I agree. And it's not just "smart" phones (a category which is pretty arbitrary now that most phones can do the things that were once smart phone features, such as running applications and Internet access).
I've got a 4 year old phone that I can happily access the Internet on. The thing which limits me isn't the features, the interface, the browser or anything like that - they're all fine. The big problem is that Internet access sucks battery. Basically my choice is "Do I have a phone, or access the Internet?"
Similarly with playing mp3s. It functions fine as a 2GB mp3 player, but only lasts about 6 hours. The problem being that after that, I can't play either mp3s, or use my phone. So I still stick with separate devices.
And finally, the iPhone. I have yet to see that thing make it from the time I would wake up to the time I would go to sleep without a charge. From what I've seen (I don't have one - my girlfriend does), it needs charged twice a day.
Ouch. Thanks for the warning - with all the hype about its use for Internet access, I'd assumed that modern phones, especially high end expensive ones, had fixed this problems. I think I'll stick with my Motorola V980:)
I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT STEALING VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE OF CARL SAGAN SINGING IS KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. Except when I'm sharing other people's music that I've "acquired", then it's okay.
Apologies to Lily Allen.
(blah blah lameless filter, it's not my fault that the Slashdot filter thinks Lily Allen is lame.)
Good. Thanks for this, I didn't realise - maybe I'll therefore add an answer if it pops up in a Google search, which for every other forum I am unable to, and I can't be arsed to faff about making an account (at least Slashdot allows anonymous comments, but even then, I don't see why it would be a worse thing to allow OpenID, as you could then at least have a better chance of telling AC's apart).
The main advantage of OpenID is not remembering passwords, in my opinion, but the faff of signing up for an account in the first place. If I'm just passing and want to leave a comment on a forum, blog, news article, it's annoying if I have to sign up for an account just to leave one comment - most likely I don't bother.
For people who want to use more extensive features of a site, the intention is still that people get a proper account (e.g., consider LiveJournal, which invented OpenID: OpenID users can post comments and be given access to friends-only posts, but they can't write their own journal). Given that it's not even intended for things like having a journal, it should be obvious that it wasn't intended for bank accounts (the usual straw man argument that people make against it).
It's just the one being promoted because businesses like sticking their hands in things. Had a company like Microsoft made this, it would certainly not have a way to run your own OpenID server.
Well yes, this is why OpenID is comparable to something like Jabber, as opposed to Passport or MSN. I don't get why OpenID is so misunderstood here, when people seem to support things like Jabber and indeed email, which have the same "single point of failure" issue. I don't see why "But someone could post using your Slashdot and your LiveJournal" is anymore of a flaw than "But someone could gain email/IM access to all your friends, no matter what server they use".
Tell me, do you have a separate email account for every person you want to email, to avoid a "single point of failure"?
That's how it could have been, if email servers worked like websites, in that if you were on one server, and someone else was on another, you'd need to sign up for a new account on the other server.
OpenID is simply to make using webforums comparable to email and Jabber. It's like Jabber for IM, but for webforums instead. You don't hear people saying "But Jabber is a single point of failure, if they access my Jabber password, they can talk to all of my friends instead of just some of them!"
But this website is just like an Iphone (see above), and it's far more expensive than even the costly Iphone! You'd be much better off just getting an Iphone than this website.
Compared to anything else in the same category, it's like any other phone to a generic WinMo phone. It's easy to use, it's intuitive, it's powerful, it's fast, it's obvious and yet nobody comes close.
Fixed that for you. Because there are other phones than just the Iphone, believe it or not. Not only does the Iphone get mentioned at every opportunity, but we now have bizarre analogies between a website to a phone, just so you can push your personal POV that your phone is the best, or get in an off-topic jab against Windows?
What next? "This website is like a Sony Television that I just bought", "This website is like an Intel CPU" or for the obligitary car analogy "This website is like a Ford Escort, nothing comes close". I'm sure you like your new purchase very much, but it's off-topic for this article, and it tells us nothing about what the website is actually like. I think most people here are capable of discussing the technical points, without bizarre meaningless analogies to your Iphone, my CPU or Libraries of Congress...
Ah yes, that's a good point - have added it to the consultation reply I'm writing:)
Talking of software, it's interesting to read the statistics of alleged damages caused by copyright infringement. The interesting thing is that even if we accept their numbers, they give $48 billion for software, and $332 million for music and video combined - that's over 144 times as much! They also note (rightly) that most software infringement is done by businesses, not individuals filesharing.
I had no idea, but it really puts it in perspective - even by their own figures, filesharing is less than 1% - over 99% of all alleged damages by copyright infringement is due to businesses pirating software, not individuals filesharing music or video!
I agree. There's also the point that with the Featured Artists Coalition's proposal of "the restriction of the infringers bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional", aside from being technically impossible (daily web use these days will easily be comparable to downloading mp3s, let alone things like Windows Update and other software security fixes), would only protect music and video. Note how they explictly say "media" - that's right, according to them, we don't even exist. Given that some software might only be of the order of 100s of KBs, this proposal would be useless, and unfairly treat different kinds of content differently.
It'll be even more useless for someone wanting to rip off a Techdirt article, like Lily Allen did. Again, one rule for them, one for the rest of us.
And I've noted that several times whilst debating this on various news forums, I've had people say "I bet you're not a musician", as if they're the only ones allowed to have a say. It's a fallacy anyway - why does not being a musician mean you don't have a say in laws regarding Internet usage and disconnection? Surely I could just say "I bet you're not a computer scientist" or "I bet you don't work for an ISP"? Or, can I lobby for a draconian law regarding software, and say "I bet you're not a programmer" to anyone who disagrees? Anyhow, the politicians supporting this law aren't musicians either.
I did write a big rant on this elsewhere, which I might as well copy here (i.e., so imagine it is targetted towards Lily Allen and her supporters when I refer to "you" - obviously I know you are not in disagreement with me:)
1. Yes, the software I produce relies on copyright. I do not argue for the abolition of copyright. It is a straw man argument to polarise the debate into pro/anti-copyright. However, I do not support this planned law on disconnecting or restricting Internet access. And do you know what? I think I'm damn lucky to be working on something where I can write it once, and it can be copied over and over again, with people paying me extra. Sure, there might be some additional copies made by people don't pay - but I don't care. I realise instead how lucky and privileged I am to be working in a job that I enjoy, making more money than most people do. Yet the creative control I have, and the money I earn, is still a mere fraction over that enjoyed by Lily Allen. Indeed, I'm a perfect example of the "little guy" that she, and many of you, like to speak for - "the guy who works in the studios" etc. I'm the little guy who hasn't made it rich, working for the company that sells content that could be pirated, and pays me a wage. Yet I oppose this law, and I think Lily Allen's arguments were flawed and badly made. And don't you dare claim to speak on my behalf.
2. Back when I was a poor student, I sold software I wrote directly. The amount of money was trivial. I know for a fact that people had pirated my software, because I saw pirated keyfiles. Yeah, I might prefer they bought it, but equally I couldn't claim it was a lost sale. I got over it - it's not worth caring about. Instead I thought it was great that I was still earning a bit of extra money from something creative I enjoyed, instead of working a boring job at minimum wage (which I did have to do at times, too).
3. Today, although I have a professional job, I still write open source software in my spare time. I do respect copyrights when I distribute my work. Unlike music, software is usually dependent on other software such as libraries, so we have to be careful to follow the licences. In particular, as a free author, I have to look for freely distributable libraries. Furthermore I like to write games, and as I can't do my own graphics, sound - including music - I have to seek out free content (e.g., Creative Commons licences). Even though I'm not making any money out of this, I still bend over backwards trying to find out such material and make sure that ev
There is a Government consultation, that is open for anyone to respond to. Please do - although it closes 29 September (Tuesday).
Otherwise this law will be decided by the likes of Lily Allen and James "fat fuck" Allan, who have nothing useful to add to the debate, other than using their fame to get media attention on the matter (whilst being a filesharing hypocrite of a pirate herself, in the case of Lily Allen).
I downloaded Lily Allen's mix tape mp3s that she was filesharing illegally from an EMI owned website. There's some okay stuff there, though a bit of a shame she had to intersperse it with her own material.
Sadly I feel this is just an argument to moderation. The "restriction" method still has the same flaws, and also introduces some of its own. By compromising, all they're doing is rewarding Lily Allen for taking an extreme position, despite the fact that her arguments were very poorly made.
What about artists (or indeed, software developers, etc) who disagree with this law altogether? Supposing we decided to take an extreme position and say "Copyright shouldn't exist at all" - does that mean we should "compromise" by keeping copyright, but not having this new law?
The Featured Artists Coalition proposed: "restriction of the infringers bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional."
However, this is technically impossible - consider, a single song is of the order of a few MBs in size. I know from my own experience of measuring my usage, that even casual web browsing can easily use up over 100MBs in a period of hours. Whilst at one time people managed with dial-up connections, it is not the 1990s anymore - websites have grown, based on the expectations that most people have broadband, thus even websites result in significant amounts of data being shared. Users would also be prevented from downloading legitimate freely available content, in particular software, which are typically also of the order of MBs or 10s of MBs in size. There is also the point that the web is becoming more dependent on media files such as video, and this will be increasingly true as time goes on - for example, news websites such as the BBC routinely have content in the form of audio or video. There are also many legal radio channels, that are used to present news.
Even more serious is that Windows Update requires 10s or even 100s of MBs of data to be downloaded, and this is essential for security updates. Similarly for security fixes in newer updates to other software such as web browsers. Therefore, restricting download speeds would not only harm the user, but would put everyone on the Internet at risk due to the increased threat of viruses and other malware. Such a move would be irresponsible.
The plans also unfairly discriminate between types of content. For example, a movie may be several GBs in size, a TV program 100s of MBs, and album 10s of MBs, and a single song a few MBs. Wherever the threshold is set, either it will be large enough that people can share songs, or too low, such that they cannot even access websites properly.
It is even more difficult with software, which can range from 100s of MBs in size, to just 100s of KBs. Clearly, reducing someone's connection so that even sharing 100s of KBs is little different to a complete disconnection. Yet a threshold that limits sharing of music and video would still allow people to share software. So this proposal does not seem adequate - as a software developer myself, I do not see why music producers are treated differently to software producers.
Reading the consultation (closes 29 September! Please respond!), it looks like the Government is seriously considering restriction of bandwidth as one of the measures anyway, before complete disconnection. Once again, policy will be shaped by those who are clueless about the technical matters.
(Yes, I never thought I'd be citing Windows Update's huge security downloads as a good thing...:)
I agree - and pointing out the Iphone is meaningless. The story is still confusing, first talking about phones, then jumping to Apple. The fact that Apple have a few phones out that are just one of many in a big market doesn't make the link any more meaningful:
Apple's assault could even eat into sales of home consoles like Nintendo's Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 or Microsoft's XBox, as game-playing quickly becomes centered on cellphones.
It's a complete non-sequitor. Again, we're led to believe that Apple is synonymous with phone, in much the same way as Microsoft is with operating system.
The sad thing is that if people keep perpetuating this misinformation and giving free advertising and hype to the Iphone, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So when in 10 years' time, the mobile computin market really is dominated by Apple, and therefore all mobile platforms are locked down far more than Microsoft would ever do, and you can only release software with approval from Apple, then it'll be thanks to stories like this, and those who hype them.
Now consider that in the future, mobile computing may be far bigger than desktop computing, and you can see why this should be quite frightning. I thought Slashdot was supposed to be a place to support alternatives, especially open ones, rather than giving support to the dominant company who wants to lock everything down? It's sad what it's come to round here - it wasn't like this 10 years ago.
Surely each song counts as a separate violation? She's way past the limit!
But the sad thing is, she won't be. No artist will ever face million dollar fines or Internet restriction for sharing mp3s in order to promote their own career, because the music industry would realise what an own goal would be. It'll be individuals who download a song for personal use that will be targetted. One rule for her, another for the rest of us. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy, because she won't ever have to face punishment for when she does it.
Exactly (I submitted a story on this, but I think it's still lost in the firehose). It's depressing that so little of the mainstream media are covering this, instead still going with "Wonderful Lily Allen rallies and unites artists, and she closed her blog because people 'abused' her". She added nothing to the debate, just the same old tired arguments we've all heard before (you wouldn't steal from a shop; it's not free to make, how can it be free to give away? etc), it was like talking to a brick wall - she was completely obvlious to the point people were making when they pointed out her filesharing and plagiarism, instead she then retreated to defending it, whilst still saying it was wrong for anyone else to do it.
Her defence for filesharing mp3s was she "didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry" - what, just like most of us, who don't work in the music industry at all?
Her claim about it being 5 years ago is nonsense too, as the mp3s were still being shared until she took them down *after* she was found out (ignorance is no defence of the law, and it won't be in this new law either).
The claims that she received "abuse" - or "vitriol" as the Featured Artists Coalition claims - is nonsense too. I saw the blog, and most comments (all that I saw) were polite and well argued. It was heated sure, but with her accusations of people being thieves, she gave as good as she got. Furthermore, she posted and offensive rant by James Allan in support of her, who referred to people as "tight fucks" and their girlfriends as "fat fucks". Why is this offensive and sexist rant being excused and ignored by the media, whilst instead they focus on allegations of "abuse" from random anonymous people on the Internet?
LOL - I liked this. I'm surprised the story hasn't made Slashdot (I keep meaning to submit it). For those who hasn't heard, Lily Allen joined in the filesharing "debate" by lobbying for the planned law to disconnected suspected filesharers from the Internet. She set up a blog (now deleted) to tell the Internet why they are wrong, making the same poor arguments that we've all heard before ("it's not free to make, so it can't be free, can it?")
Except she's now been exposed as a filesharing pirate herself - she made "mixtapes" of other artists' music (she admitted she didn't have permission), in order to promote her own career, and the mp3s were still on her (EMI owned) website until she was exposed.
She was also found plagiarising an article in her first blog post, without permission or attribution.
There's been some coverage in the mainstream media, but sadly most are only reporting "Lily Allen against filesharing... and then shuts blog because of the abuse she received, poor her!"
So basically, it's okay for her to rip other artists off in order to promote her commercial career, as she "didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry", but the rest of us are stealing when we download, and should be disconnected. As an open source software developer who bends over backwards to obey copyright licences (e.g., when I'm looking to include music in my games), I find it ridiculous that she lectures me on copyright law, and gets to lobby for a law I oppose, yet she's the one ripping off artists without permission, and evidently doesn't give a crap unless it's her own music. But when I criticise Lily Allen on her arguments on support for the law, I'm the one who gets labelled a "thief"!
Why isn't Lily Allen being hounded for being a "thief", or sued for millions? And given they were on EMI's owned website, are they going to have their Internet connection disconnected?
But how could it crash anything? - Surely, for years we've been told that the no one needs MMS anymore, certainly not Iphone users, and no one would possibly want to use it. So why is it news that it now has MMS - let alone the wild claim that it might crash a network?
Seriously, it's not news, unless you count taking so long to add the feature. We don't have news for any other phones adding features that have been around for years. The idea that MMS, which has been around for years, might suddenly result in a spike in usage in 2009, enough to cause a network to crash, is ludicrous - if Iphone users were so desperate for that feature, why did they buy an Iphone? (And remember that the Iphone is still a minority of all phones sold - yes, you can redefine the market to "smartphone" and say it's doing well there all you like, but the market here is that of all mobile phones which can send MMS, which is billions - so even if all Iphone users started using MMS, it wouldn't make any significant difference in the global usage.)
I thought this was news for new technology, not news for old technology... I bet in a few months time, we'll be hearing people say "Well it doesn't matter that other phones had MMS for years, people only started to use it with the Iphone" - despite the fact that, for years, all we heard was from those same Iphone fans "But why would I have the need for something outdated like MMS?" No, this is just another trumped up Slashvertisement for the Iphone, where a wild speculation is made as if Iphones were 90% of the market, and perpetuating the myth that no one uses anything until the Iphone does it.
Ah, I was waiting for this straw man - someone should just write a script to autopost it to every open source licence violation story, so we can get it out the way.
Care you point me to the place where someone accuses them of stealing, and calls for them to be fined at $150,000 per violation?
Can you also show me a story where Slashdotters were in favour of people who profit from copyright infringement? Slashdot isn't a single entity, if you hadn't noticed, but even if we take the viewpoint of the Pirate Party (which is generally the most "extreme" of the range of viewpoints on this issue), even they still support a 5 year copyright term for commercial use, they just think filesharing for non-commercial use should be allowed.
So let me try my own straw man, bonch: why is copyright good when it comes individuals filesharing, but bad when it comes to companies who rip off individuals?
You're as bad as Lily Allen - here in the UK, she's recently been lobbying in support of the Government's planned law to disconnect people who fileshare, yet she was then exposed as plagiarising articles from news sites, but even more significantly, she is a pirate herself: she was found distributing "mix tapes" of mp3s on her MySpace, including other artists' work, in order to promote her own career (they were still up on her website, until yesterday).
Punt the whole idea of OSS to the curb and go with closed sources solutions.
But hang on, if they don't care about violating licences, then what happens when they do this with a closed source solution? I think a commercial company is far more likely to be aggressive at pursuing a lawsuit, than open source authors.
and not worry that some program was mis-licensed somewhere in the chain.
How does this follow? Are open source authors more likely to mis-licence? This is especially a surprising claim, when we're talking about a story where it's the open source software that's being infringed, not the other way round.
I remember once on a webforum I saw, someone who worked for US customs started a post, asking why people hated them so much, and saying he was going to try to answer people's criticisms.
And you know what? I've never seen so much arrogance and sense of entitlement at being able to mess up other people's rights. He pretty much confirmed every bad stereotype there was about US customs employees.
So to clarify, aside from all the things he got wrong, such as "based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles", and "Soon", he's right?
This guy sounds amazing! He gets everything right (except the things he gets wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. And it's not just "smart" phones (a category which is pretty arbitrary now that most phones can do the things that were once smart phone features, such as running applications and Internet access).
I've got a 4 year old phone that I can happily access the Internet on. The thing which limits me isn't the features, the interface, the browser or anything like that - they're all fine. The big problem is that Internet access sucks battery. Basically my choice is "Do I have a phone, or access the Internet?"
