I read the news today oh boy! Page 44
Quote: Griff @ October 28 2009, 11:21 PM BSTDr. Tim, everyone. He's going to be looking after you during the operation.
Mark my words, in 20 years time, people will be having new sexual organs/orifices grown from stem cells and getting plastic surgeons to graft/implant them all over their bodies. Men will be walking around with an extra set of balls where their ear lobes used to be. And women will have a clitoris on each of their fingers. 
Or you could just make the nostrils one big nostril.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 28 2009, 11:30 PM BSTMark my words, in 20 years time, people will be having new sexual organs/orifices grown from stem cells and getting plastic surgeons to graft/implant them all over their bodies. Men will be walking around with an extra set of balls where their ear lobes used to be. And women will have a clitoris on each of their fingers.
Did you ever see that f**ked up American guy who had his brother amputate his arm then stitch it onto his chest?
Yeah, I think we all know where you're vision of the future will start, Tim!
Tim may be right, there are already some giant twats about.
Quote: Griff @ October 28 2009, 11:34 PM BST
Quote: Curt @ October 28 2009, 11:38 PM BSTShe's just ask'n for it.
Is she?
F**k nose.
Quote: Nil Putters @ October 28 2009, 11:34 PM BSTTim may be right, there are already some giant twats about.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 28 2009, 2:06 PM BSTIt won't solve the problem. But there is a problem of perception that anything that can be digitalised is fair game to steal. Most people wouldn't feel morally OK about going into their local supermarket and stealing a packet of sausages and a bottle of gin, yet to steal products via the internet is deemed OK.
When it comes to arts and media, what is the point of people spending long hours and big amounts of money producing content only for people to feel that it's fair game to steal it? This is a real problem. People who write or create for a living surely deserve to be able to reap the rewards for their work. If you can't own the rights to your own work, then frankly what's the point?
The whole issue is perceived too often as an "us and them" issue, i.e. the poor internet user versus the government and the multi-nationals, when in truth internet piracy affects the prospects of even the lowliest musician or writer, because less profits from successful stuff means less money to develop new talent. And real people's real jobs are dependent on earning money from content, it is not a "victimless crime". The idea that everything on the internet should be free is not only idealistic, it is unfair and counter-productive. Illegal file sharers should ask themselves how morally acceptable are their actions.
Rant over.
Sorry Tim, but you've taken in the industry line there. It's a fallacy that everyone expects free media content, and one that is propagated largely by music trade bodies.
Most people I know - even in filesharing communities - are perfectly happy to pay for content, but only at reasonable prices, and for reasonable quality. Record companies and record shops thinking they can flog a 38-minute long mediocre-at-best album for £12.99 are off their collective f**king trollies. It worked in the past because there was no alternative. But they insist on pushing on that front, and are at least a decade behind the consumer in terms of provision of content and technology. They've got no one but themselves to blame, and I have zero sympathy.
Quote: Moonstone @ October 28 2009, 2:15 PM BSTActually lots of ISPs are already doing in. I've had 2 warnings already which is why I'm so paranoid about getting caught.
But were they warnings about the amount of traffic you were using, or about the content you were accessing? I'm guessing the former.
Quote: Aaron @ October 29 2009, 2:26 AM BSTSorry Tim, but you've taken in the industry line there. It's a fallacy that everyone expects free media content, and one that is propagated largely by music trade bodies.
But this is an argument against the "top end" of any content industry. At the bottom end are musicians, writers, artists and all the people they work together with to produce the content. The problem is that a possibly valid argument against hard-copy music prices has become a more generalised excuse that it is morally defensible to rip-off anything you like that can be digitalised. And if you slip into the opinion that "mediocre" stuff is over-priced, but "good" stuff is worth it, then what is the logical conclusion of that argument? Media industries will only produce what sells mass-market and dump any other creative artists? The law of success already operates that if someone's CD or someone's book isn't good/popular enough to justify the asking price, then it becomes discounted.
Saying that "it costs too much" gives you the right to refuse to buy it. It doesn't give you the right to steal it. For any other commodities you still pay but you might be able to get a discount by shopping around. The internet already makes it possible to find a saving on something you really want.
Simply relying on people to exercise their moral judgement over whether they will pay for something when they can get it illegally for free, is not a solution.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 28 2009, 11:02 PM BSTI think it's now bleeding obvious that the whole internet experiment has been a dreadful mistake. If it were possible to turn the thing off for good, I probably would.
Quote: Aaron @ October 29 2009, 2:45 AM BST
In principle... 
Music/video/software piracy is less like stealing from a shop and more like owning a magic replication machine. Something can be created out of nothing. What if you could duplicate a Ferrari or Hollywood starlet and the only thing stopping you from doing so was a law?
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 29 2009, 2:37 AM BSTBut this is an argument against the "top end" of any content industry. At the bottom end are musicians, writers, artists and all the people they work together with to produce the content. The problem is that a possibly valid argument against hard-copy music prices has become a more generalised excuse that it is morally defensible to rip-off anything you like that can be digitalised. And if you slip into the opinion that "mediocre" stuff is over-priced, but "good" stuff is worth it, then what is the logical conclusion of that argument? Media industries will only produce what sells mass-market and dump any other creative artists? The law of success already operates that if someone's CD or someone's book isn't good/popular enough to justify the asking price, then it becomes discounted.
Saying that "it costs too much" gives you the right to refuse to buy it. It doesn't give you the right to steal it. For any other commodities you still pay but you might be able to get a discount by shopping around. The internet already makes it possible to find a saving on something you really want.
Simply relying on people to exercise their moral judgement over whether they will pay for something when they can get it illegally for free, is not a solution.
Nor is attempting to impose a 20/30-year out-of-date business model.
Anyay. My mention of 'mediocre' was just noting that that's what a lot of material is; maybe 6 or 7 good minutes of music out of a whole album. I'm not implying that the price is any more justified if it's a 'good' album, particularly when we all know it costs about 5p to produce, and maybe another pound or two to ship and stock.
As for the bottom end of the industry, I'm not aware of the structures and who and how many people are involved where in order to comment. Certainly if their role is necessary then they should be paid. But I see that as a different issue from the money-hungry record companies, who are little/no more than glorified marketing firms.
Now I'm off to bed, but no doubt we shall continue this later...
No doubt we shall. Night then. 
Quote: DaButt @ October 29 2009, 2:50 AM BSTMusic/video/software piracy is less like stealing from a shop and more like owning a magic replication machine. Something can be created out of nothing. What if you could duplicate a Ferrari or Hollywood starlet and the only thing stopping you from doing so was a law?
Well, until that day comes, the laws relating to theft still count.
My concern fundamentally is that this kind of activity is effectively destroying the concept of ownership. If I steal a car, I steal a car. There has been a long chain of people who need to be paid in order to have made that car. I'm not just stealing from the owner or dealer. Even if I feel that the owner or dealer has too much money already, would charge me too much to buy the car legally, I cannot assert the right to ownership by theft. Morally, the principle is the same for digitalised content of any type.
Defenders and users of internet piracy must by definition agree with the idea that property cannot be owned in any legal or pecuniary sense. So if someone steals their car, how can they complain without being hypocrites?