Going down with the ship... (Censorship in the UK)

[flymo]

Originally Posted by Spank86

in theory I ought to feel the same as the guy who designed and built his house, planted his garden and then had a photographer come along and take an image of it for sale.

Apparently if someone takes a photo of me they can charge me for it but I can't take a photo of the photo of me... If a photo of me can be art then I reserve the right to be art myself.

omg, you've fried my brain

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by flymo

Perhaps, and in time maybe that will happen to the music industry. Lucky for me I dont earn my living that way.

It doesnt make it right though.

In the last 7 days I have seen 10 bands.

Thats about 10 more than I had seen in the last 5 years previous as ticket prices are generally STUPID.

Now if musicians actually had to perform LIVE to earn money, instead of recording one album, doing one tour and then sitting on their backsides counting the cash rolling in, EVERYONE would go see live music.

It would be cheap, after all if there are 10 gigs in town on any given weekend night, then competition will drive the price down.

It would be like going back to the 40's, before the electronics revolutions made music a product essentially separate from the artist.

Look at the UK top 40 records from the 60's - it wasn't unknown for the same song to be in the charts from 2 different bands/artists, no huge "thats our song" copyright battles, no "you can only use 10% of someone elses song" rules.

The 80's had sampling which lead to battles - Ice Ice Baby/Under Pressure, the 70's has Hendrix cover Dylan, and have Dylan essentially "give" All Along the Watchtower to Hendrix.

The current model benefits the people in power, the distributers and labels.

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails self released an album Ghosts I-iV which made over £1M in internet sales alone, but having multiple versions, from a free download of the Ghosts I, to a download only copy with all 4 albumbs for $5, right up to a Limited Edition Boxed Set at £200 which sold out in 30 hours

As I said in a previous post, if no one wants to buy your s**t, maybe its time to stop trying to earn a living from selling s**t.

[Bibio]

i want to know how they can place laws on something that no one person owns.

so what's next, only being able to buy goods that are sold threw a UK online company...

[pookie]

I think its the pressures from other countries that dictate the laws here and our goverment force us to follow. So doing something which isnt illegal but is deemed illegal is US of A means you can then be extradited and charged over there. Whatever happened to the law of the land?
http://torrentfreak.com/pirating-uk-...the-us-120313/
Is it illegal to post links but not content.? Might as well use every other countries laws as our own government cant protect us.!

Originally Posted by Bibio

i want to know how they can place laws on something that no one person owns.

so what's next, only being able to buy goods that are sold threw a UK online company...

They sort of do lol, you pay tax on anything coming in so it encourages most sales to take place within the UK.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Bibio

i want to know how they can place laws on something that no one person owns.

so what's next, only being able to buy goods that are sold threw a UK online company...

Mods, please delete Bibio's post and this one.

Well we don't want to give "them" ideas.

Unlikely though it is, its the kind of place we *could* end up in.

After all what about all those "not to UK standard" "potentially dangerous" motorcycle levers from China, that as well as being Dangerous, are also a copyright violation of a design registered by Pazzo.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

....stuff...

I can see your point, seriously I can. The digital content industries will move on to develop new ways to charge you for their content. But it doesn't change the underlying fact that they have produced something that can be defined as theirs. Just as an artist creates a picture, just as a author creates a novel.

I cringe every time I read another Apple vs Samsung vs Google vs <insert vendor> patent wrangle, its an unintended consequence of what the more recent technology has enabled. Protesting at high prices is one thing, but helping oneself to the illegal copy of it is another.

If I turned up an filmed one of those bands performing their gig, then made millions selling the resulting DVDs (assuming I could stop those pesky torrent copies ) then it wouldnt be long before the band got a little stroppy about me profiting from their creative skills right? They would expect a share of my profits.

[Bibio]

i've been on the internet for 15 years and in that time i have seen it go from an information highway to a marketing tool and now has laws.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by flymo

If I turned up an filmed one of those bands performing their gig, then made millions selling the resulting DVDs (assuming I could stop those pesky torrent copies ) then it wouldnt be long before the band got a little stroppy about me profiting from their creative skills right? They would expect a share of my profits.

I can see your point.

I am also against people making money off of that kind of activity - no one gets rich from Torrent Trackers - and any money made is from selling Advertising.

Heres something to try, go to www.google.com.

In the search box, type (without the "s) "Men In Black 3 filetype=torrent"

Click on "search"

Google has now just done for you what ThePirateBay would have, and they also just made some money from advertising.

You or I may "save" money by downloading a film or music, but we probably would not have spent that money on it anyway, I have folders and folders of original Games, DVDs and CDs that prove that if I value you something enough I will buy it.

However, surely, instead of getting stroppy, what they should be doing is seeing the gap in the market and then having a superior product produced at a similar or better price point and shoving your Mobile-Phone filmed effort aside?

ie, do something for the money, not just argue that they are entitled to it?

Originally Posted by flymo

. But it doesn't change the underlying fact that they have produced something that can be defined as theirs. Just as an artist creates a picture, just as a author creates a novel.

So do chefs and fashion designers, yet it is perfectly legal to knock up an exact replica of one of their dishes or dresses and I don't think many people would argue it shouldn't be?

A chef could design the most amazing dish in history but anyone is then free to recreate it down to the smallest detail, to create a perfect copy if their skill allows and yet the chef never gets a penny unless he makes the dish and sells it himself (or is hired to do so).