Similarly with playing mp3s. It functions fine as a 2GB mp3 player, but only lasts about 6 hours. The problem being that after that, I can't play either mp3s, or use my phone. So I still stick with separate devices.
And finally, the iPhone. I have yet to see that thing make it from the time I would wake up to the time I would go to sleep without a charge. From what I've seen (I don't have one - my girlfriend does), it needs charged twice a day.
Ouch. Thanks for the warning - with all the hype about its use for Internet access, I'd assumed that modern phones, especially high end expensive ones, had fixed this problems. I think I'll stick with my Motorola V980 :)
I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT STEALING VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE OF CARL SAGAN SINGING IS KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. Except when I'm sharing other people's music that I've "acquired", then it's okay.
Apologies to Lily Allen.
(blah blah lameless filter, it's not my fault that the Slashdot filter thinks Lily Allen is lame.)
It uses OpenID.
Good. Thanks for this, I didn't realise - maybe I'll therefore add an answer if it pops up in a Google search, which for every other forum I am unable to, and I can't be arsed to faff about making an account (at least Slashdot allows anonymous comments, but even then, I don't see why it would be a worse thing to allow OpenID, as you could then at least have a better chance of telling AC's apart).
We have mods? I thought they'd now been replaced with a random number generator...
The main advantage of OpenID is not remembering passwords, in my opinion, but the faff of signing up for an account in the first place. If I'm just passing and want to leave a comment on a forum, blog, news article, it's annoying if I have to sign up for an account just to leave one comment - most likely I don't bother.
For people who want to use more extensive features of a site, the intention is still that people get a proper account (e.g., consider LiveJournal, which invented OpenID: OpenID users can post comments and be given access to friends-only posts, but they can't write their own journal). Given that it's not even intended for things like having a journal, it should be obvious that it wasn't intended for bank accounts (the usual straw man argument that people make against it).
It's just the one being promoted because businesses like sticking their hands in things. Had a company like Microsoft made this, it would certainly not have a way to run your own OpenID server.
Well yes, this is why OpenID is comparable to something like Jabber, as opposed to Passport or MSN. I don't get why OpenID is so misunderstood here, when people seem to support things like Jabber and indeed email, which have the same "single point of failure" issue. I don't see why "But someone could post using your Slashdot and your LiveJournal" is anymore of a flaw than "But someone could gain email/IM access to all your friends, no matter what server they use".
Tell me, do you have a separate email account for every person you want to email, to avoid a "single point of failure"?
That's how it could have been, if email servers worked like websites, in that if you were on one server, and someone else was on another, you'd need to sign up for a new account on the other server.
OpenID is simply to make using webforums comparable to email and Jabber. It's like Jabber for IM, but for webforums instead. You don't hear people saying "But Jabber is a single point of failure, if they access my Jabber password, they can talk to all of my friends instead of just some of them!"
So don't use it then...
But this website is just like an Iphone (see above), and it's far more expensive than even the costly Iphone! You'd be much better off just getting an Iphone than this website.
Compared to anything else in the same category, it's like any other phone to a generic WinMo phone. It's easy to use, it's intuitive, it's powerful, it's fast, it's obvious and yet nobody comes close.
Fixed that for you. Because there are other phones than just the Iphone, believe it or not. Not only does the Iphone get mentioned at every opportunity, but we now have bizarre analogies between a website to a phone, just so you can push your personal POV that your phone is the best, or get in an off-topic jab against Windows?
What next? "This website is like a Sony Television that I just bought", "This website is like an Intel CPU" or for the obligitary car analogy "This website is like a Ford Escort, nothing comes close". I'm sure you like your new purchase very much, but it's off-topic for this article, and it tells us nothing about what the website is actually like. I think most people here are capable of discussing the technical points, without bizarre meaningless analogies to your Iphone, my CPU or Libraries of Congress...
Ah yes, that's a good point - have added it to the consultation reply I'm writing :)
Talking of software, it's interesting to read the statistics of alleged damages caused by copyright infringement. The interesting thing is that even if we accept their numbers, they give $48 billion for software, and $332 million for music and video combined - that's over 144 times as much! They also note (rightly) that most software infringement is done by businesses, not individuals filesharing.
I had no idea, but it really puts it in perspective - even by their own figures, filesharing is less than 1% - over 99% of all alleged damages by copyright infringement is due to businesses pirating software, not individuals filesharing music or video!
I hope that "I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS" becomes a new Internet meme or macro :)
I agree. There's also the point that with the Featured Artists Coalition's proposal of "the restriction of the infringers bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional", aside from being technically impossible (daily web use these days will easily be comparable to downloading mp3s, let alone things like Windows Update and other software security fixes), would only protect music and video. Note how they explictly say "media" - that's right, according to them, we don't even exist. Given that some software might only be of the order of 100s of KBs, this proposal would be useless, and unfairly treat different kinds of content differently.
It'll be even more useless for someone wanting to rip off a Techdirt article, like Lily Allen did. Again, one rule for them, one for the rest of us.
And I've noted that several times whilst debating this on various news forums, I've had people say "I bet you're not a musician", as if they're the only ones allowed to have a say. It's a fallacy anyway - why does not being a musician mean you don't have a say in laws regarding Internet usage and disconnection? Surely I could just say "I bet you're not a computer scientist" or "I bet you don't work for an ISP"? Or, can I lobby for a draconian law regarding software, and say "I bet you're not a programmer" to anyone who disagrees? Anyhow, the politicians supporting this law aren't musicians either.
I did write a big rant on this elsewhere, which I might as well copy here (i.e., so imagine it is targetted towards Lily Allen and her supporters when I refer to "you" - obviously I know you are not in disagreement with me:)
1. Yes, the software I produce relies on copyright. I do not argue for the abolition of copyright. It is a straw man argument to polarise the debate into pro/anti-copyright. However, I do not support this planned law on disconnecting or restricting Internet access. And do you know what? I think I'm damn lucky to be working on something where I can write it once, and it can be copied over and over again, with people paying me extra. Sure, there might be some additional copies made by people don't pay - but I don't care. I realise instead how lucky and privileged I am to be working in a job that I enjoy, making more money than most people do. Yet the creative control I have, and the money I earn, is still a mere fraction over that enjoyed by Lily Allen. Indeed, I'm a perfect example of the "little guy" that she, and many of you, like to speak for - "the guy who works in the studios" etc. I'm the little guy who hasn't made it rich, working for the company that sells content that could be pirated, and pays me a wage. Yet I oppose this law, and I think Lily Allen's arguments were flawed and badly made. And don't you dare claim to speak on my behalf.
2. Back when I was a poor student, I sold software I wrote directly. The amount of money was trivial. I know for a fact that people had pirated my software, because I saw pirated keyfiles. Yeah, I might prefer they bought it, but equally I couldn't claim it was a lost sale. I got over it - it's not worth caring about. Instead I thought it was great that I was still earning a bit of extra money from something creative I enjoyed, instead of working a boring job at minimum wage (which I did have to do at times, too).
3. Today, although I have a professional job, I still write open source software in my spare time. I do respect copyrights when I distribute my work. Unlike music, software is usually dependent on other software such as libraries, so we have to be careful to follow the licences. In particular, as a free author, I have to look for freely distributable libraries. Furthermore I like to write games, and as I can't do my own graphics, sound - including music - I have to seek out free content (e.g., Creative Commons licences). Even though I'm not making any money out of this, I still bend over backwards trying to find out such material and make sure that ev
There is a Government consultation, that is open for anyone to respond to. Please do - although it closes 29 September (Tuesday).
Otherwise this law will be decided by the likes of Lily Allen and James "fat fuck" Allan, who have nothing useful to add to the debate, other than using their fame to get media attention on the matter (whilst being a filesharing hypocrite of a pirate herself, in the case of Lily Allen).
I downloaded Lily Allen's mix tape mp3s that she was filesharing illegally from an EMI owned website. There's some okay stuff there, though a bit of a shame she had to intersperse it with her own material.
Sadly I feel this is just an argument to moderation. The "restriction" method still has the same flaws, and also introduces some of its own. By compromising, all they're doing is rewarding Lily Allen for taking an extreme position, despite the fact that her arguments were very poorly made.
What about artists (or indeed, software developers, etc) who disagree with this law altogether? Supposing we decided to take an extreme position and say "Copyright shouldn't exist at all" - does that mean we should "compromise" by keeping copyright, but not having this new law?
The Featured Artists Coalition proposed: "restriction of the infringers bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional."
However, this is technically impossible - consider, a single song is of the order of a few MBs in size. I know from my own experience of measuring my usage, that even casual web browsing can easily use up over 100MBs in a period of hours. Whilst at one time people managed with dial-up connections, it is not the 1990s anymore - websites have grown, based on the expectations that most people have broadband, thus even websites result in significant amounts of data being shared. Users would also be prevented from downloading legitimate freely available content, in particular software, which are typically also of the order of MBs or 10s of MBs in size. There is also the point that the web is becoming more dependent on media files such as video, and this will be increasingly true as time goes on - for example, news websites such as the BBC routinely have content in the form of audio or video. There are also many legal radio channels, that are used to present news.
Even more serious is that Windows Update requires 10s or even 100s of MBs of data to be downloaded, and this is essential for security updates. Similarly for security fixes in newer updates to other software such as web browsers. Therefore, restricting download speeds would not only harm the user, but would put everyone on the Internet at risk due to the increased threat of viruses and other malware. Such a move would be irresponsible.
The plans also unfairly discriminate between types of content. For example, a movie may be several GBs in size, a TV program 100s of MBs, and album 10s of MBs, and a single song a few MBs. Wherever the threshold is set, either it will be large enough that people can share songs, or too low, such that they cannot even access websites properly.
It is even more difficult with software, which can range from 100s of MBs in size, to just 100s of KBs. Clearly, reducing someone's connection so that even sharing 100s of KBs is little different to a complete disconnection. Yet a threshold that limits sharing of music and video would still allow people to share software. So this proposal does not seem adequate - as a software developer myself, I do not see why music producers are treated differently to software producers.
Reading the consultation (closes 29 September! Please respond!), it looks like the Government is seriously considering restriction of bandwidth as one of the measures anyway, before complete disconnection. Once again, policy will be shaped by those who are clueless about the technical matters.
(Yes, I never thought I'd be citing Windows Update's huge security downloads as a good thing...:)
True, although I suspect this is more due to the limited number of characters in the title. There might not be room for "Some UK Musicians Back ..."
I agree - and pointing out the Iphone is meaningless. The story is still confusing, first talking about phones, then jumping to Apple. The fact that Apple have a few phones out that are just one of many in a big market doesn't make the link any more meaningful:
Apple's assault could even eat into sales of home consoles like Nintendo's Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 or Microsoft's XBox, as game-playing quickly becomes centered on cellphones.
It's a complete non-sequitor. Again, we're led to believe that Apple is synonymous with phone, in much the same way as Microsoft is with operating system.
The sad thing is that if people keep perpetuating this misinformation and giving free advertising and hype to the Iphone, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So when in 10 years' time, the mobile computin market really is dominated by Apple, and therefore all mobile platforms are locked down far more than Microsoft would ever do, and you can only release software with approval from Apple, then it'll be thanks to stories like this, and those who hype them.
Now consider that in the future, mobile computing may be far bigger than desktop computing, and you can see why this should be quite frightning. I thought Slashdot was supposed to be a place to support alternatives, especially open ones, rather than giving support to the dominant company who wants to lock everything down? It's sad what it's come to round here - it wasn't like this 10 years ago.
Surely each song counts as a separate violation? She's way past the limit!
But the sad thing is, she won't be. No artist will ever face million dollar fines or Internet restriction for sharing mp3s in order to promote their own career, because the music industry would realise what an own goal would be. It'll be individuals who download a song for personal use that will be targetted. One rule for her, another for the rest of us. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy, because she won't ever have to face punishment for when she does it.
Exactly (I submitted a story on this, but I think it's still lost in the firehose). It's depressing that so little of the mainstream media are covering this, instead still going with "Wonderful Lily Allen rallies and unites artists, and she closed her blog because people 'abused' her". She added nothing to the debate, just the same old tired arguments we've all heard before (you wouldn't steal from a shop; it's not free to make, how can it be free to give away? etc), it was like talking to a brick wall - she was completely obvlious to the point people were making when they pointed out her filesharing and plagiarism, instead she then retreated to defending it, whilst still saying it was wrong for anyone else to do it.
Her defence for filesharing mp3s was she "didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry" - what, just like most of us, who don't work in the music industry at all?
Her claim about it being 5 years ago is nonsense too, as the mp3s were still being shared until she took them down *after* she was found out (ignorance is no defence of the law, and it won't be in this new law either).
The claims that she received "abuse" - or "vitriol" as the Featured Artists Coalition claims - is nonsense too. I saw the blog, and most comments (all that I saw) were polite and well argued. It was heated sure, but with her accusations of people being thieves, she gave as good as she got. Furthermore, she posted and offensive rant by James Allan in support of her, who referred to people as "tight fucks" and their girlfriends as "fat fucks". Why is this offensive and sexist rant being excused and ignored by the media, whilst instead they focus on allegations of "abuse" from random anonymous people on the Internet?
Oh yes, and the Government Consultation ends 29 September (Tuesday) - please repond, unless you want the debate to be run by people like Lily Allen: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page51696.html .
LOL - I liked this. I'm surprised the story hasn't made Slashdot (I keep meaning to submit it). For those who hasn't heard, Lily Allen joined in the filesharing "debate" by lobbying for the planned law to disconnected suspected filesharers from the Internet. She set up a blog (now deleted) to tell the Internet why they are wrong, making the same poor arguments that we've all heard before ("it's not free to make, so it can't be free, can it?")
