egafd.com

http://torrentfreak.com/golden-eye-hit- ... rd-130201/

http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/blog/re ... gal-action

That torrentfreak link is biased. I'd take it a bit more seriously if I read it on a non biased site.

I view that with the same distrust as Hickster had for me offering him a spot on my documentary to talk about "speculative invoicing"

I love the choice of picture too. Ben Dover in handcuffs. Its funny how one can disregard the sincerity of some news as propoganda by the way it is presented

Im sure a site called Torrentfreak would never see the side of those whose copyrights have been so gratuitously infringed

OEJ said: "That torrentfreak link is biased. I'd take it a bit more seriously if I read it on a non biased site."

Fair enough on your reading of the article. I provided it because it is news.

OEJ said: "Im sure a site called Torrentfreak would never see the side of those whose copyrights have been so gratuitously infringed"

Fair enough again. It's a bit like what I thought of "Porn Guard".

I haven't seen any article anywhere in the press or internet that says p2p downloading is illegal. Like any passtime, there are going to be enthusiasts.

OEJ Said: "I love the choice of picture too. Ben Dover in handcuffs. Its funny how one can disregard the sincerity of some news as propoganda by the way it is presented"

Unfortunately, much of the pictures of Mr Dover available is either too explicit to show and / or copyright and subject to copyright infringement claims !wink!

Unfortunately, much of the pictures of Mr Dover available is either too explicit to show and / or copyright and subject to copyright infringement claims

Ha ha Yes. Including that one !happy!


I haven't seen any article anywhere in the press or internet that says p2p downloading is illegal. Like any passtime, there are going to be enthusiasts.

Thats because it isnt, IF you are sharing legitimate files ie your own photos, videos for private use. I think its fair to say anyhting that has a watermarkmarket, copyright or brand lays claim to it not being used to give away to all and sundry. There is a difference when it is being shared privately on a one to one but you have to understand, if it is deemed to go about it the way it has been done then it was only a matter of time before those tackling anti piracy used the same logic back at those who did it.

The infringed see themselves as innocent as well.

I'm innocent. I paid for my product. i got the relevant papers signed to prove I own the works I am selling, I pay my taxes and reap no benefits from the state.

People who infringe my copyright flagrantly deny me earning from my investment to continue paying my way.

If I was selling oranges and someone came along and bought one assuming because he paid me a token he could also take the rest of my oranges and give it out to random passers by on the street, wouldnt you think that should be legally actionable?

OEJ said: "If I was selling oranges and someone came along and bought one assuming because he paid me a token he could also take the rest of my oranges and give it out to random passers by on the street, wouldnt you think that should be legally actionable?"

I assume that question is not aimed at me, but anyone who happens to read this thread. I figure that because you know that the job I do is prevention of copyright infringement.

I made the comment about legality of p2p because of the name "TorrentFreak". The website is not called "PircayFreeak", but because it had the word "Torrent" in the name, you automatically think piracy and call it bias.

If you want your argument to be taken seriously, it helps not to show a complete one track mind. Before you aim the same accusation at me (May be!), you would have seen from my previous posts that I agree with you that taking action against piracy is right, but like the Judge in the NPO hearing aluded to, targeting innocent people is wrong.

Two wrongs do not make it right.

It helps to be one track minded when trying to make your point to an onlooker. otherwise it would get confusing.

Its bad enough that stealing is confused with getting stuff for free as it is. it just means to me if you can explain your way out of any wrong therefore it must be ok.

I was merely responding to a point in your post.

Some people say to me, why do you even bother respond to anyone at all? Well Im of the beleif if you dont answer and leave points unchallenged must mean one of two things: You dont care OR the other point raised was the correct if left uncontested

Its like a judgement made in your absence.

Didn't realise this debate was still going on!

If we can agree that Home Sewing is killing fashion
and that
Home cooking is killing restaurants
and
Photography is actually kidnap

Then I can see that filesharing is stealing, as I dont agree with the others I cant agree with this premise.

also and I am not sure about this point, is copying a copyrighted work actually infringement or does the infringement come from selling it as that would be making money off of something you dont have the right to sell.

One of the great shames for me was when Youtube started enforcing copyright as it does, this killed a whole army of people who had produced home brew videos for classic songs, they weren't selling the songs, merely using the songs as a backdrop to the videos they had produced. This did not encourage creativity, it KILLED it.

@hickster

It is no use making a valid argument.

If the stringent laws that are in effect today were in place 50 years ago, then we would not have the knowledge of the creative artists we do know now. I'm sort of feeling happy that I experienced creative artists now, because the future will not have them.

Technology has always been a problem for creative artists. When scripted music was in it's pomp, radio and music players killed it. If it was left to the script music players at the time what was allowed to happen, we would be reading music off a piece of paper now instead of listening to it.

Unfortunately us consumers are regarded as pretty stupid. My extensive collection of original music CDs I have compiled over 25 years is collecting dust because it is not in the format I want now. What I have purchased at retail price cannot be format shifted to something I want as a consumer because of copyright laws.

If everyone had to make their own clothes then it wouldnt be very good for the fashion industry io giess but it would be great for the textiles industry

Read: Bad for those who need to make a return but great for those who want it free.

Whats the point you are trying to make?

By your reckoning , because it isnt stealing therefore its ok. If its not ok then it should be actionable. If it shouldnt be acting on then its perfectly legitimiate and thats why we've spiralled in a tailspin on this for over 200 posts

Here we go again.

Whats right?

Whats wrong?

If we could convolute an argument for murder no one would get convicted for being innocent