Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?

[bpaw]

A really interesting question I have to ask is:

If you know an adult material Copyright holder has taken legal action against alleged infringers, and suggests a settlement amount will stop potential Court proceedings, would this prove a negative influence on you purchasing their material?

I ask the question because of a recent survey relating to music piracy found that people who admit to illegally downloading music actually spend more on music than those who don?t download music illegally.

The Independent Newspaper article about this is here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 12776.html

So it may be suggested that taking action against alleged illegal downloaders would actually be targeting customers. I would imagine that these customers would take their custom elsewhere if a music producer took legal action.

If your next 30 quid or more desperately needs to be let loose to buy your next DVD, would you be happy to purchase from a producer who you know has actively pursued alleged downloaders, or would you look elsewhere?

[one eyed jack]

If a recrd company took you to court it wouldnt necessarily stop you from liking an artist on their label

It does make sense that downloaders would spend money on music but I wouldnt believe for a second that that every downloader was like that.

I know people who have a huge library of files burned on discs from downloading and have no intention of ever buying anything ever again whilst it is available for free on the internet.

I would think the Inland Revenue has felt the biggest hit from piracy by all the companies that have lost revenue from sales over the years.

[one eyed jack]

If a music producer took action against you and you knew you were guilty of the copyright infringement isnt that known in the trade as "a fair cop guvnor?"

[bpaw]

Thanks OEJ.

Maybe illegal downloaders have an all-round appetite for music / films / software etc.

You will have both extremes. Some will download only and compile a nice hoard of media, and others will only pay for what they want.

Is there a middle ground? Do people pay for the artist they like, but illegal download the odd thing they like for free? Or do people pay for various artists work they like, and illegal download the rest for free?

My guess is it quite a bit of everything. But some things can influence a consumers decision.

The alternate question could be are purchasers of media also illegal downloaders?

[bpaw]

Thanks again, OEJ!

I think we are in concert together as regards the ?fair cop guvnor?? scenario.

But, could a music producer taking such actions dissuade more upstanding people in society from purchasing their material?

[one eyed jack]

I dont think so as they are not infringing why would they care?

We are living in a very strange time where people justify getting things for free because they can get it for free

Im sure I read a comment about a newspaper lying on a bench for free analogy recently....

If you saw a car with the keys still in the ignition and the door open, does that give you the right to jump in and drive it away?

Before you think, more fool that driver for letting his car be taken away so easily, what makes anyone think it wasnt left there because it was used in a crime?

What if there was a body in the boot?

If you got caught in that car, and was stopped with that body in the boot you would have some explaining to do wouldnt you?

I see piracy the same way but many seem to think its ok but if something is done about it then its suddenly not ok to protect your interests or seek compensation for infringing the rights of the copyright holder as it is being used outside of the remit of its license which many seem to ignore.

[Bob Singleton]

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

As an example, I've found many people who have used my photos of bands without paying me for the rights to use them. The excuse... well it was on a web site so in the "public domain" and in their minds, everything in the public domain is free for them to download and use as they see fit... even when it has my copyright logo on it (in some cases I've even found some where they've cropped the shot to get rid of the copyright logo and claimed it as their own!)

I think it's true that some illegal downloaders of music also spend a lot on music, but there are just as many (if not more) who download for free without the intention of ever paying for anything.

[bpaw]

The stealing a car analogy is an actual depriving someone of a possession and is regarded as a crime, but I take your analogy.

On the flip side, if the car was a Ford Mondeo and Ford written a letter to the thief and demanded compensation, would that put people off buying Ford cars?

There is an example of Atari who took similar action against alleged infringers and they pulled out claiming the negative publicity and the fact that they were targeting their customers was harming their sales.

As for photo copyright, is it because it is much easier? To download music / films etc requires software and effort, whilst pictures are just there. A right click and save and you have it, and maybe without any thought of copyright.

I know of Getty Images taking similar legal action, but I don't think they get any news coverage. If it was public knowledge of Getty doing this, would people be less likely to purchase their images?

[Bob Singleton]

bpaw wrote:

> The stealing a car analogy is an actual depriving someone of a
> possession and is regarded as a crime, but I take your analogy.
>
> On the flip side, if the car was a Ford Mondeo and Ford written
> a letter to the thief and demanded compensation, would that put
> people off buying Ford cars?
>
> There is an example of Atari who took similar action against
> alleged infringers and they pulled out claiming the negative
> publicity and the fact that they were targeting their customers
> was harming their sales.
>
> As for photo copyright, is it because it is much easier? To
> download music / films etc requires software and effort, whilst
> pictures are just there. A right click and save and you have
> it, and maybe without any thought of copyright.
>
> I know of Getty Images taking similar legal action, but I don't
> think they get any news coverage. If it was public knowledge
> of Getty doing this, would people be less likely to purchase
> their images?


Your car analogy regarding Ford isn't that good, actually. Someone stealing a car is the same as someone, say, breaking into someone's house and stealing a DVD... it's got nothing to do with the "manufacturer". If I steal a car I'm not actually depriving the manufacturer, as they've already made their money when they sold it to a dealer (who then made money selling to a customer etc.) What you're doing is depriving the owner, not Ford.

Copying a film and then either charging people to view it or making it available for free is, on the other hand, depriving the original producer of an income stream, just as stealing a song or a photo deprives the artist and the photographer.

As for Getty, if they take action against those that steal their images, it wouldn't stop people using their services. The vast bulk of their income comes from news media who need to use their images (and those of other similar agencies). If it became widely known that they and PA, Corbis, Reuters etc took legal action (and won substantial damages) it might actually help get into the minds of some that they can't just steal images.

The major problem is the way the authorities deal with theft. Steal a car and the police will take some action. Steal a song, a photo or a video clip and the police will tell you it's not a criminal matter (unless the theft involves thousands of songs, clips or photos) and to deal with it through the civil courts. That's where the real problem lies. Until the theft of even just one song or photo or clip is seen as a criminal matter, people will continue to download stuff "for free" because they know they can without harm to themselves.

[Hickster]

I think there is more to this that we are missing, I and I am sure others on my side of the argument feel similar, that truly IF someone emailed me and said, "I have downloaded this game, film,music, and I have received a legal letter demanding payment", I would say "Sorry I cant help you, you need to seek Legal advice", END OF DISCUSSION.

I have done this on a few occasions, where someone has emailed me and I have actually done a websearch for their name and found that they are into the band or scene of which they have been accused of downloading.

What I am concerned with is the high level of innocent people who were caught up in the Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine, Gallant Macmillan. legal action.

ACS:LAW and Davenport Lyons it has been proven KNEW they were targeting innocent people, and just continued, those people were identified at least for ACS:LAW by NG3 Systems headed by Alireza Torabi, the SAME person who is now identifying alleged infringers for Golden Eye International/Ben Dover Productions.

It is said that the definition of insanity is carrying out the same action and expecting a different result!

Just one to throw into the mix, If I go and watch a film like AVATAR, (as I did) and find it a stinking pile of CRAP, (as I did) should I not be permitted to get my money back? If not why not? it seems that the film industry and the game industry can launch misleading adverts regarding their product and yet get to keep the money of the general public. I find this outrageous, and am sure this leads to a "Try before you buy" attitude which exists in the minds of a significant minority of those who download files

The question really is would producers happily have innocent people targeted as an "alternative revenue stream", as they are not selling enough of their product?

For me ANYONE who signs up with the Golden Eye International/Ben Dover Productions action must care little for innocent people who will get caught up, they must have weighed up the benefits of crushing those people in the process of what Jerry Barnett phrased, " an alternative (temporary) way to make some money"

And that is REALLY what this is about, let us not pretend this is about stopping Piracy, this is about the money. or as Chief Master Winegarten said of ACS:LAW/M.E.D.I.A CAT, "[this is] not a moral crusade, you are doing this?because you want the money.?

We will know for sure when Golden Eye take a case to court, but of course they will never do that.

Did I tell you all that Julian Becker sent an email to ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley, questioning him why he was dropping some cases? Ahh thought so!