"My point was that if we are going to allow people to help themselves to audio and video for free then we will have to accept that some will want to watch football for free also. They are very similar products, in that once the football match is put on there is little extra cost in having a few more watching. At the margin there is no more cost! An even better comparison would be if CAFC Player was available (illegally) for free and suddenly all the subscriptions stopped. Very soon there would be no content on there as there would be no revenue to be made for providing it. "
I think you are missing the point. It is sites like Charlton Life that are at threat because occasionally posters give the address for getting access to various things such live tv broadcasts of Charlton matches or even radio commentary.
I think you are missing the point. It is sites like Charlton Life that are at threat because occasionally posters give the address for getting access to various things such live tv broadcasts of Charlton matches or even radio commentary.
Well, they shouldn't!
How would you like it if one of your neighbours posted your address on here and announced that you were on holiday and where you leave your spare key? Would you be angry wt the poster and would you want some sort of action taken against the poster and or the site that gave him the platform to advertise when and how to break into your house?
"Exiled_Addick January 17 The industries involved need to move with the times, particularly the film industry. Why can't movies be available online, on dvd and in the Cinemas simultaneously and with a single global release date? Make music and films available for a sensible monthly subscription fee and I think a lot of people would stop downloading illegally"
To put a feature film onto a DVD is way cheaper than putting it on a reel ready for the cinema, in fact, its very expensive. Furthermore, putting it online is even cheaper than putting it on dvd, i would guess incredibly cheaper. That's why they don't release it all at the same time, because all us lazy humans would just watch it on the site rather than go out and buy/rent the dvd, never mind make the trip to the Cinema with its pricey popcorn/drinks and 20 minutes of advertisement before the film even starts compared to all of your home comforts such as a cuppa. On top of that if you watch the film at home with the missus there's a far larger chance of you being able to distract her and get jiggy than if you watched it in the cinema :P
Edit: Plus, I just thought, that wouldn't stop downloading anyway, people pirate because they don't want to pay, not because they cant be bothered to order the dvd, after all with Amazon and other such sites it gets delivered to your door anyway.
Businesses and private individuals have been "encouraged" to use the internet to facilitate observation by the authorities in undemocratic constructs like China and the EU as well as supposedly "free" societies like the USA.
Part of the "incentive" has been to allow "subversive" blogs which make the internet attractive to use and thus reel people in for the real agenda of greater government control.
The blogs, especially anti EU and Islamic ones, have developed a will of their own though and are now becoming a nuisance as they encourage people to question their oppression.
Internet censorship is therefore coming and the likes of Obama want it as much as anybody. It is the so- called right, i.e libertarians, who will put up resistance if anybody does not the authoritarian left to whom free speech is anathema.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Len, have you ever read anything at all about the SOPA legislation?
If you had you would realise in an instant that President Obama is AGAINST the present legislation before Congress and said he will veto it.
Obama is being supported by the content players like Apple/Google who see the legislation for what it really is - and even by moderate Republicans like Darry Issa.
It is, in fact, the right-wing Republicans - financed by the big US telcos and cable companies - who want to bring the legislation in.
Want to know who one of the biggest supporters of SOPA/PIPA is - and he has publicly backed it - try a Mr. Keith Rupert Murdoch, yes, that well known member of the "authoritarian left."
Therefore, I am afraid that your accusations are completely unfounded.
Chunes, I know they are not the same and I was deliberately looking for an outrageous example but the owners of the copyright material must be allowed to protect their property.
In actual fact it is the club that loses out if someone finds a way to listen to commentary for free.
However, my point remains. Any site that is offering links to 'criminal' activity should be targeted.
Lookout is right about his, it is not about piracy or copyright but about controlling the internet and most importantly the alternative news channels such as Infowars, Drudge report, Naturalnews ,Prisonplanet etc and forums where people are communicating and making one another aware of the REAL news and the unbelievable corruption levels. Obamas threat to veto this is nothing more than political talk for the Main Stream Media whom are already corrupted . One only has to go back to December when Obama was being lauded as a hero by the MSM because he was going to veto the NDAA bill cos he didnt like the wording in it ( cos it didnt include American citizens),but hey when it was changed to in clude Americans , he promptly signed it ,on New Years Eve, when everyone was partying!!SOPA has been shelved for the moment because of too much opposition but it WILL come back when the dust settles and it will not be vetoed, thats for sure .It will probably be attached to some other Bill and pushed through on the quiet. This is definitely about control and Lieberman has likened it to the Chinese model. The government HAS to control the mediain the States and as the internet is out of their control,they bring in Bills like these. Its intentional and the objectives are clear. Just watch CNN or Foxnews for a couple of hours and you quickly get the idea, also visit some of those alternative news sites for some real news. I bid you all good evening
Len, I'm glad Ormiston managed a reply to that, because it was completely incoherent. Trying to nail that one to the 'left' is a full on belly laugh. It's getting vetoed by a liberal government. Under a republican government, I'd be raising some seriously worried eyebrows. Whilst you might feel free to nail 'leftism' to communism and thus monitoring and censorship, the left has never been about making the rich corporations richer. I would describe your judgement as being clouded. At best.
Kings, you're talking generally and not about the legislation. Under this bill, some millwall, palace or wendy twazzock could sign up and purposely come on here and post a few links to download the latest movies and shut us down permanently. You do not seem to understand that.
Furthermore, this act is never going to pass. So how do you like them apples.
To conclude, sometimes someone will recommend me a series that I missed or didn't air in this country, or even aired 10 years ago and got cancelled. My only legal option is to go to HMV, or amazon, and pay around £25-£30 to buy that series. Or, I could hit it up on megavideo and see whether I like it, then go out and buy it.
The point is, the industry needs to seriously get with the times. The music industry had to change after napster. And it did. The movie industry will also, and they will end up being better off, just as their counterparts have ended up.
Last year there were the most musical sales worldwide in history.
If companies feel someone is infringing their copyright they can (and do) take people to court in a civil action. What we have here is criminalising a civil offence, and the stupid situation that not only is the criminal "offence" confined to a single country in the world, but prosecutions will be targeted at citizens of other countries where the "offence" is not a criminal issue. This anomolie will be compounded by the British justice system which will allow extradition for the "offence" which is not an "offence" in this country.
Kings, you're talking generally and not about the legislation. Under this bill, some millwall, palace or wendy twazzock could sign up and purposely come on here and post a few links to download the latest movies and shut us down permanently. You do not seem to understand that.
Chunes, I do get it, and I believe that these sorts of examples (above) will not be punished in the same way as targeting some of the more guilty sites.
I don't like the proposed bill either, but I was just playing Devils Advocate on the basis that nothing that has been done (worldwide as far as I can tell) on an incremental basis has had any real impact. Sure those that are complaining the most are massive corporations that don't need the money, but they do have a right to protect what is rightfully theirs.
I just think that if nothing else works, in the end they either have to accept it and get on with it, or they need to bring in some legislation that is way over the top - like this bill was.
If it gives a littler perspective, under the proposed legislation you could go to jail for 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song. That's one year more than the Doctor who killed him got...
Comments
I think you are missing the point. It is sites like Charlton Life that are at threat because occasionally posters give the address for getting access to various things such live tv broadcasts of Charlton matches or even radio commentary.
Well, they shouldn't!
How would you like it if one of your neighbours posted your address on here and announced that you were on holiday and where you leave your spare key? Would you be angry wt the poster and would you want some sort of action taken against the poster and or the site that gave him the platform to advertise when and how to break into your house?
But on a serious note its ridiculous that the U.S government are even considering it.
The industries involved need to move with the times, particularly the film industry. Why can't movies be available online, on dvd and in the Cinemas simultaneously and with a single global release date? Make music and films available for a sensible monthly subscription fee and I think a lot of people would stop downloading illegally"
To put a feature film onto a DVD is way cheaper than putting it on a reel ready for the cinema, in fact, its very expensive. Furthermore, putting it online is even cheaper than putting it on dvd, i would guess incredibly cheaper. That's why they don't release it all at the same time, because all us lazy humans would just watch it on the site rather than go out and buy/rent the dvd, never mind make the trip to the Cinema with its pricey popcorn/drinks and 20 minutes of advertisement before the film even starts compared to all of your home comforts such as a cuppa. On top of that if you watch the film at home with the missus there's a far larger chance of you being able to distract her and get jiggy than if you watched it in the cinema :P
Edit: Plus, I just thought, that wouldn't stop downloading anyway, people pirate because they don't want to pay, not because they cant be bothered to order the dvd, after all with Amazon and other such sites it gets delivered to your door anyway.
Businesses and private individuals have been "encouraged" to use the internet to facilitate observation by the authorities in undemocratic constructs like China and the EU as well as supposedly "free" societies like the USA.
Part of the "incentive" has been to allow "subversive" blogs which make the internet attractive to use and thus reel people in for the real agenda of greater government control.
The blogs, especially anti EU and Islamic ones, have developed a will of their own though and are now becoming a nuisance as they encourage people to question their oppression.
Internet censorship is therefore coming and the likes of Obama want it as much as anybody. It is the so- called right, i.e libertarians, who will put up resistance if anybody does not the authoritarian left to whom free speech is anathema.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Len, have you ever read anything at all about the SOPA legislation?
If you had you would realise in an instant that President Obama is AGAINST the present legislation before Congress and said he will veto it.
Obama is being supported by the content players like Apple/Google who see the legislation for what it really is - and even by moderate Republicans like Darry Issa.
It is, in fact, the right-wing Republicans - financed by the big US telcos and cable companies - who want to bring the legislation in.
Want to know who one of the biggest supporters of SOPA/PIPA is - and he has publicly backed it - try a Mr. Keith Rupert Murdoch, yes, that well known member of the "authoritarian left."
Therefore, I am afraid that your accusations are completely unfounded.
In actual fact it is the club that loses out if someone finds a way to listen to commentary for free.
However, my point remains. Any site that is offering links to 'criminal' activity should be targeted.
What is the name of your band?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Wounded-Kings/225788354128336
Kings, you're talking generally and not about the legislation. Under this bill, some millwall, palace or wendy twazzock could sign up and purposely come on here and post a few links to download the latest movies and shut us down permanently. You do not seem to understand that.
Furthermore, this act is never going to pass. So how do you like them apples.
To conclude, sometimes someone will recommend me a series that I missed or didn't air in this country, or even aired 10 years ago and got cancelled. My only legal option is to go to HMV, or amazon, and pay around £25-£30 to buy that series. Or, I could hit it up on megavideo and see whether I like it, then go out and buy it.
The point is, the industry needs to seriously get with the times. The music industry had to change after napster. And it did. The movie industry will also, and they will end up being better off, just as their counterparts have ended up.
Last year there were the most musical sales worldwide in history.
Think I read that in the Mail. Oh wait. Nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhwuXNv8fJM#!
brilliant video
Chunes, I do get it, and I believe that these sorts of examples (above) will not be punished in the same way as targeting some of the more guilty sites.
I don't like the proposed bill either, but I was just playing Devils Advocate on the basis that nothing that has been done (worldwide as far as I can tell) on an incremental basis has had any real impact. Sure those that are complaining the most are massive corporations that don't need the money, but they do have a right to protect what is rightfully theirs.
I just think that if nothing else works, in the end they either have to accept it and get on with it, or they need to bring in some legislation that is way over the top - like this bill was.
Support for the bill wanes.