It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Film industry starts landmark piracy case against iiNet

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


The writers/directors/producers of the movies don't own the cinema's..

They don't charge you ten bucks for a popcorn and a drink..

That would be the cinema owner..

Who is this 'Man' you would be sticking it back to if you ripped off the film or waited for the DVD? Coz everyone takes their cut along the way, thats what makes it so expensive.

I understand all sides of the story in the whole copyright thing, especially with music since I own an independent label but still love the idea of free sharing as it also makes my life easier as a producer.. its a catch 22.

The problem is that without some kind of system in place to ensure people pay even a miniscule amount of money towards their films/music/software, there will be a liquidity problem in these industries that will create a loss of high quality products until a new infrastructure is in place that will enable smaller companies to ditch the middleman and give you the product directly for cheap while still making enough to progress.

While I don't agree with suing the ISP's, getting them to block downloaders is probably the only thing that can be currently done to try curb the problem. The thing is that it will never stop, the downloading culture is the future but people will have to start paying for what they download.. even if it is only a twentieth of what they would pay for the physical product.

Long story short: This is the only "solution" until the media industries are able to catch up with connectivity. It has to be done for a few years so the industries don't collapse due to lack of liquidity while restructuring.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I dont class downloading media as theft at all. I class it as like a test drive of a new car.

How many times have we been told that a new release film is going to be a blockbuster, only to pay £15 on a DVD or at the cinema and find out all the hype was a load of rubbish.

I was member of a DVD club and they sent me new DVD's every month, they were supposed to match the DVD's to my profile but I was getting lumbered with DVD's which I had no intention of watching. So I cancelled my membership, now I either go to the cinema on a wednesday(orange wednesday deal) or download it first then buy it if it is any good.

After all , a copied DVD is no where near as good as a genuine DVD. Take transformers for example. I downloaded it, it was a pretty good film so i bought it. It was twice as good on a genuine DVD because the special effects looked better.

I have 100's of genuine DVD's, im actually after selling a load because I cant store them. So the media mogul's should respect the fact that a lot of people just want to try before we buy!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
Pirating Movies IS STEALING! Same with music and software..


Can you expand on this as whilst I understand what you're trying to say, I'm unsure how it's actually "stealing"?

Stealing is defined as the taking of someone else's property without their consent. I mentioned the English law's take on this above.

I can understand a 'moral' take on this, but even a moral stance isn't as clear cut as people might imagine. A few decades ago, if you were in possession of commercial goods, you'd have either bought it or it was a rented item. Generally speaking, you either owned it outright or you paid for the use of it and the actual owner was able to collect it again at some point. Slight variations on this might involve you renting it and then getting an option to buy that item at a reduced rate later on, and so on.

However, now, there's this weird grey area where we own something in that we've bought it outright but we don't actually own it. We've paid up in front for it but it's not actually ours.

To perpetuate the old model of business, one they are very desperate to cling on to, corporations and the governments whose backs they scratch have to start bending definitions and moral stances. Now, apparently, stealing and theft can occur even when nothing is genuinely taken. The objects are still there; what's actually happening is there are more of these objects. What metaphysical mathematics is this where theft, what used to be a minus or negative of something, is now actually a plusor an addition?

It's a pretty desperate business that is so adamant to cling to a model that's fleeced generations of people and would rather redefine very basic concepts and definitions (to mean something very different from what they once did) as well as the laws to go with them, than address the fact that they've reached the end of their greedy rainbow.

If it was the case that this was all about the creators &c. then I'd have a very different take on this, but it's really about the middlemen and their corporations: the ones who gain massively from both the audiences and the creatives without whom none of these things (whether it's music, films or games). It's the sheer greed of these people that has messed everything up for everyone; the desire to eek ever more profits from as little product as possible.

[/rant]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
So if I use my DVR to record a movie and then burn it to DVD is that illegal? I mean after all the satellite/cable company sent the feed to my home right? I paid for their service didn’t I? If it is then why make that technology so easily available?


There you go! Why don't the film companies sue the makers of DVR? That's probably where the online stuff comes from. It's not the ISP's fault what happens. I would bet the ISP's EULA that customers agree to probably says something like I won't copy distribute copyrighted materials.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Dermo
Pirating Movies IS STEALING! Same with music and software..


Can you expand on this as whilst I understand what you're trying to say, I'm unsure how it's actually "stealing"?

Stealing is defined as the taking of someone else's property without their consent. I mentioned the English law's take on this above.



And copyrighted material is not property of the owner/licensee?

Am I missing something here? Because I do own an Indie label and if what you say is true, then I might as well start ripping off as many of my artists as possible seeing as its not actually 'Stealing' because its not their "property".

There's no point in trying to be smart with a play on words about how 'Theft' and 'Stealing' are not completely legally associated with the actual process of sharing copyright for personal gain, be it profit or emotional, without the consent of the copyright holder or licensee.

If the artist/producer/director doesn't mind their copyrighted material being shared, and many don't, including myself in many cases, then thats fine.

But there's no point in harping on about how its your or anyone else's "Right" to illegally view, listen to or share copyrighted material that has been created by a individual hardworking or otherwise.

Because that IMO is absolute bull#.

I understand 110% that we have been ripped off by constant markups by middlemen from Producers to distributors to Shop owners and marketers while huge amounts of money is still wastefully thrown at the creation and marketing of the product when it could easily be made at 100th the price and directly sold/internet marketed.

BUT right now you can get your music and films for a fraction of the price by buying them online..

So you argument about being ripped off has no substance.. especially when the people who rip off the copyrighted music don't discern between the Major companies who have been ripping them off over the past few decades and the Indie companies who are the backbone of local talent.

Also, the fact that while the Internet is allowing for cheaper marketing and easier exposure, it still doesn't allow for a decent income from the end product because the infrastructure isn't there to allow for it. So as i said above, there will soon be a period where if noone pays for their media, and the infrastructure isn't there to allow for more dynamic advertising (revenue) for instance, there will be a dip in quality of product and a stagnation of the industry..

This is why people must be forced to pay for some, if even a hundredth, of the music/films they download in order to keep liquidity in the industry.


[edit on 9/10/09 by Dermo]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


Good morning,
As an extremely technical person, and not a music producer I can provide you insight to why this is censorship at its most basic level. (this is in no way an admission of guilt for downloading movies or music but a technical explanation of why this is censorship)

Torrent files are not piracy. Torrents are a protocol, in the same sense web is a protocol. You use a browser to access http (HyperText Transfer Protocol) You use a torrent client to access torrent files. A movie, or mp3 can be obtained by either http or torrents as well as several other protocols.

A file is comprised of "Bits" at their most basic level. A bit is not a movie, or mp3, but billions of bits can be. They could also be a picture of grandma or a voice recording telling you to pick up milk.

Because there is no way to determine what a stream of bits may be, it is necessary to collect all of the bit that make up a file, then restore the file to its native form, examine it and then determine if that file is piracy.

Even these steps will not stop piracy. Child pornography is illegal, yet still persists. This is because there are many ways to transfer files, encrypt files and hide ones identity in the process.

When an ISP decides to stop "piracy", they are declaring that they will need to examine every packet, every bit, byte for every file you transfer at all times to be able to determine that you are downloading illegal content.

Now this includes confidential information being passed to your girlfriend, your lawyer, your mom or any other communication at any time. The usual argument here is that my email is on its own port, so they can exclude that information, excepts that we aren't talking about a listen port on your computer, but a stream of bits to your computer.

Argument b, volume of data. A person who uses a large volume of data, MUST be sharing movies or music right? If you agree, then you are only expressing that you have a limited knowledge of information exchange. A persons guilt can not be considered simply because they use their computer more than you do.

When we allow a 3rd party to examine all of the communication to and from our computer, and determine what they consider illegal and block that transmission, we are indeed talking about censorship.

The real issue here is not the sharing of files, that is the catalyst for the mechanism to be put in place. It will quickly become necessary to monitor and track all communications to stop the "terrorists". And herein lies the problem.

I assure you, that if I want to obtain, or share movies, you cannot stop me, or others like me. But to allow any government the authority to filter and censor all communications to the people of the world is a far greater crime.

The solution is simple. Provide an avenue where 6+ billion people on the planet can obtain these movies legally and with ease for a small reasonable charge, that allows the industry to thrive without penalty to the populace.
I wouldn't suggest RIAA be responsible, as they have already made enemies of their clients fan base. If the studios were to spend the money they have spent so far on litigation on a subscription based service where we had access to their extensive libraries of videos at a reasonable price *cough Itunes-esque...*cough. there wouldn't be much piracy, but then we would be arguing for a different reason to impose these filters.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
its a situation they spend too much money fussing about, its free Publicity and opens their doors to a audience that normally would of never paid to see who they are about anyways.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by 10001011]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


I know that already, I have a degree in multimedia applications development


The fact of the matter is that something needs to be done or the industries will stagnate and if the responsibility falls to the ISP's for the short term (Which I cant say that I agree with, it should be the individual) then they will have to devise some kind of system to track/filter/determine whether the packets that are being shared are illegal downloading or legal use... and you don't have to tell me how big a deal this.

In Ireland, the main ISP's flag you if your downloading is excessive and check the files that have passed through their systems. If they determine that you have been illegally downloading copyrighted material, they post you a warning. 3 warnings and you are shut off. Harsh I know, but it has stopped a huge amount of illegal downloading... and this system is in place because the Major labels sued our main ISP's.

Also.. If DHL or FedEx was shipping illegal drugs or stolen property from one generic person to another.. do you not think the responsibility would fall on them to ensure they cut down on as much of the activity as possible?

Yes!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
And copyrighted material is not property of the owner/licensee?


Further to my points about how definitions are changing purely to suit the argument, it's worth noting that copyright is also changing in a similar way. Look at the the way copyright laws are being extended in terms of duration. What's that about other than greed and the 'middleman'? It's not about the creators that's for sure.


Am I missing something here? Because I do own an Indie label and if what you say is true, then I might as well start ripping off as many of my artists as possible seeing as its not actually 'Stealing' because its not their "property".

There's no point in trying to be smart with a play on words about how 'Theft' and 'Stealing' are not completely legally associated with the actual process of sharing copyright for personal gain, be it profit or emotional, without the consent of the copyright holder or licensee.


Of course there's a point and, as far as I'm concerned, it's a fair one. The problems that everyone - industry and consumers alike - face is one where old paradigms and understanding don't really fit the situation any more. And, rather than rethinking this from the ground upwards - or industry not having their head in the sand as to the newsopportunities and models that were out there for them


If the artist/producer/director doesn't mind their copyrighted material being shared, and many don't, including myself in many cases, then thats fine.

But there's no point in harping on about how its your or anyone else's "Right" to illegally view, listen to or share copyrighted material that has been created by a individual hardworking or otherwise.

Because that IMO is absolute bull#.

I understand 110% that we have been ripped off by constant markups by middlemen from Producers to distributors to Shop owners and marketers while huge amounts of money is still wastefully thrown at the creation and marketing of the product when it could easily be made at 100th the price and directly sold/internet marketed.

BUT right now you can get your music and films for a fraction of the price by buying them online..


Right now, for a minority of the things I like that maybe the case. You're actually making assumptions here as to what I listen to personally. I rarely see stuff I like in places like HMV or online without having to buy second hand anyway or through box sets of material that record companies made money on the first time around too.

However, I've been buying music since the late 1970s. What about the decadesin between where, as you admit yourself, I along with millions of other people have been "ripped off"? The industry has cut its own throat as far as I'm concerned. To be completely honest, the only people I care about it this now is me and the actual creators. If I can, I will (and do) buy direct from artists either on-line or when I can get to see them, at gigs.


So you argument about being ripped off has no substance..


Of course it has, you just admitted it has a couple of paragraphs up.


especially when the people who rip off the copyrighted music don't discern between the Major companies who have been ripping them off over the past few decades and the Indie companies who are the backbone of local talent.


Well, it doesn't help that someof these indies are pretty large businesses selling large amounts of records. I mean, are labels like Mute still classed as indie? It doesn't help when the industries hijack labels either. Thanks to the likes of the NME et al, you've got a generation of people thinking 'indie' is a type of music: a genre or a sound rather than a way of doing business. And all this the consumer's fault? How?


Also, the fact that while the Internet is allowing for cheaper marketing and easier exposure, it still doesn't allow for a decent income from the end product because the infrastructure isn't there to allow for it. So as i said above, there will soon be a period where if noone pays for their media, and the infrastructure isn't there to allow for more dynamic advertising (revenue) for instance, there will be a dip in quality of product and a stagnation of the industry..


There will be a dip... what in the future? Hasn't it happened already? I've rarely been a fan of mainstream music - although music I've liked in the past has become fairly mainstream retroactively - but from where I'm standing this happened in mainstream music a long time ago.

Whilst I agree that in theory the time we are in now with opportunities and channels open to the industry that advertising and marketing is potentially cheaper, I'm not sure that's actually happening. I've not seen some recent figures less than a couple of years old, but I've seen marketing figures in the past and, if anything, the opposite is true. What's worse is that the 'Big Four or Five' were spending moreon fewer artists with regards to marketing. That coupled with the way bands get shafted by default - whilst it's old, Steve Albini's essay with typical numbers with regards to advances, expenditures and royalties is still bang on the mark - as well as the back catalogues that big labels sit on all adds-up to an industry that's royally messed-up.

I mean when you've got a massive multinational like Sony, who are responsible for popularising and perpetuating technologies that allow/encourage 'pirating' and have made billions in profits from doing so, have related sister companies complaining that people are copying their merchandise to use either with or for the use of the aforementioned technologies. It's when organisations like Sony get greedy and want their cake and to eat it, that it just shows what a mess this is.


This is why people must be forced to pay for some, if even a hundredth, of the music/films they download in order to keep liquidity in the industry.

[edit on 9/10/09 by Dermo]


I'm not sure, perhaps now is the time to realise this horse is never going to walk again and shoot it.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I'm really worried about my Australian friends. This is downright tyrannical!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
reply to post by v3_exceed
 

Also.. If DHL or FedEx was shipping illegal drugs or stolen property from one generic person to another.. do you not think the responsibility would fall on them to ensure they cut down on as much of the activity as possible?

Yes!



DHL and Fed Ex already ship illegal drugs and stolen property, but the responsibility to check for ownership on these shipments is not up to them.
Not once, when using these services have I ever been asked to provide proof of ownership for any shipments.

Ireland, filtering and checking packets is a violation of privacy, but perhaps not in their country. The statement that it has reduced the illegal files sharing is an erroneous one. All it has done would be to reduce the amount of file sharing they can catch. Private ftp's and encrypted sessions will always be available.

Since you have a degree in multimedia development, not that it would translate in any way to a degree in network communications, you should already know that any video you produce for your friends or relatives cannot be determined to be pirated, not by looking at the data streams at any rate. It is only after this information has been recompiled to its original form and then researched to determine if it is indeed copy written that it can be deemed illegal or not.

Don't ask for an explanation of how this can be used to censor information if you don't really want to know, or if you already know the answer. You are only wasting peoples time.

It appears no amount of logic will convince you that this is a much larger issue than pirating a copy of any vid or mp3, nor will any information about how this can be easily circumvented, sway your opinion. So there is no point in continuing a dialog with you. It's exactly this kind of closed mindedness that will usher in the NWO and the decimation or peoples rights.

..Ex



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join