If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Gay porno, anyone?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Fear not moderators, this isn't spam. 
Seeing as it's the weekend, I thought I'd do a thread covering a slightly different story to normal.
This one's lifted from The Grauniad's website - yes, I do keep an eye on what my enemies are saying. According to them; "A Hertfordshire couple in their 60s were horrified to receive a letter last week from a London firm of lawyers accusing them of dowloading a hardcore gay porn movie. It demanded they pay £503 for 'copyright infringement' or face a high court action. The 20-page 'pre-settlement letter' from lawyers Davenport Lyons, acting on behalf of German pornogaphers, insisted they pay £503 to their clients for the 115-minute film Army F***ers which features 'Gestapo' officers and 'Czech' farmers." Click here for more details.
Stargalaxy has not received any such letters, before impertinent users dare ask. What the hell is going on here? I certainly don't have any time for file-sharing. My opinion is taking copyrighted content off the Internet for free is tantamount to stealing. But a £500 fine? How the hell do they work that out? First of all, they're not the ones who actually downloaded it. Secondly, even if they were, this film would probably cost no more than £20 to buy - someone's clearly coining it in if people are paying up...
What do you reckon?
Seeing as it's the weekend, I thought I'd do a thread covering a slightly different story to normal.This one's lifted from The Grauniad's website - yes, I do keep an eye on what my enemies are saying. According to them; "A Hertfordshire couple in their 60s were horrified to receive a letter last week from a London firm of lawyers accusing them of dowloading a hardcore gay porn movie. It demanded they pay £503 for 'copyright infringement' or face a high court action. The 20-page 'pre-settlement letter' from lawyers Davenport Lyons, acting on behalf of German pornogaphers, insisted they pay £503 to their clients for the 115-minute film Army F***ers which features 'Gestapo' officers and 'Czech' farmers." Click here for more details.
Stargalaxy has not received any such letters, before impertinent users dare ask.
What the hell is going on here? I certainly don't have any time for file-sharing. My opinion is taking copyrighted content off the Internet for free is tantamount to stealing. But a £500 fine? How the hell do they work that out? First of all, they're not the ones who actually downloaded it. Secondly, even if they were, this film would probably cost no more than £20 to buy - someone's clearly coining it in if people are paying up...What do you reckon?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Actually, it's copyright infringement
I expect the reason why this has happened is because of two things: dynamic IP addresses and tracker websites inserting fake IPs so that when you are downloading a torrent if the FBI connects they get 99 fake IPs say heh and only one real one. Just makes it harder to find the real file sharers.
Although the real file sharers are even further removed from that, so in reality they're just targetting the casual guys who are trying to get the latest series of lost (or gay porn, as in this case).
i think he was using the technically correct terminology.
The day people decide on other peoples crimes by what they feel, rather than the law, then the new labour power cycle will be complete, and hopefully it never will.
Are we allowed to ask why you're suddenly referring to yourself in the third person? Infinite finds it peculiar.
Still even if you do accept someone can own an idea there is still a real difference between copying someones idea and actually stealing something physical. Take the example of a hammer. Someone has the idea to make a hammer. You copy that idea and make your own hammer without their permission. That's wrong, per se, but not as wrong as if you just stole their original hammer from them.
AFAIK theft is a criminal crime and copyright infringement is a civil crime.
People that refer to themselves in the third person remind me of those that wear sunglasses indoors. They obviosly take themselves far too seriously.
"You know who wear sunglasses inside? Blind people and assholes."
Well copying something from someone doesn't prevent them from having it. Stealing from someone does.
You will never beat piracy, not because people don't care about stealing, but because it is human nature to share ideas, and so they are not going to obey a law that attempts to prevent that. Using the ideas of others isn't stealing. Whatever they say in public, people simply don't respond the same to using the ideas of others (and by extention, breaking copyright) as they do physically stealing the property of others. And I would argue there is a hell of a good rational argument to back that position up too. It's a law that simply doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, and so people will never follow it.
