Anyone being nawty?

[Alkazar]

The legality of something is subjective. What is legal today can be illegal tomorrow, and what is illegal today can be legal tomorrow. Legality is subject to the whims of people in positions of strength or power.

What really matters is the base morality of something - such as stealing - i.e. "Thou shalt not steal".

Stealing is taking something unique that cannot be replaced from someone without their permission and thereby depriving that person of that thing.

If I take your PC you no longer have the use of that PC and you have to replace it by buying another one - that IS stealing

If I take a photo of your PC I would have a digital copy of your PC but you would still have possession and use of your PC - that is NOT stealing

If I take your money which you have worked for you no longer have that money and you have to work to replace that money - that IS stealing

If I make perfect digital copies of your money but do not take the original money you would not be deprived of the money you worked for - that is NOT stealing

If you (retailer or consumer) purchase a movie on DVD and you possess no additional copies and I take it you are deprived of it and have to buy another to replace it - that IS stealing

If I borrow or hire your DVD movie and make a copy of it for myself you are not deprived of the original DVD or of the opportunity of lending or renting it to someone else - that is NOT stealing

If it were possible to take the one-and-only original recording of a song and there were no other copies available I would be depriving the artist and the studio of that song and they would have to record that song again - that IS stealing

If I downloaded a copy of a song off the internet the artist and the studio are not deprived of the song or of making money from that song except that I have not paid them for that song (and I most probably wouldn't have anyway) - that is NOT stealing

If I somehow took the original print of a blockbuster movie or TV show and the studio or TV network was totally deprived of that movie or TV show and the possibility of making money from it - that IS stealing

If I download a copy of a movie or TV show the studio or TV network is not deprived of it or the possibility of making money from it - that is NOT stealing

The "advert" that equates taking a DVD off the shelf of a shop and not paying for it (stealing) with downloading a movie off the internet (NOT stealing) is wrong and should be banned

Also, it is not possible to deprive someone of something they do not already have and possibly may never get - I cannot steal a PC from you that you have not yet bought and may never buy.

So-called "potential future income" is pie-in-the-sky and cannot be stolen.

Most if not all people that download music, movies, TV shows, etc. from the Internet would most probably never have bought the item anyway as they either would not have been able to afford it or would not have felt it was worth paying for - so the "copyright holder" has not even been deprived of earning money they would not have earned anyway!

The legality of so-called "piracy" is open to debate - but it is NOT stealing!

 

[kevinswan007]

want to watch free live tv from around the world?

http://viewmy.tv/view-online-tv.aspx
http://wwitv.com/portal.htm

oh wait, you better not, we only have a 2 gig international cap, and that wont last long
not to mention we dont have the internet speeds! (500kb/sec is the norm)

 

[hj2k_x]

The "advert" that equates taking a DVD off the shelf of a shop and not paying for it (stealing) with downloading a movie off the internet (NOT stealing) is wrong and should be banned

Also, it is not possible to deprive someone of something they do not already have and possibly may never get - I cannot steal a PC from you that you have not yet bought and may never buy.

So-called "potential future income" is pie-in-the-sky and cannot be stolen.

Most if not all people that download music, movies, TV shows, etc. from the Internet would most probably never have bought the item anyway as they either would not have been able to afford it or would not have felt it was worth paying for - so the "copyright holder" has not even been deprived of earning money they would not have earned anyway!

The legality of so-called "piracy" is open to debate - but it is NOT stealing!

Well said.

 

[kevinswan007]

Well said.

I have always wondered how the FIMA and other organizations get their statistics.

(Australian govt draft says piracy stats are made up)

Do they work it out on pirated media confiscated, downloaded, content available?
Because as was pointed out before, most people would not buy alot of the stuff downloaded in the first place. Its just not worth the money really.

I still buy original dvd's (really good classics) music cd's (financial gain, dj'ing) and tv series.
I still go to the cinema from time to time. I still buy some pc games that I feel are worth it and some I want to play online.
I still pay my tv license, even though I never watch tv.

So really, whats changed?

Oh I know. Im coughing up money to telkom. Im buying shares in my local computer shop with hard drives and dvd's. And Im making friends with common interests.

 

[hj2k_x]

I have always wondered how the FIMA and other organizations get their statistics.

(Australian govt draft says piracy stats are made up

Do they work it out on pirated media confiscated, downloaded, content available?
Because as was pointed out before, most people would not buy alot of the stuff downloaded in the first place. Its just not worth the money really.

I still buy original dvd's (really good classics) music cd's (financial gain, dj'ing) and tv series.
I still go to the cinema from time to time. I still buy some pc games that I feel are worth it and some I want to play online.
I still pay my tv license, even though I never watch tv.

So really, whats changed?

Oh I know. I coughing up money to telkom. Im buying shares in my local computer shop with hard drives and dvd's. And Im making friends with common interests.

Yip, that is exactly it. A load of bollocks really. But clearly some people believe it. As this thread goes to show. Some of the attitudes are astounding if you ask me.

 

[LancelotSA]

Yip, that is exactly it. A load of bollocks really. But clearly some people believe it. As this thread goes to show. Some of the attitudes are astounding if you ask me.

You find them astounding merely because they differ from yours.

Someone asked earlier about my arguments being based on the "greedy few" downloading 100's of Gbs affecting my speeds and said this was not the case in SA with ADSL. Well what about when my speeds on the newsservers go down to 6kb/s because some twat is trying to milk it dry with bandwidth he has not even paid for? (yes your view is that local should be unlimited and free but it is not at the moment or perhaps you will argue that they must upgrade these servers but how do they do this if no one is willing to pay for what they use?). And in case you question the fact that I too am downlading, my actions differ in that, due to my limited bandwidth, I am being more picky with what I download and not merely downloading every possible file I come across.

I have seen guys write on here that they have reached their cap so now they are going to make attempts to bleed the systemfor the rest of the month. Well good, do it, your time has come and you must pay up!!

This message started off questioning Telkom charging (ab)users using bandwidth in excess of their allocated local bandwidth. You guys then seem to have gone off on a tangent. My view was that they must be made to pay, and it has not changed. Your arguments about local should be free.... if you were overseas 200Gb would be nothing.... blah blah blah.... all seem to miss the point that that is not how it is in this country at the moment and until it is you must be made to pay for what you use!

I have no problem with you downloading 1Tb per month but then you must pay! You are putting more strain on the infrastructure than me.

 

[kevinswan007]

You find them astounding merely because they differ from yours.

Someone asked earlier about my arguments being based on the "greedy few" downloading 100's of Gbs affecting my speeds and said this was not the case in SA with ADSL. Well what about when my speeds on the newsservers go down to 6kb/s because some twat is trying to milk it dry with bandwidth he has not even paid for? (yes your view is that local should be unlimited and free but it is not at the moment or perhaps you will argue that they must upgrade these servers but how do they do this if no one is willing to pay for what they use?). And in case you question the fact that I too am downlading, my actions differ in that, due to my limited bandwidth, I am being more picky with what I download and not merely downloading every possible file I come across.

I have seen guys write on here that they have reached their cap so now they are going to make attempts to bleed the systemfor the rest of the month. Well good, do it, your time has come and you must pay up!!

This message started off questioning Telkom charging (ab)users using bandwidth in excess of their allocated local bandwidth. You guys then seem to have gone off on a tangent. My view was that they must be made to pay, and it has not changed. Your arguments about local should be free.... if you were overseas 200Gb would be nothing.... blah blah blah.... all seem to miss the point that that is not how it is in this country at the moment and until it is you must be made to pay for what you use!

I have no problem with you downloading 1Tb per month but then you must pay! You are putting more strain on the infrastructure than me.

we are paying, through the nose.

Business line rental (exchange connection) - 383.37 (installation) 148.68 (monthly)
Fastest DSL - Based on 4096 technology - 490.00 (installation) 413.00 (monthly)
3 GB TelkomInternet-AllAccess Advanced -239.00 (monthly)

Grand total of R873.37 to setup and R561.68 per month.

I think that amount should entitle me to do what I want with my line. I personally never said local should have to be free. But the price for bandwidth (especially international) is ridiculous.
And should ISP's upgrade their news servers? Well, since we pay ISP's for the service and most of the local bandwidth is used by it, it only makes business sense for them to do so.

 

[hj2k_x]

You find them astounding merely because they differ from yours.

Someone asked earlier about my arguments being based on the "greedy few" downloading 100's of Gbs affecting my speeds and said this was not the case in SA with ADSL. Well what about when my speeds on the newsservers go down to 6kb/s because some twat is trying to milk it dry with bandwidth he has not even paid for? (yes your view is that local should be unlimited and free but it is not at the moment or perhaps you will argue that they must upgrade these servers but how do they do this if no one is willing to pay for what they use?). And in case you question the fact that I too am downlading, my actions differ in that, due to my limited bandwidth, I am being more picky with what I download and not merely downloading every possible file I come across.

I have seen guys write on here that they have reached their cap so now they are going to make attempts to bleed the systemfor the rest of the month. Well good, do it, your time has come and you must pay up!!

This message started off questioning Telkom charging (ab)users using bandwidth in excess of their allocated local bandwidth. You guys then seem to have gone off on a tangent. My view was that they must be made to pay, and it has not changed. Your arguments about local should be free.... if you were overseas 200Gb would be nothing.... blah blah blah.... all seem to miss the point that that is not how it is in this country at the moment and until it is you must be made to pay for what you use!

I have no problem with you downloading 1Tb per month but then you must pay! You are putting more strain on the infrastructure than me.

First of all, we agreed that people who did not take notice of Telkom's unreasonable per gig billing after you have reached your local cap, should be made to pay. We did not agree that it was correct.

Then you went off at a tangent, whinging on about how people are downloading too much and messing things up for everyone else.

I don't have a problem for paying what I am using at all. I am still paying Telkom for the wires that are running to my house. I am certainly still paying for what I use.

What astounds me, is not so much that people can dare to have a contrary attitude to mine, but that they are willing to sit there and be milked by Telkom and others and then go around blaming other people for the situation rather than focussing their balme on Telkom. It doesn't make sense to me.

And if I have to tell you one more time about what the internet is there for and how easy it is to do 50GB a month, doing legitimate things, that are legal, I think my head might explode.

 

[kevinswan007]

the news server might be overloaded at time, but thats because it has not been updated in who knows how many years.

http://www.switchtel.co.za/jinx/showall.php?img=year

the south african infrastructure is far from overloaded.

we just dont have the speed or availability of cheap bandwidth.

 

[LancelotSA]

we are paying, through the nose.

Business line rental (exchange connection) - 383.37 (installation) 148.68 (monthly)
Fastest DSL - Based on 4096 technology - 490.00 (installation) 413.00 (monthly)
3 GB TelkomInternet-AllAccess Advanced -239.00 (monthly)

Grand total of R873.37 to setup and R561.68 per month.

I think that amount should entitle me to do what I want with my line. I personally never said local should have to be free. But the price for bandwidth (especially international) is ridiculous.
And should ISP's upgrade their news servers? Well, since we pay ISP's for the service and most of the local bandwidth is used by it, it only makes business sense for them to do so.

Aha, there is that word again! Entitled! I'm sorry but paying what you are paying entitles you to exactly what you are getting... a 4Mb line and 3Gb of bandwidth... but you know what, as a bonus you are getting 30Gb of local access absolutely free! whoohooo!

And I'm not really sure where you are paying your ISP specifically for the use of the newsserver? I seem to be missing this section on my invoice and contract...

What astounds me, is not so much that people can dare to have a contrary attitude to mine, but that they are willing to sit there and be milked by Telkom and others and then go around blaming other people for the situation rather than focussing their balme on Telkom. It doesn't make sense to me.

So I go about joining this fight by using as much data as I can in a month? Hmm I can see how that battle will be successful.

 

[hj2k_x]

Aha, there is that word again! Entitled! I'm sorry but paying what you are paying entitles you to exactly what you are getting... a 4Mb line and 3Gb of bandwidth... but you know what, as a bonus you are getting 30Gb of local access absolutely free! whoohooo!

And I'm not really sure where you are paying your ISP specifically for the use of the newsserver? I seem to be missing this section on my invoice and contract...



So I go about joining this fight by using as much data as I can in a month? Hmm I can see how that battle will be successful.

There is no argument as to what we are entitled to based on what we are being offered. The offer is there. It is the only one there is, so if we accept it, we have to deal with the consequences.

The problem is the offer itself is not at all good enough, and I have a big problem with people who go around, adding fuel to Telkom's arguments for low caps because, saying things like 100GB a month is excessive, and that there is no way that you can make use of 200GB of downloads a month.

Wake up! Come and join the year 2008 where there rest of us are living and you will realise that that is not quite possible, but exactly what the internet is there for.

Yesterday I did 500MB just looking at some random youtube videos for maybe an hour or so. That is already 15GB a month and I am just one person. I don't understand how anyone can possibly contend that what we are getting now is anywhere near reasonable.

 

[LancelotSA]

There is no argument as to what we are entitled to based on what we are being offered. The offer is there. It is the only one there is, so if we accept it, we have to deal with the consequences.

The problem is the offer itself is not at all good enough, and I have a big problem with people who go around, adding fuel to Telkom's arguments for low caps because, saying things like 100GB a month is excessive, and that there is no way that you can make use of 200GB of downloads a month.

Wake up! Come and join the year 2008 where there rest of us are living and you will realise that that is not quite possible, but exactly what the internet is there for.

Yesterday I did 500MB just looking at some random youtube videos for maybe an hour or so. That is already 15GB a month and I am just one person. I don't understand how anyone can possibly contend that what we are getting now is anywhere near reasonable.

Hmm a law student who makes the assumption that everyone, besides me, thinks the same way as him and then uses it as part of his argument!

If you feel exploitation of a system is where society currently is then I will quite happinly stay behind in 2007 thank you. I won't go too much further back than this as prior to this we did not even have ADSL, and I'll stay in SA as some countries still do not have ADSL.

You do know you can buy unlimited ADSL don't you? If you are not happy with only 3Gb or 30Gb fork out for a package that suits your needs! As you so cleverly stated the offer for limited access is there so take it or leave it!

Seriously I am getting peeved with this argument. I hate analogies as they often take things to the extreme but I am forced to use one. Spur offers me a burger special at R20 and throws in free chips... I am not happy with the portion of chips offered so after eating what is on my plate I go into the kitchen and eat as many chips as I can. I then get annoyed when Spur tries to charge me for those chips when I leave. And then start ranting that they do not have the right to limit the number of chips I get for the money I paid! Silly silly silly!

 

[hj2k_x]

Hmm a law student who makes the assumption that everyone, besides me, thinks the same way as him and then uses it as part of his argument!

If you feel exploitation of a system is where society currently is then I will quite happinly stay behind in 2007 thank you. I won't go too much further back than this as prior to this we did not even have ADSL, and I'll stay in SA as some countries still do not have ADSL

You do know you can buy unlimited ADSL don't you? If you are not happy with only 3Gb or 30Gb fork out for a package that suits your needs!

Seriously I am getting peeved with this argument. I hate analogies as they often take things to the extreme but I am forced to use one. Spur offers me a burger special at R20 and throws in free chips... I am not happy with the portion of chips offered so after eating what is on my plate I go into the kitchen and eat as many chips as I can. I then get annoyed when Spur tries to charge me for those chips when I leave. And then start ranting that they do not have the right to limit the number of chips I get for the money I paid! Silly silly silly!

As you said, I am a law student. We spend all day arguing and I can do the same here.

Nice analogy there...

I have said, twice I think, that we both agree that people should be charged for going over the local cap because Telkom have told them they would be. The problem is that this is not right. This is not the way it should be.

You say that you would rather be living in 2007 in a country that actually has ADSL rather than one that doesn't even have it. Well, can you name me one offhand? That doesn't have ADSL? Do you know that our broadband prices are the highest in the world by far? Granted, they have been coming down over the past few years but still.

I don't want to buy an uncapped 'solution' as the euphemism goes. I manage my data allowance, as pathetic as it may be, quite well thank you. I don't want to be limited to 3GB/month, but I am. The prices of uncapped accounts, even uncapped local are ridiculous and completely without and possible justification on Telkom's part, as , as I have mentioned before, prior to November 06, there was no cap on local and it was all free.

You might say that 'abusers' ruined all this by downloading more than a decent person should, but why cap it then? Why cap it so low? Why not offer users that consume a lot of bandwidth a month another option? a 50Gb local account, 100GB local even? At a higher price of course...But no. They go and cap it completely, deciding to charge the arbitrary amount of R25.50/gig for anyone daring to go over this limit. Unacceptable.

 

[kevinswan007]

Hmm a law student who makes the assumption that everyone, besides me, thinks the same way as him and then uses it as part of his argument!

If you feel exploitation of a system is where society currently is then I will quite happinly stay behind in 2007 thank you. I won't go too much further back than this as prior to this we did not even have ADSL, and I'll stay in SA as some countries still do not have ADSL.

You do know you can buy unlimited ADSL don't you? If you are not happy with only 3Gb or 30Gb fork out for a package that suits your needs! As you so cleverly stated the offer for limited access is there so take it or leave it!

Seriously I am getting peeved with this argument. I hate analogies as they often take things to the extreme but I am forced to use one. Spur offers me a burger special at R20 and throws in free chips... I am not happy with the portion of chips offered so after eating what is on my plate I go into the kitchen and eat as many chips as I can. I then get annoyed when Spur tries to charge me for those chips when I leave. And then start ranting that they do not have the right to limit the number of chips I get for the money I paid! Silly silly silly!

lol

spur can charge me for the chips. just not at 10 times what they are worth

 

[LancelotSA]

lol

spur can charge me for the chips. just not at 10 times what they are worth

Perhaps they are charging me 10x for the inconvenience I caused by disrupting the kitchen!

 

[PostmanPot]

Doh.

 

[kevinswan007]

Perhaps they are charging me 10x for the inconvenience I caused by disrupting the kitchen!

that makes no sense at all!!
the kitchen has a endless supply of chips.
they own the potato farms and pay the peelers peanuts.

 

[sWonAL]

Gah! ..showing my age then - WTF are you okes dloading, crikey! There can even be THAT much p0rn in world!!!!

O well....
there's not only pr0n in the world? LOL
now a day, one Full HD movy is like 10GB...
so do the maths...
or a epi of normal HD series is like 1GB...
do the maths again.
= A LOAD OF GIGS...

 

[Jonny Two Shoes]

Not going to read this whole thread

Anyway afaik Telkom said at the hearings that local is in no way limited for the user.

Download all the local shyte you want then. And when they bill you then you don't pay. Then when they kill your account then you should start asking questions like why am I being limited IMO they dug their own hole with this one actually, and unless Im stupid no-one else realised this. So did they really say that at the hearings btw? word for word?

 

[sWonAL]

Not going to read this whole thread

Anyway afaik Telkom said at the hearings that local is in no way limited for the user.

Download all the local shyte you want then. And when they bill you then you don't pay. Then when they kill your account then you should start asking questions like why am I being limited IMO they dug their own hole with this one actually, and unless Im stupid no-one else realised this. So did they really say that at the hearings btw? word for word?

acturally i thought about that...
but that might take sometime...
and i can't afford not having internet...
so i gave up... LOL