interesting, when i turn off openzone, BT FON still runs (they're almost the same thing).
if i turn off the wifi, openzone AND BT FON still run.
glad to hear that there are separate IPs but im still not entirely happy about sharing bandwidth. although saying that, im on the third floor of my house and we either have lead-lined walls or wifi signals are rubbish because you cant get a wifi signal in the downstairs rooms... outside the front is another matter
umm i would but... as per my above comment, EVEN if i do turn off the normal wifi, BT have a signal being broadcast all the time which i need to "opt-out" of. ive tried but for some reason my BT login details dont work on the BT FON website.
just as an additional thought... If i own an iphone and a netbook and neither have a wired network card, turning off the wifi would not help me it would just prevent me from using my internet on my devices.
not exactly a "simple fix" to turn it off as im sure there are people out there who dont have wired networking built in to all of their network(ed) devices.
BT (i.e. British Telecom) have been forcing their customers to have open wifi on their wireless routers, the BT Homehub, for ages. its labelled as "BT Openzone" or "BT FON"
my homehub broadcasts a signal labelled "BT Openzone" and/or (i forget) "BT FON" which is a pay for use open wifi signal that anyone can get onto if they are willing to pay a small fee to use it. I have been informed that the reason for this is to promote open wifi throughout the country (mostly residential and commercial areas) and create a system whereby if you have paid the fee, your wifi device will switch between the available openzone-supporting hubs automatically when your signal strength changes. or something similar... :-S
it sounds like this will be a big problem for BT although im unsure as to what the IP address situation is (i.e. if you get your own IP if you connect to openzone or if they give you the same IP as the hub owner)
either way it sounds like BT will be forced to remove this or ensure their homehub users are not adversely affected by openzone signals and the potential for illegal downloading.
as a sidenote, it's difficult to remove this option from the homehub. you have to de-register yourself from the option to have it included and apparently they stop the signal going from your hub. not sure HOW they do this but i assume its a custom firmware change for those who remove the openzone "option".
annoyingly, if i turn the wifi signal off altogether, openzone still broadcasts which is a little wierd.
as a disgruntled (im sure im not alone) BT customer, its very annoying to think that any idiot can get online via my homehub and rape my bandwidth when i never agreed to this in the first place. especially when BT FON is detailed in the small print of the contract and was never disclosed when i went through the sign-up process. im also a little concerned about the infringement possibility.
here is the link to the BT FON info page - https://www.bt.com/wifi/secure/index.do?s_cid=con_FURL_btfon
"Her ignorance turns into an excuse to divert attention from the indisputable issue that is at the core of all these discussions, writers and performers are being ripped off."
valid point, but i think YOU ignore the fact that most artists are inherently ripped off by the labels they sign to and most other mainstream distributors are constantly screwing artists.
the RECORDING industry does exactly that, record musicians work. they dont create the music, they dont write the music (mostly, although pop-puppets are the exception - i.e. manufactured boy/girlbands etc) and therefore they dont have the inherent right to the majority of the profits from the music they RECORD (although they have set their business model up in this way).
if they (i.e. the recording industry) want to sit around and complain about piracy and how its "killing the music industry", let them. the rest of us will watch as they crash and burn and enjoy our non-mainstream entertainment, recorded and produced by truly talented individuals/groups who will flourish when they dont have to compete with the monopolistic labels who pollute the industry.
the "real" issue is not at dispute here. the article is highlighting how this woman is clearly wrong and misguided in her efforts to sue/threaten google etc. the article is not skipping over the piracy element, just pointing out how moronic this woman is being.
It would help if they had "invested" that much in the stories to start with. news happens whether the newspapers report it or not. we all hear about things happening through word of mouth and (surprise surprise) the internet. journalists dont pay much for the material, it comes to them for a relatively low cost and is printed/posted for a lot less than the mainstream media would have you believe.
plus no suggestion of "giving it away" just realising that income streams come in various guises, to charge for what others provide for free is plain silly when you look at consumer choices (ie taking the free over the costly).
your reference to how advertising doesnt make enough to sustain the online business model is old and frankly wrong. maybe some links to back up your troll-a-like comment would be handy.
or alternatively maybe you could just be honest and admit that you work for the very people who are being referred to in the article.
The point here is not that people are trying harder to "steal stuff" as you so eloquently put it.
most of us will follow the VPN/IP hiding route because we're sick of government agencies and industry lobbyists monitoring EVERY DAMN THING WE DO.
is it not bad enough that you cant walk through most large cities without being constantly monitored on CCTV?!
now we're having every movement, every detail, in fact EVERYTHING (mobile phones, wireless connections, credit cards, passports, credit history, car licence plate, IP address, email addresses) monitored and filtered to enable big industry and our own governments to make more money out of us (whether through marketing, taxes or obscene lawsuits).
I WILL hide my personal details when im using the internet because well yes i on occasion may download a pirate file (in order to assess whether i should buy it ;-) ) but more because its getting ridiculous how much our free speech/human rights are suffering and being abused.
Evidently as you post anonymously you dont want YOUR details being monitored by people online so maybe you should think before you make such silly off-hand remarks. either that or you could just post who you are and base your comment on fact as opposed to taking the side of the big companies who are trying to shaft EVERYONE (artists/performers included BTW!).
unless of course you are on their payroll in which case read and learn about your customers.
Oh yeah and gotta slip this one in for the record... Mandelson (UK politician) is a crook
@Ivanhoe
my question for you... are you involved in the music industry or do you have any ties with someone in the RIAA...? You're opinions are typically biased towards the industry lobbyists who want us kicked off the internet for sharing information (albeit in the form of music/films/other media forms) which most people would see as a primary function for the net. there are many uses for the internet but it seems that sharing information is a key purpose.
its fairly apparent from your comment taht you consider yourself an expert on the subject at hand. bearing in mind that as mike points out, there was substantially more polite/reasonable commenting taking place on Lily's blog, it would appear that you are siding with the "all filesharing is wrong and the industry will lose if we dont fight it" crowd. The fact is, the industry stands to lose out more from standing against this than wising up, improving the business models and embracing technology. As far as i can see they are alienating the very people who give them the money they need to survive.
@ RIAA, MPAA, music industry lobbyists
I know hundreds of people who file share. We share some of our favourite music with friends/family and sometimes complete strangers. do we feel guilty about it... NO!
the main reason for this... most of the music we share is by people who get little to no air time on radio/tv/streaming media (because insiders in the music industry cant sell them or puppeteer them).
these people are effectively receiving free advertising from our sharing their music and honestly many of the people we have shared music with have ended up ordering the full CD's or online download (pay per song/album) therefore getting that all-important money to the artist (or more likely their record company CEO's wallet (if applicable lol!)).
I dont see sharing music as a crime persay. Obviously there are potential revenue losses for the music industry but these are (as mike and the industry analysts have already proven) heavily overshadowed by the high levels of revenue received through merchandising and concert ticket sales.
As far as I can see, the crime is only apparent because the higher powers within the music industry are feeling a slight pinch on their wallets (anyone paying attention to the world economy atm??!).
I will continue to share music whether online or offline as I see fit because I love music, my friends love music and many many many people I meet on a daily basis love music. Im simply sharing the love in a cost-effective manner and at the same time, providing the artists whose music I share with a sh*tload of free advertising.
The only people losing out here are the musicians and record labels who insist on branding all of us as criminals for sharing with others the music etc that we love. I share music with my fellow humans as i believe that it has a unique way of bringing people together. Music for me is one of the all time greatest sensory experiences i have. I go nowhere without a media player of some description and i listen to my favourite music wherever i go.
If I end up getting sued for sharing my passion, I will firstly be broke (therefore unable to buy the music anyway) and massively PO’d with whoever sued me (therefore making me one less loyal customer to the artist/record label/affiliated artists etc)
On a slightly different note, if my ISP threatens to cut me off for my internet use… im going elsewhere. This is a viewpoint shared by the many people I talk to both online and in the “real world”. ISP’s should not be the internet police, they are INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by domo_sy2001.
