Re: Despite all the negativity thrown to Sir/Lord/ Alan..
You honestly believe that everyone keeps score by the millions? I don't view 800 million as an achievement I view it as an obsession.
22 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Oct 2007
I am intrigued as to where your perception of Liberty and more specifically Shami Chakrabarti comes from. I can understand a resentment of the organisation for not tackling issues like the smoking ban with equal vigor as they do other issues. I can also understand a dislike for Shami's reputed lack of humour.
I could hardly use those two points to dismiss the organisation as a waste of oxygen and regard Shami as shameless. In fact, having listened to her myself I am quite impressed. Maybe you can enlighten me as to her unrealised shame.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Well, if you want a fix you do not have to wait at all, you can compile a fixed version and even release the fixed version for others to use.
If you want a fix that has some assurance that it won't cause more problems than it prevents then you may want to wait.
I have been teetotal all my life and never found cause to carry ID around with me all the time as I don't have a car.
A few years ago, when I was 21ish, I accompanied some friends into a bar. I was told they would not allow me to stay unless I provided ID to prove I was over 18, despite me stating that I did not want any alcohol. Not knowing enough to kick up a fuss, we went to another bar.
Had that happened now I would be demanding to see the manager and at the least issuing a complaint with whatever standards body applied and potentially taking them to court. Unfortunately I do not know what the outcome would be as the law on discrimination has gaping holes in it.
This may change with a new bill which can be read about here: http://www.advicenow.org.uk/is-that-discrimination/is-that-fair/whats-not-covered,10072,FP.html
My response to the explosive force of irony about you bitching about someone for being an idiot is being limited to this one sentence in the interest of saving kittens from the radioactive effects of sarcasm.
Now, the issues.. firstly legal aid. Legal aid is an integral part of our legal system, it is not there just to help people who are innocent it is there to try and ensure we have a legal process for everyone. It would appear that you are using legal aid merely as a tool to kick someone while they are down. If you're going to be so hateful to a complete stranger I would rather you called him names than pointed out how much he might be costing in legal aid. If you have a problem with legal aid I think perhaps you should speak out against legal aid not against someone who might be making use of it.
Secondly, his crime and punishment. You seem to equate hacking with thieving when actually it is more akin to trespassing. The US seem to have made clear their intent to try him in light of 'damages' which, in continuing the real-world analogy, would be comparable to a trespasser breaking a lock and/or the expense in pursuing him. So, hypothetically we have someone who broke a lock and trespassed into a military base. Would it be reasonable to charge that person for the expenditure resulting from tracking him down and upgrading the security system as well as the lock he broke? I would challenge you to find a precedent in trespassing case law where a a prosecutor has managed to claim such damages back from the defendant.
All that is without going into the issue of the 'terrorism' laws he is to be tried under, which are a huge pile of excrement in the nicest light anyway and a waste of time to shovel through in search of a solution.
Maybe the widespread disdain for so called pirates boils down to the fact of them being unlawful. Being lawful is nothing to be proud of in itself, using law as a moral compass is admitting that you lack either the will or ability to determine your own actions. Such is the choice aspect of choice and consequence.
Law can skew consequence quite severely, though not always in the same way and often different from one country or state to the next. This means that just because you disagree with law does not mean you are likely to break it. You make a choice based on the consequences and the chance of them getting enforced upon you. Unless you are someone who puts more faith in the law than in themselves.
Copyright infringement has potentially high consequences but lottery like chances when it comes to getting caught. The fact that so many people partake in copyright infringement gives me hope that maybe not all of them but at least some unlawful file sharers do it because they have faith in themselves and make an informed choice to do whatever the hell they damn well like.
I could go on but it would probably involve analogies and other unpleasant uses of language. Here's hoping the debate isn't a complete waste of time and at least keeps the participants quiet while they practice their witty retorts.
I must second this post.
After following that link I am appalled that the BBC seems to have completely failed to acknowledge Diane Abbott's contribution (which I rate as far more important than Davis' admittedly bold gesture) especially considering she appears on their own politics show. I tried to find mention of her speech on the BBC website.. you can make out snippets of it from the 'key points' Terror Detention Vote page :
I am left thinking that those snippets were included to stop conspicuous time gaps.
Quote: "You seem to be unable to follow the consequences that follow from your logic. Perhaps your musings on cats and quantum theory are a way of distracting yourself from these consequences?"
It must be because as a freetard I am somehow incapable of logical thought, maybe I should bow down to your superior reasoning. Or maybe I'll just accept the fact that our opinions differ and let you mock me some more out of a sense of i-don't-give-a-crap. Perhaps your mocking of freetards is a way of distracting yourself from your inability to properly articulate your own opinion.
Quote: "If artists cease to be remunerated from the popular enjoyment of their art, then art will not stop being made. We'll just get a lot less of it, and we'll get a lot more rubbish.
If producers cease to be remunerated for curating and maintaining archives of great old music, and find nuturing and promoting great new music, then we won't stop getting music. We'll just get a lot less of it."
So you've said already. As I've already pointed out, I don't mind there being less music because frankly we're drowning in the stuff at the moment. Maybe you could expand on your point about it getting more rubbish by explaining how/why.
Quote "You might care to open your eyes a bit. You're obviously not a music lover."
Ok, I am a masochistic music listener then if that pleases you.
"You seem to be missing my point: if an industry (music, film, automotive etc.) has its products rendered valueless (i.e. you can't sell cars if they can be legally obtained for nothing) then the industry will cease to exist."
Again with the car comparisons, I shall sum up my disdain for the comparison with one phrase: Apples to Oranges. Cars are not intellectual property. No one is suggesting that stealing cars becomes legal. As for the industry ceasing to exist.. that is the point of the exercise. Thoughts have become a commodity. You may like that, I don't.
"Every copyright theft is a "commercial interest"; you seem to be asserting that if the victim doesn't immediately notice the crime then it's alright? What if someone "shares" your car every night? If they replace the petrol and fiddle the odometer you might not know anything's happened, so it's OK then?
There is a basic bottom line to this; either we give legal protection to IP or we don't. Society has to make this decision and then live with the consequences, but Freetards live in a world where, essentially, everything is just "free" with no real ideas as to how this might actually be paid for. At the moment, because "sharing" is illegal the ratio of Freetards to paying punters is low, so the existing economic model can cope (a bit like shops and shoplifters), but as soon as you legalise "sharing" then that model vanishes and we either get a new way of paying for content production (maybe state funded music and film; terrific comrade!) or accept that content production stops."
I knew the commercial interest compromise was going to bite me back. Fine, if you don't like compromise then I shall drop that comment and instead assert that all intellectual property is bad and that we should live in a world perfected by me.
Back to the point, by your logic I should probably get arrested for sneezing because it might cause a hurricane the other side of the world. 'sharing' a car every night is certainly a better analogy than stealing a car but still kinda misses the mark. What makes someone borrowing your car without your knowledge a bad thing? It isn't the lack of revenue afforded by the fact you could have been renting your car out.. because chances are you wouldn't rent your car out at night anyway. It is because it is your property and you don't trust someone else with it for fear of loss. That is where cars differ from information. Information doesn't HAVE to be property, you stand to lose nothing by sharing it unless there is say.. a law in place to make it into property. Which brings us back to round abouts square one which is where I say I don't like the idea of intellectual property and you say it is essential.
Woah I'm getting dizzy with all this going around in circles, next stop please.
Quote: "But musicians and producers and sound technicians and all the other people involved in turning art into something that can play on an MP3 player do need to make money (do you work for nothing Ian?)."
Yes I do work for nothing, it is called voluntary work. Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway.
Everyone needs to make a living. How they make it is up to them. I feel the words burning into my retina as I type this again but.. copyright has been around 350 years. Art has been around a lot longer. I am well aware of the fact that special effects marvels that are currently two a penny would be a lot rarer without copyright but as much as I liked the matrix I can't say I'd miss it any more than I'd miss a good book. To be honest, books would be a better argument than music or film for copyright. Books were where copyright originated and where it is most relevant. It is interesting that no one pro copyright has brought up books yet, if I was playing devils advocate it would be central to my argument. If I was going to consider a form of copyright for anything books would be at the front of the queue.
Quote: "I think you don't understand human nature; if "sharing" isn't illegal then almost everyone will "share", rendering IP valueless. Will you be paying for digital recordings if someone is willing to "share" them with you?"
Human nature is not determined by law. The fact that otherwise 'lawful' people flaunt copyright because they disagree with it is an example of that. It is only about what you can get away with if you are being treated like schoolkids (don't get me started on that can of worms). Tell me, do you require murder law to prevent you from going around killing people? You may be insecure in your ability to make responsible choices but I am not. You may not trust other people to make responsible choices but in an issue such as this it should be none of your business as any harm done is pure speculation anyway.
Quote: "I think, Ian, that you just want free stuff but don't want to be labelled a criminal by the law. Why not? I would have more respect for someone who steals "honestly" and doesn't whinge for the laws on theft to be removed; at least they have accepted the risks associated with crime and aren't trying to portray it as some kind of revolutionary act for the freedom and benefit of all (All intellectual property is theft comrade!)."
This brings me to my free gift to all who use the word freetard, it is a rant. You are bigots. You act like being lawful makes you right. You make what might otherwise be serious statements while insulting complete strangers. You automatically presume a complete strangers intentions to be selfish. I wonder if you are so obnoxious in person too, as much as I enjoy banter it does tend to get in the way of the actual issues when you can't tell someone to be polite or bugger off.
I think it is the fear of the unknown, maybe people can't or don't want to imagine what life was like before copyright. It boils down to personal choice in the end though.
You are comparing musical recordings with medical surgery and tell me I sound stupid? Doctors get paid in proportion to the work they do. I fail to see how that compares to making money out of nothing.
"Copyright actually provides a mechanism for both quality and quantity. You might be happy with a future that offers us nothing but the amateur crap we get on YouTube - but this is not one I want."
Obviously you're not a classical music fan.
I wonder if you can even begin to qualify your statement that copyright provides quantity and quality. I stated my view on copyright clearly as a personal belief. You seem to state your view like someone who had to be explicitly told right from wrong. You exude certainty with your words.. with certainty tends to come ignorance or fanaticism. I may be wrong, maybe you make derogatory comments on a whim in which case I look forward to your downfall in the face of someone with a short temper.
Regardless of legislation however, the fact remains that the choice is there for individuals to make. Unless there is a commercial interest then a copyright 'theft' is akin to Schroeder's Cat. Until the police start working on a quantum level then you have no clue as to whether anyone has lost anything and the morality will be ambiguous. You mock the idea of charity but it seems to me the record labels business model already relies on it.
Quote: "So how do you compete with free stuff? If it were legal to steal cars, would you ever buy a car? Maybe the auto industry should reduce its prices to compete with car thieves?"
You seem to be missing the difference between a car and information. If you were to build a car from looking at someone else's car (who said yes, you can look at my car) using your own materials then you would not be stealing. You may get into trouble with the car manufacturer if you then sold that car or claimed the idea was your own but you would not be accused of stealing it for your own enjoyment.
As for how to make money.. if the oh so smart business people of the record industry can't work out how to make money without copyright then give them a Darwin award and forget about them.
Quote: "The six-figure income is limited to very few artists; see El Reg's interview with Feargal Sharkey for a taste of reality."
Yes, because that interview is such a balanced point of view that it encompasses all calling itself reality. Music is an art. It does not exist to make money. Musicians do not have to record music. Want to make money from music? Teach it, perform it, commission it. I think the real problem with the idea of not making money from copyright is there are far too many musicians who view recording as some sort of career choice. I prefer quality over quantity and I believe quantity is what copyright brings, not quality.
Yes, people break the laws regarding copyright. Why? because it is a damn stupid law that is there to facilitate the making of money from the actions of others. You may believe a monetary incentive is required for the creative process but oh my, not everyone agrees with you.
If musicians want to make money then let them make money by performing and composing, not by recording. You cite the 'honest' people paying for the privilege of listening to a recording, I would substitute the word honest for either charitable or gullable. Being law abiding does not make you honest.
Copyright is only a problem because there is a law for it, is that really what laws are for? to personal choices for us? In other crimes there is a victim before the law.. if you attend a concert without paying then you are potentially depriving someone else of their enjoyment because space at a venue is finite. If you steal something you are depriving someone of something. Before copyright, if you copied something for your own enjoyment you deprived the person you copied it from of nothing, so why is there a law against it? Do people really believe it is their god given right to make money from every copy of something they write down? Or do they believe that they have given themselves the right by accepting copyright laws? Copyright was introduced because people using the printing press were greedy and decided that they should be able to make money through no effort of their own.
I look forward to the day the music industry collapses and artists are forced to rethink their lives. It is my hope that people who love music will be in for a treat as a result of it.
So, yes people who break copyright law are being unlawful. Immoral or dishonest however? Pot, Kettle, Black.
Copyright is a solution to a non problem. The idea of intellectual property is a construct that is rapidly losing its weight. Should laws ever be used to make money? What is so wrong with a world without copyright? A world where people do work because it needs doing instead of because they think they can sell it over and over again. Idealistic crap? To everyone who isn't me, maybe.
If copyright went away, what would happen to the music industry? I would hope it would die. Music will not die however, it will endure as it endured for thousands of years before copyright and I would bet that people who really care about music would be treated to a better class of musician for the lack of industry.
I say bring on the revolution.
People use the quote because it is succinct and effective in expressing their opinion. Your reaction seems to be based on presumptions about the people using the quote. What a poor excuse to have a go at someone whose opinion differs from yours.
I agreed with the articles crux, the impact anti terrorism measures are having on us are greater than the impact terrorists themselves are having. I would rather have the energy they are wasting put into improving life at home or giving potential terrorists less reason to hate us by improving foreign relations.
The idea that suicide bombers are a self solving problem has some merit to it. That isn't to say we couldn't try and tackle the issues that drive people to do such things but to put the threat of terrorists above that of any other sort of threat is ensuring that they get the attention they strive for. Plus it isn't a very effective use of energy towards the goal of saving lives anyway.
I am more afraid of leaving a legacy of fear than of dying, it is a shame that our government presumes everyone to be self centered and afraid for themselves over the wellbeing of people as a whole.
And just when I thought the pathetic comments people are forced to wade through when someone talks about operating systems were bad enough.
I'm quite used to people making a joke out of my dietary choice and if it wasn't such a waste of time I would in turn take great delight in stuffing raw meat down their throat until they shut up. The fact that some vegetarians promote the advantages of the diet is hardly worthy of contempt in itself, if they're obnoxious and annoying about it then fair game but if you're going to take it out on the rest of us then you're as moronic as they are. As for the comments about peoples choice to not eat meat because they think its cruel, I hope your ideal comes to pass and you get eaten. Although I care little for the cruelty aspect of eating meat myself it sickens me that people get ridiculed for caring.
It is funny how (as some have pointed out) the original article either purposely or unwittingly presumes that all vegetarians are vegans, I suppose it is thankful that the biased nature of the article is so obvious.
Something that has not yet been touched upon (as far as I have noticed) is the non dietary or moral aspects of vegetarianism. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that being vegetarian has benefits on the environment and on the economy as well as for preventing starvation. After all, as one of the most respected minds of this century Albert Einstein was an advocate of vegetarianism and I believe not because he cared about animals. I cannot claim that I know vegetarianism to be a better way to live but as it is my choice to make and it harms no one else I reserve the right to be damn well pissed off at people who make a joke out of it.
Oh and I feel the need to respond to the somewhat interesting postulation that humans should eat meat because they have pointy teeth. We had tails once too, I know my family have moved on since then.. have yours?
Hurrah to all the people who manage to not make fun of others for making different choices, meat eaters or otherwise.
Firstly, to anyone saying word definitions don't matter.. if we take a long trek back for a second to the story we're actually commenting on, its about what many call thought crime. I should hope that if anyone were actually horrible or stupid enough to condone the existence of thought crime then they'd at least have the decency to get their definitions straight so those among us who know how to use a dictionary have some chance of not being arrested for saying the wrong thing.
It is a a slippery slope to let a words meaning be determined by peoples feelings towards current events. The first example that comes to mind is communism.. surely considered a dirty word in the US yet its origins are innocent enough. Imagine arresting people for going to websites promoting communism.. what would be next? a crackdown on anarchists? granted communism and anarchy don't promote murder but if its that we're worried about why not arrest people for watching TV.
As some have pointed out and others seem to have missed.. terrorism is all about causing terror. The most common use of the word is all about whether the target of killing is the victim or the impact their death will have on a population. As questionable as the actions of countries such as the US are, not all of their atrocities come close to being a candidate for terrorism.
The key ingredient they are missing is intent, it is certain that wars cause terror in civilian life especially when using civilian unfriendly methods such as less than surgical use of powerful bombs. There is a big difference between killing civilians because you're careless or callus and targeting them to cause terror however.
It could be argued that the US when bombing the Japanese in WWII were using terrorism as it has the key ingredient of intent. There is no doubt as to the US' intent to create fear and force the Japanese to surrender rather than any military impact the bombings had.
To contrast this with an example from James Anderson who commented on the use of torture by the US, the intent of any torture would be to gain information or because the people involved are sadistic morons who want to punish prisoners. If anything the US are doing their best to keep any torture secret, secrets aren't very fear inducing.
Another point brought up was political sanctions being terrorism.. I would argue that although sanctions effect civilians more than anyone their intent is not to cause fear or terror.
As much as I can say I don't condone terrorism I have no influence over so called terrorists. I am supposed to however have influence in our democracy (ha ha) and as such feel more strongly about the actions of our government than those of complete strangers from another culture. Personally I would rather risk being the victim of a terrorist attack than have anyone be the victim of our government.
The quote from Malik is not a very telling one. His use of the word terrorism is not expanded upon and may differ greatly from how mainstream media and government use the word.
Saying that you support terrorism could be synonymous with saying you support the war in Iraq. The fact that he qualifies the statement with 'against innocent people' accentuates this as my example is not from a different context to the way in which he used the word.
The only difference between the war in Iraq and the most common use of the word terrorism is that it doesn't intentionally target civilians (re: innocent people). Apart from that it fits the least forgiving definition of the word that i could find rather well: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=terrorism
Take out the bit about civilians and the war in Iraq fits quite snugly, the only point of contest would be over it being unlawful.. which many people not getting arrested for terrorism argue the war in Iraq is.
As much as I enjoy bashing the war in Iraq my main point is that acting on information without any indication of intent is all round a stupid idea.
If I were him I would consider taking legal action on the grounds of discrimination as it seems to me they had no evidence of his intent and as such based their actions on his ethnic background.
Tux because he doesn't speak enough to get caught in such a trap.
"But what we learned from Radiohead is that so many people won't pay for anything. It would have been really clever of the P2P community to show that when music is for free, there's zero piracy. They should all have paid something sensible, two pounds for the album, and look at what a message that would have sent."
Forgive me if I am being silly, but weren't Radiohead offering the album for a minimum fee of the bandwidth cost? To me it makes sense to download the album from bittorrent first, that way you aren't paying for something you wish you hadn't downloaded. If anything they should have distributed it on bittorrent with a link to donate included in the torrent. That way people aren't paying for bandwidth and may donate more. It's disturbing that he tries to turn Radiohead's experiment into an example that everyones a pirate. Either this guy is desperate for reasons to hate file sharers or as a businessman he is awfully bad at spotting what the money is doing.
Of course, one alternative is that he views not paying for something that is being offered for free as piracy.. which is even more disturbing.
Some people seem a bit confused (or blind) over why it is a bad idea to cater only for the market leader.
Microsoft is the market leader.
Companies refuse to develop for anyone else for one or more of many reasons: They are unaware of the alternatives. They are lazy. They cannot justify the cost of development.
Microsoft continues to grow, milking its market share for all its worth with no incentive to innovate. Development time at Microsoft is spent designing new looks for an old product and releasing it as a new version. Everyone buys the new version because Microsoft stop support for the old version. Microsoft gradually switches to a rental system on the basis that you are giving them money annually anyway so lets skip the formalities. Don't like it? Sorry, but the only competition Microsoft has left in the software market are the anti-virus companies.
A bit overstated yes, but the point is Microsoft is a capitalist company. They have one goal. Capitalism only works (and I hate to use that word anywhere near capitalism) if there is competition. Some people might not mind that their computer 20 years down the line is still largely being used for excel so you can calculate how much you owe Microsoft.. personally I'd like to see what 20 years of innovation from people who aren't Microsoft's logo department will bring.
Poorly documented? I hope you're not comparing it to Windows in this regard.. the security through obscurity platform.
It is widely known and accepted that ATI's support for Linux is lacking.. It seems that the most common complaint about Linux is the hardware support and that is because many hardware manufacturers believe that as long as their hardware works with Microsoft's latest OS then it is ready to put on the shelves. It is not that Ubuntu is not yet suitable for 'domestic' users but that you have to buy your hardware from companies that don't believe that Microsoft are the only people in the world who make operating systems for home computers. Why should the open source community have to reverse engineer every piece of hardware on the shelves when Microsoft get the support handed to them on a silver platter? Take a look at Microsoft's main (and probably only) rivals in the home computing market.. Apple. They sell their operating system with hardware to match for a reason.
The problem is not that Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution is not ready it is that the rest of the community will not accept it as being ready and will not support it. Where would Microsoft be if the hardware manufacturers decided to stop writing drivers for windows?