Copyright theft

With the rise in speed and popularity of the internet connections, more and more users have access to the various file-sharing systems that enable users to share anything with other users. Unsurprisingly, this includes copyrighted material such as computer software, movies and music.

All the copyright owners are trying their very best to intercept and prevent this type of sharing. They argue that their customers are enjoying material they have paid to create without them receiving any payment. They claim this is threatening the livelihood of all their artists and production teams.

When systems were created back in the 1970s to record and playback music everyone moaned that it would destroy their livelihood because there would no longer be a need to play music live in concert halls etc. Then audio cassette was created and people could copy this recorded media. Then radio was the problem because people could hear the music without buying it. Same happened with TV when video was invented. Talk about history repeating itself! :)

The reason for this post is to state my view of downloading copyrighted material - which obviously I don't condone.

From a record companies point of view, what is the difference between:

1. someone using something they have downloading or copied, and
2. someone not buying it?

Nothing.

How much money does a record company loose in case one compared to case two? None, because the customer pays for their internet connection, their PC and their disk space. If they create a CD they have to pay for the blank CD and they have to pay to print on it.

If the person who has downloaded the content then starts selling it on for a profit, making money out of something they got for nothing I believe they are committing a crime. If they just use it themselves a few times I think the record companies should look at this as free advertising.

Most people who enjoy copied material believe they should give some money to the artists. This could be in the form of actually buying an original copy because they enjoy the work and are happy to pay for it. Even if they are not inclined to buy something they have already obtained they are much more likely to buy other works or merchandise by this company or artist in the future.

Another argument for copying is that most of what is paid for a music CD is pocketed by greedy record companies. On a £15 CD the artist receives much less than £1. Where does the rest go to and is it actually deserved? I'm sure Simon Cowell, one of the richest men in the world would argue it is!!

Before file sharing, how many times have you heard a hit song - thought it was really good and gone out to buy the whole album by that artist only to play the album and not like any of the other songs? If you go and knock on the record companies door and ask for your money back because you don't like the material will they give you a refund? Not likely! They will even accuse you of copying it before you brought it back!

My last point is the actual price of CDs and movies in the shops. Do you actually believe that £15 for an hour of music is value for money? Games are even worse. I object to paying £35 for a PSP game. I will probably only play it for a day before I finish it, get bored or get stuck. That is a hell of a lot of money to pay for one day's entertainment. It's even worse with the latest generation of console where games start at £50. Most of these are marketed to kids! How many kids get that much pocket money in a month?? It's not fair on parents.

The best way I think record companies could combat piracy is to become more customer friendly. They need to drop the price they ask for their products. Why when CDs were launched was the same music £6 on vinyl or cassette yet over £10 on CD? Why are songs bought in the iTunes music store dearer in real terms to UK customers than US customers for exactly the same song? Let's look how much they charge for movies on Hi-def DVD: Superman returns RRP £28.99 on HD-DVD, £17.99 on DVD. Does any of this extra go to the artists? I don't think so.

Customers are voting with their feet. And they don't like it! Ha!

Chris

Controlling climate change

Everyone is making impending climate change something big that we must all worry about, and must change our lives to prevent global warming. The argument to my understanding is that should the climate of our planet warm, more of the arctic ice sheets will melt causing sea level to rise. This will submerge some coastal land and also disrupt marine life.

It is the latest political band wagon that everyone is jumping on. The politicians love it because they can raise taxes, make more money for the treasury and still score a positive image with most voters - except me!

Can we just use what is described as 'the helicopter trait' and take a look at the slightly bigger picture here?

1. Every single definition of a climate, or discussion of different climates ALWAYS states that a climate is always changing. It is one of the most certain things in nature.

2. Nature is phenomenally powerful. I learnt this when canoeing on moving water. My strength was nothing compared to that of water. The art of canoeing is about embracing the power of the water, not trying to fight it. Nothing we humans try can prevent or control nature. Think of a lava flow from a volcano. No one has ever managed to stop it in its natural flow.

3. How can Carbon Dioxide be the problem? The planet could not survive without Carbon Dioxide. All plants and trees need it to photo-synthesize (live). Every human being breaths in Oxygen and breaths out Carbon Dioxide as part of our respiratory process.

A recent Time magazine had a list of things we could do to save the planet. One was to turn vegetarian. Apparently there is a regular rise in meat farming meaning more cattle emitting methane. If we stopped eating meat there would be less cattle and less methane 'damaging' the environment. This is when you know things have gone way too far.

I have already commented on the green tax on airlines elsewhere - who is going to bat an eyelid at an extra £5 on a £400 holiday? People like holidays and should not be discouraged from enjoying free time somewhere nice with their friends and familys. The climate will change regardless of our Carbon Dioxide emissions. Some statistics I have seen state Carbon Dioxide increases lag climate changes by about 800 years. How can it be blamed?

The recent IPCC report was not endorsed by all the scientists who participated in it, and a large part of the contributions to it were not by scientists but politicians and other 'interested' parties.

To the people who really want to save the planet I suggest they only breath one day a week so they emit less Carbon Dioxide :) - only joking cos you might die if you try it.

Chris

Update: Check this out on the Channel 4 website for more details of the arguments.

If Microsoft made cars....

Bill Gates reportedly once compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:

If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car fault" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

It's an absolute classic, but still rings so true!

Chris