finshed now, think they may even be out of prison already

Bunch of thieving s the lot of you, cant understand why people would want to download illegally & then boast about not been caught. How is that any different to nicking a DVD out of a shop or buying pirate DVD's off the Walton street market?
Still wont be long before you get letters through the door for a court appearance

As member of BASCA, I just view this as theft.

yeah I really feel sorry for the multi-billion pound film industry!

Which is spread amongst many millions of people's wages that are affected by this.
If illegal downloading carries on in this vein and with the average bandwith increasing in the UK in the near future it will impact even further the income of ALL industries connected to the film industry not just the big filmaker companies.
Obviously those companies that have had to lay off workers because people are stealing money from them & having to tighten their belts even more..still it's okay because it's just a bit of downloading


Makes me so angry every time I come to Hull to see thousands of illegal DVDs openly been sold & nothing done about it

So just a single example then. How come a video cassette is far more expensive to make than a DVD yet the DVD costs far more?
I can make a DVD for around 20p. How much are they knocking them out at?
For years theyve had free reign to rip off the consumer at will. A monopoly on every movie you want to watch. Now the tables are turned they don't like it. I say to them....Diddums.......... And hoist that Jolly Roger up that mast!

Yes blank DVD's are now much cheaper in the shops than ever but add in ALL the costs in film making and I think you'll find it's a shed load more than your knock off Nigel DVD's

Yes but then they say how much they are grossing in the cinemas. If they droped the price of the DVD they would sell more then make more money. I have downloaded tv series that I have missed so I can catch up as not all are repeated. Does that make me a theif. I only ever watch the episode once then delete. Why would I want to watch a show more than once.

If you download anything free that the owner of the rights requires payment for, then it is copywrite theft. However hard-done by people might think they are, the law exists to protect the jobs of many thousands of people. Imagine coming to work to find that your bosses have employed an illegal Chinese slave immigrant to do your job because it's much cheaper and you're not needed anymore. Would you think that was fair. They don't pay tax, NI, Pension contributions etc and they are payed a lower wage and locked in a warehouse. So not only do they save money on your job but the person who has been employed in your place contributes nothing to society either - including the unemployment benefit that you would now need to claim.

On the flip side, its like Ferrari telling you off for speeding, when they built the car without limits in the first place. Why else would you require an 8mb download speed? After all they gave us the functionality to make it easier to download, therefore there partly to blame for not policing it in the first place.

Yes there are legitimate users out there and they require those speeds to download legally, other things or for on demand TV, but every time you enter a URL they know where you are and its not hard to work things out from there, they're not thick.

If you look at the current situation with the banks, people are now aware the banks should have never given that much credit out and therefore they are at fault too. Its the same with this, you can't stand and point at your customers to apportion blame unless you look long and hard in a mirror and say "I did everything I could to stop it", which if were honest, is a bit late, its not like they don't know what's coming down the ADSL cable these days!

They log everything, but decide to do something now "stable door, horse bolted"

(Now off my soap box...)

Well, as a discussion - please don't think I'm trying to lecture here - let's take it to an extreme. Do women exist so that weirdos can rape them? Is it the rape victim's fault that they are sexually assualted bacause they wear clothes that make them look "sexy"? No, they are raped because some people are prepared to carry out a violent crime. It is not the victim's fault. So is it with piracy. The victim should not have to police everyone, people should police themselves.

Your second point mentions "customers". If you steal from a shop you are not a customer, you are a shoplifter. The same basic rules apply here. Again why should the victim carry the blame here? If someone burgled your house would you blame yourself in any way or would you feel anger that someone broke everything they didn't want, stole everything that had value to you (including irreplaceable objects with sentimental attachments) and you know they will sell for a tenth of what you paid for it, defecated on the living-room carpet and then came back six months later to do the same again when you've replaced it all from your insurance claim?

I'm sure I've not been squeaky clean all of my life but I try very hard to get it right nowadays.

That is very idealistic though, if provocation and temptation were not prevalent in today's society to such a high level, we wouldn't need a police force or any regulatory bodies, but we do because its human nature to "bend rules", I think downloading music is a very different crime from some of what you describe above, yes theft it maybe, but poor old Madonna manages to get by on her pittance, as does anyone who's had a top 40 single these days.

