This is where I get suspicious when companies/ organisations want Law applied in their favour. Take Sky for instance for some time now encourage people who like to download . If there was one ISP provider of multiple services which might suffer from copy right breaches, then SKY are the one in the UK, however they encourage people who download on mass to be their customers, One particular Sky shareholder is ardent supporter of RIAA and MPAA however proceeds over truly unlimited! If you go above the 50GB it will be suggested of at least using p2p (I've had it from this site), this more or implies these days, you are involved in copy right infringement.

Are you saying that because sky have unlimited downloads that they are encouraging people to break copyright law? How about the many films available on the sky anytime+ service that you could download in a month that could be hit by limits if there were any?

There are actually legal ways to do high levels of downloads in a month other than Linux ISOs (which are normally the reason that copyright breachers give).

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It was inevitable that sooner or later this would happen and personally I think it's about time. Unfortunately many people think it's ok to take media that has a monetary value and not pay for it - that can't be right from whatever angle you look at it.

Hopefully once this gets understood that the Real issue can be tackled, which is bringing media companies into account for high media costs that seem to be held artificially high.

Rather than just taking without paying for media, a far bigger statement could be made (in regard to pricing) by boycotting media companies. With facebook member "campaigns" reaching the population, I'm sure that could be a good way to get any large companies attention.

the prime reason of piracy is lack of availability rather than price, price is also a factor but not the main one. This is why people will pay for things like newgroup access and top speed packages from isp's. As I know some people wonder why people will pay to download material but not the material itself.

When a movie is available the vast majority of downloads happen before its available at retail in that country, movies tend to be come available in stages with increasing quality each time, so eg. early on whilst its at the cinema in the first premiere country there may be a cam quality version and then not long after a better version comes along until finally a retail bluray will eventually be available. The rule of thumb is that pirated versions of movies in all the qualities become available before its possible to pay to watch them. There is a very simple way to stop this situation. Release movies worldwide in all formats at the same time. Stop staggered release, stop regional release. Also some people have stated they refuse to buy copy protected material and its the copy protection that actually stops them buying movies.

On the ruling itself, it shows again how backwards the UK is, the fact is these american companies wont get this ruling in their own country, they wont get it in the majority of countries, the UK apart from maybe australia is probably now the worst country for copyright in terms of legislation and legal rulings. Newzbin hosts no illegal content so the judge technically has got the ruling wrong, technically its the same as google. So we will now see a load of lawsuits against other uk isps for this and more lawsuits after for other sites to be blocked, the censorship of UK internet is well on the way now, but the simple fatc is they have achieved nothing. Any filtering is easily evaded.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 29-Jul-11 13:13:12)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

On the ruling itself, it shows again how backwards the UK is, the fact is these american companies wont get this ruling in their own country

I'm sure I read somewhere that the MPA have got ISP's in the US to throttle offending users until they stop doing it? Could be wrong of course.

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

The adjudication will achieve nothing, there are hundreds of indexing sites for files posted on usenet. A quick google search for ".NZB" and you'll see what I mean.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by AEP:

So if a company advertised lists of addresses known to be empty to burglars, that would be OK? Or, closer, if they sold lists of known sources of stolen goods would they be allowed to continue?

I think in both cases the firm would be commiting an offence and would soon be prevented from doing so. It's not just illegal to directly commit an offence but also to conspire to aid someone else to do so.

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by AEP:

So if a company advertised lists of addresses known to be empty to burglars, that would be OK? Or, closer, if they sold lists of known sources of stolen goods would they be allowed to continue?

I think in both cases the firm would be commiting an offence and would soon be prevented from doing so. It's not just illegal to directly commit an offence but also to conspire to aid someone else to do so.

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

No its called comparing apples with apples, not apples with say a rock, the two are so far apart its not a comparative.

Analogies are great when they work, this doesn't

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

No its called comparing apples with apples, not apples with say a rock, the two are so far apart its not a comparative.

Analogies are great when they work, this doesn't

You forgot to add - "In your opinion"

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

No its called comparing apples with apples, not apples with say a rock, the two are so far apart its not a comparative.

Analogies are great when they work, this doesn't

You forgot to add - "In your opinion"

As this is a forum and everyone's opinion is their own (a given) I didn't think it needed to be mentioned.

Of course the big winners here will be the organised criminal gangs who make pirated DVD's to sell on Market stalls and in pubs.

When the money trail for the Bali bombing was identified it pointed straight at pirated DVD sales in Australia and New Zealand.

Since then pirated movies became more and more avaliable on the internet and was slowing shutting down these outlets for the crime gangs.

So all the MPA is doing is once again changing the way this material is distributed.

I am not condoning pirated movies, given that in a very short time they are usually less than £4 for sale online but it has been proven time and again that the media indusries have no idea how to combat this just knee jerk reactions.

Look at how they tried to sue Bob Monkhouse for his private movie collection.