ACTA to be signed tomorrow by gov.

Gman1 · 26-01-2012 04:42AM

Mr Trade In wrote: »

Anonymous and anyone with a V(Guy Fawkes) mask will have a busy day ahead of them tomorrow.

Forbidden Planet sell them for a fiver!

buzzerxx · 26-01-2012 04:42AM

the super rich keep getting paid by the dopey workers,aib keeps paying the bond holders,even though they invested in non secured bonds,which means they should NOT be paid the billions they wherewhen the banks sank
the stinkiun robbing politicians are in with tyhe bond holders and laughing at the workers,?????makes me want to see them greedy bastards die

lugha · 26-01-2012 04:43AM

quietriot wrote: »

You say as though you have a right to pirate other people's creative content?

If you steal from a shop and make it out undetected, that doesn't make the goods you've stolen your property. If you're subsequently caught with said stolen goods, you'll be charged as per the law.

It doesn't magically change just because the product you're stealing isn't a physical entity.

I’d agree with that sentiment. I get the distinct impression that it is not because of a deficiency in any particular law that seeks to protect copyrights that angst people so
but the fact of the them. People get real comfy with their freebies and are reluctant to give them up.

I wonder what kind of copyright protection laws they would favour?

Darius.Tr · 26-01-2012 04:52AM

lugha wrote: »

I wonder what kind of copyright protection laws they would favour?

I dont think we would like any of them

quietriot · 26-01-2012 04:59AM

lugha wrote: »

I wonder what kind of copyright protection laws they would favour?

Darius.Tr wrote: »

I dont think we would like any of them

Yep, and so long as this attitude exists, the Governments of the world are going to pursue over-zealous legislation to prevent it.

I mean, the Government are there to protect the people, including those creating content. They're having their infringed upon, with no punishment being issued to those breaking the law and infringing on their rights, like no other section of Western society.

People can make up whatever excuses they want or justify it however they want, at the end of the day laws are being broken and individuals are suffering as a consequence. It's not surreal to see legislators saying enough is enough.

The key is to get balanced legislation in place and enforced to punish those who feel they've a right to break the laws simply because they can, whilst protecting the freedom to valuable, uncensored resources like the internet for those who adhere to the law.

You have to laugh though, the people bleating about these laws would be quick to outrage if they created something and found someone to be infringing on their copyright of that creation.

PseudoFamous · 26-01-2012 05:03AM

quietriot wrote: »

People can make up whatever excuses they want or justify it however they want, at the end of the day laws are being broken and individuals are suffering as a consequence. It's not surreal to see legislators saying enough is enough.

Who is suffering, and for what reason? Third party Stats and citations are needed to verify your claims.

jmc19 · 26-01-2012 05:05AM

With all these new laws being introduced, will it have a knock-on effect with broadband providers seeing a lot of their customers downgrading their packages?

Darius.Tr · 26-01-2012 05:05AM

Yup the balance must be found...I couldn't afford to download music legaly or watch any movies, I'm not even gonna talk about all the software that I'd have to pay for, It would cost me a fortune to buy all of what i am using at the moment.

PseudoFamous · 26-01-2012 05:07AM

jmc19 wrote: »

With all these new laws being introduced, will it have a knock-on effect with broadband providers seeing a lot of their customers downgrading their packages?

No, with the introduction of cheap and convenient high quality services such as Netflix and Steam, it's fair to assume that a higher standard of broadband delivery will be demanded.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 05:19AM

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Who is suffering, and for what reason? Third party Stats and citations are needed to verify your claims.

Seriously?

If I make a song and upload it to itunes, someone buys it for .99c and then uploads it to a torrent or file sharing site, where 100 people download it, I'm not suffering or at a loss?

Surely that makes sense, and we're all aware of the amount of illegal file sharing of music alone that takes place every day online.

I don't really believe it needs to be spelled out any further. The same goes for all types of creative content. When created, the author/creator has several rights included in copyright and when these rights are infringed upon with regards to a good the author is charging for, they are losing out.

Not spelling it out any more, it's incredibly obvious and I'm not going to enter a debate with someone trying to justify people infringing on the copyright of content creators as they're merely just trying to convince themselves that what they're doing is right over everything else.

Darius.Tr wrote: »

Yup the balance must be found...I couldn't afford to download music legaly or watch any movies, I'm not even gonna talk about all the software that I'd have to pay for, It would cost me a fortune to buy all of what i am using at the moment.

Yep, I'm sure a huge number are in the same boat. Unfortunately though, piracy is probably sealing the fate of some smaller companies who may have succeeded if their products received more income, aiding the continuing flow of job losses, etc.

I dislike the whole "the industry should adapt or f*ck off, man" attitude people are taking also. It's not the industry who are breaking the law. Sure, the industry need to tackle new ways of distributing media, however that's not for the people who'll never pay for it to insist.

Enforce the law and then let the industry do what it wants or inevitably fail. Accepting law breaking and expecting the industry to combat it in a non-legislative way is ridiculous.

Kirby · 26-01-2012 05:25AM

quietriot wrote: »

Seriously?

If I make a song and upload it to itunes, someone buys it for .99c and then uploads it to a torrent or file sharing site, where 100 people download it, I'm not suffering or at a loss? .

No, you are not at a loss. Those 100 people never had any intention of buying your song in the first place. They download it because its free and for the same reason a dog licks its own arse. Because they can. Are they getting something for free? Yes. Are you losing money? No.

Avatar was the most pirated movie of 2010. I think it did pretty well. It may have made billions or something. I'm not sure...........

There may have been this modern warfare game thingy-majiggy. It may have been pirated like mad. It also may have made billions. Although I wouldn't know.

And thats another issue anyway. We aren't talking about piracy. We are talking about copyright infringement. They aren't the same.

Darius.Tr · 26-01-2012 05:27AM

I understan the whole copyrights thing, but in the end it's not up to us to decide what will happen..I highly doubt that the whole piracy thing will ever get solved, as people will come up with new ways to share their files...

quietriot · 26-01-2012 05:34AM

Kirby wrote: »

No, you are not at a loss. Those 100 people never had any intention of buying your song in the first place. They download it because its free and for the same reason a dog licks its own arse. Because they can. Are they getting something for free? Yes. Are you losing money? No.

That does not make the cut I'm afraid and is a weak/completely null argument. They infringed on a copywritten product that is being sold for money and some will have re-distributed it themselves also. The law is broken and those people should be liable for the amount of money they owe the person whose content's copyright they have infringed on. Re-distributors of pirated content should face even heavier punishment.

Who are you to say why someone downloads something? There is a lot of content available on the internet, why don't they download EVERYTHING? Oh, because they just download what they're interested in? Well, those products have a price and if they're interested they can either pay it or for go it.

Thankfully, the law and moral code is on my side in this and your internet activist excuse tripe wouldn't stand up in the worst court in the worst of the countries.

Avatar was the most pirated movie of 2010. I think it did pretty well. It may have made billions or something. I'm not sure...........

There may have been this modern warfare game thingy-majiggy. It may have been pirated like mad. It also may have made billions. Although I wouldn't know.

Yes and they would have made even more had they not been pirated. Even a 1% increase in sales would be another ten million per million in revenue. How much can $10,000,000 produce, in terms of goods, services and jobs? A f*cking lot, and piracy has prevented that, at the very least.

And thats another issue anyway. We aren't talking about piracy. We are talking about copyright infringement. They aren't the same.

Yes it is, that is exactly what it is and in saying that, you've shown you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not even the smallest iota of a clue, so I'm certainly not engaging you on the matter until you at least know what copyright is, and the rights it extends and protects for content creators.

I'll give you a hint: it's found in any good law book. Best of luck with your research.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 05:37AM

Darius.Tr wrote: »

I understan the whole copyrights thing, but in the end it's not up to us to decide what will happen..I highly doubt that the whole piracy thing will ever get solved, as people will come up with new ways to share their files...

Oh absolutely, but active legislation will at least cut it down a bit.

A lot of people got a fright over pirates getting fined previously and it aided the boom of things like itunes.

I'd even go so far as to say a lot of this legislation is merely to scare people off piracy, a big "IF" in their face that they won't want to deal with so they'll just go to itunes and get their stuff cheap there.

Determined people will always find a will/way, but the lay person will be affected by this and a lot might finally just say enough is enough and move on.

Kirby · 26-01-2012 05:40AM

quietriot wrote: »

Yes it is, that is exactly what it is and in saying that, you've shown you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not even the smallest iota of a clue, so I'm certainly not engaging you on the matter until you at least know what copyright is, and the rights it extends and protects for content creators.

I'll give you a hint: it's found in any good law book. Best of luck with your research.

Ill explain simply and succinctly how you are wrong and haven't got the foggiest idea about what this discussion is about.

Lets say I decide to pirate Avatar. I upload it to the internet and allow 20 million people to download it. This is Piracy.

Now lets say I do a video review of the Movie Avatar and how much I like/hate it on youtube and use a song from the Avatar movie in the background. This is Copyright Infringement.

There is a difference between the two and if you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

Darius.Tr · 26-01-2012 05:50AM

"Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exlusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivate works. It often refers to copying intellectual property without the creator's written permission."

I'we looked into avatar's gross earnings, it was $2,783,918,982 . So lets say they lost even 1% of this sum of money due to copying their movie illegaly, its still a huge lump of money lost...I'd be mad aswell if I'd have lost that much.

Kirby · 26-01-2012 05:54AM

Darius.Tr wrote: »

"Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright."
.

This is exactly the definition of my youtube example. Unauthorized use of the song. This is copyright infringement. People might "often refer to" piracy as copyright infringement but that would be inaccurate.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 05:59AM

Kirby wrote: »

Ill explain simply and succinctly how you are wrong and haven't got the foggiest idea about what this discussion is about.

Lets say I decide to pirate Avatar. I upload it to the internet and allow 20 million people to download it. This is Piracy.

Kirby wrote: »

Now lets say I do a video review of the Movie Avatar and how much I like/hate it on youtube and use a song from the Avatar movie in the background. This is Copyright Infringement.

There is a difference between the two and if you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

Wow, I'm astounded.

Ok kiddy, I'm going to quote the copyright laws here in Ireland and what they cover and explain it for you, as it frightens me that such you can sit with pride of such ignorance.

Ok, lets look at the Copyright and Related Acts, 2000. We're going to focus on Chapter 4, section 37 which details the rights of the copyright owner.

37.—(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in Chapter 6 and to any provisions relating to licensing in this Part, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to undertake or authorise others to undertake all or any of the following acts, namely:
(a) to copy the work;
(b) to make available to the public the work;
(c) to make an adaptation of the work or to undertake either of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) in relation to an adaptation,
and those acts shall be known and in this Act referred to as “acts restricted by copyright”.

Now, so what do we take from this Kirby? We know that when I, as a content creator, I have the exclusive right to copy my work, make it available and to change my product as I see fit. I also am allowed to give authority to others to do these things.

Let's look a little further:

The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake, any of the acts restricted by copyright.

Ok, so if someone carries out any of the above things, they've infringed upon my copyright. Remember now,I hold full right over the copying, adaptation, reproduction, making available of, distribution of and rental and leasing of my work.

Ok so lets take your example:

Lets say I decide to pirate Avatar. I upload it to the internet and allow 20 million people to download it. This is Piracy.

In this example, you have copied my product without my permission and made it available to the public, again without my permission. You have infringed upon my copyright in more than two ways alone.

Piracy is copyright infringement and the fact that you don't understand that is pretty terrible, since you're so adamant that you're right here.

Read the Copyright and Related Act 2000 starting here, at Chapter 4
It'll give you some idea of the concept you are talking about and which you currently appear to have absolutely zero understanding of. If you can't make sense of the quoted legislation then don't bother replying, you're wasting your own time and the time of anyone who reads your ill-informed drivel.

Kirby · 26-01-2012 06:03AM

Mate, I've had a look at your posts in After Hours in the last few minutes and I would wind it back a bit.

Between this thread, the "Was Jesus a Gay" and "Do we actually have complete 'freedom' " threads you are heading for trouble. It is possible to be polite while debating a point.

Personally, I feel there is a large difference between a simple youtube video that may infringe copyright and pirating 20 million copies of a movie. You seem to cling to your legislation and let that guide your morals. I don't agree.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 06:03AM

Kirby wrote: »

This is exactly the definition of my youtube example. Unauthorized use of the song. This is copyright infringement. People might "often refer to" piracy as copyright infringement but that would be inaccurate.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Piracy

Piracy and copyright infringement are the exact same thing. The fact that you continue to assert otherwise shows nothing but stubbornness and sheer ignorance. You're on the internet, there is a plethora of resources available to check before trying to state something as fact.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 06:05AM

Kirby wrote: »

Mate, I've had a look at your posts in After Hours in the last few minutes and I would wind it back a bit.

Between this thread, the "Was Jesus a Gay" and "Do we actually have complete 'freedom' " threads you are heading for trouble. It is possible to be polite while debating a point.

Personally, I feel there is a large difference between a simple youtube video that may infringe copyright and pirating 20 million copies of a movie. You seem to cling to your legislation and let that guide your morals. I don't agree.

Ok so what you're saying is, "You're right, I'm wrong, but instead of admitting it and thanking you for the information, I'll sit here and attempt to insult you and derail the topic".

Good for you. You're welcome for the info by the way. Luckily it's free online and I didn't have to infringe on people's copyright or pirate the content to show you it.

I cling to legislation and morals to back up a point about LAW?! OH NO! I use facts? What a f*cking bastard I am, eh? Your opinion has no weight in law buddy, facts are facts and if you can't admit that and deal with it then head over to somalia or similar where the law, fact and moral don't appear to hold much weight.

You tried to "prove me wrong" using your gut feeling and nothing else, I've shown to you using fact and legislation, as well as a bit of history about it, why you're wrong. If you can't accept that then f*ck off over to the conspiracy theorists where gut feeling dominates everything while fact and logic is left to the wayside.

Darius.Tr · 26-01-2012 06:10AM

Jesus the two of you have been arguing about this for a few hours now

It's clear that piracy and copyright infringement is one and the same thing, the "It often refers to copying without the creator's written permission."
This clearly explains it, that even in youtube video, you would be copying someone elses song without their permision, and sharing with other...so people who are watching it cam easily download it and share with their friends.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 06:13AM

Darius.Tr wrote: »

Jesus the two of you have been arguing about this for a few hours now
It's clear that piracy and copyright infringement is one and the same thing, the "It often refers to copying without the creator's written permission."
This clearly explains it, that even in youtube video, you would be copying someone elses song without their permision, and sharing with other...so people who are watching it cam easily download it and share with their friends.

It's unfortunate isn't it? There's really no need for an argument when everything is there factually in plain text for all to see, yet some people feel that their own opinions or gut feeling on matters holds more weight than the law, facts or moral code combined and just can't seem to deal with it.

In this case they even tried to derail the topic just to try to deflect themselves from having to face that fact that they're wrong. Crazy really but there you go, no matter how much evidence and truth you show someone, they'll still insist that theory inside their head is correct and that everyone else is plain wrong.

One of the things that makes life interesting I say

Seems to be frighteningly common on After Hours forum though, I mean a few times tonight already someone has made an ignorant, outlandish statement, I've provided them with a reasoned, logical answer and I've received abuse or more raving nonsense in response. It's unfortunate but again, no matter how much evidence and reality you actually show someone, some will just never be able to deal with it inside.

Kirby · 26-01-2012 06:14AM

Hours? I started posting 20 mins ago. He's been ranting for a while though.

And it isn't "gut" as you call it quietriot. It's morality. You may need the government to direct your life and tell you whats right and wrong, I was raised correctly. I know it already.

LighterGuy · 26-01-2012 06:20AM

Agree 100% Kirby

quietriot · 26-01-2012 06:23AM

Kirby wrote: »

Hours? I started posting 20 mins ago. He's been ranting for a while though.

And it isn't "gut" as you call it quietriot. It's morality. You may need the government to direct your life and tell you whats right and wrong, I was raised correctly. I know it already.

You were raised extremely poorly if you were taught to disregard fact and the law of the land for whatever you felt was right.

At the end of the day, you're wrong here and I'm right, or I should say, the law and my interpretation of it is right.

Don't give me this absolute crap, "you might need the government to direct my life", I absolutely do not. We do, however, need the government to enact law in society to prevent people like you, who feel they're above it and may interpret it however they wish, going unpunished.

It's not open to interpretation either. This isn't a passage in the bible. This is law. It's written very plainly and the definition of "piracy" has changed over time to keep up with this law, now referring to the infringement of copyright.

Listen, I know it can be hard to admit defeat or being wrong on something, especially after just telling someone you would "explain simply and succinctly how you are wrong and haven't got the foggiest idea about what this discussion is about.", we all have our pride, but to sit here instead and fling vacuous accusations at me is just hilarious, but absolutely pathetic.

Get over yourself Kirby, this isn't the first time you've been wrong and it won't be the last either. As I said, if you really believe the law is open to interpretation then head over to an essentially lawless country like Somalia and see how great life is there. If not, adhere to fact and enjoy what is a fairly decent society.

If you've nothing else to say on the matter except fling personal crap at me in an effort to heal your own bruised ego then I bid you goodnight. I am sure that you're petty enough that even though you've actually nothing else to add, you'll still try to get the last word in. Tip: Don't bother. You've made a big enough clown of yourself already.

Darius.Tr · 26-01-2012 06:23AM

Well we were not talking about whats right and whats wrong, we discussing about the difference between copyright infringement and piracy...until we finaly decided that its pretty much one and the same thing.

quietriot · 26-01-2012 06:30AM

Darius.Tr wrote: »

Well we were not talking about whats right and whats wrong, we discussing about the difference between copyright infringement and piracy...until we finaly decided that its pretty much one and the same thing.

Yep, case closed really.

Kirby · 26-01-2012 07:38AM

Darius.Tr wrote: »

Well we were not talking about whats right and whats wrong, we discussing about the difference between copyright infringement and piracy...until we finaly decided that its pretty much one and the same thing.

You may have decided that, but many would disagree....myself included. Lumping them together might make it easier for some, but that doesn't make it right.

Are you really suggesting that some kid who sings a cover tune of Lady GaGa on youtube is the same as the guy who uses Torrents to allows everyone to download her latest album?

Really? It's "pretty much one and the same thing"?

AlmightyCushion · 26-01-2012 07:43AM

Kirby wrote: »

You may have decided that, but many would disagree....myself included. Lumping them together might make it easier for some, but that doesn't make it right.

Are you really suggesting that some kid who sings a cover tune of Lady GaGa on youtube is the same as the guy who uses Torrents to allows everyone to download her latest album?

Really? It's "pretty much one and the same thing"?

It's the same name, just different degrees of it. Whether someone steals a bag of crisps or a shipment of crisps worth millions it's still theft. Obviously, one is more serious than the other.

ACTA to be signed tomorrow by gov.

Comments