The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
and why the battle between the Record Companies and the pirates could be more important than most people imagine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3187695.stm goes some way to suggesting this. Take a look, then come back here.
Can you see what the important issue is here ? It is not the piracy of music, but whether that user can legally be identified, whether the alterego can be linked to a real human person.
The internet is here to stay, and one of the key ideas of the interent is privacy, to a certain degree. Take this site for example, we mouth off about all sorts of things, and some people post all sorts of stuff, some of it objectionable or controversial, and I'll bet that is in part because we know that unless we tell anyone we remain all but anonymous. No one at work, or university, can know it is us here unless we tell them.
Yes, IP addresses can be traced, servers hacked, etc, but in general privacy on the internet is a given - forget about spyware because that only gets onto a PC if you download certain programs so it is avoidable, as well as being removeable. My point is if you want privacy then, by and large, it's on the internet.
But the actions of the Record Companies endanger that. Their motives are suspect, research comissioned by them recently showed mp3 downloads typically mean more sales anyway, and UK album sales are rising. Single sales are falling but that's price structure related, and probably because most decent singles now are related to groups whose fans are more likely to just buy the album. I haven't bought a single since last year, yet I've bought more albums, and downloaded no mp3's at all so far.
The key issue here is identity, and whether those who hold that information can be forced, under a law system which assumes innocence until guilt is proven, to divulge that information for reasons which are less than justifiable.
If someone is downloading illegal porn, sharing it and so on, then I have no problem with their identity being revealed IF it is 100% certain that they have the right person, because accusations like that stick with someone whether true or not.
This issue won't go away, and it's possibly going to be one of the key legal battles of this century, because the future is about information, who can access it, why they can access it, and how.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3187695.stm goes some way to suggesting this. Take a look, then come back here.
Can you see what the important issue is here ? It is not the piracy of music, but whether that user can legally be identified, whether the alterego can be linked to a real human person.
The internet is here to stay, and one of the key ideas of the interent is privacy, to a certain degree. Take this site for example, we mouth off about all sorts of things, and some people post all sorts of stuff, some of it objectionable or controversial, and I'll bet that is in part because we know that unless we tell anyone we remain all but anonymous. No one at work, or university, can know it is us here unless we tell them.
Yes, IP addresses can be traced, servers hacked, etc, but in general privacy on the internet is a given - forget about spyware because that only gets onto a PC if you download certain programs so it is avoidable, as well as being removeable. My point is if you want privacy then, by and large, it's on the internet.
But the actions of the Record Companies endanger that. Their motives are suspect, research comissioned by them recently showed mp3 downloads typically mean more sales anyway, and UK album sales are rising. Single sales are falling but that's price structure related, and probably because most decent singles now are related to groups whose fans are more likely to just buy the album. I haven't bought a single since last year, yet I've bought more albums, and downloaded no mp3's at all so far.
The key issue here is identity, and whether those who hold that information can be forced, under a law system which assumes innocence until guilt is proven, to divulge that information for reasons which are less than justifiable.
If someone is downloading illegal porn, sharing it and so on, then I have no problem with their identity being revealed IF it is 100% certain that they have the right person, because accusations like that stick with someone whether true or not.
This issue won't go away, and it's possibly going to be one of the key legal battles of this century, because the future is about information, who can access it, why they can access it, and how.
Page:
I downloaded the Outkast single last night and after about a minute it starts making a hideous ack-ack-ack-ack noise. I tried five or six different versions, all of which had the same problem. Beaten by a record company: very annoying.
I planned on buying the album when it came out; the only reason I downloaded Ghettomusik is that I don't buy singles unless they're on vinyl and I couldn't find a vinyl copy in town. I could get it on the internet but 12"s cost a fortune online because of the postage, and I'd end up having to go down the post office to pick it up. So I tried to nick it off Kazzaa, as a sort of loan until I find myself a copy. But, no, the record company has flooded the internet with white noise mp3s and succeeded in peeing me off - I'll still buy the album, but now I'll take great pleasure in giving copies to all my friends and selling hundreds to passing schoolkids.
I planned on buying the album when it came out; the only reason I downloaded Ghettomusik is that I don't buy singles unless they're on vinyl and I couldn't find a vinyl copy in town. I could get it on the internet but 12"s cost a fortune online because of the postage, and I'd end up having to go down the post office to pick it up. So I tried to nick it off Kazzaa, as a sort of loan until I find myself a copy. But, no, the record company has flooded the internet with white noise mp3s and succeeded in peeing me off - I'll still buy the album, but now I'll take great pleasure in giving copies to all my friends and selling hundreds to passing schoolkids.
pb wrote:
>
> A - Make downloaded MP3s last for 30 days and then stop working.
Perfectly acceptable.
The programs which I use most is called 'songplayer', a keyboard tutor.
I can download tracks (with chords and riffs) to my work pc, but they won't work on my home PC due to some sort of protection. As I actually do pay for these, the company send me the tracks when I buy a few on CD, so I can use them at home.
If they can do that, then why can't record companies do the same, plus put a trial only period on the mp3's.
Yes singles are overpriced and I avoid buying them unless its a dance track (so I don't have to pay oads for a MoS compliation which has a lot of drivel on), but I don't believe that albums are (unless you buy them from HMV). Tesco and ASDA normally have all of there CD's at about £10, a fair price I think (unlike all DVD's which are well overpriced even though I buy loads).
I download music (mainly in albums), but as Mr Snuggllie (real name protected for legal reasons) has said, I will buy an album if I like it, if not the music is deleted.
Someone who I know (who has a name exceedling similar to mine) does pirate music to a degree however, I will copy offical albums for my parents and flatmates, so technically I'm not in the wrong. However, normally these are compliations that I make up from many CD's, including my own music now and again.
Anyway, back to the real point. Where I download music to is my work PC. Now, there are 350 people working in this office, all of them can log onto any workstation and go on the net. Chances of me being found out. Minimal.
>
> A - Make downloaded MP3s last for 30 days and then stop working.
Perfectly acceptable.
The programs which I use most is called 'songplayer', a keyboard tutor.
I can download tracks (with chords and riffs) to my work pc, but they won't work on my home PC due to some sort of protection. As I actually do pay for these, the company send me the tracks when I buy a few on CD, so I can use them at home.
If they can do that, then why can't record companies do the same, plus put a trial only period on the mp3's.
Yes singles are overpriced and I avoid buying them unless its a dance track (so I don't have to pay oads for a MoS compliation which has a lot of drivel on), but I don't believe that albums are (unless you buy them from HMV). Tesco and ASDA normally have all of there CD's at about £10, a fair price I think (unlike all DVD's which are well overpriced even though I buy loads).
I download music (mainly in albums), but as Mr Snuggllie (real name protected for legal reasons) has said, I will buy an album if I like it, if not the music is deleted.
Someone who I know (who has a name exceedling similar to mine) does pirate music to a degree however, I will copy offical albums for my parents and flatmates, so technically I'm not in the wrong. However, normally these are compliations that I make up from many CD's, including my own music now and again.
Anyway, back to the real point. Where I download music to is my work PC. Now, there are 350 people working in this office, all of them can log onto any workstation and go on the net. Chances of me being found out. Minimal.
If I honestly thought it would make a difference then I would have, but ultimately it's up to the authorities, which this nation's taxes go towards, to sort things out. I'm saying the current climate of law enforcement is so useless that people like that guy can openly break the law and do so with little fear.
I bet you were tempted to bust the guy Bell.
Yeah, FM's points is valid, but also hopelessly idealistic. The real threat to companies are people selling the pirated stuff on for massive profits, not people sharing it for free. Last weekend when I went to a car boot one guy there was selling CD-R's for £3.50, each with 10 new top 10 albums on. His table was covered in DVD-R boxed copies of every new film there is, at £4 a time. He was selling piles of stuff, and since I didn't see trading standards pounce on him, I assume he'll be doing the same today.
Then they are not, by definition, experts. So, the point is, again, that there are no real experts in the field. To solve this, no-one should be found guilty until real experts can really prove the real identity of the pirate.
This may not change (certainly not by me posting something like the above on a forum like this, anyway) but it needs to for the privacy issue to succeed, otherwise it's meaningless.
FM's point is valid though, you don't expect people to get away with crime, whatever sort it is, but the problem doesn't just exist in the electronic world. The wrong people have been sent down for many worse crimes committed by someone else. That's how the justice system works (or doesn't).
This may not change (certainly not by me posting something like the above on a forum like this, anyway) but it needs to for the privacy issue to succeed, otherwise it's meaningless.
FM's point is valid though, you don't expect people to get away with crime, whatever sort it is, but the problem doesn't just exist in the electronic world. The wrong people have been sent down for many worse crimes committed by someone else. That's how the justice system works (or doesn't).
Another minor change, should be to drop the VAT on imports of entertainment products - FM mentions some obscure guys CDs available for $11.50 a shot, well if someone buys them all, they pay around £23, then get hit for 17.5% VAT on entry into the country, and a charge for handling, meaning they end up paying closer to £30, for something not even available here !
Album prices are already lower than ever before, I can get any top 100 album from Tesco for 9.87.
The privacy one is far greater than this one issue, becaue it's effectively a test case for the century. It's okay to say you only reveal identities when it is 100% proven, but right now the Record Companies think they have 100% proof, which leads to the question, who defines the validity of the proof ? Judges ? They rely on the experts, and it's the same experts who insist they have 100% proof now when clearly they do not.
The privacy one is far greater than this one issue, becaue it's effectively a test case for the century. It's okay to say you only reveal identities when it is 100% proven, but right now the Record Companies think they have 100% proof, which leads to the question, who defines the validity of the proof ? Judges ? They rely on the experts, and it's the same experts who insist they have 100% proof now when clearly they do not.
Perhaps there is another way (as a certain bank would have you believe)...
The issue is this: Companies see a loss of profits because people are downloading and keeping MP3s rather than buying albums. Tracing the person back is not 100% effective, as someone else could be using the same username/IP address.
The points are as follows:
1) Some people keep MP3 files and don't buy albums, some people download them just to listen to without buying the album.
A - Make downloaded MP3s last for 30 days and then stop working.
Reduce the price of albums
Make singles cheaper or more value for money (videos/interviews/more songs/live tracks unavailable anywhere else)
2) The Privacy issue - Companies wishing to sue individuals cannot clearly prove who is downloading the files.
A - Change the technology to allow better security and use of IP addresses. Have IT specialists in the Police Force who actually understand the issues. Change the law to only allow for conviction when 100% proof is given that the subject has broken the law.
The issue is this: Companies see a loss of profits because people are downloading and keeping MP3s rather than buying albums. Tracing the person back is not 100% effective, as someone else could be using the same username/IP address.
The points are as follows:
1) Some people keep MP3 files and don't buy albums, some people download them just to listen to without buying the album.
A - Make downloaded MP3s last for 30 days and then stop working.
Reduce the price of albums
Make singles cheaper or more value for money (videos/interviews/more songs/live tracks unavailable anywhere else)
2) The Privacy issue - Companies wishing to sue individuals cannot clearly prove who is downloading the files.
A - Change the technology to allow better security and use of IP addresses. Have IT specialists in the Police Force who actually understand the issues. Change the law to only allow for conviction when 100% proof is given that the subject has broken the law.
I got them since FM, his was just the first name that came to mind. The Shrapnel website is pretty decent, but it wasn't the only shred label around and most others went under. And Roadrunner (the most popular of the distributors for shred) don't do any of the stuff anymore.
Page: