Piracy - (torrents etc).

[HST Power]

Most of the modern music is crap.

For about 95% of the time I would agree with you.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Like quite a few others I use it to get films or old programs that aren't on DVD in the UK (or anywhere), or TV series that aren't shown in the UK. I don't see why that hurts anyone as I am unable to buy the product

Just run through the logic of that again for me please?

I might not be able to reply to your explanation straight away - I'm just going to take a few antiques and old manuscripts from a neighbour. They're not for sale you see, so it won't hurt. Back soon.

 

[snail]

I might not be able to reply to your explanation straight away - I'm just going to take a few antiques and old manuscripts from a neighbour. They're not for sale you see, so it won't hurt. Back soon.

But are they copies, like the old TV shows?

 

[Mike395]

But are they copies, like the old TV shows?

Would you have a clear conscience going into the Newspaper Archive at Colindale, and trying to sneak copies of old newspapers onto a memory stick (if it were possible/you knew ways of hacking the system)? Exactly the same thing...they're out of print and no longer for sale either, and after all, all you're doing is taking a copy.....

 

[JoeH]

Would you have a clear conscience going into the Newspaper Archive at Colindale, and trying to sneak copies of old newspapers onto a memory stick (if it were possible/you knew ways of hacking the system)? Exactly the same thing...they're out of print and no longer for sale either, and after all, all you're doing is taking a copy.....

Are you really comparing hacking in to (and potentially damaging) the computer system of a government body with downloading a copy of a television show that isn't broadcast or sold in this country?

 

[Darandio]

Are you really comparing hacking in to (and potentially damaging) the computer system of a government body with downloading a copy of a television show that isn't broadcast or sold in this country?

Looks a bit like that doesn't it, but at the same time, a respected, public forum needs to be seen in a zero piracy light, and I understand that.

However, looking at the current debate at hand. As I had already stated earlier, I do not condone piracy in any form, it has a direct effect on me. In this case though, when programmes are not aired in this country, it is more than likely they are also not going to be released here on DVD. Of course there are ways to combat this, region free dvd players and the like but I imagine this type of piracy, should you wish to call it that is on a very small scale such would be the specific nature and popularity of the programme. If it is on a large scale, more fool the studio involved for not making it available to a larger audience if it is there.

 

[Madge Wildfire]

As an old git, I will give you my take on this.

Example: In 1973 I bought a vinyl copy of Dark Side Of The Moon. It is not relevant to this argument really, but a year or so later I had to buy another copy as I had loaned the original one to a girlfriend who returned it with a bloody great scratch across it.

Many years later, I bought a cd player and because of the alleged increase in quality I bought the same album on a cd.

Now if they want to bring out a re-mastered version with bonus tracks I am expected to pay for that as well. Well not me, I'm afraid. I have shelled out enough money for essentially the same piece of music and I dont intend to buy any more.

It is not just Pink Floyd albums that I have paid out 2 or 3 times for; there are many, many other bands who have benefitted more than once from my enthusiasm for their music.

Do I hear them or the recording companies offering a big discount for those who have already bought vinyl, or cassette, or 8-track cartridges, or original unmastered cd? No.

Also, I use downloading of mpg or wmv versions of old railway videos as a preview of whether it is worth shelling out for the dvd version. I have done this with the Cam Camwell and Railway Roundabout series. I have no intention of forking out £19.95 and upwards (each) for a number of dvds that are of little interest to me.

Once I know what I am going to get, I will pay for the item because the quality is far superior. If I had no illegal downloads as a sampler, I would not buy any, because I would never really know what I am getting.

I have several videos in my collection which sounded really good according to the blurb on the box, but turn out to be 33% archive footage padded out with lengthy modern sequences (not that I am against modern videos - but if I want those I can film them for myself).

Ok, rant over.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

But are they copies, like the old TV shows?

Yes. Exactly. The not-for-profit Agency which collects the royalties in the UK for many of the the producers of creative works and distributes those Royalties to those producers even has "copy" in their name: The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society.