Except she's now been exposed as a filesharing pirate herself - she made "mixtapes" of other artists' music (she admitted she didn't have permission), in order to promote her own career, and the mp3s were still on her (EMI owned) website until she was exposed.
She was also found plagiarising an article in her first blog post, without permission or attribution.
There's been some coverage in the mainstream media, but sadly most are only reporting "Lily Allen against filesharing ... and then shuts blog because of the abuse she received, poor her!"
So basically, it's okay for her to rip other artists off in order to promote her commercial career, as she "didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry", but the rest of us are stealing when we download, and should be disconnected. As an open source software developer who bends over backwards to obey copyright licences (e.g., when I'm looking to include music in my games), I find it ridiculous that she lectures me on copyright law, and gets to lobby for a law I oppose, yet she's the one ripping off artists without permission, and evidently doesn't give a crap unless it's her own music. But when I criticise Lily Allen on her arguments on support for the law, I'm the one who gets labelled a "thief"!
Why isn't Lily Allen being hounded for being a "thief", or sued for millions? And given they were on EMI's owned website, are they going to have their Internet connection disconnected?
And whilst she whined about "abuse" she allegedly received, she was happy to post this offensive rant from James Allan.
But how could it crash anything? - Surely, for years we've been told that the no one needs MMS anymore, certainly not Iphone users, and no one would possibly want to use it. So why is it news that it now has MMS - let alone the wild claim that it might crash a network?
Seriously, it's not news, unless you count taking so long to add the feature. We don't have news for any other phones adding features that have been around for years. The idea that MMS, which has been around for years, might suddenly result in a spike in usage in 2009, enough to cause a network to crash, is ludicrous - if Iphone users were so desperate for that feature, why did they buy an Iphone? (And remember that the Iphone is still a minority of all phones sold - yes, you can redefine the market to "smartphone" and say it's doing well there all you like, but the market here is that of all mobile phones which can send MMS, which is billions - so even if all Iphone users started using MMS, it wouldn't make any significant difference in the global usage.)
I thought this was news for new technology, not news for old technology... I bet in a few months time, we'll be hearing people say "Well it doesn't matter that other phones had MMS for years, people only started to use it with the Iphone" - despite the fact that, for years, all we heard was from those same Iphone fans "But why would I have the need for something outdated like MMS?" No, this is just another trumped up Slashvertisement for the Iphone, where a wild speculation is made as if Iphones were 90% of the market, and perpetuating the myth that no one uses anything until the Iphone does it.
Ah, I was waiting for this straw man - someone should just write a script to autopost it to every open source licence violation story, so we can get it out the way.
Care you point me to the place where someone accuses them of stealing, and calls for them to be fined at $150,000 per violation?
Can you also show me a story where Slashdotters were in favour of people who profit from copyright infringement? Slashdot isn't a single entity, if you hadn't noticed, but even if we take the viewpoint of the Pirate Party (which is generally the most "extreme" of the range of viewpoints on this issue), even they still support a 5 year copyright term for commercial use, they just think filesharing for non-commercial use should be allowed.
So let me try my own straw man, bonch: why is copyright good when it comes individuals filesharing, but bad when it comes to companies who rip off individuals?
You're as bad as Lily Allen - here in the UK, she's recently been lobbying in support of the Government's planned law to disconnect people who fileshare, yet she was then exposed as plagiarising articles from news sites, but even more significantly, she is a pirate herself: she was found distributing "mix tapes" of mp3s on her MySpace, including other artists' work, in order to promote her own career (they were still up on her website, until yesterday).
Punt the whole idea of OSS to the curb and go with closed sources solutions.
But hang on, if they don't care about violating licences, then what happens when they do this with a closed source solution? I think a commercial company is far more likely to be aggressive at pursuing a lawsuit, than open source authors.
and not worry that some program was mis-licensed somewhere in the chain.
How does this follow? Are open source authors more likely to mis-licence? This is especially a surprising claim, when we're talking about a story where it's the open source software that's being infringed, not the other way round.
I remember once on a webforum I saw, someone who worked for US customs started a post, asking why people hated them so much, and saying he was going to try to answer people's criticisms.
And you know what? I've never seen so much arrogance and sense of entitlement at being able to mess up other people's rights. He pretty much confirmed every bad stereotype there was about US customs employees.
So to clarify, aside from all the things he got wrong, such as "based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles", and "Soon", he's right?
This guy sounds amazing! He gets everything right (except the things he gets wrong).