I don't mind spoilers, especially for TV shows. I used to be a Lost spoiler-junkie, because the show was so complicated - even when I read an episode outline, the way it was portrayed on screen was completely different.
?The more there are riots, the more repressive action will take place, and the more we face the danger of a right-wing takeover and eventually a fascist society.?
I've always thought that whenever someone downloads a legal product, the entertainment industry should reward the ISPs by giving them a percentage of the profits.
The Daily Mail (like most of the UK establishment) is a bit behind the curve when it comes to tech issues.
I mean, look at this article, published this year, where they wax lyrical about pictures that move. Yes, they've only just discovered the Animated GIF.
Sigh. I heard this idea months ago - I can't believe the UK music industry still think that this is a) workable and b) a good idea.
Typical backwards-looking UK music industry still hasn't realised that the web is worldwide.
What's the point in spending millions implementing this ridiculous scheme on google.co.uk, if I can bypass the traffic lights entirely by acessing google in another country?
Also, browser plug-ins like MAFIAAfire or Gee! No Evil would easily remove these changes.
Crippling a ?100 billion industry to save a ?3.9 billion industry makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh, and for those willing to argue that music is just a tiny part of the creative industries, well, even if you combined all the UK creative industries, that still only accounts for ?60 billion a year.
http://www.creativecoalitioncampaign.org.uk/
(This fact is buried on this page in the "1. What is the DEA?" section.)
Unless I'm bad at maths, that's still ?40 billion less than what the Internet brings in.
This sounds very similar to the UK's Digital Economy Act. Letters first, possibility of disconnection later if piracy isn't reduced.
I've always wondered what a copyright infringing file is. For example - I download a Beatles MP3 - one file - one strike.
But what if I download a RAR of a Beatles Album instead? Still only one file but decompresses into an album's worth of illegal MP3s. Would that still just be one strike?
If so, you have the bizarre situation where pirates will be going after the many gig multi-album zip files instead of a single track. In other words, why waste a strike on a single track, when downloading an entire album gets the same penalty? Three strikes will ultimately encourage people to infringe more.
Someone could be cut off for individually downloading three tracks from an album, whereas those that download the full album to begin with will still be on their first strike.
Could Dan Bull sue for loss of sales?
Megaupload removal is killing music!!!!
Re:
And it appears that even with the R18 rating, Australia are refusing to classify games like House Of The Dead: Overkill.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/316672/house-of-the-dead-overkill-refused-classification-in-australia/
The UK seems to have taken leave of its senses at the moment.
I don't mind spoilers, especially for TV shows. I used to be a Lost spoiler-junkie, because the show was so complicated - even when I read an episode outline, the way it was portrayed on screen was completely different.
Oh, and Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense is dead.
Also, similarly:
Malaysia police use the London Riots as an excuse to use Tear Gas and Water Cannon against protesters.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/malaysian-cop-uses-uk-riots-to-justify-crackdown/458805
?The more there are riots, the more repressive action will take place, and the more we face the danger of a right-wing takeover and eventually a fascist society.?
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
A dicey situation.
I've always thought that whenever someone downloads a legal product, the entertainment industry should reward the ISPs by giving them a percentage of the profits.
But what has this achieved?
Because of this ruling, Newzbin was a trending Twitter topic today.
Suddenly, far more people are aware of the website.
The site isn't being blocked until October.
They might as well put up a giant neon sign saying "GET YOUR FREE MOVIES AND MUSIC HERE!"
Also, once the site is blocked, details of how to get round it will spread like Ryan Giggs' identity.
Today is a very bad day for the open internet in the UK.
Not just this, the Newzbin ruling too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/28/newzbin2-filesharing-verdict-industry-reactions
The Daily Mail (like most of the UK establishment) is a bit behind the curve when it comes to tech issues.
I mean, look at this article, published this year, where they wax lyrical about pictures that move. Yes, they've only just discovered the Animated GIF.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1380795/Cinemagraphs-Artists-develop-pictures-movement-stills-level.html
Sigh. I heard this idea months ago - I can't believe the UK music industry still think that this is a) workable and b) a good idea.
Typical backwards-looking UK music industry still hasn't realised that the web is worldwide.
What's the point in spending millions implementing this ridiculous scheme on google.co.uk, if I can bypass the traffic lights entirely by acessing google in another country?
Also, browser plug-ins like MAFIAAfire or Gee! No Evil would easily remove these changes.
I wonder if they paid Google a copyright fee to use those images before they added trafic lights on them?
I guess this depends on your definition of free.
Free music isn't truly free unless it's free from DRM as well.
Some facts:
The UK music industry is worth ?3.9 Billion
http://www.itproportal.com/2010/08/04/uk-music-industry-worth-39-billion/
The UK internet industry is worth ?100 billion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/28/net-worth-100bn-uk
Crippling a ?100 billion industry to save a ?3.9 billion industry makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh, and for those willing to argue that music is just a tiny part of the creative industries, well, even if you combined all the UK creative industries, that still only accounts for ?60 billion a year.
http://www.creativecoalitioncampaign.org.uk/
(This fact is buried on this page in the "1. What is the DEA?" section.)
Unless I'm bad at maths, that's still ?40 billion less than what the Internet brings in.
How about we start calling filesharing "temporary suspension of payment."?
This sounds very similar to the UK's Digital Economy Act. Letters first, possibility of disconnection later if piracy isn't reduced.
I've always wondered what a copyright infringing file is. For example - I download a Beatles MP3 - one file - one strike.
But what if I download a RAR of a Beatles Album instead? Still only one file but decompresses into an album's worth of illegal MP3s. Would that still just be one strike?
If so, you have the bizarre situation where pirates will be going after the many gig multi-album zip files instead of a single track. In other words, why waste a strike on a single track, when downloading an entire album gets the same penalty? Three strikes will ultimately encourage people to infringe more.
Someone could be cut off for individually downloading three tracks from an album, whereas those that download the full album to begin with will still be on their first strike.
Wrong URL. I meant www.kopimi.com
What about the Kopimi logo as invented by The Pirate Bay? Looks like a K in a triangle. www.kopimi.se
What will this mean for Spinal Tap?