Who will get the first copyright infringement notice??

Forums › Off topic › Who will get the first copyright infringement notice??

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#522624 18-Sep-2011 12:34

kiwigeek1: im sure the bulk of media is for video and software and the isp know it

Any evidence to support this claim?

On the opposite side, from what I gather the majority of users don't consume more than 10 - 15GB a month. Then comes the very low usage about 5GB a month. Users consuming more than 20GB a month are actually a minority.

I think you shouldn't be surprised to find out not everyone uses the Internet for illegally downloading movies and music.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#522625 18-Sep-2011 12:37

kiwigeek1: whatever.. the world will change in time.. their will be people vote for my model verse the existing

You have clearly not got the slightest idea in the world as to how much it costs to make a TV show.

What happens when the current business model falls apart when no global TV networks are willing to pay US$10000 per TV episode for content because the same show is available online for 50c? Suddenly they're producing TV shows costing US$3 million per episode and have 100000 users paying 50c each to download it.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#522629 18-Sep-2011 12:55

freitasm: The law was created and introduced by Labour's Judith Tizard.

Any attempt by Labour to "repeal" the law is just a way to try to play to people's short memory and ignorance.

Doubtless. They are politicians after all, and I doubt a one of them on any party is worthy. I for one would rather have the liars who have to pretend to be on our side, than the liars who are clearly in the pay of the yanks.

Your comment is one of the un-falsifiable claims that you protest in another thread.

If Labour has 'changed it's mind', regardless of consideration of vote farming, I'll take it. This law is an embarrassment, a black smudge on all of us.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#522630 18-Sep-2011 13:02

Brendan:
freitasm: The law was created and introduced by Labour's Judith Tizard.

Any attempt by Labour to "repeal" the law is just a way to try to play to people's short memory and ignorance.

Doubtless. They are politicians after all, and I doubt a one of them on any party is worthy. I for one would rather have the liars who have to pretend to be on our side, than the liars who are clearly in the pay of the yanks.

Your comment is one of the un-falsifiable claims that you protest in another thread.

If Labour has 'changed it's mind', regardless of consideration of vote farming, I'll take it. This law is an embarrassment, a black smudge on all of us.

In my case it's an opinion, so there's no "un-falsifiable claim", unlike the other comment where the user wrote "I'm sure the majority of media... " which is a quantifiable claim, therefore requiring a piece of evidence.

Again: the original law was introduced by Labour. I personally don't believe Labour is now changing its position just because this is a bad law. I rather believe they are changing their position to simply get votes. And this is an opinion, with no need of justification.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#522632 18-Sep-2011 13:13

kiwigeek1: whatever.. the world will change in time.. their will be people vote for my model verse the existing

paying millions to fight crime police force lawyers and alike and greed

i think your wrong.. just cant look outside the box

your not read what I mwant ... i aid if they put in a claim the isps
can pay from the fund

im sure the bulk of media is for video and software and the isp know it

I agree.

The problem is these media companies are meant to die. Their business model is clearly unsustainable and needs more and more artificial support to exist.

At some point the whole thing will collapse, and everyone here will say "well, of course it was never going to work...".

I however see it a little differently than you: I think we'd be better off without IP of any kind. It is an impediment to our progress. With music and film, I think technology now provides the serious DIY'er the facility of making and publishing (on the internet) their work, for free or shareware.

Oh, I can hear the cries of heresy and blasphemy now...

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#522634 18-Sep-2011 13:15

alexcc:
kiwigeek1: whatever.. the world will change in time.. their will be people vote for my model verse the existing

paying millions to fight crime police force lawyers and alike and greed

i think your wrong.. just cant look outside the box

your not read what I mwant ... i aid if they put in a claim the isps
can pay from the fund

im sure the bulk of media is for video and software and the isp know it

I'm sorry but something like that would ruin everything good. A system like that just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be a reason for tv shows or movies to be made anymore since there wouldn't be any profit in it. Just getting a percentage of the money going to the ISPs and 50 cents per episode will not be enough. Could cover production costs but there will be little if any profit. Who wants to work just to break even?

1% of the population.

60 million people?

Just for the fun of it.

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#522635 18-Sep-2011 13:22

maybe then the actors are being paid to much huh.. in usa some get paid 1 million per episode

sorry lappy keyboard is stuffed and errr t not working

anyhow millions are paying $30 a month for sky

cant see why $30 cant be split part line rental

and rest percentage to the shows the person watches

if the show sucks it should die a bad death cos
no one is watching so they dont get a slice of the money

so sky paid 10 grand to that show and no one likes it bumma

just floating ideas.. i think its all on greed.. still
nothing about knowing how much to make a show etc thats non sense

===

as stated above... if even .1 percent bought direct
download thats a lot of money millions..

but i guess they rather charge 30 a disc the $1 to the consumers

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#522636 18-Sep-2011 13:24

freitasm:
Brendan:
freitasm: The law was created and introduced by Labour's Judith Tizard.

Any attempt by Labour to "repeal" the law is just a way to try to play to people's short memory and ignorance.

Doubtless. They are politicians after all, and I doubt a one of them on any party is worthy. I for one would rather have the liars who have to pretend to be on our side, than the liars who are clearly in the pay of the yanks.

Your comment is one of the un-falsifiable claims that you protest in another thread.

If Labour has 'changed it's mind', regardless of consideration of vote farming, I'll take it. This law is an embarrassment, a black smudge on all of us.

In my case it's an opinion, so there's no "un-falsifiable claim", unlike the other comment where the user wrote "I'm sure the majority of media... " which is a quantifiable claim, therefore requiring a piece of evidence.

Again: the original law was introduced by Labour. I personally don't believe Labour is now changing its position just because this is a bad law. I rather believe they are changing their position to simply get votes. And this is an opinion, with no need of justification.

Thank you for the clarification.

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#522641 18-Sep-2011 13:35

just looking at a recent p2p case in usa where 25000 p2p-ers ips were recorded

and he case they gave up on cos the judge wanted better proof of the real people
rather then ips etc

they wanted to fine all 1000s each and it would of made as much money

then they took in from the box office LOL

and you say its not greed.. hmm or fair fees

whats more interesting is only 25000 illegally grab the movie.. out of 6 billion people
thats very small percent and loss eh

if all paid $10 each thats 250,000 loss ( beats 300 million in fines)

going by that I cant see how the media will win over people and say its not greed

for tv shows on p2pit might only be a few 100 or 1000 illegal downloads

that dont sound serious out of control pirating to me

they assume cos someone downloaded it they would of bought it if p2p etc didnt exist wrong..

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#522680 18-Sep-2011 16:25

kiwigeek1:
they assume cos someone downloaded it they would of bought it if p2p etc didnt exist wrong..

That has been a popular myth for many decades - I remember them trotting out that excuse when I used to buy games on 5 1/4" diskettes for an atari 8Bit computer in the 80's.

At no point has it been proven, and as freitasm promotes in this thread, we should all be using our baloney detection kit.

In fact, studies have shown that p2p users buy more legitimate music and films than does the population in general.

So it puzzles me why the industry would wish to harm it's most profitable revenue stream in these trying financial times...

Oh, that's right: control. It's doesn't matter that they are making billions of dollars, they want to make trillions. And if it stomps all over our civil rights, well, that's what they call an 'externality' in biz.

I call them psychopaths.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6