Acxtually,
In the depth of my cups, I ham forced to say that: Doc Blues us right/correct.
You Should NAME & SHAME all pirates/thieves.
The BIZ is suffering enough!............
As an ex thief myself (Having nevrer hurt anyone in the course of my biz or even stolen anything small) I can, and do, have the right to brand those petty,snivelling little thieves,as ASSHOLES>. {Pieces of Utter Shit.
Why?
-
George
Re: Another Why?
I think that just because somebody sells some legal stuff doesn't make him respectable. Selling any pirated stuff should disbar him.
However, the case of "out of print" material is another matter, as you suggest. If the owner is not selling the stuff, then he has effectively renounced his rights to it. Morally, if not legally.
However, the case of "out of print" material is another matter, as you suggest. If the owner is not selling the stuff, then he has effectively renounced his rights to it. Morally, if not legally.
-
(fyrfyter) John
Re: I have to say I am in total agreement... HOWEVER;
I'm totally in favour of name and shame...
I'm totally AGAINST the "do-gooders" that we have running our society - fed up of it...
But, I do think there is an issue regarding proof... What level of proof is going to be required and whom are we going to believe/choose not to believe?
I've always lived by the principle that certain things are right, certain things are wrong, some things are still wrong, but we all take our chances (speeding for example) - but when I'm caught "bang to rights", I'll hold my hands up and take it firly and squarely on the chin... However, if the courts were prepared to mlisten to the fella across the road who said "Yes m'lud - I saw the scoundrel speeding" - well, that's not bang to rights is it??? You see what I'm saying?
I think George has a very, very good point... Perhaps the decision should come from the Copyright holder - such as Marcus and Terry and Mr Steel et al... perhaps "offences" should be passed to them... then they can choose wqhether they want that supplier to continue to be listed... if they don't - then it is removed. 'Cos lets face it - if the supplier is despatching GENUINE copies then the Copyright holder is losing out... It does take away an element of false accusation, no copyright holder will want to see his sales dip and that is what would likely happen if a reputable, innocent party is made to suffer...
So I support George's proposal - empower the copyright holders with the information and let the Producers decide!
I'm totally AGAINST the "do-gooders" that we have running our society - fed up of it...
But, I do think there is an issue regarding proof... What level of proof is going to be required and whom are we going to believe/choose not to believe?
I've always lived by the principle that certain things are right, certain things are wrong, some things are still wrong, but we all take our chances (speeding for example) - but when I'm caught "bang to rights", I'll hold my hands up and take it firly and squarely on the chin... However, if the courts were prepared to mlisten to the fella across the road who said "Yes m'lud - I saw the scoundrel speeding" - well, that's not bang to rights is it??? You see what I'm saying?
I think George has a very, very good point... Perhaps the decision should come from the Copyright holder - such as Marcus and Terry and Mr Steel et al... perhaps "offences" should be passed to them... then they can choose wqhether they want that supplier to continue to be listed... if they don't - then it is removed. 'Cos lets face it - if the supplier is despatching GENUINE copies then the Copyright holder is losing out... It does take away an element of false accusation, no copyright holder will want to see his sales dip and that is what would likely happen if a reputable, innocent party is made to suffer...
So I support George's proposal - empower the copyright holders with the information and let the Producers decide!
Re: Another Why?
What about the (perhaps hypothetical) case of someone who sells stuff for which he pays for the rights to one producer who visits this forum and supports this site, but who also sells pirated stuff made by another producer, who may or may not visit this forum and support this site and who may or may not be British?
I suspect this may happen, but since I'm not privy to the business dealings of retailers, I can't prove it.
Is it OK to pirate non-British stuff but not British? (Rhetorical question.)
What is the difference between this site listing known or probable pirates and a producer granting rights to sell their product to a retailer who may be pirating someone else?
This is one of the reasons why I feel the issue is extremely complex.
Having said that, if we list a site known to pirate material made by a supporter of this site then please report the fact to us, and it may well be that we will remove the retailer from the list.
I suspect this may happen, but since I'm not privy to the business dealings of retailers, I can't prove it.
Is it OK to pirate non-British stuff but not British? (Rhetorical question.)
What is the difference between this site listing known or probable pirates and a producer granting rights to sell their product to a retailer who may be pirating someone else?
This is one of the reasons why I feel the issue is extremely complex.
Having said that, if we list a site known to pirate material made by a supporter of this site then please report the fact to us, and it may well be that we will remove the retailer from the list.
-
(fyrfyter) John
I think the answer to your question is simple...
If you KNOW a retailer is distributing pirated material - regardless of it's country of origin - you don't list them... that simple...
Pirated material is Pirated material.
However, the complexity is the element of PROOF... how do you KNOW it is happening...
And as I have said, it's a legal minefield to toss around accusations without being 100% certain of the reliability of the information...
The answer is to allow the Producers the right to have a listing removed... Pass all the information you receive onto the copyright holders and let them determine the action to be taken.
By stating on the site that you are under no obligation to place a link to a retailer and by stating that you may add or remove at your own discretion - without the need for reason or explanation - well, I think BGAFD will have taken the most reasonable course of action...
Pirated material is Pirated material.
However, the complexity is the element of PROOF... how do you KNOW it is happening...
And as I have said, it's a legal minefield to toss around accusations without being 100% certain of the reliability of the information...
The answer is to allow the Producers the right to have a listing removed... Pass all the information you receive onto the copyright holders and let them determine the action to be taken.
By stating on the site that you are under no obligation to place a link to a retailer and by stating that you may add or remove at your own discretion - without the need for reason or explanation - well, I think BGAFD will have taken the most reasonable course of action...
Re: I think the answer to your question is simple...
You do not seem to understand the points I've made and you are repeating yourself.
This thread is now closed, as hints about the complexities don't seem to be working, and the temptation to be specific is rising, but producers are welcome to e-mail us on this topic.
This thread is now closed, as hints about the complexities don't seem to be working, and the temptation to be specific is rising, but producers are welcome to e-mail us on this topic.