dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 edit
reply to jkoblovsky

Re: Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

I think his reasoning is the case you make that non-commercial copying should be legal. You're trying a different approach, when our government has already decided it isn't.

My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

Edit: corrected an incorrect statement.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 recommendation

said by A Lurker:

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

I think his reasoning is the case you make that non-commercial copying should be legal. You're trying a different approach, when our government has already decided it is.

My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

Maybe then the content creators will learn a lesson and stop milking the market. Maybe it's what it will take for a serious change. (not to stop paying for content) but for the content creators to suffer losses enough to financially stumble and embrace what is right in front of them.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker See Profile
My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

That's completely fine to believe that, and I respect that, and I respect that view. However when it comes to defending yourself legally, all cards need to be thrown on the table, especially if ISPs are not coming to bat for their consumers privacy, and what that could mean for consumers on whole.

Questions do need to be posed. I have my own beliefs, which is based on independent economic research I've done. There are a lot of people who have financial stakes in all of this, which is the reason why questions need to be posed to ensure your rights are being protected.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/



A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

Maybe then the content creators will learn a lesson and stop milking the market. Maybe it's what it will take for a serious change. (not to stop paying for content) but for the content creators to suffer losses enough to financially stumble and embrace what is right in front of them.

The problem is that you see way too many people talking about cutting their cable, and how they can get their content other ways. Few are talking about paying for it. I personally agree that the cable companies are out of control. Once you've paid for your basic cable, try getting 3 or 4 specialty channels. There's almost no chance that they're in the same bundle.

I pay for my cable (grudgingly), pay for Netflix, and have a TV capture card on my old desktop. I also have a DVD recorder. So I can record what I want, and don't feel the least bit guilty if I forget to do so and end up using Usenet to download something. I've paid for it already. Under the law it's not legal though, primarily because someone had to upload it for me to download it.

The Toronto Star, yes jumping media for a moment, will go pay sometime next year. However, as a newspaper subscriber, I'll have access to the online content for free. How cool would it be if the cable companies could do the same. I pay my X amount of dollars a month and can download anything I've missed. They could even limit it to some extent so you don't download simply everything.

No, if you want to do that you need to buy/rent a DVR from them. Ones, that I understand from complaints across many forums, that don't always work. There's very little chance that the cablecos and/or Bell will ever really seriously consider changing their delivery model.

I'm not sure how Netflix is doing in Canada. With content like the US (a season behind) it could be a decent competitor to cable. Although I'm not sure if the next year model will support people making new content. If it does, that's great. However, as more people decide to go to cheaper Netflix again, how do you support new stuff?

Then there's a certain percentage of the population who think that the moment they pay their internet subscription that everything should be free. Oh, and that their bandwith should be unlimited at the same time.

This last, usually quite vocal, group is why you get people in other threads saying 'don't pirate and you'll be okay'. They think everyone accused is guilty. And we all know that not everyone is. However, you see tons of threads talking about 'how many bytes and what percentage' - and boy, it looks like a huge amount of backpeddling.

I'm seriously surprised that 2000+ people would even be interested in the list of movies posted. That makes it way more suspect than anything else.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS

said by A Lurker:

So I can record what I want, and don't feel the least bit guilty if I forget to do so and end up using Usenet to download something. I've paid for it already. Under the law it's not legal though, primarily because someone had to upload it for me to download it.

That's exactly it, isn't it? There is a law out there that you're breaking just as heartily as somebody out there who doesn't pay anything and if you're picked up in a sweep you'll receive exactly the same extortion threats as everyone else. But you feel justified because of X reason just like others feel justified in doing it because of Y reason. That's the symptom of a Bad Law.

What's the solution? Don't know... But what we have now isn't working and unless our judges are much smarter than our politicians things are about to get much, much worse.

One bright ray of hope though is that the recording industry seem to have gotten it though. They moved from the SUE EVERYONE!!! model, Metallica's Napster Bad angst, and DRM everywhere years onto "Hey, people who are our fans will buy our stuff if we just price it reasonably and make it easy to use. So why don't we just try that?"

Hopefully the TV and Film industries will figure it out soon too.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

said by tired:

That's exactly it, isn't it? There is a law out there that you're breaking just as heartily as somebody out there who doesn't pay anything and if you're picked up in a sweep you'll receive exactly the same extortion threats as everyone else. But you feel justified because of X reason just like others feel justified in doing it because of Y reason. That's the symptom of a Bad Law.

Well, I don't upload, so legitimately being picked up in a sweep is lower. Note, I didn't say none. The problem is as you raised: reasons.

A - pays for cable, movie network - downloads movie XYZ because they taped it but set recorder wrong, missed ending.

B - buys a DVD and rips it to their media player, to keep the original pristine.

C - thinks paying $12.25 x 2 (plus the overpriced drinks and stuff) is way too much so downloads it instead.

A & B - I get, C - I don't. The first two result in some amount of money going to the producer for each viewer/purchaser, the last one doesn't. All three are technically illegal, all probably think what they're doing is okay.

There does have to be a better way, but I honestly think we're likely decades away from a better model.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by A Lurker:

said by tired:

That's exactly it, isn't it? There is a law out there that you're breaking just as heartily as somebody out there who doesn't pay anything and if you're picked up in a sweep you'll receive exactly the same extortion threats as everyone else. But you feel justified because of X reason just like others feel justified in doing it because of Y reason. That's the symptom of a Bad Law.

Well, I don't upload, so legitimately being picked up in a sweep is lower. Note, I didn't say none. The problem is as you raised: reasons.

A - pays for cable, movie network - downloads movie XYZ because they taped it but set recorder wrong, missed ending.

B - buys a DVD and rips it to their media player, to keep the original pristine.

C - thinks paying $12.25 x 2 (plus the overpriced drinks and stuff) is way too much so downloads it instead.

A & B - I get, C - I don't. The first two result in some amount of money going to the producer for each viewer/purchaser, the last one doesn't. All three are technically illegal, all probably think what they're doing is okay.

There does have to be a better way, but I honestly think we're likely decades away from a better model.

Unfortunately tho those reasons are not an excuse for downloading a copy that you did not purchase. I doubt the court would except any of those as a defense since the Act is quite explicit.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 edit

said by AkFubar:

Unfortunately tho those reasons are not an excuse for downloading a copy that you did not purchase. I doubt the court would except any of those as a defense since the Act is quite explicit.

That's my point about needing a better distribution model. The middle one is probably the only one that has the lowest potential to get you in trouble. Heck, iTunes lets you put your owned CDs on your iPod, which is the equivalent of example B. Why wasn't Apple* hauled into court?



*brain fart - changed to correct company

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS

Ripping a commercial DVD involves breaking a digital lock, which is illegal and so I don't believe any respectable dvd ripping software will do this for you.

Ripping a CD doesn't require breaking any locks, so you're just using a tool. The assumption is that you know your legal rights (or lack thereof) and will only use the tool when it is legal and you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your actions if you are wrong in the unlikely event that you're caught.


Fyodor

join:2012-08-13

said by tired:

Ripping a commercial DVD involves breaking a digital lock, which is illegal and so I don't believe any respectable dvd ripping software will do this for you.

Ripping a CD doesn't require breaking any locks, so you're just using a tool. The assumption is that you know your legal rights (or lack thereof) and will only use the tool when it is legal and you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your actions if you are wrong in the unlikely event that you're caught.

breaking digital locks isn't illegal in every country... plenty of fine software lets you do that.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS

Oh, well in that case "The assumption is that you know your legal rights (or lack thereof) and will only use the tool when it is legal and you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your actions if you are wrong in the unlikely event that you're caught." applies and if you're in Canada then you're a copyright infringer because the only difference between ripping a DVD you legally purchased and downloading a copy from the Internet that you haven't purchased is that you're less likely to get caught.


funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker:

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

I think his reasoning is the case you make that non-commercial copying should be legal. You're trying a different approach, when our government has already decided it isn't.

My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

Edit: corrected an incorrect statement.

fact non commerical is not legal....100-5000 dolalrs for all your infringments

share a movie get fined 100$ prolly. share 100000000000 movies get 5000 dollars . MY advice is to save up 5 grand and go get about 10 - 10 megabit dsl accounts and get one of everything off the net then pay 5 grand ....then you can sit back for life enjoying everything....

qewey

join:2007-10-04
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker:

If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money.

The only people that scenario will hurt is the big corporate intermediaries/middlemen/Sony/Vivendi etc.

How many artists do their thing for free or nearly free before being "discovered" or more accurately "promoted" by the corporate giants ? Pretty much all of them ... it will still continue.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

said by qewey:

The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money.

The only people that scenario will hurt is the big corporate intermediaries/middlemen/Sony/Vivendi etc.

How many artists do their thing for free or nearly free before being "discovered" or more accurately "promoted" by the corporate giants ? Pretty much all of them ... it will still continue.

Sorry, you're wrong there. I've been watching Stargate SG-1 again (something I actually plunked out the money and bought). Nobody will be making something like this for free, just to entertain you.

Actors aren't going to work for nearly free forever you know. They do it because of the potential payout. It's like people who start work at a lower rate of pay. They hope for raises over the years. It's a nice fantasy, but without potential for making money the only stuff you're going to see is low budget stuff shot by students. Once people need to pay for things like rent, food, clothing, kids, etc. they want a more realistic salary.

A better distribution model where all viewers pay a smaller fee might be the future (hitting a larger viewing base). However, looking at commercial TV, a fair amount of the money made is from advertising. That might make it tough to replace with ad-free distribution.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to qewey

said by qewey:

said by A Lurker:

If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money.

The only people that scenario will hurt is the big corporate intermediaries/middlemen/Sony/Vivendi etc.

How many artists do their thing for free or nearly free before being "discovered" or more accurately "promoted" by the corporate giants ? Pretty much all of them ... it will still continue.

You really do have a "perfect world" ideal in your head. Now for reality.

Artists do not just do it for the art, if that was the case the 2.5 million per year income for example, more then half would be donated. Same goes for actors. Though several donate, they sure as heck do not donate enough.

lol, look at some of their homes, for something that is for the art, it sure comes with perks. 11 cars in the drive way a "gift wrapping room" a "shoe room" and let's add 18 full bathrooms.

Its like hockey was for the love of the game, and though you may still enjoy playing, the love of the game, the art goes out the window when you start negotiating contracts for millions more because you feel you earned it.

Now if we woke up tomorrow and artists were making a modest pay for their efforts with paid travel and expenses at let's say 50-70k a year. Sure, that's for the love of it, it's a job but doing what you love. Add a disgusting amount of money on top of it, you're now doing it for the money.

There was a band in my wife's school who BMG offered a contract while they were still in grade 12 years ago. They declined because they didn't want to do anything more then what they are and concentrate on school.

Not all of them agreed, 3 band members were kicked out remaining two sold themselves out and signed, they are now signed with BMG and very successful. That example there is Money VS Love of the art

qewey

join:2007-10-04

1 edit

So what is your point ? People like having money especially for doing something they love ?

Yes if you throw money at people, they will take it.

My point is if you dont throw money at them, most will still do it. Some will be good at it and some will not be as good at it, like it always has been whether money is involved or not.

Same with hockey ... if the NHL did not exist, do you think people would stop playing hockey ? hockey have been played 60 years ago when there was no multi-millions dollars contracts attached to it. People will still be playing it even if the infrastructure to monetize it disappears.

Saying that with no money or, more realistically, less money, creators will stop doing what they enjoy doing is a false argument made by the "monetization" industry (ie the giant media conglomerates and their lobbies) in order to protect its interests and influence laws in its favor.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by qewey:

The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money

This was my point. You implied they do it for the love of the art. They may have once. You implied it's not about the money.

Indeed it is, that's why hockey is on strike.

Several examples. You are now contradicting what you said.

"It's not about the money" then "People like having money for doing something they love"

Pick one. I was simply commenting on your original post.

qewey

join:2007-10-04

said by Tx:

said by qewey:

The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money

This was my point. You implied they do it for the love of the art. They may have once. You implied it's not about the money.

Indeed it is, that's why hockey is on strike.

Several examples. You are now contradicting what you said.

"It's not about the money" then "People like having money for doing something they love"

Pick one. I was simply commenting on your original post.

I said not ALL (of it) is about money. You forgot the "all" in your interpretation.

"People like having money for doing something they love" is not my point ... its more me summarizing the point of your reply ...

My point is expressed more clearly in my second reply.

You misunderstood me or I didnt expressed myself clearly. No matter as it is not really relevant to the main thread.