Viewing Thread:
"Music Piracy..."

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.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Some MP3s I have I just can not get anywhere. Any of you ever seen a
> Darren Housholder CD in a shop? No, didn't think so.

You can buy three of his albums on the Shrapnel label from the Shrapnel website. $11.50 each including shipping.

Easier not to bother looking and download it for free? Yep, thought so.

I am the the figment of Snugglys imagination.

I would turn to legal downloads, but they just don't have a big enough catalogue yet.

Some MP3s I have I just can not get anywhere. Any of you ever seen a Darren Housholder CD in a shop? No, didn't think so.

On the original point of loss of privacy, well I'm not happy about that. I can understand why the record companies need to take drastic action (all the big labels have lost money over the past 2 or more years) but I don't like it.

By suing people the record industry is certainly not making friends.

Yes, that is correct.
*coughs*

No problem, don't you mean your 'imagined fictional story person' was on a roll :D

Belldandy wrote:
> *watches as everyone misses the crucial point*

Yeah, sorry, I realised that halfway through but I was on a roll.

What I think should concern any parent about yahoo/AOL is that both have specific titled chat rooms for kids 16 or under, I mean it's insane to do that, I'll bet about half the people in them, maybe higher, are closer to 36 than 16.

Belldandy wrote:
> You're actually another good example of the importance of online
> privacy EB, if you said some of this stuff as a police officer, in
> public...imagine the Express Headlines;
>
> POLICE OFFICER DENIES RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO BE INNOCENT UNLESS
> PROVEN GUILTY



Very true, another thing is, how do you know, I mean actually KNOW that I’m a police officer?

All you know is what I’ve told you. But most of what you hear in these places you believe, because, well, why wouldn’t you?

This is one thing that genuinely scares me about chat rooms. These kinds of rooms are ok because they are moderated so nothing too inappropriate can be said. But the chat rooms such as Yahoo chat terrify me, people can say anything and you get young trusting impressionable people who believe what they are told.

English_Bloke wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> it's innocent until proven guilty,
>
> Yeah, and isn't that a stupid way of going about things?
>
> Lock everyone up, if and when you can prove you’re innocent of all
> crimes you are let out. If however you cannot, you will spend
> eternity in minimum-security prison…or join the police force, that
> could be another way out.

You're actually another good example of the importance of online privacy EB, if you said some of this stuff as a police officer, in public...imagine the Express Headlines;

POLICE OFFICER DENIES RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO BE INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY

Career over :P

Belldandy wrote:
> Ah, within madness the essence of the problem;
>
> "For everything I do online, I'm FantasyMeister, this has no
> bearing on what I do in real life."
>
> It's what the whole thing comes down to.

"For every crime I commit online, I'm FantasyMeister, this has no bearing on what I do in real life."

Does it sound sillier now?

Ah, within madness the essence of the problem;

"For everything I do online, I'm FantasyMeister, this has no bearing on what I do in real life."

It's what the whole thing comes down to.