The BBC says VPN users are content pirates...

[ForumSafari]

Well yeah, kind of. I mean most people using a VPN that aren't using it to dial in to work are probably using it to obfuscate traffic, probably for piracy.

 

[Darks63]

What if you use a proxy for security reasons and watch a ton of Netflix? Doesn't all that streaming look the same as downloading or am I wrong? if so this seems like another installment of watch the out of touch grandpas in government being stupid again.

 

[carnex]

The thing is though that unless you are doing something either shady or "important" such as running a business, online banking every day, etc. you honestly don't need a VPN. There is a lot of truth in that statement. As a normal person, unless your banking and other financial needs are done strictly online; you don't need a VPN or a proxy. Just like how when SOPA got shut down when Bill Mahrer talked about it. He says "We still want free shit!, that's what they're saying." That comment did pissed off a lot of people but it's true in some ways. Most people didn't want SOPA to pass because of piracy. Not because of the other negative things it would of done to net neutrality.

I understand and believe that people should have VPN's and use proxies if they want too. But don't deny that there is a VERY good portion of people using them for piracy purposes. In fact, I can honestly say with a straight face that most people wouldn't even KNOW what a proxy or VPN was if they didn't pirate. I can say that with a straight face and not feel any guilt about it at all.

1) Laws and rules are made, at least ideally, with idea of minimizing possibility of abuse and/or collateral damage/punishing the innocent.

2) I don't need VPN. I don't need encryption. Than again I don't need nice Cordon Bleu for lunch since loaf of bread would suffice. But I really want that Cordon Bleu and I is within my right to purchase that meal if it's on offer. Same goes for VPN and encrypted protocols. Seriously, what if I want to send my dick-pics to my girlfriend securely

3) SOPA would have given corporations to go around and over the law. That is unacceptable on every single level. When content ID wrecked that much havoc as it did when it was originally turned on, imagine what could and probably would happen if corporations could, without delay and need for cooperation of judicial system, remove content from internet or at least public view?

 

[Artaneius]

The thing is though that unless you are doing something either shady or "important" such as running a business, online banking every day, etc. you honestly don't need a VPN. There is a lot of truth in that statement. As a normal person, unless your banking and other financial needs are done strictly online; you don't need a VPN or a proxy. Just like how when SOPA got shut down when Bill Mahrer talked about it. He says "We still want free shit!, that's what they're saying." That comment did pissed off a lot of people but it's true in some ways. Most people didn't want SOPA to pass because of piracy. Not because of the other negative things it would of done to net neutrality.

I understand and believe that people should have VPN's and use proxies if they want too. But don't deny that there is a VERY good portion of people using them for piracy purposes. In fact, I can honestly say with a straight face that most people wouldn't even KNOW what a proxy or VPN was if they didn't pirate. I can say that with a straight face and not feel any guilt about it at all.

1) Laws and rules are made, at least ideally, with idea of minimizing possibility of abuse and/or collateral damage/punishing the innocent.

2) I don't need VPN. I don't need encryption. Than again I don't need nice Cordon Bleu for lunch since loaf of bread would suffice. But I really want that Cordon Bleu and I is within my right to purchase that meal if it's on offer. Same goes for VPN and encrypted protocols. Seriously, what if I want to send my dick-pics to my girlfriend securely

3) SOPA would have given corporations to go around and over the law. That is unacceptable on every single level. When content ID wrecked that much havoc as it did when it was originally turned on, imagine what could and probably would happen if corporations could, without delay and need for cooperation of judicial system, remove content from internet or at least public view?

For number 3 it would just go back to the way life was before the internet. Information was controlled back then with the newspapers, television, and radio. Over time future generations would just get used to it as generations before the internet had lived with it before. I fail to see this as a negative thing when life for every country has always been this way since forever except now with the internet. In some cases life would be better in a way. A lot less whining would be happening if the majority didn't know any better. In some cases it would be worse. Such as being exploited and used without knowing it.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

For number 3 it would just go back to the way life was before the internet. Information was controlled back then with the newspapers, television, and radio. Over time future generations would just get used to it as generations before the internet had lived with it before. I fail to see this as a negative thing when life for every country has always been this way since forever except now with the internet. In some cases life would be better in a way. A lot less whining would be happening if the majority didn't know any better. In some cases it would be worse. Such as being exploited and used without knowing it.

I don't get this view at all. Do you take this stance on other things like, say for example, healthcare?

"Stop whining that you're not getting life-saving medicine/surgery, it was WAY worse 50 years ago and it was better back then because people didn't complain"

Worse things that happened in the past don't excuse bad things happening now. And rejecting causes just because people are passionate about them is a very petty and illogical action. It's completely worth fighting for a faster, free-er more open internet if it raises the standards of living for everybody in the world.

 

[Thaluikhain]

sure you can watch whatever program you like on something like BBC America or another station with ads where it is bought and paid for to be shown etc, etc but you don't really have any kind of right to watch ad free BBC content unless your household actually pays the fees that funds it.

Off-topic, but how do you feel about the BBC making shows for the US (or other overseas) market? That seems very wrong to me.

 

[Teoes]

Spoiler: Spoilered for space, because double-spaced

since when was watching Doctor Who or Sherlock in Australia become "taking steps to protect your privacy online" ?

i mean really who do think you are kidding ?

lets be clear here for a moment:

the BBC iPlayer is directly funded by THE BRITISH PEOPLE via the television licence fee and that includes the costs of bandwidth/infrastructure etc to support it.

in terms of cost the BBC licence fee works out at about £15 a month if viewed as a subscription.

WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR YOU TO WATCH IT ?

there is no agreeable answer to that as far as i can see.

sure you can watch whatever program you like on something like BBC America or another station with ads where it is bought and paid for to be shown etc, etc but you don't really have any kind of right to watch ad free BBC content unless your household actually pays the fees that funds it.

and lets just say theoretically everyone in the world could watch it freely...
well done you just basically economically ruined the BBC...
hyeprbole ofc (we'd shut iPlayer down before that) but you get the point; it's not "a free lunch".

i don't care if this reported situation is the right way to deal with it or not but the idea of us funding your entertainment to the tune of £150 a year is not on...

You're trying to make a point, but seem to be struggling to communicate it.

I'm British, living in the UK. I do not pay for a TV licence because we do not watch live TV broadcasts in my household. We watch BBC content on the iPlayer after it has been broadcast, when it is freely available. There is nothing wrong or underhanded about this. Do you have a problem with me watching on this basis?

OT: Auntie Beeb is talking bollocks, someone needs to get her a scone to keep her quiet. The only two reasons my VPN isn't on constantly at home are so that I can keep watching iPlayer and not have Steam shit all over me for thinking I'm trying to diddle them.