Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The war over a mystery, in reply to Chris Waugh,
My wife wonders if that was a Tibetan rabbit.
-
In discussions about the law, it is not "just semantics" or "chop-logic" or even "formalist lands of guilty-if-in-jail" to require strict definitions of terms. After all, that is what we pay lawyers large sums to argue before a judge.
In talking about the law and courts, "guilty" can only mean "found guilty by a judge and/or jury". If an accused is found "not guilty", then s/he is legally not guilty - end of story. You may personally think the accused committed the crime, but that is only your opinion and does not impute actual guilt.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Samuel Scott,
I watch it on SoHo via TelstraClear and record it on my T-box when it conflicts with something else.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Sacha,
Doh. In my defence, m'lud, it was late.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Sacha,
Fact. That's how the business works. You may not like it but that's how it is. Much like airlines overbooking because they know from experience that some will cancel. Generally, it works out for you.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Kyhwana,
ISP's don't pay their upstreams per GB downloaded, they just buy <x> mbit/s pipes to various places plus transit/peering costs.
Really? Not what they tell me. Yes, they pay for the pipes, but I understood they also pay for what goes across those pipes. The point about where they make their profit still stands, as it's about costs vs. revenue - bandwidth hogs cost more to supply than ordinary users. They made this particular point in submissions to the Select Committee on this bill.
Your statement about how they make money is incorrect as well. They can't "exceed the amount they paid for" because they've only bought <x> mbit/s and that's all they get. (Unless they want to fork out for fatter "pipes")
The "exceed" comment was about end users, not the ISPs.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
I work at a university
Ah, right, so how much did the University make from that? Must have been a lot, by your argument.
What's that? You say a university is not an ISP? Ah, but it is, under the Copyright Act, as is any entity that provides internet access to multiple users, like libraries, schools, TradeMe (free WiFi on Welly's waterfront) to name a few.
Oh, you say it's not a commercial ISP? Then the experience you say you have in this matter is hardly relevant, is it? If individuals are presented the opportunity of getting something for free, that there is going to be very little chance of comeback, that's going to skew the data a bit.
Back in the real world, while ISPs may get the same revenue from pirated vs non-pirated content, as I said before (actually I said "the same money" by which I meant revenue and you took it that way, so all good), in no way do they make the same profit.
ISP profit is from those who pay for 40GB "just in case they go over" but only use 15GB for their email, work and general browsing ( and, Alan P, you really need to look at what's running on your system if you're ripping through 50GB a month at that and YouTube, unless you're running YouTube about 18 hours a day on 3 machines ). The ones who are pirating are generally using up their full cap each month but not going over, because that would cost more (significantly more, if you're on TelstraClear - $2.95 per GB!), so the residual profit is 4/5ths of bugger all.
The ISP has to pay its upstream provider for the data that is downloaded and only makes money when the amount being paid for exceeds the amount being used.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
Sure - but in the absence of a legitimate way for their consumers to obtain Game of Thrones, they're the people profiting off the illegitimate means.
That's an RIANZ/MPAA/NZFACT argument, Danyl. The ISPs make no more money from the downloading of illegal content than they do from legitimate content. In fact, legitimate content can cost them because they have to do something about it if approached. It's clear you've never worked for an ISP or even talked to one.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to Paul Brislen,
My fear is that this kind of activity so devalues copyright in the public view that we raise a generation of kids who see stealing copyright material as normal and "right"
That's an immediate part of the problem. A longer term part is the dearth of material entering the public domain. Some of the "usual suspects" are arguing for perpetual copyright, which would lead to the death of culture - everything is built on what went before.
-
Speaker: How's that three strikes thing…, in reply to B Jones,
But until they do, are there many other reasons to pay for a 20G data plan?
I blow through 20-30GB a month easily, and I don't download or torrent TV or movies unless they are copyright free. I actually blew through my 40GB cap last month downloading completely legal movies from the Internet Archive. I also d/l a lot of software (mostly open source) like Linux distros, and large datasets for analysis. And I watch stuff on YouTube. In a multimedia world 20GB is the bare minimum.