Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eircom to cut broadband over illegal downloads - READ POST#1 WARNING
Comments
-
-
FloatingVoter wrote: »It started in the middle of last month. Still ongoing AFAIK. By the time IRMA have paid Michael McDowell's legal fees (he's representing them), it'll be interesting to see if they're still around.
Who - IRMA or UPC?
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Piracy is a natural response to excessive pricing on behalf of the big wigs, be they in the film, game, or music industry.
If you buy an over-priced product the greed merchants win, the artists survive, and the consumer loses.
If you pirate something you gain at the expense of the others.
In my simple view of things the answer is not bull headed legal proceedings, or making an example of people. Reduce the price of the product to a reasonable level and a majority of people who appreciate it will buy it. I bought Lord of the Rings a few years ago for 35 euro - which in hindsight was crazy. But a new release for 10 and an old film for 5 would be reasonable. There will always be that 10-20% who want something for nothing, but that's always going to be the case.
That makes no sense, what your saying is that if you or the general public see's a product as too expensive they are within their rights to rob it in order to force the prices down!!!!!?????? Are you serious!
Lets list things that are generally seen as "too expensive" by joe soap...
Porsche's
Fabergé eggs
Penthouses in downtown Dubai
Photo shoots with Elizabeth Hurley!
These things would all cost an arm and a leg so in line with your thinking I am within my rights to "force" the cost down by taking what I want for a while!!! rofl. While I so so so utterly wish your logic was sound.... I simply cant agree , sadly.
0 -
-
hightower1 wrote: »That makes no sense, what your saying is that if you or the general public see's a product as too expensive they are within their rights to rob it in order to force the prices down!!!!!?????? Are you serious!
Lets list things that are generally seen as "too expensive" by joe soap...
Porsche's
Fabergé eggs
Penthouses in downtown Dubai
Photo shoots with Elizabeth Hurley!
These things would all cost an arm and a leg so in line with your thinking I am within my rights to "force" the cost down by taking what I want for a while!!! rofl. While I so so so utterly wish your logic was sound.... I simply cant agree , sadly.
I'm not sure how you understood that from my post. I suggested a causal relation between over-priced products and piracy. The terms right or wrong weren't mentioned, nor did I say that people are within their rights to steal what they don't feel like paying for. You introduced these concepts.
What I did say is that people are more likely to steal what they cannot afford or what they see as providing poor value for money, and that a possible solution for this is to change the the consumer's perception/ability to buy a product by lowering the price.
Make sure to dust yourself off when your done rofling!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
hightower1 wrote: »That makes no sense, what your saying is that if you or the general public see's a product as too expensive they are within their rights to rob it in order to force the prices down!!!!!?????? Are you serious!
Lets list things that are generally seen as "too expensive" by joe soap...
Porsche's
Fabergé eggs
Penthouses in downtown Dubai
Photo shoots with Elizabeth Hurley!
These things would all cost an arm and a leg so in line with your thinking I am within my rights to "force" the cost down by taking what I want for a while!!! rofl. While I so so so utterly wish your logic was sound.... I simply cant agree , sadly.
That's silly, those items are physical actual things. Music is sound. You can't download a porche.Just a passenger
0 -
-
I'm not sure how you understood that from my post.
Ehhhhh....Piracy is a natural response to excessive pricing on behalf of the big wigs
Thats very clear tbh that your opinion is that copyright infringement is a normal response to perceived high prices of a commodity.That's silly, those items are physical actual things. Music is sound. You can't download a porche.
Are you joking? Honestly, are you? I cant tell.
If not your reasoning is absurd, simply because something has no physical substance does not mean that ownership cannot apply to it.
please see the term intellectual property. Its a fairly well known term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property0 -
-
Are you joking? Honestly, are you? I cant tell.
If not your reasoning is absurd, simply because something has no physical substance does not mean that ownership cannot apply to it.
please see the term intellectual property. Its a fairly well known term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property[/QUOTE]
No I'm not joking. Should the people who live outside Croke park be moved away from their homes when concerts are on so that they won't be able to hear the music or should they be charged to sit outside their homes? Same at other venues.
I went to Madonna in Slane some years back with the Missus and we had no tickets, got to hear it all and had a great time from the road overlooking the concert. The copyright thing is a load of legal bull to enable corporations and lawyers to gain as much as possible on someone elses back, the artist.
Music was around a long time before copyright and it was shared amongst people at great delight of everyone - composer, singer and audience.
If I play my stereo loud and the neighbours hear it, am I sharing the misic illegally.
What is "personal use" Can I play music I purchased and invite my friends to listen to it? CanI take it outside my home?
Should we get permission from the Minister for the Enviornment if we want to record a bird singing?
As I said before music is sound it is not a physical piece. Its not stealing if someone is sharing.Just a passenger
0 -
hightower1 wrote: »That makes no sense, what your saying is that if you or the general public see's a product as too expensive they are within their rights to rob it in order to force the prices down!!!!!?????? Are you serious!
Lets list things that are generally seen as "too expensive" by joe soap...
Porsche's
Fabergé eggs
Penthouses in downtown Dubai
Photo shoots with Elizabeth Hurley!
These things would all cost an arm and a leg so in line with your thinking I am within my rights to "force" the cost down by taking what I want for a while!!! rofl. While I so so so utterly wish your logic was sound.... I simply cant agree , sadly.
People build "Kit Cars" all the time, you don't need permission from the original manufacturer to copy their design unless you are doing it for financial gain.
If I buy an apple and keep the seeds then am I not allowed to sow the seeds to grow a tree to eat the apples? In the legal and copyright world the 1st apple grower (GOD) has copyright over the tree.Just a passenger
0 -
-
Pink Floyds manager made some interesting comments regarding copyright-Within the last decade there’s been no shortage of opinions regarding illegal music downloads. The points of view were voiced by everyone – from ordinary citizens to record labels and mainstream artists, because everyone in our digital environment is now affected by the issue. The mix now includes the manager of Pink Floyd.
Peter Jenner, Pink Floyd Band Manager expressed some interesting comments at a Westminster eForum on the issue of music in today’s digital world.
His first idea is that the online world pushes the marginal cost of a digital music file to an essential zero, and that is simply an inescapable reality. The reason for this is the copyright law or a process of copying the law, i.e. trying to apply the law aimed at physical piracy to the digital one. Peter Jenner compare it to trying to develop airline legislation on the basis of rail network.
He is 100% right. Today, thanks to Cyberlockers, P2P and social networks, the cost of distributing a sample or a whole work is monetarily zero. It can’t be compared to shipping CDs from the other side of the country, as it used to be. Moreover, many other costs connected to music creation or distribution came to zero too, like the software to make music, including cracks to it and the database of the samples. In fact, the only cost of creating anything today comes down to one-time investment of purchasing a PC and an Internet connection.
Today things are different all the way. Without PCs and the Internet, current copyright legislation would make a bit more sense. It would affect the bootleggers around the corner, making them pay huge fines as they did it for a profit. But now people are able to get whatever content they want for free. However, if they like it, it happens that they purchase it legally afterwards. No legislation requiring to pay $2,250 for content that is sold for a dollar makes sense nowadays, and it’s the answer to the question why there’s so much controversy about such laws. The youth knows the only way to check out new music –downloading it off the web to taste. That’s because they just don’t know how it was before the Internet took off.
The only way to build sound relations between consumers and artists today is to develop appropriate legislation rather than applying the laws fitting for an old environment. Trying to stop people from copying is not a solution, but only a waste of time, money and resources.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement