Comments on: Public Forum on Internet Filtering This Monday in Australia http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/ Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:06:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Also Annoyed http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-190008 Also Annoyed Fri, 08 May 2009 04:48:44 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-190008 Forget about copyrights and intellectual property arguments! The issue here is violation of civil liberty and personal intellectual freedom by blanket authoritarian censorship! The Aussie government wants to tell us what you are allowed to read, therefore think about! That really scares me when you suspect where they get their orders from usually!!! :o In my experience filtering never works, the number of innocuous services a Nut-Nanny type filtering system interferes with usually far outweighs the few truly abhorrent sites it successfully blocks (not to mention those it misses)! I agree with annoyed, the instant this starts I WILL cancel my paid internet service and just use my free university account for email, the web itself will be the equivalent of having budget pay TV with the ability to see but not access the premium programming! :( If I were an ISP I'd be (collaboratively) fighting this initiative tooth & nail; rather than capitulate as most of them seem to be doing; it will literally drive many of them out of business!!! :( Forget about copyrights and intellectual property arguments! The issue here is violation of civil liberty and personal intellectual freedom by blanket authoritarian censorship!

The Aussie government wants to tell us what you are allowed to read, therefore think about! That really scares me when you suspect where they get their orders from usually!!! :o

In my experience filtering never works, the number of innocuous services a Nut-Nanny type filtering system interferes with usually far outweighs the few truly abhorrent sites it successfully blocks (not to mention those it misses)!

I agree with annoyed, the instant this starts I WILL cancel my paid internet service and just use my free university account for email, the web itself will be the equivalent of having budget pay TV with the ability to see but not access the premium programming! :(

If I were an ISP I’d be (collaboratively) fighting this initiative tooth & nail; rather than capitulate as most of them seem to be doing; it will literally drive many of them out of business!!! :(

]]> By: Chinese Government Mandated Search Engine Blacklist Leaked http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189812 Chinese Government Mandated Search Engine Blacklist Leaked Tue, 05 May 2009 20:48:55 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189812 [...] - controversy arose when legal sites were discovered on the lists. Very recently, there was a public forum on the matter of government blacklists as well. Viacom, a prominent US entertainment company used copyright law to try an censor a protest [...] [...] – controversy arose when legal sites were discovered on the lists. Very recently, there was a public forum on the matter of government blacklists as well. Viacom, a prominent US entertainment company used copyright law to try an censor a protest [...]

]]> By: annoyed http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189164 annoyed Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:55:58 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189164 If they filter the WWW then I want FREE internet access because why should we use a service that filters and charges me too i'll give them $2 to use thier service if this filtering crap comes in force just to check my emails and thats it other than that why should we use services that are filtered annoyed If they filter the WWW

then I want FREE internet access because why should we use a service that filters and charges me too

i’ll give them $2 to use thier service if this filtering crap comes in force just to check my emails and thats it

other than that why should we use services that are filtered

annoyed

]]> By: mountain_rage http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189097 mountain_rage Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:13:29 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189097 <a href="#comment-189081" rel="nofollow">@Daniel</a> What you don't understand is that most people understand intellectual property, they just disagree with it. The degree at which intellectual property gives rights to its authors is overbearing, and too restrictive on consumers. It was originally created for the compensation of the artist, and was supposed to have a very limited lifespan so as to not hamper the cultural value of the work. Now Copyright lasts over a hundred years beyond the works ability to generate any substantial profit. It makes both economic and social sense to release copyrighted works much sooner than is currently allowed. If an artist is only generating $10 a year on their work from 40 years ago, does it make sense to still give them the rights to that song. Are we really going to keep ridiculous extensions because a handful of artist still do generate profit beyond 20 years from its release? Most people don't think we should. There are even arguments to be made on the legitimacy of copyrighting a assembly on notes. There is a limited number of arrangements possible that will still be pleasing to the listener,and arguably we may have already reached that limit. There is a professor at my university that is trying to find new ways to write music, he feels music has reached the limit of variance. Let me put it this way, mathematically there are rules that we can apply to tell if a song will sound good to a listener, if you take this formula and apply all the variations possible with those notes, then you remove all the arrangements that sound similar, as in similar beat, notes, anything that would be seen as plagiarism. What you end up with is a limited number of possible melodies. Copyright leads to a monopolization of ideas that have a limited scope. If you take into consideration the fact that music is created from the influences from other artists, does it really make sense to monopolize the assembly of notes? Its unnatural, hurts creativity, and has damaged cultural works and heritage. If an artist has talent, and wants to work they can make money from public performances. Good artists will gain renoun and still have a job performing, and the crappy artists that currently are hired for looks and marketability will get the small gigs. The industry as it stands makes no sense in the modern age, and the only way to make it viable is unreasonably restrictive to consumer rights and cultural heritage. Had the politicians from the past had the current copyright mindset, Disney would never have existed. Shakespeare would of been sued out of existence for borrowing ideas, and classical music from Wolfgang, and other classical artists would be played only by one orchestra. @Daniel
What you don’t understand is that most people understand intellectual property, they just disagree with it. The degree at which intellectual property gives rights to its authors is overbearing, and too restrictive on consumers. It was originally created for the compensation of the artist, and was supposed to have a very limited lifespan so as to not hamper the cultural value of the work. Now Copyright lasts over a hundred years beyond the works ability to generate any substantial profit. It makes both economic and social sense to release copyrighted works much sooner than is currently allowed. If an artist is only generating $10 a year on their work from 40 years ago, does it make sense to still give them the rights to that song. Are we really going to keep ridiculous extensions because a handful of artist still do generate profit beyond 20 years from its release? Most people don’t think we should.

There are even arguments to be made on the legitimacy of copyrighting a assembly on notes. There is a limited number of arrangements possible that will still be pleasing to the listener,and arguably we may have already reached that limit. There is a professor at my university that is trying to find new ways to write music, he feels music has reached the limit of variance. Let me put it this way, mathematically there are rules that we can apply to tell if a song will sound good to a listener, if you take this formula and apply all the variations possible with those notes, then you remove all the arrangements that sound similar, as in similar beat, notes, anything that would be seen as plagiarism. What you end up with is a limited number of possible melodies. Copyright leads to a monopolization of ideas that have a limited scope. If you take into consideration the fact that music is created from the influences from other artists, does it really make sense to monopolize the assembly of notes? Its unnatural, hurts creativity, and has damaged cultural works and heritage.

If an artist has talent, and wants to work they can make money from public performances. Good artists will gain renoun and still have a job performing, and the crappy artists that currently are hired for looks and marketability will get the small gigs. The industry as it stands makes no sense in the modern age, and the only way to make it viable is unreasonably restrictive to consumer rights and cultural heritage. Had the politicians from the past had the current copyright mindset, Disney would never have existed. Shakespeare would of been sued out of existence for borrowing ideas, and classical music from Wolfgang, and other classical artists would be played only by one orchestra.

]]> By: How do I get free music videos for my iPod without p2p software? | Alice in wire http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189090 How do I get free music videos for my iPod without p2p software? | Alice in wire Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:16:22 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189090 [...] Public Forum on Internet Filtering This Monday in Australia [...] [...] Public Forum on Internet Filtering This Monday in Australia [...]

]]> By: Daniel http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189081 Daniel Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:28:37 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189081 <a href="#comment-189034" rel="nofollow">@David Hersh</a> I disagree with the Canadian model. When you buy a music CD what you actually buy is the physical artefact (the CD itself and the case) and the right to listen to and enjoy the music on it any time you wish. Although you do possess the music as such, you need to have this information in order for your sound system to reproduce it so you can listen to it, you do not purchase the right to copy it and distribute it to other people, because the music's intellectual property rights remain with the composer of the music. It is not magically transferred to you by virtue of purchasing a copy of the music the artist produced. I think most people don't get the distinction between physical property and intellectual property. They think that by purchasing a music disc they become shared owners of the authorship of that music even though this is not the case at all, and when you purchase a CD you enter into a contract agreeing not to copy and distribute it without a license or permission. So, when you make a copy of a CD and upload it onto the internet to share with others you are stealing from the composer. Like it or not, there's no real debating that fact. Intellectual property is not like ordinary commodities. You don't consume it and throw out the packaging, you enjoy it and appreciate it over and over again. There's a real difference between buying a tin of coffee which you drink and consume or a lawnmower which you buy to do a job and buying a CD, whose contents you play for appreciation and enjoyment only. If more people appreciated that the intellectual property is not bought by them when they buy a CD, more people might appreciate the fact that they are stealing the musician's livelihood when they copy and freely distribute the music on the internet (or even in other ways). Notwithstanding, record companies have got it wrong. In the past the means of reproduction was mostly in their hands. People didn't have vinyl record making facilities, it wasn't practical to have these. Things changed a bit when the cassette tape came along, however the reproduction was usually so inferior that it didn't impact much. With the modern day ability to make perfect digital copies and easily share them with anyone on the net, record companies have totally lost ownership and control over the means of reproduction. They should tackle file-sharing on that basis, ie, by figuring out how to make a superior product that people will want to buy. This is happening to some extent (Eg I just bought the latest Depeche Mode CD rather than downloading it, not because I am an angel, but just because the CD release contains an extra 5.1 surround version of the album plus video clips that do not come with the 'downloaded via BitTorrent for nix' version, so I'm happy to pay for the much superior physical product) but not nearly enough. Too many companies still indulge in the fantasy of reclaiming the means of reproduction by way of the law, by physically denying people the methods of reproduction and file sharing, by targeting and demonizing in court the very people they should be trying to win back - their own customers! In doing so they create a customer base which resents them and the power they represent and probably actually increase the number of people stealing music. Why would you buy it if your perception of the producer that they're b****rds making victims of their customers. @David Hersh
I disagree with the Canadian model. When you buy a music CD what you actually buy is the physical artefact (the CD itself and the case) and the right to listen to and enjoy the music on it any time you wish. Although you do possess the music as such, you need to have this information in order for your sound system to reproduce it so you can listen to it, you do not purchase the right to copy it and distribute it to other people, because the music’s intellectual property rights remain with the composer of the music. It is not magically transferred to you by virtue of purchasing a copy of the music the artist produced. I think most people don’t get the distinction between physical property and intellectual property. They think that by purchasing a music disc they become shared owners of the authorship of that music even though this is not the case at all, and when you purchase a CD you enter into a contract agreeing not to copy and distribute it without a license or permission. So, when you make a copy of a CD and upload it onto the internet to share with others you are stealing from the composer. Like it or not, there’s no real debating that fact. Intellectual property is not like ordinary commodities. You don’t consume it and throw out the packaging, you enjoy it and appreciate it over and over again. There’s a real difference between buying a tin of coffee which you drink and consume or a lawnmower which you buy to do a job and buying a CD, whose contents you play for appreciation and enjoyment only. If more people appreciated that the intellectual property is not bought by them when they buy a CD, more people might appreciate the fact that they are stealing the musician’s livelihood when they copy and freely distribute the music on the internet (or even in other ways).
Notwithstanding, record companies have got it wrong. In the past the means of reproduction was mostly in their hands. People didn’t have vinyl record making facilities, it wasn’t practical to have these. Things changed a bit when the cassette tape came along, however the reproduction was usually so inferior that it didn’t impact much. With the modern day ability to make perfect digital copies and easily share them with anyone on the net, record companies have totally lost ownership and control over the means of reproduction. They should tackle file-sharing on that basis, ie, by figuring out how to make a superior product that people will want to buy. This is happening to some extent (Eg I just bought the latest Depeche Mode CD rather than downloading it, not because I am an angel, but just because the CD release contains an extra 5.1 surround version of the album plus video clips that do not come with the ‘downloaded via BitTorrent for nix’ version, so I’m happy to pay for the much superior physical product) but not nearly enough. Too many companies still indulge in the fantasy of reclaiming the means of reproduction by way of the law, by physically denying people the methods of reproduction and file sharing, by targeting and demonizing in court the very people they should be trying to win back – their own customers! In doing so they create a customer base which resents them and the power they represent and probably actually increase the number of people stealing music. Why would you buy it if your perception of the producer that they’re b****rds making victims of their customers.

]]> By: jax http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189078 jax Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:34:05 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189078 My neighbor collects DVD movies and lets me borrow them and I never have to pay. He goes and buys every single mainstream blockbuster when they come out and I always borrow them. Because of this I never pay out of my own pocket. Also I have a friend that loans me xbox 360 games. Many games I would have bought but didn't because I was able to just borrow them. Doesn't this make the industry mad? Do you think in that far off future when people have cybernetic implants that DRM will block you from hearing or seeing media/games (from any source) until you have paid the license fee for it? For example 5 friends get together and enter their number into the console that charges their account and then allows them to see a movie. You arrive late and did not pay. They are watching it but to you it seems as if the screen/audio isn't even on... My neighbor collects DVD movies and lets me borrow them and I never have to pay. He goes and buys every single mainstream blockbuster when they come out and I always borrow them. Because of this I never pay out of my own pocket. Also I have a friend that loans me xbox 360 games. Many games I would have bought but didn’t because I was able to just borrow them. Doesn’t this make the industry mad?

Do you think in that far off future when people have cybernetic implants that DRM will block you from hearing or seeing media/games (from any source) until you have paid the license fee for it? For example 5 friends get together and enter their number into the console that charges their account and then allows them to see a movie. You arrive late and did not pay. They are watching it but to you it seems as if the screen/audio isn’t even on…

]]> By: John Berry http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189072 John Berry Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:10:38 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189072 Fucking Government, they can get fucked, Kevin Rudd can kiss my vote good bye if he censures anything on the WWW, we are living a fucking Nanny state - this really shits me off !!!! Fucking Government, they can get fucked, Kevin Rudd can kiss my vote good bye if he censures anything on the WWW, we are living a fucking Nanny state – this really shits me off !!!!

]]> By: moises hernandez http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189059 moises hernandez Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:33:05 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189059 artists should just stop making cds artists should just stop making cds

]]> By: David Hersh http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86051/public-forum-on-internet-filtering-this-monday-in-australia/#comment-189035 David Hersh Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:21:51 +0000 http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86051#comment-189035 Web filitering is spying and spying is illegal, and if someone filters me I will sue them with serious intentions. Large corporations do not have the right to enter into my life and have any control over it unless they ask my permission. My life is copyrighted just like music is and you will have to pay me because your intent is to earn money from me, which I do not do to them. The whole issue is about intent not loss of money. When companies filter people, their intent is to increase their earnings at my cost, which I do not approve of. I also disagree with the intent of websites that allow file sharing, because their intent is to earn money. This in no way has anything to do with me downloading music from a friend or any other place on the net, because my intent is not to earn money. I do at times pay to download music but rarely do because I like to buy discs. I actually buy about 50-70 cd's a year, but I also download about 100 songs a year or more. I like to buy the disc to support the artists and I like to have an original properly designed disc for my collections. Web filitering is spying and spying is illegal, and if someone filters me I will sue them with serious intentions. Large corporations do not have the right to enter into my life and have any control over it unless they ask my permission. My life is copyrighted just like music is and you will have to pay me because your intent is to earn money from me, which I do not do to them. The whole issue is about intent not loss of money.

When companies filter people, their intent is to increase their earnings at my cost, which I do not approve of. I also disagree with the intent of websites that allow file sharing, because their intent is to earn money. This in no way has anything to do with me downloading music from a friend or any other place on the net, because my intent is not to earn money. I do at times pay to download music but rarely do because I like to buy discs.

I actually buy about 50-70 cd’s a year, but I also download about 100 songs a year or more. I like to buy the disc to support the artists and I like to have an original properly designed disc for my collections.

]]>