The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
I think piracy, or at least fileshare programmes such as Kazaa and imesh contribute to bands getting better known and selling more CD's in the long run. I used to download mp3's from bands I hadnt really heard of and if I liked there stuff I would go and buy their album and if not I would delete the mp3. If the music industry were to somehow ban all pirated mp3's being transfered there would be a lot of bands out there still to be recognised. At least thats my take on it.
I do not think piracy can be stopped because so many people are involved in it. The industries who have their stuff copied are multi national corporations that rake in billions each year, how can we feel sorry for them? I think it is stupid how you get more jailtime for copying a copyrighted CD that for assaulting a stranger. Piracy doesnt really hurt people.
Thats my view anyway, contraversial as it may be.
I do not think piracy can be stopped because so many people are involved in it. The industries who have their stuff copied are multi national corporations that rake in billions each year, how can we feel sorry for them? I think it is stupid how you get more jailtime for copying a copyrighted CD that for assaulting a stranger. Piracy doesnt really hurt people.
Thats my view anyway, contraversial as it may be.
music piracy is great. I particularly like the part about those large companies not getting any of my money.
i still buy music I really want, albums mainly, but why am I going to go out and pay £5 for a single track when all I have to do is click 'download'. £10 for an album is still ridiculously overpriced in my view aswell, although much better value than singles.
while it's semi legal I'll continue to enjoy free music, I hope it teaches those greedy record companies a lesson in the long run.
i still buy music I really want, albums mainly, but why am I going to go out and pay £5 for a single track when all I have to do is click 'download'. £10 for an album is still ridiculously overpriced in my view aswell, although much better value than singles.
while it's semi legal I'll continue to enjoy free music, I hope it teaches those greedy record companies a lesson in the long run.
Before I start, I'd just like to make it clear that I don't illegally download music. What I've written below is a false statement, just a story I've made up because I'm a member of staff and I obviously don't partake in activities like this. Ahem.
The way I see it is this. I download music, and films, which I wouldn't have bought anyway. If I hear of a band I like on the radio, on telly or whatever, I might download a few of their tracks to see if I like them. If I do, then I'll buy one of their albums. If I don't, then I've wasted about 5 minutes and spent no money - no harm done. I don't buy singles on principle (£3.99 for 3 songs? Yeah right), so when I download a few tracks for my MP3 playlist I'm not losing record companies any money, because they wouldn't have got it anyway. The internet, and particularly programs like Kazaa allow me to broaden and refine my taste in music, which due to the discovery of more and more bands I like (and would never have found without the net) has led to me spending more money on CDs than ever before.
As far as downloading albums goes, that's perhaps a different matter - I tend not to do it because I'm a hoarder and I like buying official stuff. I couldn't imagine downloading the new Radiohead/Muse/White Stripes album because I'd want the proper songs, on the proper CD with lyrics, sleevenotes etc. It's just the way I am. So you're not losing any money from me there - you're getting more. It's the same with films - if a film is available to watch in a cinema, I'll watch it there. If a film is out on DVD, then I'll buy it. I only download films that I would have never have bought because I don't know enough about them - I've downloaded some wicked films that I normally wouldn't have given a second glance, and have bought other similar films by the same director as a consequence of this. Again, companies not losing money, but gaining it.
But the key element is this - people use it for different means, so while one person like me might use it for casual use, another person might use the exact same system and totally abuse it. For example, naming no names, there are some people on these forums who boast about downloading album after album before they're released, and people who download complete films before they're even released in the cinema. This, I do not agree with, it's an abuse of the system, and it does cost people money. Remember, just because it's a huge multinational record company, it may still end up costing people like you and me our jobs.
So, that's the sticky issue - one man might use it to broaden his horizons, while another might use it to screw the system and keep his wallet closed. Unfortunately it's the latter who are causing the problems and will probably end up stopping the former from enjoying a freedom that rarely comes along more than once in a lifetime.
I re-iterate, none of the above is true. It's all a lie.
*cough*
The way I see it is this. I download music, and films, which I wouldn't have bought anyway. If I hear of a band I like on the radio, on telly or whatever, I might download a few of their tracks to see if I like them. If I do, then I'll buy one of their albums. If I don't, then I've wasted about 5 minutes and spent no money - no harm done. I don't buy singles on principle (£3.99 for 3 songs? Yeah right), so when I download a few tracks for my MP3 playlist I'm not losing record companies any money, because they wouldn't have got it anyway. The internet, and particularly programs like Kazaa allow me to broaden and refine my taste in music, which due to the discovery of more and more bands I like (and would never have found without the net) has led to me spending more money on CDs than ever before.
As far as downloading albums goes, that's perhaps a different matter - I tend not to do it because I'm a hoarder and I like buying official stuff. I couldn't imagine downloading the new Radiohead/Muse/White Stripes album because I'd want the proper songs, on the proper CD with lyrics, sleevenotes etc. It's just the way I am. So you're not losing any money from me there - you're getting more. It's the same with films - if a film is available to watch in a cinema, I'll watch it there. If a film is out on DVD, then I'll buy it. I only download films that I would have never have bought because I don't know enough about them - I've downloaded some wicked films that I normally wouldn't have given a second glance, and have bought other similar films by the same director as a consequence of this. Again, companies not losing money, but gaining it.
But the key element is this - people use it for different means, so while one person like me might use it for casual use, another person might use the exact same system and totally abuse it. For example, naming no names, there are some people on these forums who boast about downloading album after album before they're released, and people who download complete films before they're even released in the cinema. This, I do not agree with, it's an abuse of the system, and it does cost people money. Remember, just because it's a huge multinational record company, it may still end up costing people like you and me our jobs.
So, that's the sticky issue - one man might use it to broaden his horizons, while another might use it to screw the system and keep his wallet closed. Unfortunately it's the latter who are causing the problems and will probably end up stopping the former from enjoying a freedom that rarely comes along more than once in a lifetime.
I re-iterate, none of the above is true. It's all a lie.
*cough*
*Gives Mr Snuggly a suspicious look*
jeez its the feds
won't you get a royal ass whompin for hanging out with the likes of us low down gypsy thieving b*stards, english_bloke ? :D
No, I’m undercover, trying to see the way your minds work.
*Puts on bulky glasses with fake nose attached*
Um, so. Any of you been involved in any illegal activities recently?
*Puts on bulky glasses with fake nose attached*
Um, so. Any of you been involved in any illegal activities recently?
Privacy on the internet isn't a right, it's a user assumption.
So if you commit a crime on the internet - whether it be downloading illegal files, posting illegal content, breaching libel, slander, copyright laws, infringing the Misuse of Computers Act and so on - I don't see a problem with your identity being revealed when you get pulled up for it.
It's a bit like thinking you can disguise yourself in a Ronald McDonald outfit to go rob a bank and not have your identity revealed when you get caught.
So if you commit a crime on the internet - whether it be downloading illegal files, posting illegal content, breaching libel, slander, copyright laws, infringing the Misuse of Computers Act and so on - I don't see a problem with your identity being revealed when you get pulled up for it.
It's a bit like thinking you can disguise yourself in a Ronald McDonald outfit to go rob a bank and not have your identity revealed when you get caught.
*watches as everyone misses the crucial point*
Page: