Time to start using some dodgy Russian sites?

[Fop 1]

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Actually that's another related point.

 

A lot of internet radio is being shut down due to disagreement about how much royalty is paid, which is as I said before a bit mad as it is one of the best ways to get product heard and then sold.

 

Like I said before it's a lot different to now the 1950's where you could buy your way on to a play list and be listened to by most people, yet ironically most record companies are letting their greed for royalties overwhelm this new exposure.

 

 

 

 

 

They don't much like the death of singles though you're right, but that's because it use to be obscenely profitable and easy to rig, but those days are gone and it wasn't piracy that killed off the single market.

[Fop 1]

As you've got no qualifications in law fop, just stating that these changes will mean an invasion of privacy means nothing. The details of how this will be implemented are not available nor how the monitoring of use will be implemented within existing laws. If it is implemented within the law then absolutely nothing of what you're saying stands. To be so sure of your rightness in these circumstances hints at mental illness.

The more you insult the more you secretly know I'm right, its always a good barometer.

 

 

 

 

Sony's root-kit was illegal, simple as that.

 

Phorm is illegal and will eventually be ruled as such I'm sure, and what the recording companies want is something much more extreme than Phorm.

 

A lot of DRM is probably illegal, but it's due to the companies arrayed behind it someone getting the money to challenge each and every branch is unlikely.

 

 

Like I said lesser stuff than this has been ruled out for combating paedophiles and child porn on the internet, but (again) like I said money talks.

 

Although in the end economics will kill off all this stuff, the best way to beat piracy is to make it uneconomically viable, not go to war against your consumers.

[Park Life 71]

I totally agree. Most fucking books and films are derivative shite too though. So are most of the paintings you see for sale in suburban art galleries.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

 

As I said earlier it will be seen as a quirk of history this multi-millionaires musician lark.

I don't think it will though Parky. I think you'll get people making money for selling stuff, simple as. I mean it's still the tiny minority of people of who make money out of it though. And even if they don't sell much in the future in terms of material, they'll tour and make money that way. Look how much people are prepared to pay for a live show now. It's fucking outrageous. Essentially though it's just people at the top (and by top I mean popular) providing a product people want.

 

Well as long as we're moving away from the 'poor artist' bollocks in this thread. I'd even question whether most of the product is what people want. I feel ill when I see the likes of Bono pushing a credit card.

I think they should be paid for what they produce though, you know whether you think they've got too much money already, whether you think Bono's a cock-end, etc. It's all a bit subjective. To me, they produce something that people enjoy and it's reasonable to then expect to be paid for that. It's all very well saying it's a 'labour of love' and all that but the artists are losing out. I have a lot less sympathy for the record companies who have always shafted the artists and who charge too much for the product anyway, thus helping top create the black market in the first place.

 

Fine lets pay them the £1 or so they get from a mass produced cd direct. You have to ask why they don't lobby the record companies to charge fair prices or stop reproducing endless compilations or spending millions on marketing..Seriously charging £12-15 for a cd is an outraqe. That's a 1/3 of the average shopping bill for a struggling family. Are those kids seriously expected to go out and buy cd's?

Hopefully there will be more Radiohead type downloads and I'd be more than happy to pay £3 for that even with the dodgy quality...The only music I've downloaded this year infact, apart from a couple of uploads from Indi and Decky.

[Fop 1]

Every company that makes money is open to criticism as they all act in a way that increases their profits.

Yup which is why there are Laws to stop them doing whatever they want - admittedly most can be bent or broke with enough cash, but still.

 

 

Students tend to hate this as they have no money then forget all about it when they need to pay bills and taxes. Funny that.

Having no money or all the money in the world doesn't make it right when you break the Law or act immorally - and this applies much more to record companies trying to infringe everyone's rights, than a few people copying some music.

 

Companies tend to forget in their drive for greed and profits that they aren't above the law (well not always) and that they can't always buy their way around the law.

[ChezGiven 0]

Links on the rulings and proof that these current changes are along a similar line and therefore illegal would show that there is a concern about this issue but that does not counter the right of the artist.

 

You insult me every time you post, but cant take it back. Diddums to the poor spoilt student.

[Fop 1]

Links on the rulings and proof that these current changes are along a similar line and therefore illegal would show that there is a concern about this issue but that does not counter the right of the artist.

Look up Sony's root-kit and Phorm for some related stuff, I'm not doing your market research for you.

 

 

 

You insult me every time you post, but cant take it back. Diddums to the poor spoilt student.

 

No I simply say what you are - if you take that as an insult, well that is your problem.

 

You on the other hand started flinging around insults when you couldn't counter my arguments and are continuing in that trend.

 

 

 

As for being a student? Aye I have been, but do you think I am? Or indeed that is what this is about?

 

Maybe you should read my posts, like I said I've never pirated a song, I want to support the music I like, but I have issues with much DRM (which is basically spyware) as well as how record companies have operated (people often rail at tobacco companies, but record company have done a lot of illegal and bad stuff too), and don't want my rights and privacy to be taken away for a company's profit margin.

 

 

 

Like I said would it be "ok" for everyone to monitor a record companies private data just in case they are thinking of doing a root-kit thing again?

 

I guess you must think it would be ok.

[David Kelly 1117]

As interesting as all of these phylosophical and morale arguments are can we get to the real issue here. Is there anything I can download that will disguise my IP adress to I can continue to download in saftey?

[ChezGiven 0]

Links on the rulings and proof that these current changes are along a similar line and therefore illegal would show that there is a concern about this issue but that does not counter the right of the artist.

Look up Sony's root-kit and Phorm for some related stuff, I'm not doing your market research for you.

 

 

 

You insult me every time you post, but cant take it back. Diddums to the poor spoilt student.

 

No I simply say what you are - if you take that as an insult, well that is your problem.

 

You on the other hand started flinging around insults when you couldn't counter my arguments and are continuing in that trend.

 

 

 

As for being a student? Aye I have been, but do you think I am? Or indeed that is what this is about?

 

Maybe you should read my posts, like I said I've never pirated a song, I want to support the music I like, but I have issues with much DRM (which is basically spyware) as well as how record companies have operated (people often rail at tobacco companies, but record company have done a lot of illegal and bad stuff too), and don't want my rights and privacy to be taken away for a company's profit margin.

 

 

 

Like I said would it be "ok" for everyone to monitor a record companies private data just in case they are thinking of doing a root-kit thing again?

 

I guess you must think it would be ok.

 

I'm happy to know that if this is done then people will look into doing it in a way that protects the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Cool. Doesnt change my point of view so lets leave that one there. You have concerns aboout it and thats fine.

 

Yeah i think you're a student as you are extremely immature, particularly as you started slagging off what i do for a living to score points in a debate about music. I called you a wanker for that and stand by it. Its not flinging an insult, its my analysis of your character. I blame Parky really, as he asked me to state what i do for a living in a thread. Since then, every post of yours to me has tried to score a cheap point on this basis. You personalised the debate so i returned in kind. If i did a poll 'Is fop a wanker?' on this forum, only the scousers you arse-lick would vote no.

 

You dont have the bottle to start a thread on the health issue, you skirt around it by making nothing but hollow statements on some ill defined moral platform. I dont see why i should be forced into a debate on something with someone who is doing it in a personalised way. For the record, i speak publicly about these issues with european policy makers so would have no qualms about pasting a student into a corner on a message board on a topic he clearly knows nowt about.

[ChezGiven 0]

As interesting as all of these phylosophical and morale arguments are can we get to the real issue here. Is there anything I can download that will disguise my IP adress to I can continue to download in saftey?

 

Apparently rapidshare is fairly safe against this. Not water tight.

[nufc4ever 0]

'Apparently'.

[Tooj 17]

'Apparently'.

Tasty Dave lives.

[David Kelly 1117]

As interesting as all of these phylosophical and morale arguments are can we get to the real issue here. Is there anything I can download that will disguise my IP adress to I can continue to download in saftey?

 

Apparently rapidshare is fairly safe against this. Not water tight.

You have to pay for a rapidshare account no? And which sites would one download from via rapidshare?

[Tooj 17]

Rapidshare accounts are class man.

[NJS 4017]

I use newsgroups for my porn/movies but haven't bothered so far with SSL encryption which is a couple of quid a month more - apperntly that's pretty secure.

[Fop 1]

 

Like I said would it be "ok" for everyone to monitor a record companies private data just in case they are thinking of doing a root-kit thing again?

 

I guess you must think it would be ok.

 

I'm happy to know that if this is done then people will look into doing it in a way that protects the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Cool. Doesnt change my point of view so lets leave that one there. You have concerns aboout it and thats fine.

 

Well that's an interesting point of view then, of course from there you have to monitor all businesses private data just to make sure they aren't doing anything wrong. (mind you maybe that would keep you in a job so maybe there's method to that madness ).

 

Thought crime for business, who'd have thunk it?

 

 

 

Yeah i think you're a student as you are extremely immature, particularly as you started slagging off what i do for a living to score points in a debate about music. I called you a wanker for that and stand by it. Its not flinging an insult, its my analysis of your character. I blame Parky really, as he asked me to state what i do for a living in a thread. Since then, every post of yours to me has tried to score a cheap point on this basis. You personalised the debate so i returned in kind. If i did a poll 'Is fop a wanker?' on this forum, only the scousers you arse-lick would vote no.

 

Well you're as wrong about that as you are about everything else then.

 

All I'm saying is your industry and the music industry operated in very similar (iffy and sometimes illegal) ways, so you're bound to "agree" with them. That's not an insult, that's just how it is.

 

That you take it as an insult is pretty telling though.

 

 

 

You on the other hand quite quickly resorted to insults about me, simply because you couldn't refute my points (that also is pretty telling).

 

 

 

You dont have the bottle to start a thread on the health issue, you skirt around it by making nothing but hollow statements on some ill defined moral platform. I dont see why i should be forced into a debate on something with someone who is doing it in a personalised way. For the record, i speak publicly about these issues with european policy makers so would have no qualms about pasting a student into a corner on a message board on a topic he clearly knows nowt about.

I've made several points, you've ignored them. You're bound to as they are "unjustifiable" to anyone but shareholders and senior managers (like I've said you're clearly a good suit, but not made for awkward questions ).

 

That's just business; but please don't try to claim the moral high ground, like I've said PR only works when you don't know about it.

[Fop 1]

As interesting as all of these phylosophical and morale arguments are can we get to the real issue here. Is there anything I can download that will disguise my IP adress to I can continue to download in saftey?

 

Apparently rapidshare is fairly safe against this. Not water tight.

 

I don't see how you can get around it, as the idea is it is your own ISP doing the monitoring. You'd have to disguise the type or data or something I guess.

 

 

It's a completely self-destructive path though.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Amy Whinehouse would havebeen dead now if it wasn't for people downloading her music illegally - fact

[Guest alex]

So does that make illegal downloads a good or bad thing?

[Fop 1]

So does that make illegal downloads a good or bad thing?

 

Depends whether more money can be made out of her dead or alive.

[Fop 1]

If MS can start to see that they are fighting a losing battle and at least begin to pay lip service to open source then may be there is hope for the recording companies after all.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7528857.stm

[Happy Face 29]

BT and TalkTalk are seeking a judicial review of the controversial Digital Economy Act, BBC News has learned.

 

The two internet service providers want the High Court to clarify the legality of the act before it is implemented.

 

The act was "rushed through" parliament before the general election, they say.

 

Both think it had "insufficient scrutiny" and question whether its proposals to curb illegal file-sharing harm "basic rights and freedoms".

 

The act became law shortly before parliament was dissolved in the so-called wash-up period.

 

It meant it was subject to a shorter debate than other acts. MPs from all parties, including deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, protested at the time that the complex bill should have been debated for longer.

 

Among its most controversial measures were proposals to disconnect persistent illegal file-sharers from the web and give copyright holders the power to block access to websites hosting illegal content.

 

Regulator Ofcom, charged with drawing up detailed plans of how the legislation will work, has recently said that plans to remove peoples' internet connections would not come into force until at least 2012.

 

A caveat added to the act at the last minute stipulates that new legislation and several rounds of consultation would be required before such measures are implemented.

 

In May Ofcom drew up the policy to deal with illegal file-sharers. It requires ISPs to send warning letters to customers who illegally download films, music and TV programs.

 

Persistent pirates will be put on a blacklist and their details can be passed to relevant copyright owners to pursue the case through the courts should they wish to.

 

The code of practice currently only applies to larger ISPs with more than 400,000 subscribers.

 

This puts BT, TalkTalk and the other large ISPs at a business disadvantage, said Andrew Heaney, executive director of TalkTalk.

 

"It means we could have huge swathes of customers moving to smaller ISPs to avoid detection."

 

In particular TalkTalk and BT are seeking clarity as to whether the act conflicts with EU legislation.

 

It could conflict with Europe's e-commerce directive which states that ISPs are "mere conduits" of content and should not be held responsible for the traffic on their networks.

 

It may also be in contravention of the privacy and electronic communications directive, said Mr Heaney.

 

The BPI, which represents the UK's recorded music industry, has lobbied hard for the Digital Economy Act and has taken legal action against file-sharers in the past.

 

Right to repeal

 

"It is outrageous that they are coming begging at our door but are not helping themselves," said Mr Heaney.

 

Critics believe the music industry is seeking to protect its old business models with legislation, rather than finding new ways to distribute music online.

 

The current government has the right to repeal any previous legislation and, during the election campaign, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said that the Digital Economy Act "badly needs to be repealed".

 

But the coalition government told the BBC it had no plans to change it.

 

"The Digital Economy Act sets out to protect our creative economy from the continued threat of online copyright infringement, which industry estimates costs the creative industries, including creators, £400m per year," read a statement from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

 

"We believe measures are consistent with EU legislation and that there are enough safeguards in place to protect the rights of consumers and ISPs and will continue to work on implementing them."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10542400.stm

[NJS 4017]

Nice to see another principle/promise the Liberals sold out.