😆

I understand the technicalities of a file transfer, which you or the law don’t seem to.

At the end of the streaming session do you have a copy of that file?

I could have if I wanted. 😆

Interesting thread becomes tedious.
What a surprise.

Sorry about that, thought I was tackling a genuine debate . Shrug.

It is genuine, I’m just expressing my disbelief at where the law currently is.. If the argument about irrelevant technicalities is where it’s at, the “catching up” is miles and miles behind.

Better off tackling the how do you get round my right to the privacy of my internet connection problem. I’d think that’s the more pressing matter at hand.

could have if I wanted.

Okay if you do that refer to the earlier post.

Then it is just a stream unless you’ve rendered a further copy.

Still not seeing the relevancy that has to tackling the problem.

I’m delighted if people “in the industry” think that it’s important.

Whilst I’m happy to have a debate about ‘privacy’ etc – would you also not consider when you use these sorts of sites you are possibly exposing your connection to all manner of shit anyway?

The best thing to do is watch less TV then you don’t have a problem 😆
Perhaps a hobby like cycling?

rone – Member
Whilst I’m happy to have a debate about ‘privacy’ etc – would you also not consider when you use these sorts of sites you are possibly exposing your connection to all manner of shit anyway?

occasionally you can, never had an issue with kodi. Easy to clean up if you do though. (I’ve been doing this since napster in 99 though, so well versed..)

Was more of a problem an operating system or 2 ago though. W10 is very good these days. I scan my machine every now and then with a few programs returns zero.

I’m sure it affected revenue. No doubt about it.

There is an argument that it’s affected revenue positively.

Back when I was a dirty pirate at school and had a boxful of C90s full of Spectrum games (many of which got loaded once and switched off after ten minutes), I still spent most of my pocket-money on games. If I hadn’t been able to copy mates’ tapes I wouldn’t magically have spent hundreds of pounds on software, I’d have just had fewer games. Net loss of revenue – zero.

By the time I’d graduated to the PC (via an Atari ST), I’d still copy games, but if I really liked something I’d copied and it was reasonably priced, I’d go and buy the original. The sad fact of the matter is that the ratio of quality titles to rubbish was really quite low. Net loss of revenue – wait, the ability to copy games has actually created sales, I was far happier throwing £20 at a game I’d actually played and knew was going to be good rather than chance my arm on something that could easily turn out to be pish.

These days I buy as much media (physical or electronic) as I can justifiably spend on such things. We have a Sky subscription, Spotify sub, TV licence, XBL Gold, and a shared Netflix account. I buy shiny optical media (Blu-Ray / CD / Xbox) though granted much less these days because of the aforementioned services. I have no moral qualms about using nefarious means to watch an episode of Strictly from two months ago that my OH missed, especially when some catch-up services make it next to impossible to get the same thing onto the main TV using their own services. If I couldn’t do that, would I have run out and bought the box set? Of course not.

That’s just me of course, I know people who are serial pirates and won’t pay for a jot if they can get away with it. I’m sure as I’m particularly comfortable with that personally. Point is though, the whole loss-of-revenue behind “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!1!” and successive campaigns is based on some very optimistic figures.

Erm, think I will stick to Sky.

Cheers.

Ignoring the argument.

I have Kodi on a raspberry Pi2 velcrod to the back of the TV, can be controlled via a the TV remote, and is pretty awesome/capable.

I have a Roku stick also, which I actually use more (netflix) but for reasons I haven’t fathomed it is terrible at streaming from local source though. Together they cover my needs.

Back when I was a dirty pirate at school and had a boxful of C90s full of Spectrum games (many of which got loaded once and switched off after ten minutes), I still spent most of my pocket-money on games. If I hadn’t been able to copy mates’ tapes I wouldn’t magically have spent hundreds of pounds on software, I’d have just had fewer games. Net loss of revenue – zero.

How do you conflate one anecdotal story about you with computer games to the film industry’s revenue?

But I will say this about your box of games. It wouldn’t have stopped with you would it? Friends copy from friends, until there is no need for many to buy the game. Plus law abiding people start to develop the mindset that it’s not theft. When you draw parallels with any other form of theft you wouldn’t do it. It’s the acid test.

If we take it to the extreme and everyone walking around with pirate boxes of films then clearly there would be no revenue.

Back then I would agree there was a landscape for piracy possibly justified by the monopolised way of delivery. I.e tape. Now it’s different , it’s cheaper and much more immediate.

I want the film industry to succeed – it’s part of my life in lots of ways and where folk scratch the bottom of the barrel with excuses to justify their cheap skate attitude. I don’t understand any of them.

I’m never saying the creative industries aren’t guilty of phenomenal greed.. (check out us clearing Fat Boy Slim’s Right here Right Now for 3K for 30s) for a small job etc.

If we take it to the extreme and everyone walking around with pirate boxes of films then clearly there would be no revenue.

Yeah but despite what we were told that didn’t happen. The movie industry still takes millions at the box office too so still seems to be going strong.

Yeah but despite what we were told that didn’t happen. The movie industry still takes millions at the box office too so still seems to be going strong.

Yes but it’s hugely distorted with the very big top films take loads o’ money, a vast proportion of films don’t break even.

Where do you draw the line though?

Using the argument as to how much the box office takes or fails doesn’t make taking content with permission right. Draw parallels with any other form of theft and you can see the flaws.

People just don’t like to think of it as theft as it’s so easy to do and they feel there is no victim.

What you can argue though is that the big films support the smaller films, and trust me they are less likely to get made which is why we have a culture of 3D and blockbusters. They’re propping the whole industry up.

Yes but it’s hugely distorted with the very big top films take loads o’ money, a vast proportion of films don’t break even.

That’s been the case for a very long time though, some fail until released onto retail when they suddenly become hits. The big blockbusters take a lot of the share of course others don’t because they’re just crap.

People just don’t like to think of it as theft as it’s so easy to do and they feel there is no victim.

That part is true.

The big blockbusters take a lot of the share of course others don’t because they’re just crap.

Blockbusters are great whilst other films are crap? I can list off more crap blockbusters!

Blockbusters tend to be heavily (Sometimes more money than the cost the film) marketed which attributes a lot of their success.