|
Britain's new internet law. Fanflippingtastic.
Quote:
|
This is pretty bad.
And you guys make fun of American politicians for having $$$ lined pockets HAH! |
Just wait till the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which your President has designated as a top-secret matter of national security, is finalized in 2010.
Why, your politicians will have "no choice" but to amend the laws to implement the treaty, if the existing DMCA laws are not harsh enough :) |
Haha, people are getting emo that they have to pay for shit again when some of us working schlubs have been doing it all along.
Nice to see entitlement take one on the chin. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't give a toss about most popular music (which is likely what this legislation will apply to if it becomes law); most of the bands I listen to either encourage filesharing or don't give a toss about it. Nonetheless, I shall be writing to my MP. |
Wow, my brothers and I were just talking about this last night over dinner, along with Australia, who is going down the path of China with their own "virtual curtain", and Germany, who will start secretly censoring the internet without letting the public know what has even been censored. Net neutrality is still being threatened in the States, but we actually have it pretty good over here compared to what's going on around of lot of other places.
I'm all for cracking down on blatant piracy, but disguising it as a bill that's supposed to stimulate the British economy is pretty shady. The worst part is the lack of due process when people are accused of file sharing. |
Somewhere, in the dark cruelty of the night, 100,000 music tech/art/photography/media students cry out to the skies as they realise they have to front £400+ for software that is vital to their course, but not coverable by student loans. As important as they are, music and other media are not the only things that are covered by this legislation.
"without proof or evidence or trial" I think is the scariest prospect here. Forget your fucking entitlement arguments. That sentence pretty much nullifies anything that was left from the tatters of our government that might indicate there was still true freedom in this country. |
Quote:
Then the point is STOP FILESHARING. Its a legal idea writ large in that if YOU don't stop filesharing, you're gonna fuck someone else and what they're trying to do is punish *everyone* for something a *lot* of people are doing. What, you think going after individual people is going to stop this? You have to cut all the heads off a hydra. YOU do not have the right to steal anyone else's stuff anymore than your neighbor has the right to come into your house and steal your TV because he wants to watch a cricket match tomorrow night. Not to mention - without knowing anything about the politics over on the other side of the pond, its obvious that the writer of that article is an idiot. He's complaining about a video game rating system, something thats been implemented in America for over a decade and then cries out for the poor people in the UK. What, you're telling me the poor people - the homeless, the ones raising three kids on a single paycheck in a small apartment, the ones who eat bread sandwiches and juice for breakfast are struggling along to make basic ends meet want Internet? Why not give them something they *need*, asshole? Quote:
Cute. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Lehah, where then, do you stand on musicians who have literally given the go-ahead to download their music for free? They have no political power; their decisions would not be taken into consideration. Neither would the decision of the person to download it. If the government felt so inclined at least.
|
They can legally host it on their site all they want. Just can't do it over P2P services.
Seems, you know, Obvious BB. |
Quote:
1.) Those Who're Already Well Off: David Bowie, Brian Eno, Trent Reznor (ugh) and other talents don't care if you download their music because they already have made their fortune. They don't need you - and yes, by you I mean *YOU* - anymore; if their band dies out or people forget they still have enough money to buy an island somewhere in the pacific. And besides, it makes them look cool with kids, right? The real, sad truth beyond that though is that no established artist is going to say that without permission from their label. Do you realize how suicidal it would be if some band member dipshit came out and said "Steal out music"? He'd be sued out of existence by whomever owns their label. Do you really think a popular band is going to risk being dumped and then sued by some giant like Warner Bros? 2.) Those Who Haven't Made It And Won't: You in an unsigned band? You looking to make it big? You want to get known and get gigs to play? You're a dime a dozen out there, kiddo - you just want to get known before you can start cashing in and cashing out. So what do you do? Give it away, because Lord knows you don't have enough popularity to make money at this. And to be honest? Thats fine, thats cool. If you're in some garage band and you're trying to get your name out on college radio and you send out a demo and stick stuff on the internet, whatever. More power to you. |
Deni: I ask in view of a band who linked people to a P2P site for one of their tracks.
Lehah: They're valid types. But there are others who have made it big but refuse to allow filesharing to take place because they're afraid their fanbase won't pay money for their shitty, production-line music. And there are those who are working on a more personal interface between themselves and the fans of their music, where people can pay what they deem appropriate for the music they love. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The people who can negotiate what fans pay for the money have the clearance from the label, not the other way around. The label sets the price because everyone from the president down to the guy who's scrubbing out the toilets on third shift need to make a living with music in some form or fashion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nine Inch Nails Anamanaguchi Radiohead Devin Townsend A buddy of mine named David Every artist who has ever licensed their material under creative commons |
Quote:
Quote:
That said though, were they P2P? I'm talking like Napster or Kazaa or whatever it is you kids use these days. |
Quote:
So they have to upload it to a webspace. They'll get over it. |
Quote:
So people who want to listen to hip-hop have to listen to trance. They'll get over it. So people who enjoy playing first-person shooters will have to play platformers. They'll get over it. So people who want to watch Youtube videos on their telecoms plan will have to pay an extra fifty bucks a month to access certain websites. They'll get over it. So people who enjoy privacy when they're making a phone call will have to put up with the government listening in on their conversations. They'll get over it. So people who want to get a job at a country club will have to apply somewhere where they don't only hire whites. They'll get over it. So people who want to criticise the way their country is being run will face laws against distribution of anti-establishment propaganda. They'll get over it. So people who want chemotherapy have to get radiotherapy. They'll get over it. So people who want to marry people of their own gender have to turn heterosexual. They'll get over it. So people who choose to digitally distribute their artwork in one particular bit order will have to rearrange those individual ones and zeroes and arbitrarily compromise their efficiency. They'll get over it. Quote:
|
Deni: what about hosting it on their site and on a P2P site, in full support of illegal downloading?
Lehah: First of all, the band I was referencing have no label to moderate such things. Secondly, I love that you associate me with people who fileshare. I have done such a thing maybe 3 times in the 9 years I have been online (and each of those times has resulted in a real life media purchase). I still agree with the consensus that filesharing is a good thing. And it's wonderful that you've missed the fact that the government doesn't require proof to take you down. Okay, so on GFF filesharing is a huge issue. But that a government doesn't have to give a reason for punishing you criminally? Yeah, let's just let that blow on by. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1.) Haven't read it yourself and are depending upon someone else's biased article about it 2.) Have no proper experience with law or lawmaking and thus are unable to interpret this news in a detached fashion. 3.) Are refusing to apply a logical approach to it and are instead investing yourself emotionally in an attempt to make a loud enough call instead of making a smart one. The first two apply to me too - I am not a lawyer - but I am not the third. Its obvious the law is written the way it is so the vague details can be interpreted by your government on a case by case basis. America goes through this too with people arguing over gun control and the Second Amendment. |
No, it's just that the rest of us should bear no fealty to your cause just because you're a goddamned martyr.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Are we going to go back and forth with you arguing like a butthurt teenager who got told she can't download shitty goth music all night, or are you eventually going to stop tilting at windmills, Don? |
Guys
Deni and LeHah are agreeing with each other in support of a ridiculous premise And you're all acting as though they're actually arguing in good faith A man sticks his fist into the open air and Gamingforce throws their faces at it |
Quote:
http://imgur.com/TPxwm.jpg Quote:
>you can't have a blue car because it's illegal; have a green car instead because i say such things are justifiably and objectively good >equating legitimate acquisition of deliberately distributed works over a certain protocol with theft >godwin's law http://imgur.com/TPxwm.jpg |
Quote:
I figured it went pretty unsaid that the rest of that crazy law from crazytown wherein you can get punished without proof or evidence was, you know, fucking crazy. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
okay |
Quote:
Have you always been this dense? |
Quote:
What Deni is saying is that the artists can get clearance to post for free whatever they'd like - Manowar did a goddamned Christmas song that they posted on their site for free, last year - but it was cleared by the label first. It has to be legal. Sharing files can be legal, while file sharing by its very nature cannot be. Understand? Quote:
|
Quote:
okay |
Quote:
Rational thinking is just something that exists for other people in your universe, huh Krel? |
Quote:
>denial of support for a law despite continued support for the position it puts forth >thousands of straw men >un-ironic ad-hominem retorts http://imgur.com/TPxwm.jpg |
Lehah: Not really; the band in question had a label, and removed themselves from it. Deni makes a far more educated point.
I'll agree with your second point. I'm no lawyer either. But I have read the law in question. The article was one that had been passed around, and though its delivery is rather lacking, it still makes a valid point. But I feel you've defeated yourself by saying that "the vague details can be interpreted by your government on a case by case basis". There is plenty of room for biased judgement to be made. Deni: You, as you may have guessed, have made a very valid point as far as I'm concerned. It's a political move, and one that can potentially implicate people who support it. It's the online version of a protest I suppose. It gives people a chance to make a stand. The band doesn't force people into making a possibly illegal decision. Hence giving them the option to download P2P or on the website. And thank you for your opinion of me. I've already stated that I myself don't download music. So your personal low-blow at me doesn't really feel justified. |
Quote:
- BB asked what an artist who wants to share their files can do under these new laws. - I listed options. - You flipped out. - I restated options. - You flipped out with pictures. - At no time did I endorse the law. - In fact, at one point I condemned the law as being from Crazytown. A hilarious inference that the law is so crazy, it would have to be created by people in a township with the word crazy within it. This is how zany a concept it is. - You continue to wave your dick around and act like everyone in the whole world is out to get you. I'd link some idiotic image, but I still have slightly more dignity than you do. Continue your dick flapping as you would, sir. I await with great glee your attempts to convince the world you're right in an argument no one is having. Your brother in Christ, Denicalis. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
They take no rights, have abandoned them to the label they worked for. Their new work is the sole source of their income.
Okay, perhaps I've phrased that wrong. But there are enough reports on the specific points of the Digital Economy Bill to draw conclusions. In answer to earlier points, it does seem ridiculous to me that people who can only just afford an education can't have access to the internet. Most of the work we are set involves such a comprehensive view of the subject that a library wouldn't suffice. Mention of the homeless having internet is a pisspoor way to invite argument. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
>denicalis accounting for nearly 20 percent of posts in an inherently argumentative thread >implication that an argument does not exist despite repeatedly deigning to reply to stupid reaction-image posts >implication that holding an untenable position and arguing with a picture of dr cox are the actions of a dignified man http://imgur.com/TPxwm.jpg |
Quote:
Nevermind things like health care or food or clean housing or public schooling - the INTERNET is now a god-given, national right! |
Quote:
You need to get much better at trolling if you expect me to pay attention to you. |
Quote:
>immediate contravention of previous statement of non-participation in argument >implication that you are not paying any attention to me >seven quote-replies to my posts http://imgur.com/TPxwm.jpg |
Quote:
P.S. Devo, it'd be Louise Brooks. Not Bergman. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
>more straw-men >implication of insubstantial reasoning backed itself by insubstantial reasoning >implication of childishness http://imgur.com/TPxwm.jpg |
Quote:
Quote:
2.) If you're struggling to make ends meet because you payed amount X to get into college Y, maybe you shouldn't be in college and should be out working instead? I mean, thats kinda DUH to me but I have a couple years on you. |
I could bum libraries 'til the sun went down. But it's a sad fact that education has melded assignments into online activities. People take these courses with a view of getting something more out of life than their low-wage jobs, only to discover they need the internet to do such a thing. I'm on a course with people who aren't as fortunate as to have savings, such as I do, who find that parts of their coursework involve tasks that are specifically based on educational websites.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Aye, your first point is valid.
Your second, however... how is someone who isn't born of rich parents meant to pay for software that is vital to the course? I could mention a huge amount of music software that costs £300 a piece for some courses, but you get my point. Yes they still tax television. But your post makes you seem to assume that everyone *has* a television. Are you saying that education is only for the rich? |
Perhaps the problem here is that people see the internet differently.
which is fair enough, the internet is a completely different entity, that's the simple appeal of it. however where some people might watch youtube, blog and go on forums (THAT'S US! SEE WHAT I DID THERE???!) millions depend on it to make a living. so naturally questioning it's nessescity (excuse the spelling) is a lost cause? Additional Spam: *necessity there we go! |
but back to the education/rich thing,
I have to agree with Bernard on this, I do a media course where the university supply so much, rooms full of macs pumped full of video editing software, tv studios, radio/recording studios. But still, i see people everyday who's parents decided to buy them several thousand pounds worth of equipment getting better marks purely because they've had so much more time working at home on projects. Really the Student loans company should take equipment like that into consideration when dishing out the loans... honestly though? I blame the ******** <--- insert minority here |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Cause, it's making a copy. The original still exists. It's all good. |
Thats the best post of this thread, Devo
|
Lehah: My disagreement with the law that has been passed goes beyond education. But in relation to your post, take Starf**kers's post into account. There is bias towards people who can afford better equipment, and no kind of monetary aid to those who don't have that option. It's a skewed system, and they don't expect people to take advantage of file sharing because of it?
So people who are poor should stay poor because they can't afford something better? Yeah, I'm warming to you Lehah, really warming to you. How else are people meant to better themselves, move further in society, other than through education? It's the only feasible way to get a decent job these days. Those are some great first-world ethics you've got. |
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, the naivety is fucking glowing here. I honestly think we've come to a true and blue impasse based on your lack of real-world experience. |
Quote:
free education ftw... |
It's an undeniable fact over here. To hell with your accusations of my lack of real world experience; it's through my real world experiences I've come to this conclusion. I wouldn't be so pig-headed as to wave such opinions around without the aforementioned to back it up.
Yes, I've known people who have been in industries which allow them to move on to better and greater things without formal education. But there are certain jobs that don't allow for such proclivities. Education is the only way up in those circumstances, and there are too many variables in such a situation to make education a feasible financial option for everyone. |
|
So did I miss the memo stating when GFF became 4chan? Because I'd like a copy now if I could get one.
|
To be fair, despite the fact I've been laughing my ass off between the arguments and kitties, what I got from this whole deal is the fact that for no reason other than the 'suspicion' that you pirated something whether it's movies, games or music you are the scum of the universe with this new law.
That's fine and dandy. Pirating = stealing = bad sort of mentality. I get that, I got a letter from Paramount a month back saying that I was the second coming of Hitler because I watched Monsters Vs. Aliens because I was bored off my gourd. I like to think, however, the heart of the matter lies within the direction it seems this new 'law' seems to be going over across the lake so to speak. Essentially this is all about copyright infringement, if you do not own it, then you can not have it in any format at all. That in itself makes sense...but I think people are afraid of how FAR this will go, like a butterfly effect. Essentially right now it's you get a hell of a punishment for the assumption or suspicion you downloaded music/software/movies a company owns. Five years, ten years, fifty years down the line who knows then, maybe you could end up being sued because you do not have the right to have an avatar of a popular video game on your forum profile, or you are allowed to use a picture of the beloved Dr. Cox because, quite frankly, you do not own the rights to use those images. Crazy impossible scenario I know, but 20 years back people never would have imagined you could 'steal' right from the comfort of your own home. |
Quote:
|
So are there any fucking copies or not? Christ.
|
No, because copies are illegal now.
(as they always have been in a technical sense, blah blah, etc.) |
Wvlf is cheap. |
|||||
Whilst the new powers in this bill are hilariously draconian, I think you're all forgetting how completely incompetent our police and wider legal system are. This is essentially a lot of noice and the chances of anyone ever actually getting charged with anything through this are incredibly fucking slim. Also, it won't get passed into law before the election and with any luck, the Tories will drop all the Big Brother stuff once they're in charge. If we end up with a hung parliament and the LibDems in a position of even partial power, this'll never get through.
Anyway, the stuff about a new ratings system is pretty good news. Currently, most games are sent voluntarily to the BBFC for rating and selling an 18 rated game to a minor is as much of an offence as selling them an 18 rated DVD. Because the current system is voluntary however, there are still grounds for idiots to try and ban games and game content. By introducing a compulsary system (That'll be indistinguishable from the BBFC ratings as I understand, not the US ones you get on game boxes at present), there will be no more games getting banned, as they'll get slapped with an 18 rating and released. Contrary to popular opinion, almost nothing gets banned in films over here these days. You've got to go a long way out of your way to even get a film an 18 rating under current guidelines so by formalising a ratings system, we're guaranteed no more calls for bans and no cut content. I very rarely download shit anyway, it's a long way down the list of illegal things I do with any sort of regularity so I don't really have a problem with this bill as it stands. |
Truly appalling. Go go Gitmo Nation East.
|
Quote:
Might be a bit of a pipe dream, but I'd like to think an entirely new NGO dedicated to game classification wouldn't go amiss in changing attitudes and dispelling misconceptions. |
We are doomed, gentle men or women we need to get the most before the act comes to our reality.
|
So, are there any "victims" so far of this 3 strikes rule? I mean I've always heard of these brickshitting internet law enforcement policies being introduced here and there in many countries that are so incredibly vague yet cumbersome - but regardling this particular one, has anyone actually fallen victim to it yet?
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9...wloadaohfu.jpg |
I know I'm bumping an old thread but I'd rather do this then make a new topic
Digital Economy Bill: Quick Guide To All 45 Measures Quote:
|
I think the most important point is point 4 which essentially says that it's up to Copyright holders to make the first move when they think people are ripping them off, rather than putting the onus on the ISPs as was originally touted. As Copyright holders have no legal right to look at what websites I'm looking at, that clause effectively stymies all the rest of the anti-piracy measures. Whoever put that in was quite brilliant really as the bill would have been laughed out of the house in it's original form. All the new bill really achieves now is making computer game ratings compulsary and allowing for a system other than the BBFC ratings to be used (One assumes PEGI, although that'll confuse more idiotic parents than it'll help), forces Channel 4 to make some kids programmes and allows their online stuff to come out of their programming budget and all that domain crap is just to make sure that companies take some contact details when they're selling HSBCbank.eu to Nigerian scammers.
Most MPs hated the original document, the one that got approved is seriously watered down from that. Also, Commons approval doesn't make it law and it's unlikely to get through the Lords in four weeks, meaning that the new government we'll have in May can just tear it up if they want and I believe the LibDems are pretty heavily against this so axeing it may well form part of their coalition demands. |
|
Lehah posting in another thread where he's smarter, richer, and better looking than everyone. This is new.
Keep the change, kid. |
@ Lehah's link, England owning itself because of law contradictions? Why am I not surprised.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.