It's more than an idea though isn't it? Someone had to pay the actors, the crew, for equipment and then put it all together into a film - if you download it for free they're not getting back their investment and profit.
It's a bit like claiming a bit extra on insurance, because these crimes are primarily by the middle-class who'd never think about mugging a pensioner or breaking into a car, we all pretend it's not theft and is victimless.
I agree pretty much... read this blog post http://www.alllooksame.com/?p=83 it's about the ownership of ideas and whether you really own your own ideas, because without your teachers, without museums, other artists, whatever, you never would have been able to create that idea...
And perhaps more importantly than a few films and songs, protectionist copyright laws mean that we're in the ridiculous situation where poor countries with the skills and expertise to develop their own drugs or GM crops to help their people are tied in to buying them from American companies who have copyrighted a particular genetic sequence (have you ever heard anything so absurd?). Note, not copyrighted by the scientist who actually had the idea, so obviously in no way encouraging new ideas. All in the interest of free and fair trade of course, the first step of which is always recognising the monopoly of western companies over certain ideas, and the second of which is always to "liberalize" any competing industries (which means sell them to western companies, so there's no competition, and they can then charge inflated prices for anything that utilized their intellectual property - never mind if it means vast swathes of the population of a poor country now can't afford certain drugs). And the final turd on the omelette is that such companies have almost always developed the ideas that they now own using a large amount of public money.
I don't know how it works out with films, though.
They're not making the money just from the idea, though are they? I'm not a film buff, but even I know someone has to write a script (often several someones), crew, equipment etc. There's a few well paid actors and directors, but most people working on a film will be on respectable earnings, not mega-bucks. If films don't make profit, less will be made or they'll be made more cheaply, with a knock-on effect for the average earnings as much (if not more) than the top-stars.
Films make money by people paying to see them, either at the cinema. on DVD or through TV. If less people pay to see them... well it doesn't take A'level economics to work out what happens.
If you get them illegally you are basically stealing money from the companies. Like other corporate crimes people often see them as victimless, but they're not.
The copyright laws are there to protect us from people's greed - the belief that we should have something for nothing.
A totally different argument, albeit one I still disagree with. Medical research is very seldom the idea of just one scientist, but is funded by companies or by charities (normally quiet specialist or risky ones). These companies pour millions into research - if they're ideas could be copied companies which took risks in developing new drugs would go bust as they wouldn't be able to recoup their costs.
Companies will then need to sell as much as they can - that means they overprice in the West because we can afford to pay lots of money for them, but in underdeveloped companies drugs will be cheaper and the companies will make less (but still some) profit.
Losing 90% of $0 is still losing $0 overall.
True - if 100% wouldn't pay anything. However, in many cases there's a percentage of people who are getting it free, but would have bought it if they couldn't.
Just from knowing the ppl that i do, the percentage of people who wouldn't buy something at all are a lot higher than the percentgae of people that might buy it.
That or they would pay to see something at the cinema/dvd/tv but don't want to wait X months after america and rest of the world has seen it.
The former industry has to spend enormous amounts of money passing government regulations to get a drug on the market. If patents are removed but laws for safe drugs arent drug research would come to a halt. With entertainment the most a producer has to deal with is a classification system. The costs are nowhere near as high as with pharmacuticals but the benefits are the same. Due to IP the price is far above the market rate and someone somewhere earns a killing.
It's all about rent seeking behaviour. Something for nothing, protecting someone's ideas, creating incentives for more innovation etc. Firms exploit the legal environment to earn above normal profit.
Of course the percentage of people who wouldn't buy it is higher. The trouble is that no system has yet been devised by pirates which seperates out those who would buy it and those who wouldn't
DRM really is a strange one - as you mention it just seems to encourage people to find pirated versions of software. In the past I've even used hacked software to allow a DRM free install and then used a shop=bought copy of a game to get a legit cd-key for online play.
I just can't see how that's what the industry wanted to create, especially since the increased focus on online play provides a perfectly working model to prevent copyright theft through the cd-key. It's still very rare to see anything more than a tiny percentage of people using cracked multiplayer servers/hamachi networks for games.
The biggest threat is likely to be to cult releases though. The futurama model (4 dvd released movies rather than a new series) is unlikely to generate the kind of profit expected since the movies become widely available to watch long before being aired on an network with advertising.
isntead of targetting a haandful of millions of offenders, maybe they should target the sources?
Also they expect ISPs to boot off such downloaders, but like they are going to start getting rid of their best customers :P
IMO they should start releasing cinema films online the same time as they do in the cinema (and other such video products). I mean, it wouldnt increase piracy any more! Im sure most of the people who download movies wouldnt mind paying a couple of quid. I think this is probably something we will see soon, specially with all these divx certified devices widely available now!
A cinema makes little profit, for example, in the first week or so of a cinema release - when cinemas actually only make a tiny proportion of the ticket price and try to make money through drink and food.
Often the dvd and online release has a very different distribution deal. The production company will make a different amount of return on dvd releases against the studio that financied the film.
So although it seems logical for everyone, overall, to release more expensive same-day dvd releases and online distribution, it would end most mass cinema chains - so they won't go for that. In return studios tend to want to hold onto dvd release agreements making it hard for a production company or the stars involved to sign new agreements.
In my eyes you're absolutely right that a complete overhaul of the distribution methods is necessary, but at the moment people are too busy holding onto individual pockets of profit. Even with slowing returns people are unlikely to jump in the current economy.
Talking of how much Tv and film costs to make btw, I always love Brooker's explanation (it's the first part of the show) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXOPIbb8ZjA
Its a social experience, plus people would like to see popular films on the big screen. Sure the cinema business would be a hit a bit, but its been hit a bit already to be fair.
Update:-
Also I forgot to mention the massive increase in audience using online distribution. You could effectively sell the film anywhere that has a computer, 24 hours a day. Much money to be made there.
Yes. And again, you're assuming that companies losing profits that they are used to getting is a bad thing, rather than something that is of no relevance. If those profits have been gained through unethical practices or protectionist laws, then the fact that they'll lose money is irrelevant. It's the same as those people who thought that the fact that banks will lose money by people claiming back their charges for going overdrawn was a good argument for their continued existance. It's irrelevant, we're talking about ethics, not running a business. It's up to businesses to work out how to maximize their profits within the laws that the collective population has put up. It seems to me that they are more interested in doing the opposite, and changing/extending the law to maximize their profits.
Don't be ridiculous. You're not stealing money from a company, you're simply disagreeing with the laws that dictate to you what you can do with a series of 0s and 1s.
Don't be so naive. They exist precisely to facilitate people's greed, and allow people to earn money for next to nothing. Musicians originally saw recorded music as a threat. Now they see it as an assumed right that they can write a single successful song, and live off that for the rest of their life. And it's not just that. You can come up with a single idea, and licence it for use in the products of others. Who in this situation is attempting to continue getting money for no additional work? Who's freedoms are restricted as a result? They don't just want you to pay for a recording you're perfectly capable of making yourself, but they want each additional person that listens to it to pay for it, and they want to dictate when and how you listen to it, and how many times, in how many different mediums. I'm not surprised this is slightly in conflict with people's natural instinct to share and use information freely (and make no mistake, culture such as music is information).
I believe the majority of work nowadays, in Europe at least, is done by public bodies, charities and private companies using public money, as has been the case for most scientific research in history (NASA, the military, public health services). Allowing everyone to use anything that is developed would result in most or all of this working being done not-for-profit, or drug companies engaged in schemes that allow the free-sharing of research, so commercial research doesn't dry up completely. But it would ensure that the most efficient companies in making a providing the drugs to those that most need it do so, rather than the current situation where the established (American) companies can simply sit on their hands and rake in the profits. When it comes to drugs, that's not just bad ethics, it's criminal. Do you have any idea the number of poor people who will die because the Americans demand ridiculous 40 year patents on drugs for their companies?
