Slashdot Mirror
UK Internet Filtering Bill Watered Down
superapecommando writes in with news that in the UK, Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court. The previous version of the Bill had drawn instant criticism from some of the world's largest technology companies, including eBay, Google, and Yahoo, who signed an open letter against the filtering proposal. Blogger Glyn Moody summed up opposition to the Bill, stating that in its previous form, it was "utterly one-sided, where the only winners are a music recording industry too lazy to change, and the losers are everyone else."
What is wrong with the UK? All I ever see are stories about another stupid thing you guys are doing.
Not trolling. Think about it. Slashdot is like 7% stories about stupid privacy/internet stories from the UK.
Unfortunately, this story is already out-of-date. The Government denied the Liberal Democrat peers the ability to amend the amendment, saying that they'd sort it out themselves during "washing-up", the period just before the General Election when ministers and last-term backbenchers rush through last-minute legislation with minimal debate while the majority of MPs return to their constituencies to campaign.
See this Guardian article for more information.
Pirate Party UK
Businesses and people who actually fucking create stuff
But that's the whole crux of the argument isn't it ? A long time ago, LPs and Singles had to be physically made in huge machines, tapes had to be created, CD's had to be pressed.
Despite the fact that CD's were supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Vinyl, they still milked the fuck out of it and the consumer got zero benefit.
And now, when duplication and transmission costs are essentially zero (no more physical product, no transportation costs, no distribution costs), they STILL want to charge the same gross markup they did in 1971 ?
All other businesses have to adapt or die ... why should the media companies get a free pass to continue screwing with their customers ?
If it's a case of paying 20 bucks for something, knowing that the actual artist will get 10 cents if he's lucky, then fuck them.
If it's a case of paying a *reasonable* price direct to the artist, I'll gladly pay.
There's a difference between leechers who just want a free ride (and unfortunately always will), and those of us that can actually see the wrong in a situation and stand by our principles to effect some kind of change.
If the law is in the pockets of big business, then it's people power all the way. What other choice is there ?
Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate [sic] the fact that people are takuing [sic] your output for free and not paying a single penny
Except you're a troll, because:
Some good changes that the industry could make would be to, firstly, stop lying, and secondly, to stop trying to criminalise their own best customers
Pirate Party UK
If you had a clue about the way information is processed (not just movies and music, information) you would understand that it is impossible to legislate filtering to block the sharing of files.
The best you can hope to do is block the way they are shared now, and possibly tomorrow. If you don't like it, then shut the internet down, and all which goes with it.
And BTW, try typing slower. Your text will be more readable but I doubt it will make any more sense.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The UK legal system operates on a "loser pays" basis, so unless there's something explicitly written into the law which puts such cases in the Small Claims Court (where there is a limit to the expenses that can be claimed by either side), you can guarantee anyone threatening to sue these people will be met with a nastygram saying "If you continue in taking us to court, we will demand costs. We're up to £20,000 now, and it's rising with every letter we write."
The people who are most likely to be cowed by such a threat are exactly the people who are most likely to get such a threat in the first place - I'm thinking particularly those who can't afford a solicitor and where the parents in the household don't really understand what the kids get up to on the Internet.
Since we can just copy some culture, nurturing the minds of all people, virtually for free, it seems just plain wrong not to. And how else, but with a bit of socialism, could we ensure the starving artists (or others starving) don't starve.
Just make sure everyone gets food, shelter and clothing (and perhaps internet by the water pump or equivalent, at least) and set culture free as in freedom and free as in beer.
Most people would still want to sell their time for added luxury. And capitalism could do its thing. Why should the market enable some people to bathe in luxury while others starve, though? There would still be plenty of room between starvation and ecological disaster for capitalists to play their game. They would just have a little less luxuries to bathe in.
Yeah, that's a bit longsighted and not easy to accomplish, but its also the proper thing to do, as I see it and any small steps that could be identified as leading in that general direction from here, should be taken, in my opinion.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
>they STILL want to charge the same gross markup they did in 1971
Gross price remains the same, the markup will actually be more.
Despite the fact that CD's were supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Vinyl, they still milked the fuck out of it and the consumer got zero benefit.
Wrong. The consumer got a format that was much less susceptible to damage, that didn't deteriorate in quality the more times you played it, and you didn't need an ultra-expensive hi-fi system to get pretty good audio sound from it.
Also, please don't forget that a single vinyl LP was limited to about 20 minutes of music on each side (40 minutes total) whereas a CD holds almost twice that amount - I agree it's taken the music industry a while to realise that fact but I'm certainly very pleased with what they're doing by remastering a whole load of classic albums and putting extra tracks on the CDs.
And now, when duplication and transmission costs are essentially zero (no more physical product, no transportation costs, no distribution costs), they STILL want to charge the same gross markup they did in 1971 ?
That only affects someone who is lame enough to buy lossy, compressed digital downloads. Personally, £10 for a music CD that I have possibly enjoyed time-and-time again over the space of 30-odd years is pretty good value for money, even if during that time I've rebought it once as a remastered edition with more content.
And please don't respond with the usual "but there's only ever two good tracks on a CD" nonsense. If an artist or group cannot maintain quality over the space of a complete album then they shouldn't be making albums - it's that simple.
If it's a case of paying 20 bucks for something, knowing that the actual artist will get 10 cents if he's lucky, then fuck them.
I doubt very much that any artist cares about whether you or I got a payrise this year - so what does it matter what they got paid? All that matters is that you get a product that you consider to be value for money, the musicians can go negotiate their own contracts.
There's a difference between leechers who just want a free ride (and unfortunately always will), and those of us that can actually see the wrong in a situation and stand by our principles to effect some kind of change.
I agree 100% with you on this. If you don't like the price of something then don't buy it, and don't copy it. Get a backbone instead.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
No one cries for horse buggy makers or tanners or typewriter makers. Some times, technology makes your business model completely obsolete. The best thing is to come up with a new one, either in a totally new industry or maybe adapt to the conditions the new technology has made. Trying to legislate against the new technology is bad for everyone as it holds up progress.
Who can afford the lawyers? Now if they really wanted to make this work (don't forget that all parties in england have to pacify the media/content owners. Do you want to upset the content producers and then be ridiculed forever in every piece of content? Go ahead, suggest the BBC should be privatized, see how long your public image survives. Yesterday the BBC aired an entirely self serving copyright program that showed only the content owners point of view. How suprising)
If this was to work, then the content owners should setup a fund from which lawsuits against them could be funded, they should be rate limited to the amount they could spend on lawyers and be stopped from endlessly appealing. The damages should be high enough that it is a serious detterent against endless false claims and for any succesful claim, the pot for making claims against them is doubled.
Else it is just a hollow shell. Nobody can afford to sue the media companies. Don't let the lib-dems fool you.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Th industry too lazy to change? Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?
That's up to them. Maybe their business model is no longer viable. Nobody is forcing them to create content.
The marketplace has changed. People want free content and have the ability to get it. It's a lot easier to change a business model than human nature. Complaining at us for not changing isn;t going to change us. Personally I like getting stuff for free.
It truly amazes me how so many people like you only see "black" or "white" in discussions on this or related subjects.
Firstly, if you happen to be a big music fan like me, you want to be able to continue to buy & listen to good quality music that you consider to be a fair price. Personally, I consider £10 to be more than a fair price for a music CD I may have enjoyed for 30 years or more. Plus I may want the artist to continue producing music of a similar quality, therefore to encourage that he/she should be paid for his work.
Secondly, I object to freeloaders. People who copy music, games or movies can only do so because enough honest people like me go out and buy the stuff in the first place - or likewise don't buy it (or copy it) if it's not worth the money.
Thirdly, I don't want mine or anyone else's Internet traffic filtered or monitored. But the fact is our governments are in the pockets of big corporations who have no desire other than to screw more and more money out of all of us - and file sharing just helps in giving them the justifications they need to cause that to happen, which in turn makes it bad for honest people like me as well, who have to put up with crap like DRM even though we're honest people.
So please don't just assume that being anti-piracy also means your anti-privacy.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
> Wrong. The consumer got a format that was much less susceptible to damage, that didn't deteriorate in quality the more times you played it, and you didn't need
> an ultra-expensive hi-fi system to get pretty good audio sound from it.
Nope. I remember all too well when CDs came out. We were told they were virtually indestructible, would play covered in jam & hairs and would be much cheaper than vinyl. At the time, they were around 10GBP in the UK compared to 5-6GBP for a vinyl album. We were told within a couple of years they would be cheaper than vinyl. Ten years later they were 15GBP+
>Also, please don't forget that a single vinyl LP was limited to about 20 minutes of music on each side
Yep(ish) but you did get double LPs with glorious artwork, liner notes etc.
>then they shouldn't be making albums - it's that simple.
That's a whole other agument. Back in the day, the A&R department might let a band put out 3-4 albums while they found themselves. Many now great bands had some dreadful early works - if we followed your rules we'd never have the good stuff. That was always the equation, the handful of uber successful groups funded the up and coming ones.
I always amazes what bullshit some people come out with in order to justify their continued use of BitTorrent.
My friend, stop with the politics because it's actually very simple - if it's too expensive, don't buy it. Then grow a backbone and don't copy it either.
When you start hitting these mega-corporations in their wallets, then they will start to listen to you.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court.
This is still highly lopsided.
Why does a "wrongfully accused" have to sue? Shouldn't that be that this accused has been sued already or so?
If really this way it is still that the music company just can say "you're file sharing!" without having to have any firm proof, as most file sharers will not sue in the first place because of the huge costs involved just to start up a suit.
As if slightly less terrible news is suddenly good news...
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The Liberal Democrats are supposed to be the heirs of the liberal tradition in the UK, supporting individual rights against government power. Their official party platform is John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. I don't really see how this fits even remotely.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
My friend, stop with the politics because it's actually very simple - if it's too expensive, don't buy it. Then grow a backbone and don't copy it either.
Very good advice indeed, and not only is that my approach, but I recommend it to everyone else as well. Check out sites like Jamendo. Also, donate to support those artists and corporations who have a 21st-Century approach to distribution.
When you start hitting these mega-corporations in their wallets, then they will start to listen to you.
This just isn't true. If you stop pirating, and buy their media, they decide that their increased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) are working, so they work to get more of them. On the other hand, if you stop pirating, and don't buy their media, they decide that their decreased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) aren't working, so they work to get more of them.
Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.
I -- and the Pirate Party -- have absolutely no intention of "[stopping] with the politics." The erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights being pushed for by the international media cartel are totally disproportionate to the actual damage they are suffering (minimal), and are fundamentally unjust, and deserve to be fought against.
Pirate Party UK
Net result for the company and artist if you don't copy = 0.
Net result for the company and artist if you copy = 0.
If people don't buy it, they *are* hitting the mega-corps in their wallets. Copying or not is irrelevant.
Dilbert RSS feed
How am I supposed to make any money from buggy whip manufacture now that these infernal combustion engines are everywhere!!!
I didn't discuss my privacy. I discussed the technical feasibility of stopping file sharing. I reckon I could sit down right now and invent 100 totally unique ways of exchanging files across the internet. Is British legislation going to anticipate all of those and allow for them to be stopped?
Its not possible. Forget about it. Unless (as I said) you largely shut down the internet and turn it into a way of delivering television programmes, then lock up anybody who tries to recreate it.
Do you want to do that? Most the the business we rely on would cease to function. Are you ready for that?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Nope. I remember all too well when CDs came out. We were told they were virtually indestructible, would play covered in jam & hairs and would be much cheaper than vinyl. At the time, they were around 10GBP in the UK compared to 5-6GBP for a vinyl album. We were told within a couple of years they would be cheaper than vinyl. Ten years later they were 15GBP+
The chances are that if I get jam or hairs on a CD, I can wipe it clean and it will play as it did before - unlike a vinyl LP. Besides which, if you get jam and hairs on CDs and fall for marketing hype then you probably need to be put in a cage in a zoo with a label "Greater Idiot" on it.
As for £15 CD prices - get real. Maybe if you buy everything in HMV in the high street - in which case you go in the cage also. I buy around 5 or 6 music CDs a month, I don't remember the last time I paid more than £10 for one; plus I buy a lot of remasters meaning they've got the extra tracks on them making them twice as long as a vinyl LP anyway.
Yep(ish) but you did get double LPs with glorious artwork, liner notes etc.
Yes, agreed, a lot of the great artwork hasn't survived well being knocked down to CD size, although many do have good liner notes - especially, again, on a lot of the remastered stuff. I always thought it was a missed opportunity to not put some of the old artwork and photos on the music CD as well.
That's a whole other agument. Back in the day, the A&R department might let a band put out 3-4 albums while they found themselves. Many now great bands had some dreadful early works - if we followed your rules we'd never have the good stuff. That was always the equation, the handful of uber successful groups funded the up and coming ones.
Yes, I think part of your statement is true, even to this day. I've certainly read somewhere that the Britney Spears of the world selling their trash by the millions helps to finance smaller artists - but then surely that's an advantage a record company has over a small artist trying to market themselves?
As to the first part of the statement, I'll talk about what I know. I mainly listen to classic rock & blues music from the late 60s to the present, and many artists that have been active pretty much throughout all of that period - e.g. Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin (and their solo projects), Nazareth, many others...
In pretty much all of those cases, the artists served "apprenticeships" on the pub and club circuits before making it anywhere near super-stardom. In turn this meant that many of the songs which would end up on albums had probably been played in front of live audiences for some time before, so I think this helped many bands put out very high quality initial albums.
In many ways that's changed today because artists are, in many but not all cases, are catapulted to fame instantly, just because the record companies market artists as fashionable and see a chance to make quick bucks. That's why, in my opinion, the general quality of music has dropped now.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I always amazes what bullshit some people come out with in order to justify their continued use of BitTorrent.
What are you talking about? I download software with bittorrent. You seem to be confusing the protocol with the content.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I'm certainly very pleased with what they're doing by remastering a whole load of classic albums and putting extra tracks on the CDs.
I, for one, am extremely unpleased with the quality of many remasters, as well as most new releases. Why? THE LOUDNESS WAR means they are doing it without concern for sound quality or the limitations of the medium.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Th industry too lazy to change?
Yes, as evidenced by your very next line:
Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny?
"We haven't done any of our own thinking on the issue -- give us an answer."
Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?
laughable.
What makes you think that you are entitled to make a living from making music at all? Was the fletcher entitled to making a living from producing arrows? Or the blacksmith entitled to making a living for making horse shoes? Surely we need legislation to resurrect those industries who have suffered far longer than any perceived suffering the music industry claims. What about the baker? He's seen the mom and pop version of his industry assailed by supermarkets for years. We surely need to help those mom and pop bakers out first as their plight has been ongoing long before we even had the internet. The same can be said for the mom and pop butcher.
It is laughable, I'll give you that. It's laughable that an industry feels it's entitled to survive no matter what may come. The level of entitlement displayed and articulated borders on delusional. Music might be culturally significant and of value, but it doesn't need an industry to remain so. This is the origin of the delusion -- confusing the value of the industry with the cultural value of the artistic output -- they are not equivalent nor necessarily linked.
Thought thinks itself.
to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court
ummm, i think this is just a nice way of rephrasing the same thing. i mean, sueing anybody *was* already allowed.
People who download media illicitly are the exactly the same people who spend the most money on media, as has been shown repeatedly by studies.
Lies, I tell you, lies! I've been doing my best to torrent all I want and not pay for any of it. Come on, people, do your part to bring the big media down! DO NOT BUY!!!
Circumcision is child abuse.
I reckon I could sit down right now and invent 100 totally unique ways of exchanging files across the internet.
Forget the Internet. For about 50p you could post a USB memory stick. It would take about a day to get to the recipient if you sent it first-class.
How long would it take to download 4GB of data? How much would it cost? Posting a 4GB USB stick would be comparable, once you've bought the (reusable) memory stick.
tru dat
You may be interested in Dynamic Range Day. A day to protest against the lack of DR.
http://productionadvice.co.uk/dynamic-range-day/
Businesses and people who actually fucking create stuff for a living rather than just hyperlinking to it are rightfully behind this bill.
I create stuff for a living and I'm against it. Maybe I don't count because I use a welder and other tools to create rather than a computer or musical instrument. I only get paid once. Here's a tip though: if your product can be infinitely reproduced at near zero marginal cost the true market price of each copy is close to zero except that you can place legal restrictions on your "customers". If steel products can ever be copied in such a way, I'll find something else to do rather than restrict and impoverish society through artificial scarcity. If the recording, movie and proprietary software industries were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them. I'm certainly not willing to suffer abusive laws to prop them up.
Please don't try to confuse the argument with semantics - it's clear by implication that I meant "BitTorrent when used for the purposes of music downloads". If you're too inane to work that out for yourself, that's not my problem.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I know a photographer that puts CF cards on to homing pigeons. They can carry two at once, around 32GB of data with today's tech. They can take a couple hours to a day or so. She has only ever lost one CF card, but she does back everything to a RAID hard drive on the set. It's far quicker than mail or Internet.
This bill contains 3-strikes and you are out law, which means that if someone is merely accused of copyright violation 3 times, their broadband connection is terminated.
I'll tell you what it looks like.
In the former USSR there was no Internet, but people listened to radio. There was no 3-strike law, you only needed to be caught once. You were not allowed to get information from the rest of the 'free' (what used to be free) world, if you tried, you were obviously an outlaw.
This is what it looks like to me, not precisely, but close enough. There is Internet, and then there is the 'free' Internet and the UK citizens are losing their free Internet.
It looks even worse than what happened in the USSR. There, they just tried to prevent people from listening to BBC by interfering with the radio waves, but they could not really know who was listening, who tried to listen.
Here they will know, they will know who is listening, who is trying. Even worse, if your connection is encrypted, I am sure that there will be in the future an assumption you are braking the law, so you will be presumed guilty for having an encrypted connection, unless it is to an approved bank or to an approved store I suppose. Which, by the way, if you think about it, is a perfect next step: eliminate bank and store competition, by only allowing encryption to a very select few. You think that won't happen?
This is worse than the USSR in terms of ability to listen and to make assumptions about who is doing what. This is still not as bad as the USSR, probably you won't go to a far away place in Siberia. Not yet. Not until UK contracts Russia out to handle its prisoners. You watch, that'll happen to: contracting brutal places out to handle your prisoners, especially prisoners that happen to be anti-policy, so they are anti-corporation, anti-government.
Shit, long time ago I though Britain could have been quite an interesting place to live for a while, now, I think I'll avoid that place just as much as I avoid the US, though I must admit, I like Florida's climate.
You can't handle the truth.
Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill
It's just "Liberal Democrat", not "Liberal Democratic". There's nothing liberal or democratic about these people.
The only thing that has changed is that I can sue the rights holder if I am cut off the internet without justification. Now correct me if I am wrong, but to go through the process of finding a lawyer, communicating with said lawyer, getting forms and doing all the other things you do during a court case would be SERIOUSLY hampered by not having access to the internet. What if I can't afford a lawyer and have to read up on law...can't spend my whole life down in London at the British Library sifting through law books, I would need access to the internet to be able to do research. Also, how the hell am I supposed to check IP addresses and other such online sites I am supposed to have downloaded copyright material from without access?
I wouldn't want to do this down my local internet café really...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
There is another aspect to that:
If you dont copy:
- net result for company and artist = 0
- net result for you = 0
If you do copy:
- net result for company and artist = 0
- net result for you = +1 (you 'enjoy' the art without compensating the artist/company)
Hence why copying is NOT the way to make a stand, you are just a freeloader.
Better idea:
Buy from independants via web sites:
- Megacorps net income = 0
- Artists tied to Megacorps net income = 0
- Independant artist = +1 (possibly more money than going via Megacorp per sale)
- your net result = +1
Have a nice day!
Very good advice indeed, and not only is that my approach, but I recommend it to everyone else as well. Check out sites like Jamendo. Also, donate to support those artists and corporations who have a 21st-Century approach to distribution.
Thanks for the advice but if you don't mind, I'll choose what music I listen to and how I'll buy it...
You know, that's the problem these days - everyone's far too busy poking in their big fat noses as to "how" something was done, rather than just deciding on the quality of the end product.
Sure, investigate into it if there's human rights issues in the production of something, or if people are on unfair wages - but quite frankly, for music, it's irrelevant. "Did I enjoy it?" and "Was it value for money?" are all that matters...
This just isn't true. If you stop pirating, and buy their media, they decide that their increased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) are working, so they work to get more of them. On the other hand, if you stop pirating, and don't buy their media, they decide that their decreased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) aren't working, so they work to get more of them.
So don't buy the stuff with DRM on it - finito.
I bought a DRMed CD once in HMV that wouldn't play in my car. I took it back, asked the sales assistant for a refund, he refused. I got him to get his manager, argued with him for 15 minutes, then got a refund. Get balls and a backbone...
I -- and the Pirate Party -- have absolutely no intention of "[stopping] with the politics." The erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights being pushed for by the international media cartel are totally disproportionate to the actual damage they are suffering (minimal), and are fundamentally unjust, and deserve to be fought against.
Nice speech, but get an MP elected in Parliament, then I might start taking you seriously - until then, don't call yourself a "Party"...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?
I’ll bite, even if it looks like trolling.
First we clarify the actual physics:
So the obvious consequence is, that if that information has some worth for you, and you don’t want to give it away for nothing, you have to demand something in return right at the first completely simultaneous release to x “clients”. ;)
After that, you have just shared the information with x people. Who can not be stopped from doing to it, whatever they please. If you’re not happy, tough shit, cause it’s too late! Go ahead, and fight basic physics. Next up: Gravity!
Now we must clarify something else: The production and marketing industry, the media reproduction industry and the musician industry, are three distinct things! The first two are usually combined into the “music industry”. The reproduction industry obviously lost its purpose and struggles with inevitable death. The music industry as a whole on the other hand...
The illusion is, that they would be for the musicians. Ask musicians. They will tell you, that they get around 3.5% of the whole profits. While the stupid producer gets 60!!! Plus they still have to pay the studio time from that! And as if this were not bad enough, the MI fights, to get the 3.5% even lower!
Now add the typical extortion contracts of the MI to it, and you get a mix that screams “the music industry is the enemy of the musician industry!”. Why do you think so many artist run away from than at their first chance to get out?
The same is true for every likewise industry. Films, games, books, you name it.
Finally to the basis of your arguments: The business model of the media industry.
Their fault was, that they handled information like a product. A good. Because when they started it, it always came in a container that could be a product. That was what they knew, so they ran with it. To the painful end.
All the problem are based on that single misunderstanding of basic physics of bitspace/information.
And now they are treating the artist like crap, treating the clients like crap... in a struggle to continue their delusion they walk over dead bodies (ACTA vs constitutional rights).
This all has nothing to do with taking any rightful compensation away from the artists. (The MI is working hard on that one anyway!) If the artists wanted something, they should have asked for it when they first passed it on. Now we have it, and it’? too late.
It has to do with the delusion.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Erm....horse carriage and typewriter makers have mostly disappeared because people don't want them any more. People still want recordings. Besides, recordings are non-rival whereas your other examples are not. They really are totally different cases.
If the BNP can call themselves a Party, the UKPP can too.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Sadly, the government and megacorps don't see it this way, and seek to get ISPs to deep packet inspect all torrent traffic in an attempt to find infringers, slowing down legitimate torrenters (Like software downloads, updates, game patches and I believe Spotify uses BitTorrent - I know it uses some form of P2P, if it's BT or some other form of streaming, I don't know) as collateral damage.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Is it just me, or are all politicians born with a corporate cock up their asses.
It's 2010, people voted for these scum to be elected, yet I never here anything about them helping the individual citizen.
Ehm...you mean the fact that NOBODY walks around with a portable CD player any more. People LOVE their mp3 players, they are just not allowed tot put music on them. I have a very simple reason for downloading the cd's I already have, it takes longer to rip the CD than to download it. Besides the fact that ripping a CD is just as illegal as downloading it.
So not giving the people what they want and "moving heaven and earth" to brand them criminals is capitalism now, sounds more like communist Russia.
Point #2, I know it's illegal to upload but is it also illegal to download copyrighted stuff in the UK?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It does not, however, amaze me to see that complete and utter shit morons still inhabit Slashdot.
There are plenty of good reasons to copy what we want from Copyright holders. They have spent the last 100+ years eroding our rights. It's completely and utterly fair to erode theirs in turn.
You brushed over the report there. The report basically was ignored because it said that DRM and internet antipiracy efforts were worthless and unwarranted. So the government ignored them.
So the Green Party in the US is not a party because they have no Federal representation (or do they? I really don't know for sure)?
You are a narrow-minded piece of shit that is probably paid by the assholes ruining the world of "intellectual" property.
Not that my political allegiances are any of your business but I've never voted BNP nor do I think I ever will.
However, they do have some elected representation (in the European Parliament I seem to recall) and can probably justify referring to themselves as a party.
Again, let's not talk semantics - any bunch of loonies can gather together and call themselves what they like and (within reason) say what they like. It doesn't automatically follow that anyone's listening to them or that they wield any form of power.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
But I'm the "shit moron" that buys stuff legally that allows you to freeload off the back of me - does that make you a "shit moron hag" then?
You carry on with your little "Robin Hood" crusade of justifying your personal greed, and I'll keep subsidising your music collection for you.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
well people still want personal transport and they still want typed words, its just that the technology of how these desires are reached has changed.
Also while people do want recordings, what the industry is trying to get us to buy is physical copies of the recordings. Technology has resulted in the physical copies being no longer needed and in some cases no longer wanted.
Agreed, they probably won't.
But then my argument is that if they're not given the "Piracy" justification to do it in the first place, then they just look like a government infringing on personal liberties - in which case we can just kick the bastards out.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If nobody buys it, then it wouldn't be released in the first place because there would be no profit to be made.
And copying something that does not exist is impossible - well, with the exception of Microsoft.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
So the Green Party in the US is not a party because they have no Federal representation (or do they? I really don't know for sure)?
I'm in the UK, I have no great interest in US politics - as I believe is also the case the other way round.
Nope, if they don't have representation in government, they're not a party - and the Greens are a prime example of an organised bunch of tree-hugging loonies.
You are a narrow-minded piece of shit that is probably paid by the assholes ruining the world of "intellectual" property.
And you must be telepathic or highly empathic to make that assumption about me purely on what I have revealed to be my views on music buying.
Actually, I'm nothing more than a person that enjoys good music - and I'm willing to reward someone who makes something that I enjoy.
You also probably need to go read some of my historical posts also - from them you'll see that anyone who throws abuse at me automatically loses the argument; because if you need to resort to abuse, you've nothing more intelligent to say to me.
So thanks for another victory and "Have A Great Day"!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Nice in theory, but you missed out one important aspect, given the context of the situation
If you do copy:
- net result for you = +1 song that you want
If you buy from independents
- net result for you = +1 song that isn't the one that you want
Have to take the industry stranglehold into account
I suspect MichaelSmith isn't, but we know that some of our politicians and media bosses are. And as they're the ones making the policy decisions, it rather is your problem if you contribute to the "protocol = content" association.
The difference is, for every 4 stupid things the US introduces, 3 are fought and 2 are shot down. For that amount, UK introduces 2 stupid things and both pass with little or no opposition.
Every time I hear the words "Bill Watered down", I am going to think of the Overton Window, a phrase that Fortunato_NC recently taught me (thanks!).
Propose some "extremely extreme law", and your going more likely to get the nice watered down ordinary old "extreme law" passed, the one that your sponsor(s) always wanted - while maintaining your political capital.
Only a matter of time before the internet start's hosting more living document's aimed to help the layman select their vote, complete with these dirty little tricks + pictures of the top political offenders... can ram that political capital you know where Mr Politician.
I never implied you would vote BNP, What I was saying was that the BNP don't have any seats in parliment either (okay, they got 2 in the EU)
Calling yourself a party has nothing to do with how many seats you have.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
It always amazes what bullshit some people come out with in order to justify the continued abuse of Copyright as Monopoly by record labels. You seem to not have listened to the point - people would rather pay 10 cents direct to an artist than 10 dollars to a record label whose cost of doing business has dropped dramatically, but since they are a copyright monopoly they use this monopoly to prop up their pricing in an abusive manner.
Pure and simple: Monopolies don't work.
"Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?"
The same way all the other producers of easily duplicated product on Slashdot make money perhaps? Yes, I'm referring to many of the software developers here.
You can just do what most of us do- work on a contract, find somewhere that will pay you a wage to play music for them 9 - 5, 7 days a week, or create a subscription service where you release a few new tracks each week and people can pay you monthly for the privalage of getting these from you. Produce tracks for games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero, or for movies, where there is some added value to your music.
How the fuck do you think the likes of brass bands which make next to nothing from CD sales survive?
What's that, no one wants to subscribe to your music? no one wants to hear you play live? Tough fucking shit, no one wants Pascal programmers nowadays either. Get a skill employers want, get skilled enough in the skill you love- i.e. music so that people actually WANT to employ you in that role, or stop fucking crying.
Maybe YOU should come out of mom's basement, and actually finally get round to working for a living like everyone else, instead of expecting the world to be handed you on a plate because you're too god damn lazy to work an honest days work like everyone else has to and think you should be able to get paid indefinitely for just a one-off few hours work in the studio.
"Businesses and people who actually fucking create stuff for a living rather than just hyperlinking to it are rightfully behind this bill."
Really? I create software for a living, and I'm sure as hell not. Neither is anyone I work with, because the difference is, we understand that we need to work for our wage, rather than expect it just be handed to us for bumming around enjoying ourselves. Life isn't easy, get the fuck over it.
I couldn't care if people take the work I did yesterday and copy it for free, as long as they keep paying me for the work they expect me to do tommorrow- and they will, because I make sure I provide value enough for them to be willing to do so.
Nice speech, but get an MP elected in Parliament, then I might start taking you seriously - until then, don't call yourself a "Party"...
What - like the Green Party? Or the Christian Party? You can quite happily be a political party with millions of supports no seats in Parliament. Does that make you not a politcal party?
(I'm not a Pirate Party supporter - just saying your point is crap is all).
> Despite the fact that CD's were supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Vinyl, they still milked the fuck out of it and the consumer got zero benefit.
Nearly all of what you've said seems to be wrong. Using UK prices as an example, the cost of making a CD or LP is less than £1. In the shops a CD album is about £11 or £12. If I buy it as an MP3 download or AAC via iTunes it's only £7 or £8. How exactly, do you calculate that this cost saving has NOT been passed on to us? If it hadn't been passed on, we'd still be paying the £12 per CD that we used to pay, even if we purchased our music online. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that CDs were supposed to be cheaper than Vinyl either. It's always been more difficult and more time consuming to press a CD than to press a vinyl disc. Vinyl is essentially just a solid piece of plastic you can stamp out in seconds out of low cost materials and glue a paper label to the middle to finish it off. CDs are multi-layered plastic/foil combo and even have to have a protective laquer coating applied after they've been pressed. You can't glue paper to them, so even the text has to be printed in acrylic inks. The laquer coating and inks take a while to dry which increases costs.
Great, I knew this one would come out as well!
Tell me something, when every music artist is selling their own music through their own web site, and there are tens of thousands of them all doing it at the same time, what is going to aid you in finding the stuff in all that "noise" that is going to appeal to your tastes? Are you *REALLY* telling me that every piece of music you own has not, in some way, been connected to you by some kind of marketing?
Again, you're a Slashdotter that refuses to accept anything unless it's in true "black and white" terms...
I don't give a shit how much money an artist makes from their work, just like Eric Clapton does not give a shit whether or not I got a pay rise last year.
*ALL* I care about is I'm getting a product that is worth the money I paid for it - sure, I like to think I have some social conscience before I buy stuff but I don't think world poverty is being preserved just because I buy a music CD...
Why do people feel this *NEED* to get behind some kind of cause all of the time?
Besides which, if I buy a CD, the artist gets *SOMETHING*...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If nobody has elected someone in your party to a position of political representation then it doesn't say much about interest in your policies, does it?
I could form a party today called "Free Party Hats For Pets Party" that has no more political power than the "Pirate Party" and probably has just as much chance of political representation.
Join the REAL world...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
What - like the Green Party? Or the Christian Party? You can quite happily be a political party with millions of supports no seats in Parliament. Does that make you not a politcal party?
And both of them dangerous loonies in the process.
Oh, I see - so you can "support" a party but not actually "vote" for them? That's an interesting slant...
This is the FINAL time I will say this - you have NO political representation in government, therefore you wield NO power and you might as well be "The Free Clogs For Dogs" party...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
so because duplication costs are zero you gloss over the fact that it can take people twenty years hard work to become world class musicians, or the fact that 1,000 people may work for four years to make a hit movie.
Apparently that movie should still be free, according to the asshats in 'teh pirate partee!!!' because they are too dense to understand the concept of 'fixed costs'.
No surprise to see such pro-priacy anti-creator bullshit peddled by the dickhead party, or slashdot...
Loonies or not the Pirate Party of Sweden is the third largest elected party there. The similarly named and causally similar Pirate parties of twenty other countries have not yet achieved such success but are obviously going to try as you would find out if you happened to check Wikipedia before dismissing them.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
> Forget the Internet. For about 50p you could post a USB memory stick. It would take about a day to get to the recipient if you sent it first-class.
It doesn't have to be in the post either. Before Sir Tim had his great idea we used to share music on cassette tapes in the playground. If they cut Internet access the sharing will simply move offline and go underground. This of course is where DRM comes in but we all know how well copy protection has worked for the software market.
A few people have commented about the BBC's Panorama programme last night. There was a great quote on there from Billy Bragg (who opposes the DE bill):
"The music industry is thriving. The record industry is dead on its feet"
But that's the whole crux of the argument isn't it ? A long time ago, LPs and Singles had to be physically made in huge machines, tapes had to be created, CD's had to be pressed.
Why should physical products be privileged over intellectual ones? Physical products wear out and die in a short amount of time. Intellectual products can last a lot longer, potentially for as long as humans survive. Physical products can cause massive environmental damage and waste. Many humans have been killed, disabled or made ill in the manufacturing process. Why should we pay more for something that is bad for humanity, instead of something that has fewer side effects?
... and then they built the supercollider.
No one cries for horse buggy makers or tanners or typewriter makers
Not true.
... and then they built the supercollider.
It seems I spoke to soon. Bragg and other FAC members were definitely painted in the programme as not wanting to criminalise fans for downloading but further looking on the FAC website revealed this which says..
We the undersigned wish to express our support for Lily Allen in her campaign to alert music lovers to the threat that illegal downloading presents to our industry and to condemn the vitriol that has been directed at her in recent days.
Our meeting also voted overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer's bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
Signed: ...
Billy Bragg
So it seems they are against cutting people off but are happy with bandwidth choking with no evidence?
Yours,
Consfused.
you're a fool for declaring they are not a party when they are still new to politics.
Doesn't stop me and some hard cider from trying.
Of course, telling people to "get balls and a backbone" just because they disagree with your approach isn't abusive in the slightest... Everyone's views of "good music" differ, if someone else likes music from $EVIL_LABEL they have three choices, buy into the DRM BS, download and be labelled a cirminal or miss out on something they enjoy because of the greed of someone who didn't even have a hand in producing the music, literally a leech on society benefitting from the talent of others.
As for your view on when a group is or isn't allowed to refer to itself as a party, it's totally nonsensical. Would Labour or the Conservatives have ever come to power if they'd been forced to call themselves a coallition of loonies with broadly similar principles instead of the X Party?
Actually, I'm nothing more than a person that enjoys good music - and I'm willing to reward someone who makes something that I enjoy.
Then you probably hate the current system and support copyright reform.
make them in more colors & styles, then sell them to the BDSM crowd...
But I'm the "shit moron" that buys stuff legally that allows you to freeload off the back of me - does that make you a "shit moron hag" then?
You carry on with your little "Robin Hood" crusade of justifying your personal greed, and I'll keep subsidising your music collection for you
So you're one of those bastards that keeps the media cartel in business? In fact, you even fund their lobby towards evil legislation such as the one in TFA.
I'd rather be a freeloader than a contributor to pure evil.
It's not "illegal" to do either. Copyright is a civil, not a criminal law (unless you're selling counterfeits). The fact that everyone, especially the media, refer to illegal downloads is just another way that the labels have bastardised our language to their own ends, the same as calling everyone who downloads a "pirate" (still defined in maritime law as one of the worst criminal offences it's possible to commit, somewhat akin to calling all downloaders rapists or murderers).
net result for you = +1 song you want
net result for artist = -1 sale to someone who WANTS their song.
Whether you agree with the mega corps or not, you ARE enjoying the art (by your admission its a song you WANT), but not paying for it in anyway, just gettign it free (leeching).
Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with the megacorps, but if i wanted a song, I do buy it, and not leech it, irregardless of the megacorp behind it. You cannot commit a real crime (copyright infringement) where you actually USE the material you have infringed, just because you dont like Megacorp Inc.
Have a nice day!
Nope. I remember all too well when CDs came out. We were told they were virtually indestructible, would play covered in jam & hairs and would be much cheaper than vinyl. At the time, they were around 10GBP in the UK compared to 5-6GBP for a vinyl album. We were told within a couple of years they would be cheaper than vinyl. Ten years later they were 15GBP+
The chances are that if I get jam or hairs on a CD, I can wipe it clean and it will play as it did before - unlike a vinyl LP. Besides which, if you get jam and hairs on CDs and fall for marketing hype then you probably need to be put in a cage in a zoo with a label "Greater Idiot" on it.