I do know what you're saying, but I just believe the ISP should take more blame than they currently are, Virgin were sending warning letters at least a year ago, this for me is another demonstration of Karoo being too slow to act.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I am a member of BASCA (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors). This organisation spends a lot of time attempting to ensure that composers and authors receive monies for performance of their materials. Many "DJs" working in local pubs have a set-list made up of illegally acquired MP3s. They don't mind being paid for the gig but don't want to pay the very small fees to the PRS. Why is that? Remember, for every Madonna there are thousands of artists (artistes I should say but sounds a bit... you know) struggling to make a living without whom the whole music industry would become very mundane. If you're happy to listen to "stars" from talent shows backed by Simon Cowell et al and you're not interested in new creative talent then carry on doing what you are doing. Imagine no Buddy Holly, no Beatles, no Sex Pistols, no REM (please God), no Linkin Park, no System of a Down, no Cold Play, no Shinedown. The new versions of these bands might never emerge because the record compamies can't afford to bank-roll the illegal downloders. Believe me, it is crippling the music industry.

As I said I do know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with what your saying, but still if the ISP's wanted to stop it, we all know they could I don't believe they don't have the technology, could they not log a download from Limewire (example site), then realise where its coming from and stop connection to their servers from your IP? If you log into iTunes or Beatport etc, they should know this as being an approved source and allow the download.

You get approved retailers on-line for other goods, why not music?

They should block connections to TPB, Limewire and other such sources servers, it'd only take so long for their internal systems to be up to speed with genuine suppliers and on-line retailers, surely?

Do you see where I'm coming from even in some small part?

Not only do I see your point and agree that they are culpable in some part of aiding and abetting the illegal download of various media but I am really pleased that you have been so open and honest about your views. If you imagine that most of the people I discuss this with see it from the owner, performer and writer's perspective, it is really interesting to hear it from completely the opposite end of the spectrum.

I do, in a way sympathise with some of what you are trying to get across.
BUT
You do seem to infer that in the days before the 'record industry', music didn't exist.

hehe - before the record industry it was through the sales of sheet music and live performance that people made their living. Having been personally ripped off by a particular record company (i.e. never receiving one penny for anything sold or played on air) I don't necessarily think that they are whiter than white. But I do believe that until something can be done to ensure that all people pay in some way for fashion goods, movies, music, video games etc only the super-companies will prevail. It's the small independents that change the world and they are the ones most squeezed although the big boys are certainly not immune.

As you say, its aiding and abetting.

If you're "look out" for your shoplifting mate in Sainsburys, you get busted too!

d'oh - I'll have to cut back on the Imperial Leather

If they are giving warnings before they cut people off then what is the problem.

You simply stop downloading the stuff, its not rocket science is it and the ISPs have a legal obligation to prevent this sort of thing.

Stop bleating about being ripped off by the REAL STUFF price wise, remember you can serve time in prison for it as well as get a very large fine. Cutting people off from the net is the least of the actions they could take, theft is theft.

The music industry has re-aligned itself to meet peoples needs and demands. Providing music to be downloaded legally at a reduced price compared with hard media. They saw the tide had turned and made sure that they were still making money from it.

The film industry has yet to do this. People want to be able to download films and stream them or store them on a hard disk. Until the film industry embraces this rather than trying to dictate how films are watched, then there will still be lots of illiegal downloading.

I have Sky Multiroom which means that Sky Player is available to me. As I take the train to London every week I sometimes get the chance to watch a movie on the way there and one on the way back (if I'm not working). If it's box-office I have to pay a download price and if it's basic movies then I don't (because I already pay for the movie package). Other programmes are available such as sports, documentaties, comedies etc. Unfortunately, it's against their rules to watch any of it outside the UK.

I'm talking more about options really. As an example:

Girls Aloud release a new album, which I'm desparate to get my hands on. I can legally do the following:

Buy the album on CD at a premium
Download the album to my pc/mobile at a reduced cost
Listen to the album for free via spotify (which may convince me to buy it)

Bruce Willis has a new film out so I have to do the following:

Go to the cinema to watch it and pay again if I want to watch it again
Wait 6 months to buy/Rent it on DVD/Blu Ray
Wait a year to watch it on Sky

I want to download it now and watch it on my PC or media streamer and I will gladly pay to do this, but I can't.

I'm not advocating illegal downlownloading but the film industry needs to get with the times and listen to what people want.

I think it is slightly different with movies in that they do make a lot of money at the box office. So if they immediately released fims for download etc, it would severely dent one of their major revenue earning opportunities. Once a movie has moved out of the box office I think that they could then look at alternative ways of distribution - not sure what the cable companies and Sky would feel about that though because they have various agreements with tthe film makers/distributors to show movies on a pay-per-view basis before DVD release (I think). I suppose the question is, "how many people would download legally for a small sum who do not now pay if it meant they got access to movies sooner than they do now?" and "would that number be sufficient to cover the losses of not distributing through their other tried-and-tested channels first?"