News - Confusion in the UK over what is and isn't legal on the web

[HEXUS]

Ofcom reveals that many Brits struggle to differentiate between the two.

Read more.

[Steve]

That's possibly the best stock photo I've ever seen.

[shaithis]

No mention of the following:

"Bought the VHS, the DVD, the Extended cut and now refused to buy the Bluray and extended Bluray/3d because the license holders want to sell the same IP multiple times and refuse to give discounts for media trade-ups"

"Because streaming services are low quality compared to bluray"

"Because it's only worth x to me"

I still feel that when you have paid £10-20 to watch a film in the cinema, you have paid for the IP. If I want the Bluray I should only have to pay manufacturing costs.

As usual the fat cats want it both ways, they want you to "license" the IP but they want you to pay for the same license multiple times. Until that changes I will continue to download movies.

I'm sure if they thought they could get away with it, they would change you extra each time you put the same disk in your player........

[Smudger]

That's possibly the best stock photo I've ever seen.

Is that you?

[Smudger]

I'm sure if they thought they could get away with it, they would change you extra each time you put the same disk in your player........

Microsoft have applied to patent a rechnology* which can charge you according to how many people are watching...

*It was a typo, but I think I invented a new word. Rechnology - technology to rip the @rse out of your customers.

[d032sh]

to go through the trials and tribulations of purchasing illegal content and the associated DRM.

Presumably you mean purchasing legal content?

[Unique]

No mention of the following:

"Bought the VHS, the DVD, the Extended cut and now refused to buy the Bluray and extended Bluray/3d because the license holders want to sell the same IP multiple times and refuse to give discounts for media trade-ups"

"Because streaming services are low quality compared to bluray"

"Because it's only worth x to me"

I still feel that when you have paid £10-20 to watch a film in the cinema, you have paid for the IP. If I want the Bluray I should only have to pay manufacturing costs.

As usual the fat cats want it both ways, they want you to "license" the IP but they want you to pay for the same license multiple times. Until that changes I will continue to download movies.

I'm sure if they thought they could get away with it, they would change you extra each time you put the same disk in your player........

this is why they need to make the law clearer, so people don't think that.

if i pay £9 to see a film, i'm just paying for 2 hours entertainment, not a right to watch the movie forever. out of that £9 is the cost of making the film, promotion, distribution, and all the cinema costs. £9 for 2 hours entertainment isn't bad

if i pay £100 to see a live band, i don't have the right to a recording of it. similarly that money goes towards putting on the event and venue costs etc

you only have to pay to license more than once if you want more than one copy. if you have the dvd you aren't forced to buy the bluray. why would you want the bluray if you already have the dvd? obviously if you want the bluray when you have the dvd you must like the content, so surely it's worth paying for an upgrade in quality or additional content? remember you can still sell or gift your dvd copy which can offset the upgrade costs

with anything else, if something isn't worth the price of upgrade people often won't upgrade, they usually have a choice. but you can't just as easily steal a car or computer if you don't think the upgrade is worth it, you just do without if you don't want to pay. so why should IP be any different, just because it's easier to take it without paying for it?

[shaithis]

this is why they need to make the law clearer, so people don't think that.

if i pay £9 to see a film, i'm just paying for 2 hours entertainment, not a right to watch the movie forever. out of that £9 is the cost of making the film, promotion, distribution, and all the cinema costs. £9 for 2 hours entertainment isn't bad

Well, if you pay 10-20 quid for 2 hours entertainment without thinking about the breakdown and what your paying for, I can understand why you don't get it. Why should I pay for the making of the film multiple times? This is the single biggest cost and they charge you multiple times for it if you watch it on multiple formats.

Just how much extra do you think it costs to take the cinema cut and slap it on a bluray?

In fact, why isn't it substantially cheaper to go and see the same film a second (or third etc) time at the cinema? Each additional viewing should just be the cinemas overheads.

you only have to pay to license more than once if you want more than one copy.

You do not own the physical copy. You are paying for a license to view the content. A portion of that is production costs.....a large portion of it.
As it is now, it would be like calling a repair guy out and to fix 3 items in your home and he charges you a callout fee 3 times on top of the fee to fix, even though you only called him once and he visited site once. Would you be happy with that?

with anything else, if something isn't worth the price of upgrade people often won't upgrade, they usually have a choice. but you can't just as easily steal a car or computer if you don't think the upgrade is worth it, you just do without if you don't want to pay. so why should IP be any different, just because it's easier to take it without paying for it?

You obviously don't quite get how your being shafted over a barrel.

[MustardCutter]

What about: "I wouldn't have paid to see/buy the movie because I knew it wouldn't be that good, but as I could get it for free and kill a bit of time I did". Like watching a film on TV you wouldn't have paid to go see or own. Part of the problem in knowing what's legal/illegal is because there are some ways of making it seem ok; like lending a friend your DVD for no fee. The friend didn't license the IP yet they are viewing the content. Also, what if you forgot to press record on your sky plus? In theory your subscription gave you access to certain programs, how is downloading it off the internet different than a recording sat on your sky box? Does my TV license entitle me to download any programme/film that's been shown on the BBC in my lifetime? obviously no but you technically paid for the content, you just didn't pay for a company to put that content on some media, in a box and onto a shelf shop somewhere.

[crossy]

No mention of the following:
"Bought the VHS, the DVD, the Extended cut and now refused to buy the Bluray and extended Bluray/3d because the license holders want to sell the same IP multiple times and refuse to give discounts for media trade-ups"

Just curious - where do you stand on these "triple play" sets - where you get BD, DVD and digital copy of the film? Last one I looked at was only £3 more than the "normal" BD, which I thought pretty reasonable considering the family can watch that on the Home Cinema kit downstairs and PC/XBox or tablets as desired.

I'll admit to having perused TPB in the past - but purely in the "can't get the content I'm looking for legally" category. To be honest, if I'm wanting to have a copy of LOTR, latest Bond, etc then there's an avalanche of places doing discount deals, and I don't regard <£14 ridiculous for a film that I genuinely want to see multiple times.

Where I'm not clear is in the status of ripping these days. CD's I know are "okay" - strictly speaking illegal, but BPI's nodded assent if you just want to rip to put on your iPod, phone, etc then "no harm, no foul". DVD's I thought were still in the "don't touch" category, but that was more down to having to remove the copy protection before ripping than the act of ripping (again for personal use only) itself. Given the wide availability of inexpensive tablets, I'm confident that a lot of DVD ripping is going on - but I don't remember seeing any "MPAA prosecutes grandmother for ripping Twilight for her iPad" stories recently.

[watercooled]

It's probably more a case of people claiming ignorance/refusing to accept what's legal rather than not understanding it in most cases, I mean it's not rocket science! I've heard tons of excuses, most of which make me laugh, but there are some more grey areas I don't necessarily disagree with, including:
Downloading a game you already own, to play it without DRM.
Downloading older games no longer available to buy, which you already own, in order to play on emulators.
Ripping CD/DVD/BD for PERSONAL USE ONLY.

BTW you do own physical copies, but you're also paying for the license; having someone come and take back your physical copy would be theft.

Piracy etc probably wouldn't be a major problem if everyone was ethical about it, but unfortunately, at least in my experience, that just isn't the case...

Cheaper copies of media would be nice for people who own different versions, but there's still a lot of work that goes into production, especially for older films, so it might not end up that much cheaper.

Edit: I think ripping any media is technically legal, but it's also technically not legal to bypass the copy protection, so it falls into a grey area with no official word one way or the other. However, the industry probably want to avoid saying it's completely legal, as it might encourage more casual copying. ATM, it takes a bit of knowledge to bypass copy protection so will dissuade a lot of people from just making a copy for their friends, but if personal ripping were made completely legal, commercial software would probably start to implement decrypting functionality, making the protection essentially useless.

[Brewster0101]

Not being funny but most have very little knowledge or awareness of any laws in this country.


Of course the best solution is not to get caught.....

[kalniel]

It's probably more a case of people claiming ignorance/refusing to accept what's legal rather than not understanding it in most cases, I mean it's not rocket science!

I don't know - can you tell by looking at a video on you-tube whether it's illegal or not? Or do you just assume that because it's on there it must be legal? I can imagine the same applies to a whole generation of users with links from Google or forums/facebook/twitter.

[zaph0d]

ATM, it takes a bit of knowledge to bypass copy protection so will dissuade a lot of people from just making a copy for their friends, but if personal ripping were made completely legal, commercial software would probably start to implement decrypting functionality, making the protection essentially useless.

You mean software like Slysoft's CloneDVD mobile?

[kalniel]

You mean software like Slysoft's CloneDVD mobile?

There's any manner of software that decrypts because it's for sale in countries where decryption is legal for making back up copies for eg. In the UK it's not legal, except in a few restricted circumstances that don't apply to general consumers.

[borising]

Everything is legal on net