blonde poker forum

Lots of people download music, TV shows, films, software without paying for it.  It's therefore illegal, but that doesn't bother a lot of people.

 (http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc43/kinboshi/nige.png)  (image stolen from the Knock-off Nigel website)

I guess many people think it's a 'victimless' crime, or at least the victim is someone who they can't see (and can't see them obviously) - whereas nicking a CD or DVD from a shop would be abhorrent to them. 

The 'Knock-off Nigel' adverts are obviously designed to raise people's moral awareness of these activities, and somehow to make the acts shameful and something to be embarrassed about.  Do they actually do that?  They do get people talking about it (I'm doing that now).  The other question I have is who is paying for the campaign?  I'm always suspicious when the sponsor isn't overtly highlighted.

The previous advert (scottish singer) only had me thinking we'd kick your head in for being a wee grass & we'd rip the pish out of the other guy for being called Nigel.

Lol

Ive had so many conversations about this advert. Its yet another complete waste of money. How does this advert put anyone off buying dodgy dvd's! It turns the whole subject into a joke.

I actually know a bloke in the pub called Nigel who sells dvd's, its like he has his own personal advert on the telly!!! People hear his name, call him knock off nigel for a laugh and he gets a list of his dvd's out!!!!

LoL genius

I don't think the adverts will stop a single person downloading stuff... the new letter writing campaign thats big news just now will hit a lot of people imo

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/214896/isp-threatens-to-walk-out-of-illegal-filesharing-pact.html

does the ad actually say at any point that watching knock off movies is bad? if it does I don't remember that bit. all I remember is being told that Nigel watches films for free and thinking that that's a good idea

the Knock off Nigel ads are commercially funded by record companies and film studios rather than government-funded PSAs.

I'd expected as much - but did wonder why this wasn't explicitly stated on the ads, or on the website (it might be, but I wasn't going to search through it to find the information).

no idea

is it better for people to think they're funded by commercial interests or the government? Interesting question

LOOOOLLL!!!

It's funny because it's true.

I can't remember the last time I saw a non-Oriental guy hawking hooky DVDs around pubs - I assumed they had that racket sewn up.

In fact, I had one guy come round Costa Coffee at lunchtime - his hot new item was the new Batman film.

OK, so what is the difference between nicking a CD from a shop and downloading some MP3s illegally, or buying a pirated DVD or stealing a DVD from the local supermarket?   Is it just a matter of logsitics?

There are no reprucussions or anything in place to stop people downloading mp3s / films.. There are criminal records and security guards in shops...

Those of us who were brought up with the internet in the napster days are so used to downloading things it just isn't wrong imo

yes, if you want to look at it very simplistically.

In reality, I suppose the people in the film/music industry only really lose out if you would otherwise have bought the DVD/CD from a shop.  I think that's probably more the case with music - if someone wants a decent copy of a film, they're not going to buy a knock off dvd in place of the official version.

Half inching a DVD from a shop isn't the same as downloading the same film for free off of t'internets.  Shoooowarly more people are denied monies by the stealing of DVD's from shops because there's more to a DVD than just the movie.  Packaging, inlay card and so on,.. the dudes who work in the shop are also indirectly affected if they don't make any sales because everyone has decided not to bother paying.  Downloading is just the digital image.

I hate those knock-off Nigel adverts, not because I'm condoning illegal downloads,  but because it's such a naff attempt at guilting people into paying over the odds for those goods.  I watch it and just think poor Nigel is using his common sense.

Nicking a CD from a shop you are:

a) depriving the shop of an actual physical thing which cost money to produce, and are depriving them of a potential sale to someone else who would have bought it

b) depriving them of the money they would have got from you had you bought it.

With MP3s, a) doesn't apply because you are copying something and leaving the original file intact.

With b) the record company/whoever are only losing out if you would have actually paid money for the CD/DVD if there was no internet/man in pub.

If you nick a DVD you're taking something tangible, if you download a film it's intangible. If you were never going to buy the film in the first place no one has lost out. If you're buying a pirated DVD I'd guess it's a bit different, no idea why anyone would do that though!

New letter writing campaign thing is a load of rubbish. The people at the pirate bay are already working on a new system that would stop their detection methods and anyone who is seriously downloading a lot of stuff is going to spend a few quid (which could have bought a CD) on a seed box in a download friendly country - get that to do the file sharing, transfer the goodies over an encrypted link to your PC and job's a good un.

I was thinking about this the other day. If anything, I reckon it raises awareness that you can do it, rather than any moral issue. I think comedy instead of shocking is a bad path to take.

I i bought a CD a number of years ago but it has died from over use.

Am I legally allowed to downloaded it for free because i have paid for the record company & artists rights once and just because CD's only last 10- 15 years is there problem not mine?

I gotta be honest id love to be sung to in work by the whole of the office!

We have been told for years that pirate DVD's contribute to terrorism and organised crime. So if you download then you are fighting the war against terrorism. Win win sitauation for everyone.

Sony think it's stealing to buy a CD and then rip it to MP3s for your own personal use.

The rest of the industry probably think that downloading when you own the CD is wrong too, but then again they're used to selling you the same album again and again.

can't really comment on the subject, when your musical tastes (the normal ones anyway) are stuck in the early 90's most of the tunes are given away free anyway!! :D

You're better shoplifting clothes and that nowadays.

No point nicking a decent DVD as when you flog it in Wetherspoons people just think it's a pirate.

According to the well padded junkie (seriously - the guy has a self made fat-suit) who sells in my local - the best things are meat from M&S, deodourants, slimfast shakes??? and cheese.

Batteries and razors are too well watched now.

Cadbury's cream eggs ftw

You will literlly never get caught, they are just so piss simple a shape.

all listen to the champion shoplifter.

I seem to remember someone getting caught nicking a notepad in Woolies

I think if you have the original it is fine. Well i was told that by a teacher a few years ago that had his entire CD collection on copied CD's so that his collection was in perfect condition up in his loft and never got used.

Sometimes illegal downloads can be good for the music companies.
I saw a CD online that had had decent reviews. I downloaded a couple of tracks and liked them so bought the album.
Without the illegally downloaded songs i wouldn't have bothered.

I think there is more pressure on companies to produce decent albums. Too many these days have 1 or 2 decent singles and the album is filled out with rubbish so people just download the couple of good songs.

I've done this too - got into bands because I downloaded something to give them a try. I've then gone on and bought their albums - all sales that would never have happened without downloading stuff first.

got held for ages when i was a kid for nicking a few sweets from the pic n mix.

Mum wasnt happy with wollies especially as they called her into the store to collect me...

If I'm a producer of movies, and make a film that 30,000,000 people illegally download, that means that 30,000,000 are watching my shit.

If 30,000,000 people are watching my shit and I can't figure out a way to make any money out of that, then I'm a very silly puppy indeed.

You know that logo in the top left hand side of the screen that some TV channels put on their shows. Make it a Mcdonalds golden arches or a Nike tick.
It's not so intrusive that it's going to spoil anyone's experience, and suddenly 30,000,000 people seeing it isn't such a bad thing after all.

Absurd generalisation alert;

Downloading films is not as bad as downloading music.

In the main, a film is made because somebody (at a studio) is willing to purchase a script put a crew together, employ a director and producer and let them make the script in their image.  All are paid a wage for this, a select few and it is only a few get paid in royalties or even have the power to choose scripts and pressure studios to make certain films.  The %age of their actual earnings from bums on seats is very small - the real money is in a merchandising %, you not going to the cinema has little affect on the studios, actors, crew or anyones actual wage - it affects your local economy more then the studios.

Music is very different, its more personal and the musician, he/she/they have to find somebody willing to distribute and produce the CD.  The musician is paid on a % of units sold if these unit sales are not high enough the musician will be dropped, or get a lesser %age on his next contract.  So your downloading affects the ability of the musician to earn.  This is especially true for early careers, when sales and marketing are needed to generate interest - with interest comes live performance where you can make some real money.  But without those initial sales you will never get the chance to fill the Albert Hall, Wembly or stand on the stage at Glastonbury.

As for the advert, its about laying a foundation, educating people that their should be a stigma attached to downloading stuff, the campaign will be like the Aids adverts of the 80's or the drink drive adverts its about promoting a ethos, its starts with the kids and will help build a generation that at least think about it in the future, rather then just doing it like our good selves.  Ask around, Nigels are already stigmatised by the young - it will work because the youth will be bombarded with it for years to come, and a campaign in the middle press, TV story lines will all aid the education, it will be much more then a TV advert.

When does Lost start again?

