The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
*Watches Belldandy as he wishes he had an 'Edit my post' button*
Nope, you got close but not all the way. The point is that unless a real person can be linked to a username, then there is no proof that the real person did anything, because a username is not inextricably linked to a real person.
Take the case of one of the Soham cops, they pulled him for illegal images on his laptop computer, but, oh gosh, a several month investigation reveals that, oops, he wasn't the only one using it. So they've wrecked his career for nothing.
Same goes for online file sharers, the program is on a pc, and that PC is not always going to be solely used by one person, not to mention that hacking attacks and like can be routed through another users IP without them knowing.
Say, in theory, someone hacks and SR user name and posts all sorts of stuff on here, then leaves, then the real owner comes on. How does he/she prove it was not them ? More to the point how do you prove it was the hacker, 'cause all theyve done is gained a password for entry - the server would only show that the user logged in at that time.
Plus, FM, you say it's okay when they've comitted a crime, but, as my original post pointed out, it's innocent until proven guilty, and right now the lawsuit by the Record Companies demanding users real identities be turned over is clashing with the US Constitution, and worldwide human rights/privacy laws. Using you're own analogy, if you did walk into a bank like that then there'd still be enough evidence to say -"yes FM was here" beyond doubt, but not so with computers and file sharing.
The next step will, laws allowing, be when companies integrate methods of identifying you in the interests of preventative piracy - assuming anyone could do it so protecting all the items they make. In PC Games we're already seeing this on some - they contain a unique pin code to uniquelly identify your copy, and by tying the registration of the game to a unique user they can then track that copy and it's use. Right now pretty much every internet users PC has cookies on it which could be used for much more, Amazon for example already use cookies to work up an automated psychometric profile in order to suggest items a user would want.
Take the case of one of the Soham cops, they pulled him for illegal images on his laptop computer, but, oh gosh, a several month investigation reveals that, oops, he wasn't the only one using it. So they've wrecked his career for nothing.
Same goes for online file sharers, the program is on a pc, and that PC is not always going to be solely used by one person, not to mention that hacking attacks and like can be routed through another users IP without them knowing.
Say, in theory, someone hacks and SR user name and posts all sorts of stuff on here, then leaves, then the real owner comes on. How does he/she prove it was not them ? More to the point how do you prove it was the hacker, 'cause all theyve done is gained a password for entry - the server would only show that the user logged in at that time.
Plus, FM, you say it's okay when they've comitted a crime, but, as my original post pointed out, it's innocent until proven guilty, and right now the lawsuit by the Record Companies demanding users real identities be turned over is clashing with the US Constitution, and worldwide human rights/privacy laws. Using you're own analogy, if you did walk into a bank like that then there'd still be enough evidence to say -"yes FM was here" beyond doubt, but not so with computers and file sharing.
The next step will, laws allowing, be when companies integrate methods of identifying you in the interests of preventative piracy - assuming anyone could do it so protecting all the items they make. In PC Games we're already seeing this on some - they contain a unique pin code to uniquelly identify your copy, and by tying the registration of the game to a unique user they can then track that copy and it's use. Right now pretty much every internet users PC has cookies on it which could be used for much more, Amazon for example already use cookies to work up an automated psychometric profile in order to suggest items a user would want.
In The Courts:
MTV vs FantasyMeister (Judge Snuggly presiding).
Judge Snuggly: It is alleged that on 29th August 2003 the defendant did willfully download a 14.9 MB MPEG file copyrighted to MTV to his home computer without permission. How does the defendant plead?
FM: Not guilty, M'Lud.
Judge Snuggly: This case will therefore go to trial. Over to the prosecution.
Prosecution: The defendant is Mr...
Defence: WAIT!!!! The defendant is FantasyMeister!
Prosecution: Yes, but he's got a name, hasn't he?
Defence: Yes, it's FantasyMeister.
Judge Snuggly: FnatasyMeister, was that your given name at birth?
FM: erm... no.
Judge Snuggly: Then tell the court who you are!
FM: I'm, erm... FantasyMeister. For everything I do online, I'm FantasyMeister, this has no bearing on what I do in real life.
Judge Snuggly: This isn't a virtual court f00l. This is a real court, in the real world!!! j00 shall reveal yourself! Now... vat ist your name?
FM: I'm FANTASYMEISTER!!!!
Judge Snuggly: The defendant is clearly unfit for trial, being schitzophrenic. Case dismissed. (Damn, I'm 1337)...
MTV vs FantasyMeister (Judge Snuggly presiding).
Judge Snuggly: It is alleged that on 29th August 2003 the defendant did willfully download a 14.9 MB MPEG file copyrighted to MTV to his home computer without permission. How does the defendant plead?
FM: Not guilty, M'Lud.
Judge Snuggly: This case will therefore go to trial. Over to the prosecution.
Prosecution: The defendant is Mr...
Defence: WAIT!!!! The defendant is FantasyMeister!
Prosecution: Yes, but he's got a name, hasn't he?
Defence: Yes, it's FantasyMeister.
Judge Snuggly: FnatasyMeister, was that your given name at birth?
FM: erm... no.
Judge Snuggly: Then tell the court who you are!
FM: I'm, erm... FantasyMeister. For everything I do online, I'm FantasyMeister, this has no bearing on what I do in real life.
Judge Snuggly: This isn't a virtual court f00l. This is a real court, in the real world!!! j00 shall reveal yourself! Now... vat ist your name?
FM: I'm FANTASYMEISTER!!!!
Judge Snuggly: The defendant is clearly unfit for trial, being schitzophrenic. Case dismissed. (Damn, I'm 1337)...
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.
> 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.
Belldandy wrote:
> Nope, you got close but not all the way. The point is that unless a
> real person can be linked to a username, then there is no proof that
> the real person did anything, because a username is not inextricably
> linked to a real person.
That's a good point. Thank goodness for hackers. So Gary Glitter could have claimed that it wasn't him, it was a hacker that got into his system and downloaded all those pictures to his hard drive without his knowledge?
> Nope, you got close but not all the way. The point is that unless a
> real person can be linked to a username, then there is no proof that
> the real person did anything, because a username is not inextricably
> linked to a real person.
That's a good point. Thank goodness for hackers. So Gary Glitter could have claimed that it wasn't him, it was a hacker that got into his system and downloaded all those pictures to his hard drive without his knowledge?
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 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.
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.
"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?
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:
> 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:
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Page: