egafd.com

Bob Singleton wrote:

> The problem with the internet is that almost everyone believes
> everything should be and is "free" to download.


Quite, the number of times I've had a version of the following conversation is astonishing.

Guy: "Does anyone know where I can get a copy of [software] for free?

Me: "I believe PC World has some good shoplifting opportunities"

Guy: "Don't be daft, I don't want to steal it, jus download it"

Hmm but surely PC world would have the packaging and the manual? that would be actual theft as you were stealing something tangible and physical, if however I had an advanced 3D printer that could replicate that product leaving the original in its place, then where would the "Stealing" or "Theft" be?

Hickster wrote:

> Hmm but surely PC world would have the packaging and the
> manual? that would be actual theft as you were stealing
> something tangible and physical, if however I had an advanced
> 3D printer that could replicate that product leaving the
> original in its place, then where would the "Stealing" or
> "Theft" be?


You'll find that you're purchasing a licence to use the intellectual property contained within, not the physical. You'd be staling the fee due on the licence to use.

Well that is VERY different to what you said. You cant shoplift a license can you? Forestalling is NOT shoplifting.

Maybe I take a look at a piece of software and like it and buy it, or find it crap and delete it from my HDD, their is no theft in that, indeed that is proper customer services, only those who want to entrap people with inferior products would support a license BEFORE you looked at the product.

My argument is merely how is it right that I cannot get my money back if I find a film or a game CRAP! If it were food, or a coffee, I can but a Film or Game or software that failed to deliver? No refund.

Bob Singleton wrote:



>
> The major problem is the way the authorities deal with theft.
> Steal a car and the police will take some action.

Not in my experience, unless you think getting a crime number for the insurance counts!

@Bob Singleton ? I know it wasn?t a good analogy. I was just continuing the analogy of OEJ and bringing in an example of my original question. Never mind!

Although I can?t see the logic in saying downloading is stealing. Stealing is depriving someone of a physical possession. I do understand it is depriving income from producers if someone makes the choice of downloading rather than buying. In some ways, it is worse than stealing because peoples jobs and livelihoods could be at risk.

Some opinions here and other threads have been in favour of taking legal action against alleged infringers. So why not? Take an alleged infringer to Court to protect intellectual property. If a burglar stole possessions from a home, that person ends up in Court.

The actual action that has always been taken is to come to some financial compensation agreement. This is using a pre-action protocol relating to intellectual property which its sole use is for parties to come to an agreement and not take matters to Court. In essence, this is a good means to sort out individual matters so the Courts won?t be inundated with cases, but it doesn?t set case law and ensure intellectual property is protected.

The value for money element is interesting. My suggestion that downloaders are generally consumers of all types of media may give an insight in the psyche of such people. Games producers will develop a game which provides multi-dimensional entertainment. Not just the original game, there is add-ons, on-line gaming, enthusiasts free add-ons, upgrades etc. Many of these games come with a shareware / limited / trial version for free to try. Like for like in all types of media, game producers give free-to-try and more value for money.

As I mentioned earlier, are purchasers of media also downloaders?

If this thread was a custard pie fight it would be a lot of fun! !happy!

Rather than skirt around the fine edges of right and wrong, copyright infringement is wrong. We are all in agreement of that but it seem (present company excluded of course) that many people try to muddy the waters with their justifications of violating the copyright owners license.

Its just hard to not see why the owners would take action through legal channels. It seems to be the case who can argue the best toss to get ahead and its just spiralling into madness that becomes about semantics rather than right or wrong

One only has t take a look around to see this madness in effect already

Hi OEJ

You really do break the perception of what a Pornographer is, you are young, handsome and well articulate, with high intelligence, however please DO NOT, confuse this with flattery, it is mere observation, and DO NOT allow it to skew your thinking on whatever I say!

The thing I really don't understand, is this, If you believe I have infringed your copyright, then take me to Court. There simple really isn't it?

IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE BEEN INFRINGED GO TO COURT.

There, simple, that is NOT for you OEJ but for the other Producers jumping up and down about people "stealing" their content.

What is truly objectionable about this kind of system is that as the House of Lords observed, there is an element of Blackmail. The claimants are saying, "You have infringed our copyright, and we want you to pay a compromise agreement of ?700, OR face going to Court and losing the case where it will cost you thousands"

What did Golden Eye International do when faced with the opportunity of taking someone who they accused of infringing their copyright? They refused! Now why did they refuse, don't forget, Becker has NO issue with NG3Systems data monitoring, so as far as he is concerned it is a water tight case, so why didn't he do it? Well he says, (Through his Barrister, please put down any hot drinks you may be holding), he can't take a person to Court as that would be ....TO EXPENSIVE.. Like WTF!!

So as I see it, Golden Eye International, are NOT interested in going to Court and having their "Evidence" tested because they know they HAVE NO EVIDENCE, it is all a smokescreen.

Far easier to take 3000 people for ?500 than risk getting ?10,000 from one and finding the Judge saying "Get the F$%K out of my Courtroom you shyster"

We will see, I would put money on GEIL never testing their "Evidence" in Court though

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head about taking people to court Hickster but then someone has found a way to play the game differently and it seems a lot of people are objecting to it because its levelling the playing field in playing dirty

If it was really that immoral Im sure the courts and O2 would just ignore it but they seem to be complicit in it happening therefore its legal

I've said it before but in any crossfire or war there are always casualties and I would rather not see anyone not guilty get caught with a ricochet shot to the face but it does all rather look like gloves off stuff and I think a lot of producers are secretly laying in wait to see how this turns out because as individuals they cannot afford to persue individual cases but as the americans are oft fond of saying: Somethings gotta give.

The world cant keep going on this way if it is to function on revenues owed and businesses moving forward.

Im sure the eyes of the commercial world are watching this to see the outcome. Its certainly ruffled a fewfeathers I grant you that.

@OEJ - It is admirable for you to say that you would rather not see anyone not guilty get such a letter. Unfortunately, I would imagine that the other producers don?t have the same thought, and don?t have the understanding of the technical issues that you have.

This is pretty much the idea behind my question. When the GEIL letters go out, there will inevitably be the media stories of innocent people who receive one. This will surely be bad publicity.

A question to those who have strong views on copyright protection. Part of intellectual property involves designs and patents. I see a fair bit of copying of designs from adult producers in the form of XXX in the design of X-Factor, Ben In Black in the design of Men In Black and Top Rear in the design of Top Gear.

An example of a lawsuit in the US come from Ben And Jerrys Homemade Holdings:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... tudio.html

Is this acceptable?