People who download more spend more on music, that was the result of research performed on behalf of one of those companies that enforce copyright for the music companies. They kept it quiet and it leaked out (along with lots of other stuff, it was a story that amused me greatly at the time),

Since I found napster at uni my CD collection has expanded exponentially and I go to lots more gigs etc.

As to downloading music v movies, in the long term they would both be as bad as each other - the less money the companies make the less they will spend on new music/movies.

Whereas the "knock off nigel" campaign may stigmatise children against purchasing fake DVDs (a practice I find abhorrent, making money from stealing other's work) will they really complain against a downloaded movie? A fake DVD is an inferior physical product... a movie is a movie - especially when loaded onto the kid's media centre PC.

The problem for the music industry is that the cat is already out of the bag. They can make it illegal but they will have a very hard time enforcing it - they can detect it at the minute but people are already working on making technology to stop that, and there are already lots of ways around that (pay a small amount for a seed box in a downloading friendly country, use that as your torrent box (24hr uptime and fast uploads will give you a great ratio!) then download over a VPN at your leisure. If you're really paranoid use something like truecrypt to encrypt the contents of your hard drive with plausable deniability (important as you can get jailtime for not handing over your encryption keys)). There will also be artists who will be using alternate business models that make the traditional record labels products seem the rip off they are - I can point to Nine Inch Nails here:

36 track album
Download $5 (choice of format, all DRM free, choice of MP3, Apple lossless, FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Compression) (potential for better than CD quality), with 40 page PDF of album art etc.
2 x CD + download - $10
Deluxe edition - $75
Super Deluxe - $300

I gladly paid the $5 and downloaded the FLAC despite not really being a fan of Nine Inch Nails. I was also happy knowing that most of that money would be going to the artist.

You might point to Radiohead and say they tried it and it was a failure. I'd say that's because they did it really, really badly - no surprise there seeing as they were doing it as a publicity stunt rather than a serious attempt at a new business model.

What did they do wrong?

They only offered the album in 1 format - 160kbps CBR MP3s. They said this was because they wanted "to be better quality than iTunes". iTunes is 128kbps AAC, which is generally accepted as around the same as 192kbps - so they were actually offering inferior quality files (NIN went to the trouble of saying which encoder they used to create the MP3s, to some sound quality is very important (the people on the (now shutdown amidst a load of lies (and also complete misunderstanding of the technologies by the police (much like TV Links))) OiNK torrent site were complete facists when it came to sound quality - some albums were unacceptable as they had been "transcoded" on the CD release - they went to the trouble of checking the files with wave analysers to check they were OK!)). I don't generally like 160kbps MP3s but thought I would buy it as it seemed like I would be supporting a novel idea. Next up - they expected me to choose how much to pay before I'd heard the album - or a sample, how was I really meant to decide what it was worth? I decided to pay 0, give the album a listen and then go back and pay afterwards. That would have been fine if the site was fast enough to let me download it in a timely manner. It wasn't though, but I found a decent link on another site and downloaded it there.

How do they expect to be successful like that when the (albeit illegal) competition are way more convenient (faster sites, easier to use, quick more reliable downloads, in the case of OiNK it had most albums you could think of in a choice of formats (FLAC, MP3 etc) and would tend to download very very quickly).

If I'm going to pay for music I want it to be the highest quality I can get - what sounds good in small headphones may not sound good on a decent hi fi for instance (would depend on the song, some are fine low bitrate). Most music stores also have the problem of DRM, which can even screw you over if you play by the rules (several online stores have shutdown, which means you can either kiss goodbye to the music you've bought or have to burn it to CD and rip it again (which is probably illegal)).

Think I've gone off on a tangent here, should probably stop typing now... i'll leave you with a song:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zTPDVkVFOs

(seen this guy 3 times, bought his single, his EP, his album and a tshirt from him - discovered him when a mate sent me the MP3s)

wow Bongo your longest post eva.

If you install this http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ can you still get away with it?

That's useless really - it won't be blocking all the IPs they use (the leak I mentioned above shows they were using employees residential DSL connections), besides which they don't need to connect to you to know your IP - they will just get a list from the tracker (that's how bit torrent works).

I'm not sure how the evidence they gather would stand up in court though, but it's enough to get an ISP to send you a letter.

Codemasters actually wrote to people they found downloading one of their games not long ago, asking for money to compensate them and threatening court (I think) and had a rather high false positive rate too.