A creative person makes their living through these royalties, (which can even be tiny fractions of pence per copy). It may not be much, but it can be all they ever earn - whether an architect, musician, script writer, computer programmer, fabric designer, drug designer, graphic artist, TV actor, etc.
The Law protects their 'intellectual property' (of copies) in the same way as it protects my neighbour's physical objects, and I do too.

I'm sure if they WERE NOT copies, but originals with no copies available, then they'd be massively more expensive!

 

[JoeH]

Yes. Exactly. The not-for-profit Agency which collects the royalties in the UK for many of the the producers of creative works and distributes those Royalties to those producers even has "copy" in their name: The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society.

A creative person makes their living through these royalties, (which can even be tiny fractions of pence per copy). It may not be much, but it can be all they ever earn - whether an architect, musician, script writer, computer programmer, fabric designer, drug designer, graphic artist, TV actor, etc.
The Law protects their 'intellectual property' (of copies) in the same way as it protects my neighbour's physical objects, and I do too.

I'm sure if they WERE NOT copies, but originals with no copies available, then they'd be massively more expensive!

How does this apply to TV shows and old movies that are not commercially available? What revenue is being deprived these creative persons in this situation?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

How does this apply to TV shows and old movies that are not commercially available? What revenue is being deprived these creative persons in this situation?

Well there can be several situations leading to shows that are not commercially available (as I guess you know already!).
1. All the contributors' rights have lapsed. In this case there really is no remaining Copyright; the performers and writers have died and their 'grace' period has elapsed. These are said to be in the Public Domain. There is no deprivation (though in some cases they can be re-invigourated by re-production and new rights are created).

2. The rights owners deliberately withhold the product. There are several reasosn for doing this, its usually because the costs of production and distribution outweight the estimated revenue from sales. However, the prohibition on unlicenced copying remains. Commonly, such works are re-issued after a period, perhaps as a set, a compilation, a series or in response to a revival of interest. The increased sales at that time would have been eroded by unlawful duplication in the meantime. The loss is in the future.

3. The rights owners cannot all be traced. If they (or their agents) are untraceable while trying to obtain their permission (and to enable their receipt of revenue) then public release of the product is likely to be frozen. It may become possible to re-issue the product later when the owners are found and/or their Copyright lapses. As above, the potential loss of revenue is in the future. (There are certain schemes to help collect and distribute royalties in some cases of untraceable people, but it did lead to the abandonment of the re-run of the TV music series "The Tube" for example.)

There are other scenarios - I sure you can think of some yourself. It always stikes me as creative as the original producers when I hear people trying to "think up" clever ideas which justify illicit copying or distributing of intellectual property!

By the way, the unlawful copying of material doesn't always damage the creator. Often the creative person assigned their rights away at the time, perhaps for a fixed fee and perhaps for free. (The famous bass line in "Walk on the Wild Side" was played By Herbie Flowers for a fixed-session-fee. No royalties.) In these cases, the loss may not affect so many people, but even if the only people sufferring are the Companies which contract with creative people to promote, market and distribute their work, then even their loss affects all producers in their field - this has been one of the factors in the globalisation of media - smaller companies are much more dependant on the smaller sums of money from low volume production runs and therefore much more vulnerable to piracy.

If you're really interested to learn more, then there was a lot of consultation before the Gower Report into the future of IP in the UK was written; you might be interested?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Neither my wife nor I have ever downloaded anything that is under copyright.

 

[thefab444]

That's good to hear, thanks for providing us with that assurance.

Generally I only download/torrent stuff I already own but have misplaced the original media for. Occasionally I will also download things that are literally impossible to buy due to their being of limited value to the current mass market (mostly obscure 80s music). I view it with the reasoning that if the original proprietors were that interested in getting my money for their product then they would make such a transfer possible. This is obviously, in the view of Mr Newcastle, incorrect, but I think I can live with my sin.

 

[Clip]

I do about 2 films a year really off the torrents. I despise going to cinema- I find it uncomfortable and far too pricey for 2 hours entertainment - and in most places you cant even get a drink. Also i get right fidgety during films so the ability to pause it and go for a tab/loo makes it attractive.

that said i have been to the imax a couple of times but thats more cos its a lot of fun but even then its £15 a ticket!!

I normally just wait for a dvd if i so want a film really.

Im a record collector so downloading music would be a waste of time - even legally

 

[michael769]

Neither my wife nor I have ever downloaded anything that is under copyright.

I do it all the time.

(Having paid for it of course....)

 

[blackettstreet]

i guiltily admit having illegaly downloaded a couple of warhammer 40k books....although games workshop charge extortionate prices for them, as they do for everything :roll:

 

[rp91]

If I can contribute a small point. I was recently at Leeds Fest and Matt Bowman (frontman of these) openly instructed us all to illegally download their latest album! As it happens, I've bought all their albums and I must have seen them over ten times (granted, the first time cost me £4 - the train cost me more!). But, if I hadn't downloaded their songs initially I doubt I'd have ever seen them/bought their albums.

 

[Clip]

There are a few bands that have done something similar - I believe Radiohead gave away an album for free from their own website as a shot at the record companies for some reason or other. Because big bands know they will make a killing from you going to see them.

 

[blackettstreet]

.....have just realised, having answered the poll.....I hope there aren't any police on here!

 

[nedchester]

So travelling on the train without paying your fare v Piracy of music/DVDs?

Interesting to note some in this thread who condemn one but not the other.

Not taking the moral high ground here but I do detect a little hypocrisy here!

 

[blackettstreet]

does anyone know anything about copyright laws, who could tell me if Zamzar.com is legal?

 

[SS4]

does anyone know anything about copyright laws, who could tell me if Zamzar.com is legal?

IANAL but I would suggest that if you owned the input file it would be ok. It depends more on the T&C of the original files (ripping a CD is illegal ffs!) and whether you are allowed to convert it

 

[blackettstreet]

IANAL but I would suggest that if you owned the input file it would be ok. It depends more on the T&C of the original files (ripping a CD is illegal ffs!) and whether you are allowed to convert it

presumably it's illegal if you take the file off, say, youtube?

( completely hypothetical this )

 

[SS4]

presumably it's illegal if you take the file off, say, youtube?

( completely hypothetical this )

I would say so if you're downloading copyrighted material (the site is hauling it off YT and making it available to you) although why anyone would download off youtube is beyond me - 64kbps mono?!

If, however, you were to take this song for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGWGNRUJewQ then it is questionable since the original material is Creative Commons and legal to download directly.

 

[blackettstreet]

why anyone would download off youtube is beyond me - 64kbps mono?!

i'm not clued up about this, that's why

 

[SS4]

i'm not clued up about this, that's why

Higher bitrate = better music. Transcoding lossy to lossy will cause additional loss of data so a lossy copy cannot be better than the original. Pirate sites often contain 320kbps stereo torrents which are better quality at the expense of filesize so hypothetically () it's only sensible to use youtube when the content cannot be found elsewhere

======================================

I'm not sure how the legal side is so I'm erring on the side of caution and estimating.

Youtube's terms state that

you agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Website itself, the YouTube Player, or such other means as YouTube may explicitly designate for this purpose;

I interpret this at not being allowed to use a third party to download videos and since youtube have not released an official client then no downloading is technically allowed.

Paragraph 7.2 states the uploaded videos remain the property of whoever uploaded this but I take this to mean the original copyright holder since you're not allowed to upload copyrighted material (can't find the appropriate term but the copyright guide makes this clear)

You retain all of your ownership rights

 

[blackettstreet]

I interpret this at not being allowed to use a third party to download videos and since youtube have not released an official client then no downloading is technically allowed. [/QUOTE]

Ah. I'm This hypothetical person is in would be in trouble then!

On a more serious note, I just use Zamzar for ease. Plus, it's probably somehow a bit more legal since it was recommended to me and my friends by a teacher!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you're downloading something for which others are paying then it's probably illegal.

 

[SS4]

I interpret this at not being allowed to use a third party to download videos and since youtube have not released an official client then no downloading is technically allowed.

Ah. I'm This hypothetical person is in would be in trouble then!

On a more serious note, I just use Zamzar for ease. Plus, it's probably somehow a bit more legal since it was recommended to me and my friends by a teacher!

Zamzar looks pretty good actually although in a hypothetical situation I have tools installed for transcoding (mainly ffmpeg)