UK anti-piracy action set to begin

[LAwLz]

What I'm referring to is the fact that they're going to spend money (Can't get exact quote) to promote services(I thought it was make) that are good for accessing this stuff legally. And I meant in the way I imagine it should work based on what they've said

They are spending 3.5 million pounds (slightly below 6 million dollars) on sending out spam emails basically.

Most people interested in movies already know about things like NetFlix. They don't use it for other reasons (for example region locks, other kinds of DRM, cost). Telling them to use legal services they already know about won't do anything.

I think they are flushing 3.5 million pounds down the toilet with this. That money would have been far better spent funding some deals with movie and record labels to remove some region restrictions instead.

[BalloonZaptor]

They are spending 3.5 million pounds (slightly below 6 million dollars) on sending out spam emails basically.

Most people interested in movies already know about things like NetFlix. They don't use it for other reasons (for example region locks, other kinds of DRM, cost). Telling them to use legal services they already know about won't do anything.

I think they are flushing 3.5 million pounds down the toilet with this. That money would have been far better spent funding some deals with movie and record labels to remove some region restrictions instead.

Yeah when I originally read it I thought they were spending that money on creating a service which would be much better. And now that I think about it a lot of pirates probably know about all available services. So yeah they're basically wasting money. I doubt it would change anything

[Davehaslanded]

The biggest issue I have with distribution is timed exclusives or network broadcast planning. Four example, I am a big fan of agents of shield, Chicago fire, Chicago PD, the Big Bang thory and will probably watch agent Peggy Carter when it launches. Now within 12 hours in each programme airing, there are reviews and spoilers all over the Internet. In the UK, we sometimes have to wait for six months to a year before a programme is broadcast legally and national channels. For example, I am waiting for the new series of Chicago PD to start in America. Yet only yesterday I saw an advert on British TV for the premiere of the hit US show, Chicago PD. it is a joke. And I honestly believe, this is the reason that shows like breaking bad on Netflix will replace standard television broadcasts.

Only got the finale of how I Met your mother this Thursday just gone.

[Trik'Stari]

My opinion is thus,

 

The world operates off of fiat currency, which essentially means currency that has no actual true value other than that which we place on it, as such

 

Pirated content is therefore paid for, for exactly the value that the people downloading it have placed on it.

 

Bazinga bank running bitches

 

Edit: also the argument can be made that it helps people circumvent immoral things like the UK's ridiculous censorship laws (nothing against the UK, I find all censorship to be a basic infringement of human rights. am merely using the UK as an example because they have a national ban on the video "all is full of love" by Bjork, tried to show it to a guildmate, turns out that video was illegal in the UK)

[Fred Castellum]

Dear governments of the world, please listen. Ahem,

 

YOU

CANNOT

FIGHT

THE

INTERNET

YOU

WILL

ALWAYS

LOSE.

 

That is all.

They don't believe so hence why their still trying lol. 

[Trik'Stari]

They don't believe so hence why their still trying lol. 

Yes and it's quite amusing. I can only hope some hacker group does a denial of service attack or something in response to this.

Which is what needs to happen to any entity fighting net neutrality as well.

[Fred Castellum]

Yes and it's quite amusing. I can only hope some hacker group does a denial of service attack or something in response to this.

Which is what needs to happen to any entity fighting net neutrality as well.

Denial of service isn't severe enough in my opinion. They should do some serious data corruption stuff. 

[LukeTim]

My opinion is thus,

 

The world operates off of fiat currency, which essentially means currency that has no actual true value other than that which we place on it, as such

 

Pirated content is therefore paid for, for exactly the value that the people downloading it have placed on it.

 

Bazinga bank running bitches

 

Edit: also the argument can be made that it helps people circumvent immoral things like the UK's ridiculous censorship laws (nothing against the UK, I find all censorship to be a basic infringement of human rights. am merely using the UK as an example because they have a national ban on the video "all is full of love" by Bjork, tried to show it to a guildmate, turns out that video was illegal in the UK)

 

Did you really just say Bazinga?

 

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

It's great and all, but I'm sure people will be able to find a way around it. They always do.

 

Personally, I think we have more important issues in the UK, but that's just me.

 

EDIT - Linksy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28374457

You dont need to find a way around it. You just delete the emails (if you get any).

 

Why do I get the feeling that this law is shady and misleading?

What law?

 

Dear governments of the world, please listen. Ahem,

 

YOU

CANNOT

FIGHT

THE

INTERNET

YOU

WILL

ALWAYS

LOSE.

 

That is all.

They arent fighting. They are sending emails to the account holder. Nothing happens if they ignore it.

[.:MARK:.]

Companies are better off with me pirating their content. Why?

Well if I pirate the content and consume it, I am aware of what the thing is like and can speak to others and spread word. Increasing the popularity and spread of the content.

If I can't pirate the content, I won't pay to consume it and they will not have the benefit of me spreading the word.

 

So what is it then?

 

They should implement better ways of distribution of content, and they should not think of every download as damages to the company.

It's digital content and isn't theft of physical property, so the creator still has possession of it.

 

Either way, I wont pay for it, and they are better off with me pirating it rather than not seeing it.

[chilicheeseburger]

Did I get this right, you can pirate whatever you want and all you get is a warning email / letter?

lol.

[Loe]

 

What law?

 

I meant the scheme thingy ( the emails that this post is about )

[mr moose]

They are spending 3.5 million pounds (slightly below 6 million dollars) on sending out spam emails basically.

Most people interested in movies already know about things like NetFlix. They don't use it for other reasons (for example region locks, other kinds of DRM, cost). Telling them to use legal services they already know about won't do anything.

I think they are flushing 3.5 million pounds down the toilet with this. That money would have been far better spent funding some deals with movie and record labels to remove some region restrictions instead.

 

How much does it cost to send an email in England?  Think I am in the wrong business. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

i love how they handled this in a pretty good way, For once. I'd say, Nice Going UK

[Murdoch]

Edit: also the argument can be made that it helps people circumvent immoral things like the UK's ridiculous censorship laws (nothing against the UK, I find all censorship to be a basic infringement of human rights. am merely using the UK as an example because they have a national ban on the video "all is full of love" by Bjork, tried to show it to a guildmate, turns out that video was illegal in the UK)

 

What are you talking about dude? That video is not banned in the UK.

 

Edit: You can literally count on one hand the amount of films / videos that are banned in the UK.

[Trik'Stari]

What are you talking about dude? That video is not banned in the UK.

 

Edit: You can literally count on one hand the amount of films / videos that are banned in the UK.

I tried sending a link of that video (a couple years ago) to a guild mate living in the UK and it came up as banned/blocked. Was only using them as an example, not saying anything specific about the UK, just making the point that p2p "piracy" can be a good way to circumvent censorship, which in my opinion is always a good thing.

 

 

Did you really just say Bazinga?

 

Yes...yes I did.

[Murdoch]

I tried sending a link of that video (a couple years ago) to a guild mate living in the UK and it came up as banned/blocked. Was only using them as an example, not saying anything specific about the UK, just making the point that p2p "piracy" can be a good way to circumvent censorship, which in my opinion is always a good thing.

 

That's almost certainly a licensing issue and nothing to do with censorship.

 

I kinda feel like I should advise you to learn the difference between the two.

[Trik'Stari]

That's almost certainly a licensing issue and nothing to do with censorship.

 

I kinda feel like I should advise you to learn the difference between the two.

Meh. The point is, that some things are censored when they shouldn't be and p2p can circumvent that.

[JAKEBAB]

So they send it 4 times and if u ignore them they do nothing? lol rightio what is the point? (not complaining i wouldnt care if i got warnings lol)

[Murdoch]

So they send it 4 times and if u ignore them they do nothing? lol rightio what is the point? (not complaining i wouldnt care if i got warnings lol)

 

That wasn't the plan. The plan was for punitive measures to be taken after a certain number of warnings i.e. after 3 letters you'd have your internet access severely restricted.

 

What they ended up with is a completely toothless version of what was passed in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Part of the reason there's no punitive measures is because the European Court of Justice has ruled that Internet access is a basic human right, and ISPs can't be forced to restrict access. Along with the fact that ISPs fought our corner and demonstrated the original plans were unworkable.

[ZeroBreaker]

Meh. The point is, that some things are censored when they shouldn't be and p2p can circumvent that.

Dude, your argument only makes sense if your examples make sense. The UK has so far been ok with stuff like censorship and such, implementing it only when it makes sense and no alternative is available (eg. military information, secret documents, etc). Our biggest issue in media is American companies blocking content they own for the UK (because...reasons?). There is a massive difference between american companies blocking stuff and the UK government blocking stuff.

[Trik'Stari]

Dude, your argument only makes sense if your examples make sense. The UK has so far been ok with stuff like censorship and such, implementing it only when it makes sense and no alternative is available (eg. military information, secret documents, etc). Our biggest issue in media is American companies blocking content they own for the UK (because...reasons?). There is a massive difference between american companies blocking stuff and the UK government blocking stuff.

Sigh....... missing the point completely, and the UK does have censorship laws, as does the US, both of which are wrong and idiotic.

 

Censorship can be circumvented by p2p networking, that was my point.

 

Really regretting even bringing up the UK because they're just as fanatical about outside criticism as we are in the US.

[ZeroBreaker]

Sigh....... missing the point completely, and the UK does have censorship laws, as does the US, both of which are wrong and idiotic.

 

Censorship can be circumvented by p2p networking, that was my point.

 

Really regretting even bringing up the UK because they're just as fanatical about outside criticism as we are in the US.

 

...Seriously? Have you ever met someone from the UK? Clearly not. We are the first to admit and even exaggerate our faults. British culture as a whole is far more pessimistic than any other western country I have seen.

 

And your point would have been better served with an appropiate example, that was all i said. What you mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. I agree to an extent with your point, but without a proper example your argument falls flat.

[Trik'Stari]

...Seriously? Have you ever met someone from the UK? Clearly not. We are the first to admit and even exaggerate our faults. British culture as a whole is far more pessimistic than any other western country I have seen.

 

And your point would have been better served with an appropiate example, that was all i said. What you mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. I agree to an extent with your point, but without a proper example your argument falls flat.

Yeah everyone knows that about the British, you'd have noticed that I said outside criticism.

 

And now my argument lies in tatters because our allies have no tact.

[ZeroBreaker]

Yeah everyone knows that about the British, you'd have noticed that I said outside criticism.

 

And now my argument lies in tatters because our allies have no tact.

 

Dude, i said we are the first to admit our faults - do you sincerely believe the british will attack themselves and not allow criticism from the outside? Anything true about the british i.e. politics, accent, yorkshire is fair game, but when you make up shit you will get called out on it. Your argument was flawed because you lacked appropiate evidence. There is the one and only problem. If you could pull out your head from your rear end and actually read and comprehend what I said, you would understand immediately that I was trying to help you.

There is PLENTY of actual evidence which shows circumventing censorship is necessary and useful. Third world countries, Cuba, Vietnam. When you have innapropiate evidence, it is worse than having no evidence, because it's as if you are saying 'theres nowt really i can use to prove this, so... ill just write this bullshit and hope no one has more than three brain cells'.

While I assume your mistake was an honest mistake, it costs you the validity of your statement.

Your 'allies' on this issue aren't with you because you are reducing the integrity of the argument with false evidence. If you went out in public saying that, you would be humilliated and it would serve as an example for opponents to point at and say 'see, look how dumb they are. that's how dumb their argument is'.

 

Please either admit your fault and learn from the mistake, or never EVER become a spokesperson of any capacity. Cheers.