What the MPAA and movie houses will learn, much to their surprise, is that, if they can get people to stop downloading movies illegally, the amount of illegal movies available and piracy will barely fluctuate. The majority of people are NOT downloading movies. Even with cable modems, DSL, and other high speed connection, it is just not reliable enough for the average user.
It is far, far easier to rent movies from Blockbuster and Netflix and copy them. It is that simple. And, once you have a digital copy of a movie on your hard drive from a clean DVD, you can "print" as many DVDs of it as you can afford.
So, this method is a) cheaper, b) faster, c) easier, and d) allows for the greatest amount of copies to be made. Do they really think people are going to download movies?
Secondly, people will always share movies. I buy all of my movies legally. I figure that I want to pay the full price so that the movie company continues to make those sorts of movies. My dollar is power. But, when a family member or friends wants to see it but doesn't want to buy it themselves, I let them borrow it. I figure that, if I let them use my copy, they may buy it themselves if they like it.
I make these comments because there is some evidence that Comcast is purposely impeding people form using file-sharing applications. The company allows the connection and then sends a signal to make both computers "hang up" the connection. This 'service' is not discriminating between legal or illegal file sharing. If you are legally trying to share or distribute something using Gnutella or other file sharing services, you are on Comcast, and you keep getting disconnected, call Comcast and complain. They have no right to stop you from legal behavior. If, on the other hand, you are doing something underhanded you will need to figure out a work around to this current situation.
I do tend to download movies, but more often than not those movies turn in to hard copies legally purchased. It's rare that I'll not end up actually purchasing it unless it's some bizarre foreign film that I'd never be able to buy. In that case, I figure it's not much harm done since it's getting exposure where it wouldn't typically and it's not possible to purchase it here.
ReplyDeleteOh and about blocking activity on Comcast. They actually can do that. It's their network so they make the rules on it. There's no law against it. And I see it as them covering their butts. It's like schools preventing road trips because one kid might quite possibly act out. It's an overreaction, but a self-preserving/protecting one for the company just the same. They absolutely do have the right to protect their own network. Better way to exert dollar power here is switch providers.
I maybe didn't make my point clearly here- what I'm saying is that they have no right to stop you from doing legal behavior. If, as a company, they don't want to allow file sharing, then they should make a post/statement to that effect, change the EULA for the ISP, and then disallow ALL file sharing of any kind/size. But allowing these applications to function, except purposely disabling only certain connections, then trying to deny that they are doing this at all, and not telling their customers they are doing it is, at best, nefarious business practices. At worst it is illegal behavior on their part. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty in America-- and Comcast appears to be assuming guilt on any large file transfer and canceling it even when it is legitimate.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly that people should switch providers if this causes them concern. However, some areas don't have legitimate alternatives and are forced to keep their current ISP. Talk to my mom about the limited ISPs for high speed connection in her area. ;-)
Hehe believe me I know all about limited service provider choices! hehe!
ReplyDeleteI guess my perspective on this is different. A company has the right within their own company to have whichever rules/regulations on their property - which in this case is their leased portion of the internet. It's similar to a restaurant. No camouflage is an acceptable dress code, but it's not illegal to wear camouflage. It's within a restaurant's rights as a business though to impose extra security of its own property. This portion is not illegal of them to stop their patrons from doing something perfectly legal. Just because something is legal to do, doesn't mean that it's illegal to stop a person from doing such. It very much depends on the situation/circumstances. I happen to think the company is quite within their corporate rights to restrict usage and behaviour on it's network as it sees fit to protect itself.
I do very much agree with you though that it should be in the EULA that no file sharing will be allowed if that is something they're going to impose on their users as a rule. I hope that clarifies what I mean here. Not being clear with their customers about this is wrong morally, but not necessarily illegal.
To add to the ridiculousness, after our email conversation I check their website. It's pretty well impossible to read their customer service agreement without actually being eligible for and decided upon signing up! This kind of purposeful hiding really sours me on a company. Service agreements for all companies should be readily available whether on the website or in paper form. After the website couldn't provide me with what I was looking for (perhaps a clause stating that they can change without notice) I decided to call and ask if there was a paper copy available. There is not unless a customer actually signs up for the service!
ReplyDelete