Re: Re: the funny thing is...
interesting, when i turn off openzone, BT FON still runs (they're almost the same thing).
if i turn off the wifi, openzone AND BT FON still run.
glad to hear that there are separate IPs but im still not entirely happy about sharing bandwidth. although saying that, im on the third floor of my house and we either have lead-lined walls or wifi signals are rubbish because you cant get a wifi signal in the downstairs rooms... outside the front is another matter
Re:
umm i would but... as per my above comment, EVEN if i do turn off the normal wifi, BT have a signal being broadcast all the time which i need to "opt-out" of. ive tried but for some reason my BT login details dont work on the BT FON website.
just as an additional thought... If i own an iphone and a netbook and neither have a wired network card, turning off the wifi would not help me it would just prevent me from using my internet on my devices.
not exactly a "simple fix" to turn it off as im sure there are people out there who dont have wired networking built in to all of their network(ed) devices.
Re: the funny thing is...
sorry wasnt meant to be a constant torrent of sentences!
the funny thing is...
BT (i.e. British Telecom) have been forcing their customers to have open wifi on their wireless routers, the BT Homehub, for ages. its labelled as "BT Openzone" or "BT FON" my homehub broadcasts a signal labelled "BT Openzone" and/or (i forget) "BT FON" which is a pay for use open wifi signal that anyone can get onto if they are willing to pay a small fee to use it. I have been informed that the reason for this is to promote open wifi throughout the country (mostly residential and commercial areas) and create a system whereby if you have paid the fee, your wifi device will switch between the available openzone-supporting hubs automatically when your signal strength changes. or something similar... :-S it sounds like this will be a big problem for BT although im unsure as to what the IP address situation is (i.e. if you get your own IP if you connect to openzone or if they give you the same IP as the hub owner) either way it sounds like BT will be forced to remove this or ensure their homehub users are not adversely affected by openzone signals and the potential for illegal downloading. as a sidenote, it's difficult to remove this option from the homehub. you have to de-register yourself from the option to have it included and apparently they stop the signal going from your hub. not sure HOW they do this but i assume its a custom firmware change for those who remove the openzone "option". annoyingly, if i turn the wifi signal off altogether, openzone still broadcasts which is a little wierd. as a disgruntled (im sure im not alone) BT customer, its very annoying to think that any idiot can get online via my homehub and rape my bandwidth when i never agreed to this in the first place. especially when BT FON is detailed in the small print of the contract and was never disclosed when i went through the sign-up process. im also a little concerned about the infringement possibility. here is the link to the BT FON info page - https://www.bt.com/wifi/secure/index.do?s_cid=con_FURL_btfon
Re: Except...
"Her ignorance turns into an excuse to divert attention from the indisputable issue that is at the core of all these discussions, writers and performers are being ripped off."
valid point, but i think YOU ignore the fact that most artists are inherently ripped off by the labels they sign to and most other mainstream distributors are constantly screwing artists.
the RECORDING industry does exactly that, record musicians work. they dont create the music, they dont write the music (mostly, although pop-puppets are the exception - i.e. manufactured boy/girlbands etc) and therefore they dont have the inherent right to the majority of the profits from the music they RECORD (although they have set their business model up in this way).
if they (i.e. the recording industry) want to sit around and complain about piracy and how its "killing the music industry", let them. the rest of us will watch as they crash and burn and enjoy our non-mainstream entertainment, recorded and produced by truly talented individuals/groups who will flourish when they dont have to compete with the monopolistic labels who pollute the industry.
the "real" issue is not at dispute here. the article is highlighting how this woman is clearly wrong and misguided in her efforts to sue/threaten google etc. the article is not skipping over the piracy element, just pointing out how moronic this woman is being.
Re:
It would help if they had "invested" that much in the stories to start with. news happens whether the newspapers report it or not. we all hear about things happening through word of mouth and (surprise surprise) the internet. journalists dont pay much for the material, it comes to them for a relatively low cost and is printed/posted for a lot less than the mainstream media would have you believe.
plus no suggestion of "giving it away" just realising that income streams come in various guises, to charge for what others provide for free is plain silly when you look at consumer choices (ie taking the free over the costly).
your reference to how advertising doesnt make enough to sustain the online business model is old and frankly wrong. maybe some links to back up your troll-a-like comment would be handy.
or alternatively maybe you could just be honest and admit that you work for the very people who are being referred to in the article.
Re: Re: Re: Re: history repeats itself
Oh... im sorry. forgot to put my lead-lined mesh layer on too.
thanks for the advice. guess being worried about these things is stupid really. not like we have any control over what happens these days anyway.
the so-called "elected" parties just do as they please regardless of our (the "electors") opinions.
oh, and thanks for the trolling. good to see you can make a statement of your own that bears some relevance to the point in question...
Re: Re: history repeats itself
The point here is not that people are trying harder to "steal stuff" as you so eloquently put it.
most of us will follow the VPN/IP hiding route because we're sick of government agencies and industry lobbyists monitoring EVERY DAMN THING WE DO.
is it not bad enough that you cant walk through most large cities without being constantly monitored on CCTV?!
now we're having every movement, every detail, in fact EVERYTHING (mobile phones, wireless connections, credit cards, passports, credit history, car licence plate, IP address, email addresses) monitored and filtered to enable big industry and our own governments to make more money out of us (whether through marketing, taxes or obscene lawsuits).
I WILL hide my personal details when im using the internet because well yes i on occasion may download a pirate file (in order to assess whether i should buy it ;-) ) but more because its getting ridiculous how much our free speech/human rights are suffering and being abused.
Evidently as you post anonymously you dont want YOUR details being monitored by people online so maybe you should think before you make such silly off-hand remarks. either that or you could just post who you are and base your comment on fact as opposed to taking the side of the big companies who are trying to shaft EVERYONE (artists/performers included BTW!).
unless of course you are on their payroll in which case read and learn about your customers.
Oh yeah and gotta slip this one in for the record... Mandelson (UK politician) is a crook
my take
@Ivanhoe
my question for you... are you involved in the music industry or do you have any ties with someone in the RIAA...? You're opinions are typically biased towards the industry lobbyists who want us kicked off the internet for sharing information (albeit in the form of music/films/other media forms) which most people would see as a primary function for the net. there are many uses for the internet but it seems that sharing information is a key purpose.
its fairly apparent from your comment taht you consider yourself an expert on the subject at hand. bearing in mind that as mike points out, there was substantially more polite/reasonable commenting taking place on Lily's blog, it would appear that you are siding with the "all filesharing is wrong and the industry will lose if we dont fight it" crowd. The fact is, the industry stands to lose out more from standing against this than wising up, improving the business models and embracing technology. As far as i can see they are alienating the very people who give them the money they need to survive.
@ RIAA, MPAA, music industry lobbyists
I know hundreds of people who file share. We share some of our favourite music with friends/family and sometimes complete strangers. do we feel guilty about it... NO!
the main reason for this... most of the music we share is by people who get little to no air time on radio/tv/streaming media (because insiders in the music industry cant sell them or puppeteer them).
these people are effectively receiving free advertising from our sharing their music and honestly many of the people we have shared music with have ended up ordering the full CD's or online download (pay per song/album) therefore getting that all-important money to the artist (or more likely their record company CEO's wallet (if applicable lol!)).
I dont see sharing music as a crime persay. Obviously there are potential revenue losses for the music industry but these are (as mike and the industry analysts have already proven) heavily overshadowed by the high levels of revenue received through merchandising and concert ticket sales.
As far as I can see, the crime is only apparent because the higher powers within the music industry are feeling a slight pinch on their wallets (anyone paying attention to the world economy atm??!).
I will continue to share music whether online or offline as I see fit because I love music, my friends love music and many many many people I meet on a daily basis love music. Im simply sharing the love in a cost-effective manner and at the same time, providing the artists whose music I share with a sh*tload of free advertising.
The only people losing out here are the musicians and record labels who insist on branding all of us as criminals for sharing with others the music etc that we love. I share music with my fellow humans as i believe that it has a unique way of bringing people together. Music for me is one of the all time greatest sensory experiences i have. I go nowhere without a media player of some description and i listen to my favourite music wherever i go.
If I end up getting sued for sharing my passion, I will firstly be broke (therefore unable to buy the music anyway) and massively PO’d with whoever sued me (therefore making me one less loyal customer to the artist/record label/affiliated artists etc)
On a slightly different note, if my ISP threatens to cut me off for my internet use… im going elsewhere. This is a viewpoint shared by the many people I talk to both online and in the “real world”. ISP’s should not be the internet police, they are INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS