English comedian, writer and Twitter-holic Stephen Fry has admitted to illegally downloading his old mate Hugh Laurie's latest TV series, while criticising the computing industry's consensus on P2P piracy.
Speaking at an Apple iTunes Live event at Camden's roundhouse over the weekend, Fry criticised the 'three strikes and your out' style approach of demonising (and attempting to sue) individuals for illegally sharing copyrighted material online.
Fry is of the opinion that fining individuals for downloading material for their personal consumption (not for commercial gain) is "the stupidest thing the recording industry can do" and that the law should look at those illegally downloading on an "industrial" scale instead.
Fry downloads Laurie
Fry also happily admitted using BitTorrent to download his favourite TV shows such as episodes of 24 and – ironically - his old mate Hugh Laurie's latest hit show.
"The last thing I illegally downloaded… was the season finale of House," Fry wryly let slip at the Apple iTunes Live gig.
"Hope I'm not misunderstood. Such a pity if I get misrepresented as a 'help yourself and be a pirate' advocate," Fry later Tweeted, following his iTunes gig.
Fancy heading along to an iTunes Live gig at the Roundhouse this week or next? Check the line-up over on Facebook.
Your comments (5) Click to add a new comment
awesomesauce
July 14th 2009
5. No it's not, the difference between stealing and copying is that when you copy something, assuming you weren't going to buy it in the first place -
(lets say you just didn't have the money or just copied it on impulse ie: you definitely wouldn't have spent money on it anyway)
- no-one loses out, so yes, there's a huge difference between copying and stealing and it's silly to think otherwise.
Alert a moderator
jmace86
July 14th 2009
4. Stephen Fry is a moron. Why exactly should people not be punished if they are illegally downloading content.
It is utterly irrelevant whether you are downloading for your own personal use or for commercial gain, the fact is that you are still stealing.
Is it okay if I steal a car as long as I only use it myself and do not try to sell it?!
Illegal downloading is exactly the same principle.
Alert a moderator
ripsnorter
July 13th 2009
3. @avi
As much as I hate record and movie companies, they do produce a product and deserve to get paid for it. The question of "how much" is a moot point, but piracy means they, and the artists, get nothing at all. If you won't sell me your stereo at a price I like, it does not give me the right to break in and nick it!
There will always be people who feel the Internet gives them the right to help themselves regardless. I feel the majority would be happy to pay a fair price for material that was widely and timely available - and this is where the media companies are failing their customers.
The fact lesser known artists hardly get anything is completely relevant. Try asking one or two of them their opinion first! They, as well as anyone who produces anything, should get something. You can dispute the amount and percentages, but the argument that everyone gets ripped off so why shouldn't they, is specious. You work for a decent wage, I hope, a good one even. But nobody is robbing you of the fruits of your labours, which piracy does.
Alert a moderator
avi
July 13th 2009
2. The fact is that everybody hates the record and movie companies and doesn't value the product as highly as they do.
They hate them for overcharging and for viciously protecting material in a way that no other organisation can. As manufacturers anything we make can be copied as soon as someone can buy it and there's nothing we can do about it, so why should they be different.
And the fact that lesser known artists hardly get anything isn't relevant because the same thing happens in all business enterprise.
It's a greedy outdated system that needs an overhaul and a price re-think.
Alert a moderator
ripsnorter
July 13th 2009
1. The point at the moment is that downloading material illegally, whether for personal or commercial consumption, is, well, illegal. It infringes copyright. I have no simpathy for media conglomerates that cling to regional coding, different release dates and/or versions, as well as consumer-hostile prices. There does need to be a middle way and I do agree with Stephen Fry, criminalising consumers is not the way to go. But the flip side of this is that, were I to donwload illegally everything by and with Stephan Fry, he would not get a single penny in royalties due to him. Forget the big names in entertainment for a minute, there are so many artists of whichever stripe who do need the money, even if it's the pittance the media companies (eventually, after a bitter lawsuit) do end up handing over.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments