that exists today they will only ever be able to catch a few random people like the pub landlord and are unlikely to be able to successfully prosecute them (he will win his defense I am sure since he will use the new digital economy bill wording) - that is why I think they should put their resources into more constructive strategies like app store etc.

Excactly the way that the govt only catch a tiny proportion of the people that comitt benefit fraud - a crime that we the taxpayers are paying for, not companies which are making huge profits for their shareholders already with the existing problems. You need to address the root of the problem and stop them being able or needing to do it in the first place.

fabhead · 30/11/2009 11:34

so should we go back to analogue then?

I think you have to be realistic about how the digital economy is now, not how it used to be or how software companies would like it to be.

BadgersPaws · 30/11/2009 11:44

No I'm not saying that we should go back to analogue, in fact I'm very much against the "3 strikes and your out proposal", those crazy adverts on DVDs and the prosecution of people like the Pirate Bay (despite them being selfish leeches of other people's time aside from their views it's hard to differentiation between what they do and what Google do).

However what I would like to see happen is for people to accept that what they're doing is wrong, for them to drop the ridiculous excuses and justifications and accept that what they're doing is really morally the same as stealing.

Most people don't steal from shops, not because they worry about getting caught but because they understand that they're hurting the shop.

When it comes to stealing people's time we need people to see if the same way.

How to get there?

In part through persuasion rather than a big legal stick.

somewhathorrified · 30/11/2009 12:00

If you buy a game/film etc off ebay then the comapny that made it isn't getting the money. It's no different downloading just that the original purchaser isn't asking for money.

Plus alot of filesharing is based around TV series that aren't out in the UK yet, what difference does it make to download or wait for it to be on TV free anyway?

fabhead · 30/11/2009 12:00

Agreed, a big legal stick that they can only ever wield in a random, possibly unfair and often inaccurate I should think manner. Which any good lawyer will be able to refute (hence why so far the only fines that have been levied in the uk have been voluntary and anyone that has refuted the claim has won.) And frightening people like the OP who downloaded something once years ago. Ridiculous. I think the persuasion is more realistic distribution strategies like wii ware, app store etc as discussed. I think itunes is maybe a good example of this - if you can download a song or a games for a few pounds then consumer, massive company and developers all win surely?

Incidentally, don't the software houses recieve a licence fee from MS or whoever for developing a game anywya, or is it tied to units shifted?

If the software developers are claiming, quite understandably, that "it's not fair" that people get to use their sw for free, then equally I think the consumer has a right to say it's not fair you are using questionable technology to catch some but not all of the people doing it. SO use a different strategy, is my argument.

BadgersPaws · 30/11/2009 12:25

I'm all for "realistic" marketing channels like Wii ware or the App Store. However I'm also in favour of the maker of a product being able to choose how they release something.

However if a company does choose an "unrealistic" marketing channel then I'm not entitled to "steal" that product.

I don't know about console development but I believe that games companies pay Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo some amount of money in order to release games on their machine. That's how the hardware companies make their money back, though something like the PS3 is now sold for a profit so they're not selling it at a loss to make the money on games.

On the platforms that I do develop for there are no licensing costs going out or kickbacks coming in.

People have the right to complain about the crazy three strikes policy simply because it's crazy.

Catching some and not all however is no basis for objection, should we object to the murder laws because some and not all murderers are caught?

Developers saying "it's not fair for you to take my work without payment" is totally fair and utterly unconnected to people's rights to moan about the proposed law changes.

If the consumer thinks that something's not right then hit back with your wallet and don't buy something.

I think that Porches are overpriced, I can't just got and take one.

fabhead · 30/11/2009 12:31

I don't necessarily object to the laws, but the random way they are currently trying to apply them with unreliable technology.

LeninGrad · 30/11/2009 13:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 30/11/2009 13:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mayorquimby · 30/11/2009 14:00

"Plus alot of filesharing is based around TV series that aren't out in the UK yet, what difference does it make to download or wait for it to be on TV free anyway?"

because it will reduce the value of the show when trying to sell it to foreign broadcasters if there is a significant portion of their potential audience who have already seen it and so won't be bothered watching it for a second time on tv,so advertisers won't pay as much for air time during the breaks and the makers of the programmes will have a less valuable product. anytime you steal something and give it away for free it will devalue the product and result in less money being made by the person who is legally trying to sell it.

BadgersPaws · 30/11/2009 14:34

I managed to miss that post, MayorQuimby dealt with one issue but that still leaves "If you buy a game/film etc off ebay then the comapny that made it isn't getting the money. It's no different downloading just that the original purchaser isn't asking for money."

It's very different from downloading.

With the eBay sale someone paid the money for the original product and it's then there's to do with as they please. So the provider was paid for that copy of their work and that remains the only copy of it.

With illegal downloading no one is paid for the work and the number of "copies" just keeps on growing.

When it comes to pay day would you rather be paid for your work or not?

A big difference.

Tortington · 30/11/2009 14:36

i just can't get upset about not making rich people richer.

i can't argue its right

but if i were someone who stole tv programming from america, then i wouldn't lose an ounce of guilt over it

and i am half Jew half Catholic so i have huge guilt.

BadgersPaws · 30/11/2009 15:01

"i just can't get upset about not making rich people richer."

But it's not always "rich people" is it, it's people like me, normal people who provide things like software, music or entertainment.

Besides do people who download stuff really draw some arbitrary line between "stealing" from "rich people" or "normal people"? Do they really see a game available to download on some pirate site, check out the company who makes it, check out their financial history and make some judgement about whether or not they've crossed some arbitrary line in richness that makes it OK to steal from them?

No.

They see it's free and they take it.

Then after the fact they might justify it as stealing from "rich people" but they don't really know that.

Meanwhile people like me see our work taken for nothing, the money back spent making the product isn't recovered, our employer goes bust, we're unemployed and there's no more product.

"but if i were someone who stole tv programming from america, then i wouldn't lose an ounce of guilt over it"

Why?

That TV show cost money and someone has to pay for it, if no one will it will stop being made.

People that steal it are riding on the back of all the honest people who pay for it.

And then when no UK TV company is willing to buy the show because so many people are watching it for free and the show doesn't get shown here they've got themselves to blame.

A slight variation on what I've said before but on pay day how would you feel if your boss decided not to pay you for the last month saying "I'm not going to make rich people richer"?

Tortington · 30/11/2009 15:17

I still retain my view.

i won't attempt to defend the 'theft is theft' line, ofcourse it is.

Lauriefairyonthetreeeatscake · 30/11/2009 15:30

I never steal copies of games or movies though I have illegally downloaded tv series from the US before they are out here. If there was a way to pay for them online legally then I would however I'm not going to wait a year for an episode when I have accidentally seen all the spoilers on the internet - the DM keep publishing them

Make it available for me to pay and I will.

BadgersPaws · 30/11/2009 15:45

"Make it available for me to pay and I will."

So what you're basically saying is "Make it available for me when and how I want it or I'm going to steal it."

Some US shows were quite dependant on UK TV companies financial contributions to get or to keep them going. If people don't then watch them when they're shown over here then the TV company will just pull that funding and the show could die.

What really gets me is that the people who do this sort of thing then describe themselves as fans of the show, film, game or band.

Such a big fan that they're shooting what they love in the foot.

Yes the delay for some US shows being shown over here can be painful, however if I love a show enough to feel tempted to download it then I surely feel enough respect for it's makers so as to not steal from them?

People will say "oh it doesn't matter", but when millions of people feel and think the same then it does, it really does.

Tortington · 30/11/2009 15:48

i think this shows a law in the industry - rahter like the music indistry had to bow to a new technological era and forge their business in another way, the tc industry should recognise it - and have a place to download it from legally and stick adverts on it

rather like the x factor i watch from ITV.com

Tortington · 30/11/2009 15:48

flaw - not law.

Lauriefairyonthetreeeatscake · 30/11/2009 15:53

Yes, I think it should be available to be paid for as I don't want to wait a year for it once I have already been informed of the plot.

I still watch it when it comes on here too as it's then on my much larger TV so I'm not "depriving" the show and I would still show up in the viewing figures.

So, not quite as bad as stealing to me in my moral compass as I watch it again anyway.

somewhathorrified · 30/11/2009 19:21

Badgerpaws, I think you'll find that reliable copies used for file sharing are ripped from an actual purchase, where else do you think the original file comes from.

Mayorquimby, if the US series makers don't want to reduce the value of their programmes to foreign markets then maybe they should think about releasing them at the same time as they are released in the US.

BadgersPaws · 01/12/2009 09:14

"Badgerpaws, I think you'll find that reliable copies used for file sharing are ripped from an actual purchase, where else do you think the original file comes from."

Whether or not there is an original copy is pretty irrelevant.

With eBay there is one original copy and when a person sells that he gives it up and passes it on to someone else. There remains one item for which the producer has been compensated and one person at a time owns it, the same as selling any item 2nd hand.

With file sharing there may or may not be an original copy but from that potentially thousands of other copies are made, and from those copies in turn, so tens of thousands of people may simultaneously own the thing for which the producer may have been compensated once.

For file sharing to even attempt to be morally the same as eBay then once one person has downloaded the file from the current owners machine they should prevent further downloads and destroy all of their copies of the file.

"Mayorquimby, if the US series makers don't want to reduce the value of their programmes to foreign markets then maybe they should think about releasing them at the same time as they are released in the US."

Arranging a simultaneous release of a product all over the world is actually reasonably tricky unless you are a massive relatively independent company like Lucasfilm who can manage to force such a thing through.

Otherwise you're dependant on some other company for financing and you dance to their tune to an extent. So the company paying for it might very well want to show it in one country first so as to demonstrate how popular it could be and to therefore be in a position to argue for the best value for the product overseas.

Of course there's nothing to force a company to do that, they could easily just fund it themselves and release it as and when they want. Only they want have so high a budget, and so many of those shows that we all claim to "love" wouldn't get made.

So there are financial and logistical reasons for why global releases are staggered, and that's not even looking at the issue of translating TV shows.

However in the end isn't it up to the makers and funders of a show to release something how and when they wish?

What gives anyone the right to fundamentally say "if you don't release your product how I want, when I want and at a price I want then I'm going to steal it."

Would anyone walk up to a sports car show room and say "if you don't drop the price of your car then I'm justified in stealing it."

Of course not.

"File sharing is the same as eBay" and "it's the producers fault for not releasing it exactly when I want it" are just excuses that people use to justify stealing from, and therefore hurting, the people that make the product that they claim to "love".

mayorquimby · 01/12/2009 10:15

people trying to justify stealing [shakes head]
i have no great problem with file-sharing. i do have a problem with the moral gymnastics people attempt to do to justify it.
there's no justification for it, just like there was none when i did it. i was stealing.
just admit your a thief and you do it because you don't want to spend your money and that you'd rather steal the product.
but trying to claim it's somehow not theft or it's the companies fault for making you steal from them is such bullshit.

Swipe left for the next trending thread