There may be a place for intellectual property, but I certainly don't think it should be assumed, and certainly can't carry on in the manner that it does currently. Should you be allowed to patent a particular frequency of light ffs, which is precisely what Orange have done?
No, but there would be less jobs if things don't make as much profit. Certain films would be less profitable or much more risky without DVD sales and so wouldn't be made.
Also take this as a simplified argument - lots of Brits download Lost before it comes out on Sky. Sky then have less viewers and can't charge as much for adverts, so either they pay less or don't buy it. Either way the makers take a hit - multiply that for Australia, NZ and whoever else buys it and suddenly Lost doesn't look so profitable. if its not profitable the makers have to make savings, perhaps cutting back a few of the actors or reducing a script writer.
Actually I didn't comment because I thought it was a tangent. but two points
1) I don't agree - otherwise we'd be closing BAE systems
2) You're assuming I think downloading is ethical and stopping it can be compared with slavery. I don't think it is ethical (though I'm not on the other hand saying it the equivalent to slavery)
Again I don't think these things are unethical. These people put time, effort and money into making something - the fact it is delivered in an electronic format rather than physical doesn't seem to change that. I assume you wouldn't say it is right to steal a DVD from a shop, so why is it alright to steal it electronically?
See above point
If I write a book, I've invested time and effort into that book. Probably hundred of hours, if not thousands (if it is non-fiction I may also have put in real money in research, travel etc). I deserve to be recompensed for that effort - you don't deserve to get it free.
If you can write a song as great as Spice Up your Life/Strawberry Fields/You're beautiful (delete according to taste) you deserve to make money from it. if songwriting was that easy we'd all do it. Writing a song people want to hear is bloody difficult (which is why songwriters typically get more in royalties than the singer, with a few exceptions)
Mea culpa - I misread your original point. I thought you were talking about drug patenting only, but you also seem to be talking about genetic copyrighting - which I agree is daft.
However on the drug patenting, I think its probably fair to say the West subsidises the research for the rest of the world. If drug companies once they'd spent millions on research had to allow everyone else to copy it, they wouldn't make any profit and so no research would be done.
If you forgive a simplified example (and the figures are just dragged from the aire for mathematical simplicity)-
Flashman Pharmaceuticals spend £10m on researching a drug, and think that in five years it'll be outdated. In that time they reckon the market is 10million doses, half in the developed world and half in the developing world. Each capsule cost 20p to make. So to break even they need to make £12m.
One way to do that is sell them all across the world as £1.30 each (let's allow some profit). They'll easily sell the half in the developed world, but will only sell a fraction in the developing world. ie they don't recoup costs
The other thing to do is sell them £2.30 in the developed world (which absorbs the cost of the R&D) and 25p in the developing. The developed world can easily afford the added expense and the undeveloped world can afford the cheaper medicines.
Now let's add IWS Ltf, who get my patent for free. They can sell every drug one at 25p in the developed world and 21p in the undeveloped. You're much cheaper than me so you gobble up the market making a nice profit. I make a loss and go bankrupt - other companies see what is happening and won't take a risk on research.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm just denying your right to use the argument of "people will lose jobs" to justify whether a particular practice is ethical or not. Either something is ethical or it isn't. Whether people will lose jobs or not is absolutely no factor in that argument.
I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I've got a bit of time, but I just wanted to be clear that I'm merely presenting an alternative viewpoint to the "piracy is stealing" propaganda, and the claim that anyone who downloads illegally does so because they'd just rather not pay for something, but really know what they're doing is wrong. There is a sophisticated argument that opposes intellectual property, and I happen to think it is an argument that most reflects what I see as people's natural instincts not to accept ownership over culture and ideas in the same way they do over physical objects.
To the extent that your actions result in people loosing their livelihood I'd say ethics does come into it. Also I'm not sure is true either, as we seem to have different views of ethics
I know how you mean - i waited until I got home, because a proper post deserves a properly considered reply