Blah Blah BLah
As for £15 CD prices - get real. Maybe if you buy everything in HMV in the high street - in which case you go in the cage also. I buy around 5 or 6 music CDs a month, I don't remember the last time I paid more than £10 for one; plus I buy a lot of remasters meaning they've got the extra tracks on them making them twice as long as a vinyl LP anyway.
Blah Blah Blah Blah
Yep(ish) but you did get double LPs with glorious artwork, liner notes etc.
Yes, agreed, a lot of the great artwork hasn't survived well being knocked down to CD size, although many do have good liner notes - especially, again, on a lot of the remastered stuff. I always thought it was a missed opportunity to not put some of the old artwork and photos on the music CD as well.
Blah Blah Blah Blah
That's a whole other agument. Back in the day, the A&R department might let a band put out 3-4 albums while they found themselves. Many now great bands had some dreadful early works - if we followed your rules we'd never have the good stuff. That was always the equation, the handful of uber successful groups funded the up and coming ones.
Blah Blah Blah Blah
Yes, I think part of your statement is true, even to this day. I've certainly read somewhere that the Britney Spears of the world selling their trash by the millions helps to finance smaller artists - but then surely that's an advantage a record company has over a small artist trying to market themselves?
Blah Blah Blah Blah
As to the first part of the statement, I'll talk about what I know. I mainly listen to classic rock & blues music from the late 60s to the present, and many artists that have been active pretty much throughout all of that period - e.g. Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin (and their solo projects), Nazareth, many others...
Blah Blah Blah Blah
In pretty much all of those cases, the artists served "apprenticeships" on the pub and club circuits before making it anywhere near super-stardom. In turn this meant that many of the songs which would end up on albums had probably been played in front of live audiences for some time before, so I think this helped many bands put out very high quality initial albums.
In many ways that's changed today because artists are, in many but not all cases, are catapulted to fame instantly, just because the record companies market artists as fashionable and see a chance to make quick bucks. That's why, in my opinion, the general quality of music has dropped now.
I think that about sums it up.
I wasn't arguing with you on that point, just pointing out that "just support independent artists instead" doesn't solve all your problems if those independent artists aren't the ones whose art interests you.
Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?
laughable.
What makes you think that you are entitled to make a living from making music at all? Was the fletcher entitled to making a living from producing arrows? Or the blacksmith entitled to making a living for making horse shoes?
The irony is, just over ten years ago some geeks did come out of the basement and show the world how to make money from the internet in the spirit of "information wants to be free". They were called Larry and Sergei and they seem to have done pretty well for themselves from it, yet time and again these multi-billion dollar fossil record labels tell us they need their business model protecting because they don't understand how to monetise their product on the internet. I'm sure no end of friendly neighbourhood geeks could help them if they really wanted to change.
If you are a content creator and you can't make a living, then do something else. There are many jobs I would like to do for a living, but I wouldn't get paid enough (or at all) so I do something else, it is quite straight forward. In fact if this bill goes through I will probably be put out of business (the whole hosting industry in this country will probably be collateral damage) so I will in fact do something else, thanks.
Of course it is a shame that people copy content without paying for it, but it isn't really a problem compared to the problems of other businesses, and certainly not worth breaking something as important as the internet over.
Shops for instance rely on physical goods. It is illegal to steal them, and yet this still happens. Shop owners spend a lot of money on physical security, and insurance in case things get stolen, and yet still don't campaign for the right to have people stopped from going near their shops (i.e. some form of imprisonment) without any proof of actual theft. When comparing "theft of intellectual property" to actual theft it is clear that the content industry has it easy, and this bill is only about alleged infringement, not actual infringement, to make matters far worse.
But now we have an industry that has relatively few problems demanding that the internet is damaged for no good reason, and the people using the internet should pay for this expensive whim. I say no good reason because (1) no one has proved file sharing is actually bad for said industry (2) the industry seems to be doing well despite the global recession, and (3) the only point that really matters: no one has proven that the content industry is more important to more people than a free and open internet.
I can live without TV, without films, without music, and it really wouldn't bother me. If all those industries disappeared overnight then fine, so long, and thanks for all the fish. The internet, however, improves my quality of life so much (as well as providing my income) that I would gladly keep it over the entertainment industry.
Liberty is more important than entertainment.
It's easier than that - produce a product at a price point people are happy to pay (i.e. not £10 for a digital album when I can buy the CD version for £5 in local stores), make it incredibly easy for people to obtain your product, make it easy to use and share across different devices, make a quality product people are happy to support, stop criminalising your best customers, accept that you'll never stamp out free downloading for good and stop pouring money into the bottomless pit of DRM. Do those things and you will never be short of customers, then learn to be satisfied with the millions you are making instead of obsessing over the millions more you wish you were.
I've always been a bit of a liberal, but the Lib Dem's lack of cohesive leadership recently has totally shattered any chance I'll be voting for them.
This nonsense amendment was by a Lord. Firstly, the Lords can do what they like, even going against their party policy (in fact, even MPs can, but this is even more so in the Lords).
Secondly, you don't vote for Lords.
If you're not going to vote for a Lib Dem MP, based on what a Lord does, when it's neither the policy of your MP candidate nor Lib Dem party policy, that doesn't really make sense.
Admittedly, I do wish there'd be something more public from the main party itself to distance themselves from this amendment. But my own Lib Dem candidate has already confirmed that he doesn't support it - at least write to your candidate to see his or her views, before throwing your vote away.
Like I said, I like music & the stuff I buy is good value for money.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I'm terribly sorry, but I'm afraid your information is out of date. We have no Jedi here, because after the government conducted a census for which everyone was legally required to provide information, the Powers That Be decided they knew better anyway and everyone who declared their religion as Jedi was just making it up.
Also, I am amused by the people who think we have an "atheist" state when there are still people sitting in the House of Lords with the power to legislate just because they hold high office in a church. No, really, there actually are.
On a more serious note, TFA is now slightly out of date as well. The House of Lords approved the Bill. Clause 17 (the three strikes provision) is still gone, but it looks like most of the rest made it through. Lord Clement-Jones, the Lib Dem peer who originally proposed the controversial amendments, seems to think that what went through was a good thing. Go figure.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Of course, telling people to "get balls and a backbone" just because they disagree with your approach isn't abusive in the slightest...
Right, so tell the people who come on here proudly crowing to everyone that they're "sticking it to the man" just because they're greedy leechers who want something for nothing to stop also - because I'm *SICK AND TIRED* of subsidising their music habits...
Everyone's views of "good music" differ, if someone else likes music from $EVIL_LABEL they have three choices, buy into the DRM BS, download and be labelled a cirminal or miss out on something they enjoy because of the greed of someone who didn't even have a hand in producing the music, literally a leech on society benefitting from the talent of others.
Why's this relevant to anything I've said?
I don't buy DRM music, the one time I did it went back to the shop and I got a refund. Other than that, I don't give a shit about record companies making profits, that's up to them. As far as I'm concerned they produce more than enough good product at a good enough price for me to continue buying music. Like I said already, Eric Clapton does not give a shit that I got no bonus last year; I like his music but I don't give a shit about his cut of the profits.
As for your view on when a group is or isn't allowed to refer to itself as a party, it's totally nonsensical. Would Labour or the Conservatives have ever come to power if they'd been forced to call themselves a coallition of loonies with broadly similar principles instead of the X Party?
Many a true word spoken in jest! :-)
In truth, hadn't thought about it and don't really care. In my 48 years on this Earth I've learnt there are far too many people with far too much time on their hands who think they have something inportant to say but I don't have the time or inclination to listen to it.
I like music, I like CDs, music is good value for money.
Digital downloads are a lossy waste of money that will ultimately destroy the music industry. And it will be destroyed by people treating music like Pick N Mix sweeties because they've not got the attention span to listen to a music album properly.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Well, here in the UK, we're just copying the US model. I gather that for a long time, the average viewer of The Daily Show has been more informed than the average viewer of Fox News. Over here, the average viewer of Mock the Week or Have I Got News For You? (or the average listener to The News Quiz, if you prefer) is probably more informed than the average viewer of Panorama, Question Time or Newsnight.
It's a shame, because some of those flagship BBC current affairs programmes really were good once upon a time. I think their demise comes from a combination of over-editorialising and pushy presenters. In particular, when did it become acceptable for Paxman et al. to express their own (or their editors') views, while repeatedly cutting off guests with a pithy insult before they can even finish a sentence? Politicians have responded by just sending automatons who repeat the same talking point time after time whether or not it is relevent, and the whole thing loses any meaning as a one-on-one interview or a debate between people with differing view points.
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be this way. I was pleasantly surprised a few weeks ago when there were a couple of academics of quite different viewpoints on Newsnight, and they actually did engage in a civilised debate based on factual evidence and logical argument. Paxman did a good job, asking a few questions but hardly speaking at all during the answers, both guests made interesting and well-informed points, and it was the best episode of the programme I've seen in years.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
We did this throughout the 90s and they ended up blaming the internet. Go and check sales figures and you'll see a drop-off that started well before the Internet became a common utility.
"*ALL* I care about" Well what you care about is not frankly very interesting in the overall scheme of things. That you are happy with a broken outdated system is fine. Your argument seems to be based around " I am happy, I personally cannot visualize another system of music distribution, thus I ignore the implications of a monopoly situation".
Black or white? Your definition, perhaps because people disagree with you?
None of the music I own was connected to me by marketing. It was discovered via means other than a major label.
By the way I work with lots of musicians and I tell them all the same when I record them, give your music away in order to build an audience for your live performances. The old system is dead.
Maybe Eric Clapton made money from the "old system" but 99% of the working musicians never made a dime from recorded music.
The cost of recording music now is virtually free now anyway.
And yes, if there are thousands of music web sites, we have enough technology and search knowledge to allow people to find what they want.
Now explain tome exactly how this music monopoly benefits anyone besides you. It certainly does not benefit the majority of musicians. Oh, I guess maybe copyright exists to make sure U2 and Eric Clapton can make the maximum from their music and damn the rest.
The sooner musicians realize they have to get up on stage and work, that the day of recording an album and winning the lottery is over.
But you go ahead and live in the past, you and Eric.
Fallacy. Fallacy. All is fallacy.
For point #1, record profits does not mean anything with regards to a person's right to violate law. It's like saying you have the right to break into your neighbour's house just because his yearly salary broke seven figures.
For point #2, I have to break this one up:
a) This one is very simple: Not all of the people who download illicitly then go out to buy anything, and
b) The people who do go out to buy certainly don't buy everything they download. That fraction of people only buy what they like, right? This means they're still listening to (or watching, or playing, or using) the products they don't like without paying for it. While I'm sure you feel justified in claiming you shouldn't pay for what you don't like, that does not put you above the law. If you're going to violate the law, just admit it and shut up.
Certainly, I agree that the legal system in many countries regarding copyright protection is messed up and I also believe it needs to change, but if you're going to argue about it, at least use good, solid arguments and stop relying on error and fallacy.
That is FALSE.
Crime or no crime, the net result for the artist is ZERO. You are assuming that if the person didn't download the song, he/she would buy it. That's not a valid assumption.
Dilbert RSS feed
Lots of stuff are released without expectation of profit or without expectation of direct profit.
But even if your statement was correct, that doesn't invalidate what I've written. If you don't buy and don't copy, there's no profit to be made.
Again, copying is irrelevant.
Dilbert RSS feed
"*ALL* I care about" Well what you care about is not frankly very interesting in the overall scheme of things. That you are happy with a broken outdated system is fine. Your argument seems to be based around " I am happy, I personally cannot visualize another system of music distribution, thus I ignore the implications of a monopoly situation".
Why should I? It works for me... music is one of the few things I spend my hard-earned money on that is consistently good value for money. I don't see a broken out dated system, I've been happily buying CDs for 20+ years now, and they are much better than the LPs and tapes I bought before that.
Black or white? Your definition, perhaps because people disagree with you?
Is that not the purpose of posting on here? To inform and also have discussion and intelligent argument?
None of the music I own was connected to me by marketing. It was discovered via means other than a major label.
Well, I'm listening. Enlighten me, how did you discover it?
The cost of recording music now is virtually free now anyway.
How did you work that one out? Playing an instrument is free (once you have access to an instrument) and you can certainly record yourself for low cost. But for a professional quality recording you still presumably need someone to engineer and mix it, and you would probably want to record it in a studio that's accoustically designed for the purpose. That all costs money...
By the way I work with lots of musicians and I tell them all the same when I record them, give your music away in order to build an audience for your live performances. The old system is dead.
Well fine, let's see if they do that and see if it works. If I walked up to the same group of musicians and suggested they, say, jump off a cliff, I doubt any of them would do it... just because you told them to give their music away, doesn't mean they would do it either. I mean, in what professional capacity did you give them that advice? Such that you're confident they will follow it...
Maybe Eric Clapton made money from the "old system" but 99% of the working musicians never made a dime from recorded music.
In which case, they make the decision that either music or money is more important to them - if it's the latter, go get a proper job then. Sorry what does this have to do with anything I've said? I'm just a music listener who wants to find good quality music at a good price...
And yes, if there are thousands of music web sites, we have enough technology and search knowledge to allow people to find what they want.
Right. So you mean to tell me that you are going to spend lots more time finding stuff that you will enjoy listening to, are you?
So, in other words, you're not a serious music fan at the moment because you don't like the CD format (I believe the term you used was "broken"?) despite it being the best and clearest way to buy music at the moment, but when it's available for download in a lossy format from thousands of bands web sites, you're then going to become a serious music fan and spend hour after hour searching for stuff to listen to... I think not.
Now explain tome exactly how this music monopoly benefits anyone besides you. It certainly does not benefit the majority of musicians. Oh, I guess maybe copyright exists to make sure U2 and Eric Clapton can make the maximum from their music and damn the rest.
Explain to me how someone who gets maximum enjoyment from listening to high quality audio CDs on a reasonably good hi-fi benefits from having to download it in a lossy format just like "Pick N Mix" sweeties at the cinema.
Explain to me how musicians who are currently used to touring off the strength of a new album will organise tours in future when they are only producing odd tracks here and there because the people with no attention spans who call themselves music fans have decided this is the way music should be distributed.
Explain to me, as
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
So you're one of those bastards that keeps the media cartel in business? In fact, you even fund their lobby towards evil legislation such as the one in TFA.
Sorry, do you drive a car by any chance and think about what it might be doing to the environment?
Do you drink Starbuck's coffee and think about how much the farmer got paid for growing it?
Do you wear branded jeans and wonder about how much the Third World employee got paid for making them?
Surely all the above are more important issues to consider than who gets the profits from every CD you buy, yet you're here trying to "change the world" and trying to justify your greed & theft in the process.
Like I said already, I buy my music, as a self-admitted freeloader, you steal it. Therefore you don't get a say in the matter because I subsidise your music habits.
So shut the fuck up and go earn some money so artists get paid for their work.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
No-one did anything during the 90s because money was not in short supply & most people appear to have had plenty of it to waste.
It's times like these with money in short supply that people need to take a serious look at how they're spending their money and how to put it to best use.
Unfortunately, there are still too many mindless maggots that queue at midnight for new computer games or new iPhones that end up sending a message to corporations about how it's okay to screw us over with DRM and sub-standard products, provided there's enough marketing and hype around it.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
By your same logic, I should be writing this from prison since, as the cook in my house, I have a really nice set of sharp cooking knives that I *COULD* kill someone with - but there are currently no policemen smashing my door down to arrest me.
Incidentally, I said in a previous reply to someone that I'm a Linux user and therefore well acquainted with file sharing as a perfectly legitimate application for downloading free software and Linux distros - so please don't try to manouevre me with semantics into something I clearly did not say.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The only words I am claiming that you said (and
I always amazes what bullshit some people come out with in order to justify their continued use of BitTorrent.
Forgive the wordiness of what follows, as I am attempting to be extra-precise, as you appear to have misinterpreted me previously.
My argument was based on the assumption that it could be interpreted that you were implicitly assuming (for the sake of making your point) that "P2P = illegal downloads" (and it sure sounded that way to me). I went on to suggest that if uninformed politicians construct legislation based on having heard this association ("P2P = illegal downloads") many times, then all those who stated the association would share some of the collective responsibility for bringing about that legislation.
If the introduction of such legislation (e.g. banning P2P) was remotely likely, and would adversely affect you, then the task of not further proliferating the incorrect "P2P = illegal downloads" assumption is indeed your problem, as much as it is that of everyone else who makes legitimate use of P2P software.
If you have issues with this argument (other than its length), then please enlighten me.
As I have already explained at least once, I have issue with you trying to draw this argument into a discussion about BitTorrent when this is actually a discussion about illegal music downloads, for which BitTorrent is a mechanism that is frequently used for those downloads.
Therefore, in order to stay on-topic, if you have nothing to state regarding music downloads, then this thread is closed.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"....Why should I? It works for me....."
OK, it works for you. What more can I say?
"...you're not a serious music fan at the moment because you don't like the CD format...."
Oh really? Newsflash - only "serious" ( as defined by you?) listen to CD's.
"...Explain to me how musicians who are currently used to touring....." What follows this makes no sense to me.
"....you and your ilk will have killed live music....."
Sorry but I see lots of live music. I also play with about 5 different bands as well, all in "live" situations. You have a fixed limited idea between the old record label system and what SHOULD replace it.
You seem somehow to make a logical leap that the only way a fan will be attracted to a live show is via an album release. Is that so?
Overall, it seems you want everything to stay the same. Well it is not - it is changing.
"....You perhaps need to be as informed about musicians as I am....."
Oh really? I started listening in a serious way to music in 1964. Your assumption is quite arrogant.
"....n general I listen to very few of them because they lack the quality of those who undertook a proper music "apprenticeship" in the pubs and clubs...."
This is just a complete and utter bullshit generalization. Every generation has superb musicians with superb skills. Perhaps your much cherished system is not working so well if you are mired in the past musically?
Meanwhile I stand by my assertion that copyright is broken and it's use by record labels does not benefit the audience or the musicians - it however benefits you personally. Great.
Good grief, what are you, a 19 year old over excited about your first GE? If not, I apologise, but perhaps you should stop thinking and talking like one. You obviously know nothing about British politics so please go get educated before spouting such inane rubbish.
Oh I get it! You're a failed musician blaming lack of talent on pirates!
Sooo...we're going to get rid of all the fitting rooms in clothing stores now...right?! I mean gosh, to think, someone might like to check the product they've seen is actually what they want before buying it, or worse, NOT buying it if it isn't! The FIENDS!
I believe this is 0 (or negative) sum.
Buying from independents via websites:
-Megacorps net income = 0
-Artists tied to Megacorps net income = 0
-Independent Artist = +1 (cash in) -X|X>=1 (work out)
-Your net result = +1 (value) -1 (cash out)
Whereas copying:
-Net result for company and artist = -X (Creation/Marketing, X is often 1 here)
-Net result for you = +1 (value)
But, ya; you're just freeloading anyway. Buy used.
Thanks for the advice but if you don't mind, I'll choose what music I listen to and how I'll buy it...
It was a recommendation, not an instruction. But of course you had to get cranky over it, didn't you?
So don't buy the stuff with DRM on it - finito.
How about you re-read what you replied to, several times, until you get what you missed? Understand that not buying the stuff with DRM on it doesn't work against the companies in question. If you just ignored it, I can't help you.
Nice speech, but get an MP elected in Parliament, then I might start taking you seriously - until then, don't call yourself a "Party"...
They are a party.
You appear to have a comprehension problem.
That's a big assumption you did right there.
Why wouldn't the art of a few selected independent artists interest me enough for me to ignore the mass-produced shit the large corporations want me to like, but I don't?
Are you asserting that any given independent artist is by definition necessarily "worse" (there are many possible comparison criteria) than an artist backed by a large corporation?
Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?
Fallacy. Fallacy. All is fallacy.
False. And since it's demonstrably so and you know it, it is also a blatant lie on your behalf. Good start.
For point #1, record profits does not mean anything with regards to a person's right to violate law.
Nobody said so. What is being said is that the companies say they are losing huge amounts of money due to copyright infringement, and this is factually untrue, and easily verified by checking the official reports of the companies themselves. They lie in media. That's the point.
It's like saying you have the right to break into your neighbour's house just because his yearly salary broke seven figures.
No, it's not. It's like saying that the record companies are liars. And they are.
For point #2, I have to break this one up:
That won't help your argument, but go ahead.
a) This one is very simple: Not all of the people who download illicitly then go out to buy anything, and
Nobody said so. What's being said is that among those who download the most are also those who buy the most. Nobody every suggested that the two sets of people overlap exactly. You are misrepresenting, again.
b) The people who do go out to buy certainly don't buy everything they download.
Correct, they don't buy everything they download. Then again, they never would have without the download either. The "loss" is zero.
That fraction of people only buy what they like, right? This means they're still listening to (or watching, or playing, or using) the products they don't like without paying for it. While I'm sure you feel justified in claiming you shouldn't pay for what you don't like, that does not put you above the law.
What I feel justified about or not is something you know nothing about, so stop trying to pretend that you do. The issues regarding these matters are not quite as black and white as you try to portray them.
If you're going to violate the law, just admit it and shut up.
I violate laws which I find are unjust. I admit that. I will not shut up, however.
And I do buy the absolute majority of music that I listen to as well as the games that I play.
Of course, telling people to "get balls and a backbone" just because they disagree with your approach isn't abusive in the slightest...
Right, so tell the people who come on here proudly crowing to everyone that they're "sticking it to the man" just because they're greedy leechers who want something for nothing to stop also - because I'm *SICK AND TIRED* of subsidising their music habits...
Actually, I believe the "balls and a backbone" comment was originally directed at me, and as I've mentioned, I may be a member of the Pirate Party, but I keep within the law (apart from the two utterly retarded facts that I break the law when I rip a CD [which I paid for] to a media player [which I own], and that I'm a criminal for using libdvdcss to watch a movie [which I paid for] on a Linux computer [which I own]). At no point have I claimed that I'm "sticking it to the man".
Your puerile ad hominem attacks don't make your argument any stronger -- they just underline your inability to understand that other people may actually disagree with you because they have principles and morals. We're seeking change through informed public debate and the ballot box; you're ranting semi-coherently on the Internet. Maybe it's you who needs to grow up?
Pirate Party UK
Ok, this is a bit of a late reply...
You said:
I didn't say I pirate anything. In fact I don't (because I don't want to break the law in tis case, even if it sucks). I don't buy it either.All I need is Swedish public television and CC-licenced stuff. I still think everything should be given for free to the culturally starving children and everyone else, though. So there.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.