Re: Old who
Yes, I believe BBC4 is re showing pre Ecclestone episodes
82 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Jul 2009
I'd agree with you, if we live in an ideal world, which we don't. Unfortunately (as this very nil demonstrates) governments and law makers will always put the interest of big business above those of the people who elect them.
I'm glad that Facebook, Google et al have waded into the debate (although I don't believe for a minute it's down to altruism on their part, more likely they'd suffer a loss of revenue from not being able to link to copyright material, or the admin costs from following up every time someone posted a link to YouTube would be unworkable), as the government are more likely to listen to them than the great unwashed. Of course, that puts them in the unenviable position if deciding which puppet master to listen to!
So you say give him a fair trial for the rape charges, and then immediately say put him in prison for 20 years. Now, I'm not an American so I've no idea how a "real" justice system is supposed to work, but here in the civilised world we assume that part of a fair trial is the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty". How does jumping into how he should serve his sentance fit in with that? Or is this part of your fox news watching, gun toting, palin fancying right wing conservative wet dream?
You also mentioned that he should be prosecuted in Australia. What crimes has he committed there? Other than embarras the US? Or doe you just want Assange prosecuted in as many countries as possible, just to make sure
How about a "DO Track" option for the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade who don't mind their data being mined, pimped and retained indefinitely, whilst the rest of us who object to being viewed as walking, talking bags of money by advertisers and marketers can be free to browse the internet privately, safe in the knowledge that we might be looking at ads that aren't specifically tailored to our browsing history.
I've got a more accurate translation of what she meant
"Hi I'm Nicole, I want to be an actress because Heat magazine has told me that's the pinnacle that a young girl like me can aspire to. However, due to my obvious lack of talant and understanding of the English language I'll probably just end up getting my baps out on page 3, and noshing off a footballer in a Romford nightclub".
I agree with what you're saying, but I can also see Wikileaks point of view, and unfortunately it's much more compelling. Whilst the vast majority of war documents are quite tedious and operational, Wikileaks HAVE to release everything they've got. If they start saying "This is boring, you don't want to read this" then they're going to leave themselves open to accusations of censorship and cover up, just like the Pentagon, however inaccurate these claims may be.
Ultimately, it would seem to go against Wikileaks purpose for them to start deciding what they do and don't leak, which is probably why you enjoyed the user submitted stuff in the first place. The way the Iraq war was (and is) conducted means there are an awful lot of documents associated with it, and releasing them all is obviously going to be their priority over user generated stuff at the moment. By releasing all of them it provides a complete picture of what happened, and I'm glad they're releasing all of them, not just the stuff they think I "need to know"
Big thumbs up for Wikileaks, keep up the good work, we need to know this stuff about what's being done in our name and the name of freedom and democracy, and we need to be able to hold to account the people who corrupt and pevert the principles we claim to be fighting for to further their own interests
It wouldn't surprise me if dropping net neutrality is the carrot to persuade ISP's to start policing their pipes under the digital economy bill. The biggest issue there (for the ISP's) was cost to the ISP, now they can effectively operate a toll service they'll be free to rake up the £££'s to pay for the snooping gear and the threatening letters, whilst at the same time throttling p2p to the slowest possible speed.
That said, some ISP's have already landed in hot water over not delivering on their advertised speeds, if anyone doesn't get the speed advertised as a result of their traffic not being "priority" (i.e. paid a premium for) then I would suggest everyone takes their ISP to court en masse for false advertising.
Welcome to the tory internet, super fast broadband for the "proper folk", super fast broadband throttled to 1998 speeds for the plebs, just to remind them of where their place is.
I think the fact that Lady GaGa is not just on the list but second shows you how pretty low the bar is.
And as we've established that people of the year tend to be targets for assassination do you really want to reach it?
That said, if history repeats itself and gaga does get "disappeared" maybe we can start to tactically vote for POTY, to ensure that humaity's lowest form of parasite gets the gong (and the subsequent bullet in the back of the head)?
Grenade, because there is no sniper icon
...But I wouldn't be surprised if "additional" T's & C's on BT's website would be held to be non binding, as you need to have accepted their service before you could look at them (there's an arguement that you could've gone to an internet cafe and looked at them before signing up, but if I remember my contract law lectures (and I have been drunk since then) this isn't an acceptable defence.)
OK, let me draw this in crayon for you. Theft is the intention to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE someone of something. By downloading something you're not permanently depriving someone of anything. You're infringing copyright for sure, but it IS NOT THEFT! Got That?
And by the same token, if someone posted a file of all my personal details on line I wouldn't be calling it theft, because it's not. It may be a violation of privacy, and potentially data protection, but it IS NOT THEFT! Someone's already made personal details from Facebook available on the torrents, and no one accused them of theft. Scumminess of the highest order no doubt, but *pause for breath* NOT THEFT
Fail for your ignorance of law and willingness to parrot record company propoganda without thinking for yourself
The Conduit Principle is the idea that ISP's are merely conduits for the 0's and 1's that make up the information you download over the internet. They can't regulate what you see, nor can they stop you seeing something. They're role is basically that of a pipe between you and what you want to see on the internet.
Originally, this legal distinction came about to protect ISP's in cases where their customers had accessed illegal material. If they were not just a conduit of information, but rather an active supplier of that information, then every ISP in the world would become jointly culpable for anything dodgy that their customers accessed. One of your customers accessed terrorist material? Then the ISP is also guilty as they facilitated this access.
Unfortunately, the Big 4 don't seem to have read any of the excellent texts by Michael Geist (I'd recommend his work for any aspect of Internet Law), and by forcing ISP's to police for copyright infringement they have effectively ended this principle of ISP neutrality. If the British (rather than the Irish) approach is allowed to continue, we could see the situation described above, that where ISP's become jointly liable for material accessed using their service, and they will be prosecuted if they won't (or indeed can't) identify the customer who was responsible. The implications of that are, well, pretty scary
I don't think anyones overly concerned about randy airport staff whacking off to grainy, ghostly images of the people who walk through the airport scanner (lets be honest, if they were going to, their imagination would work just fine for that), what I'm concerned about is the fact that privacy concerns were dismissed with the now obvious fallacy that the scanners couldn't record any images. With that in mind, what other comforting lies have we been told about surveilance equipment that we haven't found out yet?
That's my concern, and I think it is a big deal
Why would we flame you? You've pointed out the post hoc, ergo propter hoc nature of the MPAA and Apple's arguement. Yes, we have greater access to creative works than at any time in our history, yes we have the DMCA and DRM, doesn't mean the 2 are related. That's like saying "People live longer now than at any other point in history. There are also McDonalds. McDonalds makes people live longer".
I think the point you make is exactly the right one. We live an an age when access to new information is ridiculously easy and cheap. It was inevitable that we would have greater access to creative works given the advances made in physical media such as DVD's (which as welll as being chepaer to manufacture and hold more information than VHS are also smaller, which makes storing them on the shelves at home an easier option). Passing a law which prevented the greatest access to their works (via non physical mean such as the internet) and then claiming it caused the increase in access that was inevitable anyway is a little disingenious
Since you're using the word "Liberal" as an insult, I'm going to assume you're an American. I'm also going to assume you're familiar with the words of one of your most respected Founding Fathers who said "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" (or words to that effect)
I personally would quite like to live in a society where the police are not allowed to harass members of the public for no good reason, as it might encourage them to actually go out and solve some actual crimes (y'know, ones with "victims"). I also don't want to live in a society where the overall rights of the state are considered more valuable than the rights of the citizens who make up that state. I think that's been tried a few times before, and never really worked out that well for the people living there
It's beena a while since Law School, but here goes. In Copyright cases (usually international ones) if 2 brands have the same name and both are pretty well known, then what usually happens is neither party can licence the name but both can keep using it (Budweiser is a good example of this).
However, if a brand name is more likely to be associated with a particular company, such that you hear that brand name you automatically think of that company, they usually win the day (unless it's a word in common usage). Apple will argue (almost certainly successfully, debate the rights and wrongs of that elsewhere) that having a small "i" in front of any random word is enough to automatically associate with apple, and the addition of the "i" means it's not a "word in everyday usage", meaning apple could in theory copyright every word in the English language, as long as it had an "i" in front of it
So in answer to your original question, yes. They probably are doing this just to create more brand recognition so that when the inevitable court case starts they've already created enough that the judge rules that iAd's is automatically associated with apple, even if it was all through apple's doing.
i iFor iOne iWelcome iOur iNew iFacist iCorporate iOverlords
(all the above Copyright 2010, to me)
You did read the article right, not just see that it was vaguely related to the BBC and used it as an opportunity to moan about the licence fee. Did you even read the bit about how they're going to be releasing a paid for version for people who don't live in the UK? I don't know exactly how much they plan to charge or how much they expect to raise, but I would imagine it would be much more than enough to cover the cost of the development of the game, as Doctor Who Fans in UK < Doctor Who Fans not in UK. Therefore no cost to you, and more money to spend developing programmes that are certainly never repeated on commercial channels (anything on Dave/other UKTV channels) or sold around the world to recoup the money spent developing them (Top Gear, Life on Mars, the aforementioned Doctor Who)
Andrew, I can't be sure if you're deliberately playing devils advocate, but you seem to have misinterpreted what I said just enough that you seem to be arguing with me, yet at the same time supporting what I've said
I didn't use the word justice at any point in my original post. Sticking it in quotation marks suggests that you either haven't read my post, or are answering the questions you think I should've asked. Ever considered a career as a cabinet minister?
"Independents just want access to markets and capital - you're not suggesting quotas are you?"
I'm not sure how you would get the idea I was suggesting quotas from my post but hey ho, I guess that's why I'm not a respected technology journalist. No, I wasn't suggesting quotas, what I was suggesting was that the record industry largely exists to produce, promote and distribute music, a role that thanks to technology in general and the internet in particular, is largely redundant. Most people now posess the ability to record music and distribute it over the internet. Shows can be easily promoted by the bands themselves without the need for a promoter as all bands worth their salt will now have a Facebook page, a Myspace page and a Twitter feed at the very least, to send information about gigs to anyone interested. They don't NEED a middleman (charging an arm and a leg) to do this for them. There are also excellent independent local recording studions (I can think of 3 within a 10 mile radius of me) that are desperate for business, but because they're not affiliated with a major label, no one wants to use them, as it's not a guarantee of success. For all their size, major labels still only have a finite amount of money to invest, and it will be invested in the safest option, eg bland unioriginal and uninspired drivel for the teenage girl market, as that will guarantee the biggest return on investment. Independent music that caters to niche interests gets ignored, they do a good enough job promoting themselves using the methods outlined above, but while the market is still dominated by an outdated business model they will never be as successful as they could be. Removing the distribution companies (and I've outlined above why this is very possible nowadays) means more money is available to the indies, just like you wanted, and would allow people to "talent spot" (as you put it) genuine talent, rather than major label crap that has given us *shudder* jedward.
"People use the same logic when pinching sweets from WH Smiths"
I'm sure they do, but that wasn't the point I was making. Overlooking the "downloading music isn't the same as theft" arguement for a minute, because I think we can both agree, it's a pretty tired one, my point was that people only have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment these days. The distribution companies arguement seems to be that you HAVE to buy this as a physical medium (CD), even though you know that a digital copy would be a fraction of the cost, and the CD is going to be converted to a digital format anyway (I accept this may not be true for everyone, but it's true for enough people to still make a legitimate arguement) How is that fair? I cannot think of any other area of life where this would be accepted, the market would shift to the cheapest possible altrernative and the company refusing to modernise would go bust. There are very few, if any, industries that have to demand legislation to protect their business models. (I know there are download services available, but their in the early stages and the cost per track seems to be Cost of CD/Number of tracks on CD rather than any reflection of costs involved).
This arguement about the cost of music has been rumbling on for a very long time. I can remember when I was in school and CD's had just become a viable medium, they cost almost half as much again as the tapes and LP's they were replacing, yet cost a fraction of the cost to manufacture (I recall a figure of 10p a CD, but that could have been schoolyard grumbling) I know there's the issue of better quality, but I was under the impression that in a free market economy things should be priced at Cost of Production + Cost of Distribution + Fair Margin for Producer. This has never been reflected in costs for the consumer, and the internet has highlighted this hypocrisy even more.
"There's also an intellectual predjudice against people making money from music. Maybe they should become vegans and live in a yurt"
EPIC FAIL! The whole point of my post was that people should be able to make MORE money from Music, on the proviso that it's people who are actually involved in the actual making of music. If I go and have my car fixed I want to pay the mechanic who did the work, not all his buddies who weren't involved. The distribution industry is not necessary for the creation, promotion and distribution of music anymore. They have become the opposite of Free Market enterprises now, they are protectionist cartel's that aren't just stopping the development of new bands and creative new methods of recieveing and enjoying music, they're actively harming it.
"If you ask a manager, band or indie record label if they think "wallet busting amounts of money" are available now online, you'd be laughed out of the room."
Isn't that just proof that the distribution of wealth in the music industry is unjust and more needs to trickle down to the people actually involved in creating the content, rather than the people in the distribution industry that the internet has largely made redundant? Nearly all comments from the freetards suggest they have no objection to their cash going to artists, but they object very strongly to their money going to overpaid executives charging them over the odds for a completely outdated medium that they just dont want.
IIRC videoing (or variant thereof) something off the telly to watch later is legal under fair use IF you watch it within 30 days and delete it afterwards. Sharing it with your mate because they missed it is illegal as it counts as distribution.
And no, no one has as yet been able to explain why you cant download an episode of Stargate Universe that you've missed instead of recording it as long as you abide by the above mentioned rules, although I would guess it's something to do with the medieval mindset that 1 download = 1 lost sale
But maybe the results he got were to expensive/riddled with DRM/region locked and, with no feasable legal alternative he started looking into the illegal torrents.
Welcome to the Dark Side Lord Lucas, you'll like it here, we have rational arguements and no cognative dissonance!
Great Article, a rational insight not just into current squabbles over rights, but the whole history of the arguement (and those who forget history, etc etc)
On a side note, I noticed today that revenues for online sales are rising quicker than revenues from lost CD/DVD sales are decreasing
Now, I'm not a maths genius like those people at the record surely this should mean that profits are *increasing*, and "illegal" downloading should just be viewed almost as a promotional tool, an acceptable loss for the greater good of introducing more people into a 21st century business model.
One would almost suspect the recording industries of reporting the decline in CD sales, correlating with the *alleged* numbers of illegal downloading, but forgetting to mention the increase in online revenues (which are going to come from the more tech savvy people who are more than capable of operating a bittorrent client rather than an iTunes client should the mood take them) in order to further a political agenda with little consideration for either the facts involved, the historical context (as explained in the article) or the consequences for anyone who isn't them.
Now where have I heard that before?
I'm also quite concerned by the statement that Civil Servants didn't fully understand the implications of clause 42, either because civil servants are not elected and therefore have no business drafting laws, or because our lawmakers are creating laws to please one special interest group, without any consideration of the ramifications on everyone else.
And feature creep, nah mate don't worry about that, it's never happened.
Mandy, (and your recently bought, er sorry, persuaded) Lib Dem lord friends, please, for the good of the country and freedom of speach, just FOAD!!
talk about moving backwards! How can the RIAA$$ possibly hope to stay competitive if they stick their heads in the sand, or whistle to the "We don't need to innovate" tune?
I don't know about other Reg readers, but the only subscription service I would *Ever* use would be one that, for a monthly fee, I could download whatever the hell I wanted, without DRM, in a high quality file of the format of my choosing. There's no way I would pay a subscription for a streaming service if I had nothing to show for my money at the end of it. Sorry Warner, but DAB works just fine for that. Digital (or indeed Internet) radio doesn't always cater to my tastes, but even Spotify gets it wrong sometimes, and I'm not going to fork out £x with no guarantees that you're even going to recommend me stuff I like.
I am a big fan of free streaming services, love Spotify and We7 (not so keen on last.fm, but only because of the rumours that they're in cahoots with the BPI enforcement mafia) and I have discovered many new artists through their recommendations, and gone out and either brought their album (a sale to the music industry), or gone to see them live (profit to the band), often both.
So, Warner Music, I ask you this. If your music is not brought to my attention through the free streaming services that I use, how exactly is it going to be brought to my attention? Answer is it won't, so it's highly unlikely I'll be buying any Warner produced music in the future. I doubt it will be missed.
EPIC FAIL. Here's 10p Warner, go buy yourself a clue about how your customer base operates
"iirc only an ID card, passport or driving license will do. So it's not all that simple"
So our intrepid non driving traveller could STILL have got a provisional driving licence and been able to travel unimpeded around Europe under Schengen and with no problems from the Genderames as he would have had a driving licence. So it is all that simple. Plus he wouldn't have had to shell out an extra £50 on top of the £30 he' paid for his ID albatross when he decides he would quite like a bit of independence, or is fed up our woefully inadequate public transport system, and actually learnt to drive.
Methinks Peter the Plonker has had words put into his mouth, or it's true and they really are dumbing down the education system!
"The numbers were not as high as AFACT alleged and that iiNet in no way authorised the infringement"
Did you see that Mandlescum? DID YOU? Copyright holders lie about the levels of infringement going on, and ISP's AREN'T responsible for it! Please, go read something, anything, by Michael Geist (I think that's spelt right) before you trash one of the net's most important principles for the benefit of your yacht owning, profit margin protecting, genuine music destroying old boys network chums
/rant before I damage something!
Thumbs up to our Aussie cousins for protecting correct legal principles, rather than the interests of big business
NuLab got rid of Double Jeapordy a few years back, and IIRC just because someone's been aquitted in a criminal case, you could still bring the same charge against them in a civil case, because the burden of proof is different. You do however, leave yourself open to charges of malicious prosecution, which I strongly suggest Mr Ellis pursue, FFS they've admitted in national press that they're going to do it!
I think the point being made was that if you want to download stuff, then you can pick a broadband subscription that has, included in the cost, a £20 levy that goes to the rights holders as a payment for their creativity. If you don't want to download stuff (ie youo'd prefer a physical medium or you don't really like the stuff that's being produced, whatever) then you pick a broadband subscribtion that doesn't include the £20 levy. Then if they found someone with a non levied subscription downloading copyright material, they can do all the stuff the media mafia are requesting. If you've paid for a levy then you can download what you want as the rights holders will have been compensated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, original poster
"This is a hugely disappointing verdict which is out of line with decisions made in similar cases around the world, such as The Pirate Bay."
Ah yes, the Pirate bay trial, where the defence was amending the charge sheet as the trial was underway, AND the judge was found to be a member of a pro-copyright lobby group and it WASN'T a conflict of interest.
So they're disappointed that it wasn't a kangaroo stitch up and the correct legal principles were followed?
Expect TDL(tm) to be taken out for dinner on a lot mor yachts in the near future
If you had, you would've learnt that the Brg's first encounter with the Federation was in "Q Who", not "I, Borg" which came about 5 years later (And they had the splendind "Best of Both Worlds" before that!!) It was the first episode title with "Borg" in it, but that's about it. (Although cronologically, the first encounter with the Borg was in the Enterprise episode "Regeneration", although some contrite scripting meant they were never referred to as such, and the Voyager episode "Dark Frontier" points out that there were rumours of the Borg before even Q Who)
Hated the first Star Trek A and from the sounds of it, I'll hate this one as well. It might become the only piece of Star Trek that I never see...
At a Hunch it will go something along these lines
1 - Broadband will be blamed for allowing people to download in massive amounts. Broadband Banned
2 - Bluetooth will blamed for allowing people to share copywright material between phones. Bluetooth Banned
3 - Independent record labels will be blamed, as they allow people to buy music not produced by the big 4, therefore a "lost sale" for them. Indie's Banned
4 - Whatever the newest communication medium is will be blamed. Innovation Banned
5 - Potential Future technology developments will be blamed as they could potentially allow infringement. Future Banned
6- Your brain will be blamed, for allowing you to make the decision that you don't WANT to pay over the odds for their shit. Your brain banned.
7 - We end up as a subsistance farming society, surviving on a diet of gruel and Miley Cyrus records, while the BPI (All Hail) weep tears, for there will be no more rights to supress.
8 - They still pump out Shit
"Has any of this been thought through?"
Probably better than you might imagine, but not in the way you might imagine. It's been thought through from the angle of "shit, we're going to get voted out in 6 months, our core voters are deserting us in droves, how do we win them back? I know, they're stupid and poor, they can't understand the financial situation, let's give them a free laptop to help keep them even more stupid. Then they'll be happy that GordoMan has given them something and they'll vote him back in again"