Posts by Rapacity 12 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Oct 2008
Reminds me of a joke about an Irishman who had brain surgery; when he woke up the doctor told him the surgeon had had to remove half his brain. He said, 'Godverdomme, mijn hoofdpijnen.' Translation - a Dutchman is an Irishman with half a brain.
..On the other hand it just goes to show there's a little bit of the happy Irish soul in all of us.
PIMP...MUSIC LABEL...........MUSIC LABEL...PIMP.
Both groom impressionable (usually) young people for work,
both ply their staff with affection,
both run protection rackets,
both over control their staff to the point of limiting their lives,
both severely punish and are vindictive to non-payers,
both take a huge cut of their staff's earnings,
both, many would say, "own" their staff as opposed to hire them,
both severely dislike competition...
I could go on but I wont. There's only one difference and its a legal one. Can you spot it?
...people can honestly say they go out and spend 10/15 quid on an album more than once every 3 or 4 months?
In my 30 odd years of life, I've only ever spent more than a tenner for only 2 or 3 albums of my collection. All other music (and vids) I've bought have been purchased from second-hand/charity shops else picked up when they reached bargain basement aisles. I just don't see the point of spending more than a couple of quid (2 or 3 pounds) for an album when radios are so good.
I don't need the plastic case and fancy covers; an unmarked sleeve suits me; and I suspect most people feel the same.
Perhaps the record labels would sell more stock if they offered two versions of their products - fancy expensive or plain 'n' cheep. If people had the option to buy at realistic prices then perhaps they wouldn't download; and perhaps were commercially available downloads reasonably priced then more people would view them as an option. As for those who don't buy at any price, well has anything been lost given that they'd never buy anyway (excepting ethics).
Chris Swaine@23:44 (17th April) - totally agree with you and I suspect so many others do too.
Alien because it exemplifies the different worlds occupied by the record labels and the rest of us.
--they'll be chasing radio only listeners next.
Software copyright I agree with - software writers must be able to copyright and stipulate usage rights for their programs. But, IP for individual components must be abolished and ought to be replaced with IC (Intellectual Credit).
Where IP bestows restrictions, IC would embody freedom. IC would give the "Yep, I created that" factor whilst allowing others the right to unwittingly re-create the same without fear of prosecution. IC would allow free usage and prevent IP trolls from stealing the fruits of another's mind.
In fact, I'm so taken with my idea of IC that I've just sent the suggestion to the OSI.
And this is why I travel from the U.K to Europe aswellas around Europe by coach.
All the luxury of an air conditioned, extra roomy coach for a pittance. Might take longer but the scenery is great, more luggage can be carried, ferry trips are part of the parcel and customs officials don't worry about baseball bats, tennis rackets, electrical instruments and dodgy liquids...I carted my computer back from the Netherlands by coach (weighed a ton). Have a look at http://www.travelbudgie.com for some budget alternatives to air travel.
The flame icon because I am in it.
"I wouldn't put her in charge of a youth hostel, she's so incompetent."
She wouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a youth hostel - she's abused too many kids by subjecting them to discrimination, kidnap, imprisonment... Come to think of it, the whole government could be accused of child abuse/neglect; perhaps we can use Jaqui's laws against them to remove them.
Thanks for the ammo Jaqui - you're the best!
Alien because it symbolises this government's out-of-this-worldness (or should that be spaced-outness).
There's already an opt-in content ratings service. It's called the RTA label (Restricted to Adults). All providers of adult content are advised to opt into the RTA system by adding its meta tag into the page header of all pages containing adult content. Opting into RTA also gives the site a nice RTA badge to sport which provides a distinctive air of officialdom.
RTA is the American (internationally adopted) system and there's a British version too (can't remember it's name but it's website's very tacky).
Most porn sites use RTA. Most web-browsers recognise the RTA meta tag. All the user has to do is ensure his/her browser has safe search/content filtering enabled.
I can think of no reason not to just adapt the RTA system to include a minimum age specification too e.g RT12, RT18, RT21, and for special people, RTAMPTWATS.
I can't believe this man has done no research into current Internet self regulation. My best guess is that he is attempting to make the British public think he's responsible for something he isn't. He'd be better off just advising website publishers of present systems already in place.
As for "If you look back at the people who created the Internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn't reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now." How inconsiderate of the Internet's creators not to plan for the feelings of governments around the world. Tut, tut... Are we supposed to consider the government's ability to touch everything we design from now on?
Alas, I have to wonder about the morals of those whom can't stop thinking of the kiddies....!
"If it takes locking up an entire generation for them to learn to respect the laws of society, so be it."
You said it well there Paul. Laws of Society! The laws and regulations under discussion didn't come from society. They came and come from corporate entities. They exist to serve a financial end not a social good. These laws and regulations corrupt the functioning of society by placing real people under the bullying arm of abstract entities that have few freedoms to lose by persecuting file sharers. Nor do those entities risk destitution and quality of life.
As for the profit losses, beside the fact that most file sharers would never purchase anyway else they do purchase after they've trialled the item, are those profit losses based on the actual amount stood to be made from the raw sale of goods i.e as a download in absence of physical product and packaging (eg no CD, DVD, case, artwork, paper, card, transaction fees, advertisement etc...)?
Paul, have you ever recorded a film from TV with the intention to watch it later when you have more availability? If you have, have you ever forgotten to record over the recording so as to appease your conscience? Were downloading of copyrighted materials without payment made explicitly legal for the purpose of trial before purchase, would you download and file share? Would you trust yourself to delete the download if chose not to purchase?
I suspect you don't realize you are a bully whom is trying to determine others' actions by hiding behind copyright law and regulation. I hope that one day soon, you come to understand the nonsense in your argument.
I am not saying that copyright infringement is right; I am saying that I disagree with the current system of copyright "agreements". They are hardly agreements when the terms are set by one side and the only option is to not enter into them when you disagree with them.
Also, I am not saying I agree with ripping off talent; but, where music is concerned, I do think that were people given the option to download and pay the band/artist directly then I'm sure people would pay.
There are many alternatives to the present system of paying for intangible items. It seems to me that corporations aren't interested in exploring them. Neither are they concerned with understanding some of the more ethical reasons for downloading e.g downloading in lieu of purchase when access to a real world outlet is unavailable and cash is the only means for payment.
I feel so sorry for those born into the Order, New World, that's being pushed onto us. They will never know the meaning an importance of personal life and private identity. What's more, they will never miss the liberties we are losing nor those we once had. so very sad.
At least most of us over 20 will be able to reminisce about our almost unconstrained childhoods when we are older. Shame our children and grand-children will never understand our childhood memories.
This [censored] [snip] government [snip][censored][censored] is [snip] great.
Long [censored] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] live
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[snip]king Brown. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Message from your Government, may it live forever, Brown is Great:
Message censored for you own mental health benefit.
Your Government, always watching for your benefit, always listening to help you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
