The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Belldandy wrote:
> *watches as everyone misses the crucial point*
Yeah, sorry, I realised that halfway through but I was on a roll.
> *watches as everyone misses the crucial point*
Yeah, sorry, I realised that halfway through but I was on a roll.
No problem, don't you mean your 'imagined fictional story person' was on a roll :D
Yes, that is correct.
*coughs*
*coughs*
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.
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.
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.
> 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 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.
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.
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.
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 !
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).
Page: