Opera’s latest Web browser introduces a new technology platform, Opera Unite, allowing you to stream music or share files, photos and more, right from the browser.

• Features At A Glance:

1. Opera Unite
Use applications to share content with others in a quick and easy way.

2. Opera Turbo
Boost your speed with our powerful servers to compress Web pages, so you get them faster.

3. Visual tabs
Drag the handle underneath the tabs to reveal thumbnails of your open Web pages.

4. Customisable Speed Dial
Get easy access to your favourite sites every time you open a new tab. Choose the layout and the background you prefer.

5. Opera Link
Synchronise your Speed Dial, bookmarks, notes and other useful data.

Opera Features screen 1 (Click image to enlarge)

Opera Features screen 2 (Click image to enlarge)

• Plus, My Opera Community offers:

Free Blogging
Our blogs are easy to use and fully customizable. We also support mobile blogging.

Free Photo Sharing
It’s easy to share your photos on My Opera. You can share with everyone or only with your friends – it’s up to you.

Free 1GB Web Space
You get 1GB of free space to upload your files and photos.

This post may, at first, appear like shameless product placement, but I’ve been using Opera myself for years, alongside Explorer and Firefox, and while it has a few things I’d like to change – what software doesn’t? – it’s excels beyond all other internet browsers, including Firefox, who have often sought inspiration from Opera only to reap the benefits. But that’s enough politics, because Opera is the Internet’s best kept secret.

You don’t have to remove or stop using your current browser.
Opera, Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome etc, can all happily run side by side giving you ultimate choice. Sometimes one browser might work better than others in certain situations.

There is even a portable version of Opera that’s capable of running standalone on a USB stick.(no install required!)

Try it! ;]

The Links
→ Download Opera
→ Download Opera Standalone
→ My Opera Community: Free Blog & 1GB webspace.

da The Register

L’ISP Virgin Media userà una tecnologia di ispezione che sarà in grado di analizzare la quantità di filesharing all’interno del suo network, ma non renderà noto quale traffico verrà analizzato. Il periodo di prova coprirà il 40% del network di Virgin Media

According to new information received from music industry insiders, it turns out that Spotify isn’t ripping off the artists, the labels are.

By allowing its users to access millions of songs for free, the music streaming Spotify has revolutionized the music industry by handing them a potential competitor to illegal downloading. – > Read full article on Torrent Freak.

Shucks, those crazy labels!

The Digital Economy Bill (DEB) has been suggested by a few sources on the Net. How accurate is this? Who knows, but IF the current government looses the general election how will that affect the bill? Many questions and is now to early to be second guessing?

Over the last few months Ive covered many topics on piracy.  Ive tried to suggest possible alternatives although from what Ive seen the argument falls into two distinct categories, those who wish to legislate with other the top and unnecessarily complex rules/operating polices/legislation and those on the other side of the argument who seem to want a file sharing free for all in the name of freedom of data.

I would ask that people keep with me on this article and ask for one person, just one to justify the file sharing stance (ideally more).  The last article on this subject had over 2000 UIP’s in the first hour of publication, so I know that people are reading it (I also see where the hits are comming from) and yet out of all the incoming hits from pro- p2p sites, not one person tried to put forward a counter.  This article is  yet another attempt by myself to get a better understanding about the pro-file sharing argument which I really can’t see where its coming from.

I have seen the rumoured legislation that is alleged to be passed with the Digital Economy Bill, I offer my interpretation of what is being proposed.

I would stress that none of the information I am quoting has been confirmed and would ask everyone until we get it from “the horses mouth” and its actually in place, to keep an open mind.  The main question I have about any of the proposals would be the upcoming general election and how that will affect this proposal.  That question IMO has yet to be answered.

Before I go any further I should clarify my stance (for those who don’t already know)  I am against the sharing of copyrighted material and believe it harmful to the industry.  I will make the point again later with examples but in the meantime its only fair that you understand I am writing from that viewpoint.  conversely though (which will also be covered later) it is my belief that file sharing has been met with knee-jerk policy, umbrella legislation and a complete ignorance of what is practicable in the “fight”/”campaign” against piracy/file sharing.  I am not for the criminalization of file sharers.  I am not for the three strikes policy nor the possible massive fines your kids could pick up if they downloaded the latest track from Lady Gaga.

The Proposal

So lets start with this link: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html and look at the pointed proposal this site offers in respect of the DEB (digital economy bill)

The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements (for example, he could create jail terms for file-sharing, or create a “three-strikes” plan that costs entire families their internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)

This in my opinion is just  scare mongering on behalf of the site reporting.  The secretary of state COULD instigate the death penalty for file-sharers (with the support of parliament and the removal of a few other pieces of legislation) the secretary of state COULD make file-sharers dress like chickens and run through the streets.  The keyword is COULD, they COULD do a lot of things, lets wait and see what exactly they are.

The Secretary of State would get the power to create procedures to “confer rights” for the purposes of protecting rightsholders from online infringement. (for example, record labels and movie studios can be given investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect users, remove websites, block URLs, etc)

I am not quite sure which world the author of that article lives in, but under current legislation if a record label (for example) wanted to seek civil recompense in a UK court because you were sharing its material, it could simply apply for a court order demanding your ISP to hand over your details.  This is nothing new and certainly not something that is being brought in with the DEB.  If for example a school was allowing its students to share music, a possible suit which saw the school being held accountable would have the same effect and I would challenge you to find a school that would rather appear in court than simply block a URL.  It happens all the time anyway, usually a quick email to the school concerned will have the IT dept blocking that URL.

The Secretary of State would get the power to “impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement” (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright “militias” can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)

Again, what world has this author been living in?  Read your contract/T&C of your ISP.  They also reserve the right to cut you off under current legislation and have “investigatory” powers already.  I am with O2 broadband, here is a quote from the current terms and conditions  (14.3):

You authorise us to use and disclose, in the UK and abroad, information about you and your use of the Services including, but not limited to, how you conduct your account for the purposes of operating your account and providing you with the Services, for credit control purposes; for fraud and crime detection and prevention and the investigation and prevention of civil offences; or as required for reasons of national security or under law to our associated companies, partners or agents, any telecommunications company, debt collection agency and fraud-prevention agency or governmental agency and other users of these agencies who may use this information for the same purpose as us.

Comments such as “its as bad as it gets” really don’t help any.   Comments such as “declaration of war against free speech” are, in my opinion rather weak.  Let me put this to you:  Recently T-Mobile’s customer data was copied and sold on (allegedly) presumably the detractors to their being copyright legislation, support the cloning of customers personal data?

The three strikes policy (IMO) is a pointless/toothless tiger since firstly ISP’s can already disconnect you (as per terms and conditions) and secondly because the whole implementation/investigation of such a policy would be a logistical nightmare (IMO).  How can you tell if an infringement has been made by little Peter, his friend or his mum and dad.  If an infringement is made by person X at a different venue, who gets cut off?  Who/what does the strike get recorded against? the person or the venue?

Putting that to one side though, the BBC reports a slightly less aggressive approach by policy (and until evidence to the contrary is given) then its just as valid for their view to be put forward: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8366255.stm

The plans for tackling illegal file-sharing, detailed earlier this year, will be a two-stage process. Initially the government will aim to educate consumers and, those identified as downloading illegal content, will be sent letters.

If this proves insufficient, technical measures which will include the powers to disconnect persistent pirates, will be introduced in the spring of 2011.

So until we hear the final word maybe its a little too early to second guess however exactly new legislation will manifest itself?

Looking on though, the Open Rights Group has a very detailed (and interesting) blog entry on this issue, this can be found here and it does shed a little more light on what exactly will be introduced.

They mention about a Henry VII clause which in a nutshell enables the creation of new legislation to counter or intercept new technologies.  In response to that point I would add that really that clause would be expected, since there are alternatives to the BT protocol already in development (and have been covered here before) the fact that they want to prevent having to play catchup again is no surprise.

The Open Rights Group refer to the ISP’s as being “piggy in the middle” with fines for non-compliance and they say “even those they gain nothing from the process”  Really?  Has the ORG completely forgotten that the ISP’s make money from the customers who use their service?  Nothing to gain?  How long have the ISP’s used fast speeds to promote sales, whilst not appearing to be overly concerned about file sharing?  I would cite Virgin Media as an exception, since it appeared on one hand to go out of its way to advertise fast speeds, yet on the other hand report/challenge file sharing.  Have the Open Rights Group already checked their own ISP terms and conditions? Might they have already digitally agreed to the same already?

The ORG makes reference to “copyright holders shouldn’t act as cops” to which I agree, although the majority of fines etc that have come about as a result of a user sharing are civil cases and theres an important distinction between civil and criminal.  I would certainly hope copyright holders do not act as cops in a criminal case, but in civil cases I think they are well within their right to police their own material.  Any fines enforced will have to undergo due process anyway since without being backed up by a court they are worthless IMHO.

All aboard me hearties! The penalties that COULD be brought in with regards to piracy are IMO over exaggerated....lets wait and see.

The law as it stands – Goblin’s interpretation

I have to say this before I continue.  This piece is relevant to UK law and is my opinion.  It is always best practice to seek your own independent legal advice if you should find yourself in breach or summoned for anything talked about below.  I would not suggest that my opinions are anything more than that and would welcome a challenge/correction to any of the interpretations I have made.

In my opinion there has been a mass mis-interpretation of the laws surrounding copyright, its civil consequences and/or criminal.  This misunderstanding I believe is on both sides.  Firstly on behalf of the government where they, IMO fail to consider the consequences tackling the issue at a customer level with such a heavy hand and also on behalf of the user, where they seem to read a piece of legislation and run screaming “war on freedom of speech” and such like.

I have repeatedly said (and apparently it hasn’t sunk in) that in respect of criminal law (forgoing any issues of indecent material etc) there is no remit within UK criminal law for the mere act of downloading copyrighted material.  The issues can arise when users share.  If you think about it for a minute, most of us engage in something similar to downloading copyrighted material every day, when you record coronation street, or Back to the Future 3 off TV to watch later.  Now correct me if Im wrong, you don’t own the IP rights to either, yet you are storing it on a medium for later use.  Just because the material is on TV makes it no more or less “copyright” than say Harry Potter 20 that hasn’t been released in the cinema yet.

Now applying a mere download to a civil case, if you haven’t shared material, its likely a case could only hold you accountable for the cost of that product (if at all) now tell me, is Warner Bros going to take you court for the price of one copy of Harry Potter?  I shouldn’t think so.

This is why I said before that the legislation as it stands is wholly inappropriate to tackle the downloading of copyrighted material.  Sure P2P could be “outlawed” or “policed” but when no sharing is involved what happens to the Newsgroup Binaries?  The original source may be held to task for putting it on the server, but what could be done about the downloaders?  I’d suggest nothing.  Same goes for IRC.  Since the “share” only occurs with the person sharing the data, all the downloaders would not be covered under legislation since they are not sharing anything.

Currently, unless Im mistaken Copyright “rights” include adapting, distributing (either electronically or via other means) selling, renting etc.  Where are the “rights” for a downloader from a .binaries?

Compulsory licensing of ISP’s

The “answer” that I have suggested previously, takes away the nightmare of investigation, takes away the criminality/restriction on the user and makes the ISP’s directly responsible.  I would like to see a system where ISP’s are licensed in a similar fashion to a public house/liquor license.  Ask yourself this, if a pub is repeatedly causing problems because of its customers, is it not the landlord/landlady who is ultimately looked to to provide a solution/resolution?  Things like the restriction of sale of alcohol (which by the way its an offense to sell liquor to a drunk person) upping of age limits, earlier closing time.  If a landlord/landlady cannot show they have taken reasonable steps to tackle the issue they can lose their license.

As anyone who has looked at a BT swarm, the harvesting of IP’s is rather simple.  But by holding the ISP, not the user responsible then it would be far easier for anyone with an interest in the material to solve the issue.

An ISP could easily block all the known BT sites (both private and public) and this would eliminate a massive amount of file sharing overnight, simply because I don’t think the vast majority of BT users would have the first clue in how to circumvent that (and maybe explains why IRC/NG’s never saw mainstream popularity as their operation is more complex than BT or similar)

This is where I see the problem occurring. Providing that legislation is not passed that either adds to or changes the copyright theft Act then I fail to see what could but done if these “remedies” cause a mass migration to IRC or NG binaries, this is the problem.  In my opinion the entertainment industry and the government have neglected the technological implications on the industry to a point where now they a desperately trying to play catchup with over the top legislation.

The answer to this needs to be kept simple.  ISP self regulation by licensing is, in my opinion far more of a simple solution that prevents the end user from being cut off the internet, the subject of an incomplete or incorrect investigation and maybe more importantly criminalization.

Counters/arguments/reasons?

Since a pro-file sharing opinion has never really been represented here by any reader, I will put some of the comments which I have seen used to justify file-sharing.

1. “A survey showed that file sharers spend more on music than those that don’t file share.” – Lets say for one minute that we believe a survey where the respondents that file share are actually telling the truth and not just saying it in order to further the pro-sharing cause, how can they answer for the people who they share material to?  This counter is, in my opinion unprovable since its like trying to measure the amount of crime a CCTV camera has prevented.  Its impossible.

2. “Data should be free for everyone, you cannot “steal” data”.  In respect of “steal” its maybe a bad choice of words.  Theft according to Sec(1) of the Theft act states – To dishonestly appropriate property belonging to the other with the intention of depriving the other of it. Since the data is not being “taken” more duplicated, I’d suggest that in respect of file sharing “theft” is a bad choice of words.  Maybe a “loss of revenue” type offence wording would be more relevant?  In respect of the free data for everyone, I ask file-sharers to comment on the duplication of personal data from the recent news report of T-Mobile.  Should that data be free too?  If all data should be free then surely it applies to ANY data?

3. “Companies make enough money as it is, they shouldn’t complain”.  - In respect of titles such as Harry Potter, I don’t think it can be argued about the massive revenues it generates even with file sharing, but thats not really the point as you can’t put all file-sharing under the same umbrella.  What about the bedroom coder who releases software to make a little money for him/herself?  should their work be distributed?  I would like to cite an example here “Crayon Physics” is a game made by a chap who is not a mult-national company.  I don’t suppose he has a private jet or holds shareholders meetings, yet even though his work is sold for a small sum, it is still distributed on a massive scale on BT trackers.  Are file sharers saying “Its ok to file share that which we deem has made enough money”? – I’d suggest not, and if you want to justify file-sharing its either all or nothing.

4. “Blocking sites is an attack on free speech, its a breach of human rights!” - Unless I am grossly mistaken the Human Rights Act is secondary to the law of the land.  Like it or not blocking sites needs to happen and we cannot live in a society without censorship (IMO).  For those thinking that there should be no blocking/censorship I would ask your opinions on a site displaying indecent material.  Should users be allowed to see that under the umbrella of free speech?  What about sites promoting hate about faith/sexuality? should we really have those too?  I’d hope the majority of people would agree with me when I say that racism/sexism/homophobia should be removed as should anything which falls under the banner of indecent.

These are just some of the counters Ive read by people trying to justify their actions.  If you have any more, I’d really like to hear them.

Finally…

I sometimes wonder about the society we live in.  File sharing after all is the sharing of material such as games/music/film which really at the end of the day is not critical to our daily survival.  I would agree that the pricing can be high but then as an adult if I believe something is too expensive for what it is I either don’t buy it or wait until it is reduced.  A good example was a recent film.  When it was released on DVD I considered it far too much money, so I merely waited until Blockbuster offered it ex-rental and bought it for a significantly reduced price.  If people disagree with pricing, why can’t they simply wait?  Are movies/music/games that important in their lives that they must have it now and preferably for free?  I can understand this of a young person, but an adult (which apparently accounts for much of the file sharing community) really?

Sources of further information

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8366255.stm

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html

http://torrentfreak.com/european-commission-no-3-strikes-without-judicial-oversight-091124/

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog

Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com

Radio has always been a great promotional tool for music acts. That’s why I found it very strange that Toronto’s Kiss FM’s “official KiSS 92.5 Roz and Mocha ‘T-Dot State of Mind’ Music Video” would prominently feature a girl holding up a “hand-written” sign that reads “I Never Pay For Music”. Not only that, but it looks like she’s posing right in front of the HMV music store on Queen Street West:



From what I can tell, the message of the video appears to be that the quintessential depiction of Toronto life includes visiting the CN Tower, going to Wonderland, watching a Maple Leaf game and downloading music without paying for it while rubbing it in the face of retailers. Maybe they can do a sequel in front of Sam the Record Man. Oh wait…

This seems like a rather bold statement coming from the Rogers Broadcasting Limited-owned radio station. Where do radio stations like Kiss FM expect to get music from if everyone follows their lead and never pay for music?

If you must, click here to see the full video.

This is the new model of modern music industry. And record labels have to recognise that in order not to become obsolete. Bands can no longer depend solely on their album sales to generate income.

• Touring,
• Sales from merchandises
• Live shows

People are willing to pay to see a band live when they like the band or at least have heard of them. Filesharing allows bands to get exposure more easily. Not everyone can afford to buy the music that they are interested to try out, and filesharing helps just that. People download the music to try them, and if they happen to like it, they are willing pay to see the bands live and buy their merchandises. So that means the bands have to tour and hold gigs more often, which means they cant hide behind their recordings anymore. They have to sound good live, in order for people to want to watch them perform.

Quanti di voi, credo tantissimi, non hanno SKY e desiderano ugualmente vedere la Serie A.
Un antennista vi direbbe di prendere “Raitalia 3″ che in effetti trasmette le partite, oppure di optare per Al Jazeera Sport se avete un ricevitore satellitare. Ma qua basta una linea ADSL e un po’ di tempo.
P.S.: di solito si vedono tutte le partite, occasionalmente anche la Serie B, ma se tifate Atalanta, Sassuolo, Reggina, con tutto rispetto per le squadre, potreste a volte non riuscire a vedere la partita.

Ci sono vari metodi.
1. La P2P TV.
La P2P tv è una rete di streaming che si basa sul peer-to-peer. Servono programmi per captare i canali. I migliori, a mio avviso sono:
1. TVUPlayer
2. PPStream
3. SopCast
4. Streamtorrent

TVUPlayer è completo e nell’ultima versione, la 4.3.9. permette di vedere i thumbnails delle emittenti.
Scarica TVUplayer
PPStream è il migliore se avete una banda non proprio eccezionale. Infatti pretende poco bandwith e è il più scorrevole nella trasmissione. Unica pecca, la lingua cinese, che tuttavia non compromette (andando un po’ a intuito si fa tutto) la visione. Sul web era preente fino a poco tempo fa la traduzione inglese ed addirittura quella italiana, ma l’hosting è scaduto.
Scarica PPStream
SopCast è comunque un buon software ma richiede più banda e Windows Media Player installato sul Sistema. Rimane comunque un software valido.
Scarica Sopcast
Streamtorrent è un po’ lento, ma è il più intuitivo e facile da usare.
Scarica Streamtorrent
Ma dove prendere i link per i canali? Semplice, da siti come Livetv, Rojadirecta o Aciemme2.
Qua trovate i link alle partite. Selezionate il link corrispondente al programma installato e partirà lo streaming.
Sconsiglio programmi come UUSee, Tvants, PPLive, PPCast, Fedian, perché semplicemente non funzionano o, come nel caso di TVants lo streaming è molto lento.

2. Le Web TV
Se non volete installare software o le partite non sono trasmesse in P2P, sui soliti siti Livetv, Rojadirecta o Aciemme2 si trovano link anche a servizi Web. I principali sono:
1. Justin TV
2. Ustream
3. Freedocast
I siti stranieri segnalano spesso la presenza di bet365 ma dall’Italia è irraggiungibile in quanto bloccato da aams.
Justin TV ha sempre numerosissimi canali, ma ha un difetto: il limite massimo di connessioni per nazione.
Per aggirare tale limite, rivolgiamoci ad un proxy (Proxy) oppure scarichiamo Ultrasurf. N.B. Ultrasurf entra spesso in conflitto con Mozilla Firefox, quindi tratterò dopo l’argomento Mozilla combinato con Ultrasurf.
Se avete Chrome o Internet explorer scaricate semplicemente ultrasurf e avviatelo. Scarica Ultrasurf. Andate su Speedtest.net e verificate che non siate localizzati in Italia. In questo caso, tutto ok. Se continua a darvi come località italia, andate su Option>proxy settings e scegliete manual setting. Inserite come IP 127.0.0.1 e come porta 9666. Dovrebbe tutto andare a meraviglia.
Con Firefox scaricate l’addon Scarica Addon Ultrasurf, anche se spesso non funziona o si blocca durante lo streaming, mantenendo sempre velocità bassa. Vi consiglio di scaricare Chrome appositamente per gli streaming.

Ustream non necessita tutte queste soluzioni. È la web tv più semplice da utilizzare, semplicemente cliccate sul link e vi si aprirà la partita.

Freedocast non è validissimo, ma spesso si riesce a vedere la partita. All’inizio dello streaming appaiono 25 secondi di pubblicità, che talvolta ricompaiono durante la visione.

Ultima raccomandazione: diffidate da software molto pubblicizzati a lato dei siti che vi ho indicato. Tali software – diciamo pure il nome, LivePlayer – vantano uno streaming di tutte le partite senza “blocchi”. A volte è vero, ma installano sul PC spyware che possono danneggiare il Sistema. Quindi, diffidate da tali software e da siti in italiano sgrammaticato che sono tradotti automaticamente.

Può bastare, buon calcio a tutti!!!

I contenuti di questo sito sono a scopo puramente informativo.

L’Associazione degli Internet Services Provider UK (ISPA UK) si oppone alle norme sulle disconnessioni e dice che ci si dovrebbe concentrare su “riforme delle licenze dei contenuti per consentire alternative legali ad un prezzo equo“.

Zeropaid ci informa che l’ISPA UK (l’associazione di settore dei fornitori Internet istituita nel 1995 per favorire la concorrenza, l’autoregolamentazione e lo sviluppo dell’industria della Rete) esprime la sua contrarietà ai piani del segretario Lord Mandelson per imporre misure tecniche contro gli accusati di condivisione di contenuti protetti che includono la disconnessione degli utenti dalla rete.

ISPA afferma che tali piani non rafforzano certo la struttura comunicativa della nazione e penalizzano l’evoluzione del settore internet e dell’economia digitale.
Il segretario generale Nicholas Lansman afferma che questa normativa farà ben poco per affrontare il problema di fondo e forza gli ISP ad adottare misure tecniche come il filtraggio, inefficaci, costose e difficili da realizzare che potrebbero inoltre avere conseguenze indesiderate, come la limitazione dell’accesso a servizi legittimi.

Lansman afferma inoltre che il modo migliore per risolvere il problema del File-sharing illegale sia semplicemente offrire ai consumatori valide alternative:
“Piuttosto che concentrarsi ciecamente sulla giustizia, il governo dovrebbe chiedere ai titolari dei diritti di riformare il quadro delle
licenze in modo che i contenuti legali possano essere distribuiti on-line ai consumatori nel modo che essi stanno chiaramente richiedendo“
“ISPA continua a credere fermamente che una riduzione della condivisione di file illegali può essere raggiunta solo se l’attenzione si rivolge all’educazione dei consumatori e alla riforma delle licenze dei contenuti per consentire alternative legali ad un prezzo equo“.

Byez.

The internet has been a growing and integral part of society over the past ten years and while many industries have embraced the technology, a large section of the music industry sees the internet as a destructive force. While I somewhat agree that file-sharing is partly detrimental to the music industry, I do not think that the artists involved are losing out because of the illegal sharing of music files.

There is no doubt that the sales of records and CD’s have dropped dramatically over the past three years, but there is another angle to look at. Record companies take most of the money made from the records and only a small portion of the sales actually go to the artists, therefore we have to look at the other aspects of the music industry. Gigs allow some artists to make money and this is further enhanced by merchandise sold at these gigs. Live revenue on the part of the artists has grown over the past 5 years and this shows that in some ways the music industry is thriving in this new age of the internet.

There is a simple explanation for the figures and file-sharing is a big influence on these figures. The sharing of music files allows people to find a lot more bands as there is no restrictions such as price and accessibility, the ease of distribution over the internet (in terms of artists) has become exceptionally easy, with sites such as Last.fm, MySpace and the many music blogs. While people may decide not to buy these new bands’ albums they may go to one of their shows and this is because there is no substitute for live music. It allows for a much more even playing ground for bands and allows bands that aren’t backed by big record labels to be a presence in the music scene.

On the other hand, record labels are an vital part of the music industry and bands like The Dandy Warhols would never have made a name for themselves without the backing of Capitol, there is obviously no way to know whether they would have made a name for themselves, but record companies have the ability to push for their artists to be played on radio and other mediums.

The big question is, “Can the music industry survive without the presence that record labels have at the moment?”, because at the rate at which revenues of these record labels are dropping, the music industry must face the fact that record labels will have a smaller presence and independent artists will be more prevalent in the coming years. It seems that the record labels are unable to find a strategy that will allow them to stay in the state that they were in before file-sharing became a part of life. They have tried the all-in-one record deal that allows them a share of the artists revenue from merchandise and gigs, but this is coming along slowly, another strategy is to stop file-sharing all together and the idea at this moment i to punish people who do it, this will send out a message to other people and it may prove to be a deterrent. But what the record labels are up against is beyond their control. In the UK alone, over 90% of people admit to downloading music illegally, this shows us that it is the way of life to most people in the UK, and possibly around the world and until record labels change the mindset of society, nothing can really be done.

So what does all this mean exactly?

In terms of the structure of the music industry itself there may have to be a restructuring of the way record label operate and make money, to be perfectly honest I don’t care what happens with record labels’ profit margins. What I do care about is the state of music in ten years time. I personally believe that independent artists will be a much larger force on the industry and there will be a larger focus on these bands. There may also be a resurgence in the quality of bands live shows, bands will have to be a presence on the live scene and this may bring about the end of bands that make music specifically designed to be played in the studio. It is unclear whether file-sharing has a positive or negative influence on the music industry, but what is certain is the fact that the way we see and hear music will change dramatically over the next ten years, whether it is for the better or not.

Further information at: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

Barely a decade ago, sneaky, shady, men (and women) were hawking bootleg CDS and DVDs on the streets of Singapore. Perhaps such vendors still exist today, but the chances of finding them are as good as Half Life 2 : Episode 3 being announced tomorrow (at the time of this posting).

Valve lies. There is no Half Life 2 : Episode 3. Or lupus.

Which is to say, very very not likely. Nil, Nada, Zilch. 0.00000001% chance.

Flash forward to the present. Piracy has donned a new disguise, or rather, an flashy and eye-catching outfit, in which everyone has at some point in his or her life, gazed upon and cursed, exalted, mourned, or felt some semblance of emotion towards. Indeed, torrents have been the face of piracy ever since the Bittorrent protocol was released in 2001. A startling 27-55% of all Internet traffic is accounted for by torrents.

Now, one may ask, what does social media have to do with piracy? It would be the equivalent of comparing apples to, say, sirloin steaks, if you take it at face value. Both are edible, tasty (damn, Angus steak house), were once living things…and the similarities just about end there.

But not if you look at the bigger picture, or so to speak.

With the advent of social media, sharing anything has become ridiculously easy. Don’t know where to torrent that awesome song you just heard? Ask about it on Twitter. Need a torrent for that latest video game? Oh sure, ask your gamer friends on Facebook.

Oh dear.

My point is, social media actually encourages piracy by making it even more accessible. If you can’t find something that you need, all you need to do is merely ask. There’s a 99.9% chance someone out there has what you’re looking for, which makes piracy and social media as compatible as chilli and fries.

Of course, it can’t be denied that more stringent measures are likely to show up on social media sites with regards to file-sharing and the like, but i truly doubt piracy will ever die out, especially in today’s interconnected world.

Now, I’m not going to debate whether this is good or bad, but all i can say is that piracy is in a golden age right now.

I’m sure I heard a musician sighing somewhere.

The Digital Economy bill has sparked a wave of protest among consumers and rights groups.

Soon after the bill began its journey through Parliament on 19 November, many expressed worries about parts of it. The bill suggests the use of technical measures to tackle illegal file-sharing that could involve suspending the accounts of persistent pirates. Critics fear this and other powers the bill reserves could damage the UK’s growing digital economy. The Digital Economy Bill is the end result of the consultation and research that went into the creation of the Digital Britain report that was published in June 2009.

As well as trying to tackle illegal file-sharing, the wide-ranging legislation also proposes a shake-up of the radio spectrum and a classification system for video games. Left out is the proposal for a broadband tax to fund next-generation broadband that will be handled in the Finance Bill due in early 2010. The proposals on file-sharing have garnered most criticism.

One of the first responses was the creation of a petition on the Number10.gov.uk website. Set up by Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s head of strategy and development, it calls for the abolition of the proposal to disconnect illegal filesharers. By 24 November, the petition had gathered more than 16,000 signatures.

The number of signatures got a boost from Stephen Fry who used micro-blogging site Twitter to direct people to it. Wrote Mr Fry: “Dear Mandy, splendid fellow in many ways, but he is SO WRONG about copyright. Please sign and RT {retweet]”. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, which campaigns on digital issues, said: “It’s quite a shocking bill. We’re extremely worried about it.” Mr Killock said Section 17 of the Bill was worrying because it gave the Secretary of State “reserve powers” to draft fresh laws to tackle net-based copyright infringement without needing parliamentary approval.

“It could destabilise business and destabilise innovation,” said Mr Killock. “It means entirely trusting to bureaucrats and politicians to get it right.” Mr Killock said membership of the Open Rights Group had jumped by 20% in the run-up to the publication of the Bill. He said protests were being co-ordinated in many places such as Facebook and other social media sites.

He predicted that the protests would soon lead to some form of civil unrest, be that lobbying, a protest march or public meetings. US digital rights group The Electronic Frontier Foundation declared that giving the Secretary of State such powers amounted to the creation of a “pirate finder general” that could enact “draconian” copyright enforcement controls.

The Bill envisages that any proposed change to copyright law should be opened up to public comment before it is made. In a bid to defuse some of the criticisms, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills created a webpage entitled: “Filesharing: some accusations and some answers”. It pointed out that some of the criticisms levelled at the Bill were unfounded. It said it had not been drafted at the behest of the music industries. It added that “technical measures” to slow down or suspend net connections would not be imposed without those accused going through a tribunal system that assesses their case.

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) also issued a statement saying that it “strongly opposes” the measures introduced to tackle file-sharing. Said ISPA: “Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the government should be asking rights holders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding.” Law firm Eversheds said the copyright plans seem “hurriedly put together and not clearly thought-through” and warned that they could have “unforeseen effects.” It added: “Critics… may have taken some comfort from the fact that the proposals have yet to wend their way through an already congested legislative timetable before the next election, meaning it is questionable whether they will ever become law.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8374732.stm

Jerry Del Colliano - Inside Music Media

By Jerry Del Colliano

The World Intellectual Property Organization says that 40 billion music files were shared illegally in 2008 – that’s more than in 2007 but not as many as will be shared by the time the present year ends.

That’s a piracy rate of 95%!

No wonder the record labels are beside themselves trying to stop this movement right now.

Of course, they cannot. But if it makes them feel better to sue consumers and beg governments to crack down, then you can fully understand what is hitting its stride in Europe right now.

In Great Britain and France there are legislative measures to halt illegal file sharing that has eviscerated the labels market that is $10 billion a year. It was once a lot more. And there is no sign that this trend will be reversed with or without such legislation.

It’s getting ugly.

And, Britain wants to join France to enact punishments for file sharing that could cause repeat offenders to lose their Internet connections.

There have even been jail terms meted out.

Reuters reports a lawsuit in April where four men behind The Pirate Bay, one of the world’s biggest free file-sharing websites, were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay $3.6 million in compensation.

There’s that – the U.S. labels version of the PERP walk (referring to the police practice of intentionally parading an arrested suspect or “perp”, short for “perpetrator”) through a public place so that the media may observe and record the event.

In the case of the music industry the PERP walk is winning a high profile lawsuit as they did earlier this year in which a student was ordered to pay $675,000 for sharing just 30 songs.

Then there is the new obsession by record labels to support streaming music ventures such as Spotify even though previous and similar attempts such as Rhapsody failed to gain traction.

With all this bad news for the labels nowhere does anyone mention the good news which is that the 40 billion music files that were shared last year shows the voracious appetite by the next generation for music.

It could be worse.

What if young people suddenly stopped listening to music?

Now they have done a workaround for radio stations that continue to utilize corporate playlists. It’s discovery through online streaming and then downloading free music files. The old system of radio airplay and then ringing up sales at record stores no longer works. But you can’t tell that to label executives.

It’s also noteworthy that as big as the iTunes store is in the legal music business today that total sales are rather insignificant when compared to pirated music. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is not about to quit his day job making hardware to be a full-time music entrepreneur.

I’ve said it before – the new price for music is free. It may not be fair but it is true.

And the labels have a right to be concerned even if they shut down innovative ways to deal with the problem.

Let me lay it out in simple terms.

Online music discovery services that charge or eventually intend to charge monthly fees fail to understand the sociology of the technology that is killing the labels.

The next generation apparently doesn’t want all you can eat.

They want what they want when they want it — if they are hungry, they’ll eat (usually for free).

Certainly this should not be a surprise to media executives, but somehow it is. In other words, to quote Mick Jagger, you can’t always get what you want.

Young people want choice.

They have proven it by demolishing the concept of the record album in favor of searching for, owning or stealing one song at a time – the one they want.

Three thousand tunes cached on a mobile device through Spotify may make label executives foam at the mouth but that concept doesn’t create much of an appetite in the general public. So, if the price of music in effect is now free at worst and 99 cents at best (the higher prices the labels charge for hit music now on iTunes has actually spurred more stealing) then how do you remain in business?

Now that’s a good question.

Maybe you don’t.

Or maybe you sell in bulk – five cents a song something like a text message – so that stealing would be not as attractive. (Actually a text message, according to studies, averages out to about a penny a message).

The labels could make the best audio copy available, all the goodies, liner notes, social networking connections – all for a nickel and no one would ever steal music again. Okay, I’m exaggerating but you get the point.

Then on top of that, make an intuitive site available to hear streamed music for discovery purposes and five-cent purchases for those who want to own it.

Look, if someone took the concept of text messaging to record execs 15 years ago and said we want you to invest in this, it’s going to be big. They would have thrown that someone out on their butts.

The audacity of charging people a few pennies to type “hey” on a mobile device.

Can’t work.

Won’t be enough people willing to pay for such silliness.

And there you have the mentality of label execs who have tried threats, fines, jail and “I got a deal for you that you can’t refuse”.

It’s not that hard to figure out.

You’re out of the manufacturing business and should be in the music discovery business.

You don’t need radio.

You don’t need promotion.

But you do need illegal file sharing – or as I like to call it, the new music radio – for discovery purposes.

Your profit comes when you get out of your own way and make it easy for a fan to sample, buy and become a customer again.

This article was re-published from Inside Music Media @ http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2009/11/music-coming-file-sharing-crackdown.html

Related posts:

Piracy Sells Music
Record Labels’ Obsession With Music Streaming
Keep an Eye on Spotify
Your Digital Music Industry Future

Ogni anno me ne vengo fuori con una compilation estiva per i miei conoscenti, una sorta di tradizione che continua dai tempi del liceo. Le compilation sono piccole creature d’amore, veri e propri omaggi a quegli artisti la cui musica diventa, giorno dopo giorno, ascolto dopo ascolto, la colonna sonora delle nostre vite… continua…

Ogni anno me ne vengo fuori con una compilation estiva per i miei conoscenti, una sorta di tradizione che continua dai tempi del liceo. Le compilation sono piccole creature d’amore, veri e propri omaggi a quegli artisti la cui musica diventa, giorno dopo giorno, ascolto dopo ascolto, la colonna sonora delle nostre vite.

Grazie a queta pratica (fare compilation, cassette, cd o anche semplici playlist) attraverso gli anni ho fatto conoscere moltissimi artisti a svariate persone, che poi si sono trovate anche a comprare dischi o ad andare ai concerti di questi musicisti. Di nuovo la domanda sorge spontanea; quanto realmente danneggia un musicista la cultura del file-sharing?

E comunque bisogna sempre guardare avanti, come ci dice Chris in questo brillante intervento su youtube. La grande opportunitá per gli artisti di slegarsi dalle logiche di mercato e dalle regole imposte dall’industria discografica sta proprio nel trovare alternative alla vendita del prodotto/disco.

Anche i Radiohead, che in una recente intervista affermavano che non avrebbero piú rilasciato un disco, non hanno annunciato la loro fine ma un nuovo inizio, come poi ha spiegato Colin Greenwood in un susseguente intervento. Gli artisti devono pensare le loro opere all’interno delle nuove culture tecnologiche e sociali. Il formato cd é ormai obsoleto. Un musicista oggi ha l’opportunitá di presentare i propri lavori sotto moltissime nuove forme, grazie soprattutto a internet.

Questa qui sotto é la mia compilation proposta per l’inverno. La tracklist é un semplice consiglio d’ascolto, ma guarda caso sono riuscito a trovarla da qualche parte in rete, perció se vi va di scaricarla, accomodatevi: http://is.gd/52rS9

Buon ascolto a tutti!!

THE COLONY COMPILATION
Winter 2010

01 – BIG ELF – Money is pure evil
02 – WOLFMOTHER – New Moon Rising
03 – PORCUPINE TREE – Time Flies
04 – DIABLO SWING ORCHESTRA – Balrog Boogie
05 – JOHN ZORN – Miller’s Crake
06 – THE MARS VOLTA – Copernicus
07 – PINK MARTINI – And Then You’re Gone
08 – THE DEAR HUNTER – The Poison Woman
09 – NORAH JONES – Even Though
10 – TRANSATLANTIC – The wind blew them all away
11 – JULLIETTE LEWIS – Fantasy Bar
12 – TORI AMOS – Snow Angel
13 – BEARDFISH – Destined_solitaire
14 – ALICE – Island

Picture by Willoclick

FONTE: http://colonyofslippermen.wordpress.com/

Transfira um número ilimitado de arquivos com qualquer tamanho de arquivo pela internet com segurança e privacidade

307,2KB

Freeware

Grátis

FilePhile é um sistema de transferência de arquivos pela Internet que aproveita a tecnologia Java para implementar um sistema fácil de usar em diversas plataformas como Windows, Mac OS X e Linux. Com ele basta adicionar contatos que usem o programa – como no Windows Live Messenger (MSN) 2009 – e arrastar os arquivos que se deseja transferir para o nome da pessoa escolhida.

As transferências acontecem em segundo plano, com o programa minimizado para a área de notificação do Windows ou o dock do Mac, as transferências são feitas de modo seguro, com criptografia e sem limites de arquivo ou tamanho, mesmo através de firewalls. Os downloads podem ser continuados após um fechamento inesperado ou travamento, mesmo após se conectar em outro computador.

Roda em Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7

Disponível nos idiomas Inglês

Oggi vi riporto la “risposta” di Luca Castelli (giornalista per La Stampa, Il Mucchio, XL e autore del Blog il Pozzo di Cabal) ad una critica da lui ricevuta dal direttore di Blow Up (il noto magazine musicale) al libro “La Musica Liberata” (arcana editore) in cui Castelli propone una ricca e precisa ricostruzione di come è cambiato il nostro modo di fruire della musica negli ultimi dieci anni, partendo dall’evoluzione tecnologica degli Mp3 a Napster, dal file-sharing ai blog, da Youtube a Myspace, dall’iPod ai social networks, dalle net-label all’agonia dei negozi di dischi, un insieme di cose che hanno cambiato enormemente la nostra idea della musica, i suoi modelli di business e il nostro modo di scoprirla, ascoltarla, viverla e parlarne.

Credo che valga la pena leggere il post di Luca, al di là della “difesa” del suo libro, tant’è che ho “evidenziato” in grassetto i passaggi che ritengo più interessanti:

Ma questa musica è liberata o no? (Fonte: http://cabaldixit.blogspot.com/2009/11/ … -o-no.html)

Forse l’etichetta imporrebbe a un autore di non commentare le stroncature dei propri libri.
Se è così, pazienza, infrango l’etichetta.
Nel numero di novembre di Blow Up, il direttore Stefano Isidoro Bianchi prende un po’ a pugni il mio La musica liberata, con un editoriale lungo, ragionato, intenso, appassionato. Fa piacere ricevere simili attenzioni. E non sono ironico, giuro. Molto meglio delle bastonate in pillole/slogan/Twitter. Anche perchè ci si può ragionare su e – grazie a Santa Madre Internet, sempre lei – si può rispondere a stretto giro di posta.

 

Come forse è prevedibile, non sono d’accordo con Bianchi. Sia sui contenuti di ciò che scrive che, soprattutto, sul suo approccio alla materia. Una cosa abbastanza divertente è che Bianchi commette lo stesso errore di cui accusa il sottoscritto: pecca di eccessivo candore. Anch’io non ho potuto che sciogliermi di fronte alla sincerità – un po’ fosca – con cui il direttore di Blow Up riconduce tutti i cambiamenti che stiamo vivendo nella musica alla dimensione della lotta tra i vecchi padroni dell’industria discografica (le major) e i nuovi padroni (le multinazionali del divertimento e della comunicazione, insieme, appassionatamente in un unico sabba). Che non è poi un pensiero campato in aria: se Madonna passa dalla Warner a Live Nation, le major vanno a bussare ripetutamente alla porta di Google e la Apple di Steve Jobs è diventata più importante della Apple dei Beatles vuol dire che qualcosa sta davvero cambiando, lassù nell’Olimpo.

Anche nel mio libro, da qualche parte se ne parla. Ma si parla soprattutto di altro.
E il candore di Bianchi sta nel decidere scientemente di sottovalutare quell’altro. Che poi vuol dire, papale papale, sottovalutare noi. Nella sua visione del mondo, noi rimaniamo delle mucche che vengono semplicemente sballottate da una fattoria all’altra. Nulla è cambiato, se non la mano che ci strizza la mammella. Ascoltiamo la musica esattamente come facevamo prima, in vacui salottini da bar, mentre sul terreno politico si decide il nostro destino. Ma è proprio così? Certo, se riduciamo tutto a un discorso di produci-consuma-crepa allora sarà sempre così. Viviamo in un mondo capitalistico, ci sarà sempre qualche industria grande e grossa che, beneficiando di determinate condizioni tecnologiche, farà più soldi e sarà più potente di altre. Se manteniamo quell’approccio, in tutti i campi – e non solo su Internet – si dovrebbe parlare solo di politica.

Ma davvero non è cambiato nulla nei termini dell’esperienza musicale più spicciola, che poi probabilmente è quella che ci sta più a cuore? Nel nostro rapporto con la musica (e in certi casi, con gli artisti stessi che la creano)? Nelle nostre possibilità di interagire con un mondo di cui eravamo solo fruitori passivi? In fondo è quello il fulcro del libro, non i provider. Ed è quella la voragine che mi separa da Bianchi: per me si tratta di cambiamenti epocali, rivoluzionari e sì, pure liberatori; per lui di “quisquilie e pinzellacchere”.

Il modo in cui si sviluppa l’esperienza delle singole persone; la libertà che abbiamo nel costruirla e condividerla con gli altri; le nuove e impensabili connessioni sociali che nascono di conseguenza; la possibilità di costruire un percorso di conoscenza seguendo l’istinto e la propria natura, contribuendo così a cambiare anche la forma in cui la musica viene percepita, vissuta, creata. Secondo me è lì che si gioca la vera partita nel mutamento dell’essenza della musica stessa. E’ qualcosa che anche gli artisti di nuova generazione stanno percependo. Qualcosa di cui persino le label più lungimiranti si stanno finalmente rendendo conto, provando a comprendere il presente e ad agire di conseguenza. Prendete questa interessante tavola rotonda online, di qualche giorno fa, con discografici di Kill Rock Stars, Matador, Merge, Saddle Creek. Tutto il discorso è focalizzato sulle nuovi abitudini degli ascoltatori, non sui provider, sulla “responsabilità della creazione dello stardom musicale” o sul terreno politico.

Su questi temi spesso litigo anche con amici e colleghi. Nel libro me la prendo con un certo tipo di giornalismo che si rifiuta anche solo di accettare l’esistenza di un presente alternativo (con il bel risultato che oggi molti potenziali lettori, meno apocalittici e più integrati, sono spesso molto più aggiornati e informati dei giornalisti stessi). Ecco, da questo punto di vista, a me lascia un po’ sorpreso che il direttore di una rivista musicale – che di sicuro trova un senso nella viva passione dei suoi lettori e collaboratori – possa davvero credere che tutto ciò che le nuove tecnologie hanno portato in campo musicale negli ultimi quindici anni sia un semplice passaggio di consegne macroeconomico (“ciò che si verifica realmente è un sempice passaggio di consegne tra un’industria e un ‘altra”). Che sottovaluti in modo così candido (again!) come sono mutate le nostre modalità di ascolto e, di conseguenza, la nostra passione (compresa quella, sono pronto a scommettere, di molti lettori di Blow Up). E che arrivi a scrivere frasi glaciali, semplificatorie e disappassionate, come:

“non c’è la benché minima differenza: i file digitali che vengono fissati su CD e i file digitali che vengono scaricati in un computer o un iPod, senza un supporto che li contiene e li fa suonare sono cosa morta: prima tenevi la tua musica in CD, adesso la tieni in un iPod o nel computer, senza i quali non ascolti nulla“

E’ una visione ferma al ventesimo secolo. La musica nel terzo millennio non è solo un file che passa dal CD all’iPod, e anche fosse “solo” quello, ci sarebbero innumerevoli differenze, a cominciare dalla dialettica abbondanza/limitazione. Se Bianchi ascolta un iPod come ascoltava un cd o un vinile, benissimo, è libero arbitrio. Se poi non ascolta l’iPod, è libero arbitrio anche quello. Ma sostenere che in fondo l’iPod e il CD sono la stessa cosa, un mero supporto fisico, è come dire che la bicicletta è uguale all’automobile: entrambe hanno le ruote e ci saliamo sopra, no? Il mio sospetto – che magari il diretto interessato poi smentirà – è che Bianchi appartenga a quella categoria di appassionati di lungo corso che non hanno mai provato e forse nemmeno sentito il bisogno di provare a fondo gli strumenti che le reti digitali hanno messo a disposizione degli appassionati.

Di nuovo: è legittimo (forse un po’ meno per un giornalista). Ed è francamente impossibile riuscire a tenere il passo con tutto. Però la non conoscenza porta molto spesso a un giudizio approssimativo. Il più delle volte condito con una certa dose di fastidio e insofferenza: i dischi sono dischi, stop. Ascoltate quelli e smettete di rompere le palle con ’sta Internet, che in realtà non ha cambiato nulla. Si tende a sottovalutare un impatto che invece è deflagrante. Per molte persone (e in prospettiva, per la società), questi strumenti hanno cambiato la forma della musica: l’hanno davvero liberata dalle gabbie fisiche in cui era rinchiusa, e oggi permettono di viverla, raccontarla, manipolarla e condividerla in un modo completamente diverso. Un modo che è tremendamente eccitante e molto più ricco di potenzialità rispetto al passato, proprio perchè si intreccia anche a questo passato. Non lo rifiuta, ma lo ingloba (mentre il passato spesso si oppone al futuro, per natura, soprattutto se è un futuro diverso).
Nel 2009, concentrare ancora tutto il discorso e la polemica pubblica su “chi scarica gratis” vuol dire rimanere ancorati al passato. Il download si intreccia allo streaming, ai social network, ai blog, a YouTube, a Last.fm, ai mash up e da qui esonda nei concerti, nella rinascita dei vinili, nel boom dei festival, delle t-shirt colorate, persino nell’esplosione di qualche nuova scena (pensiamo a quella di Brooklyn, generata in buona parte dal passaparola online, da MySpace, dagli Stereogum e dai Pitchfork). Lo sanno benissimo soprattutto gli appassionati più giovani, non a caso i più difficilmente intercettabili dai negozi di dischi, dalle radio, dalle riviste e dai media tradizionali. Per non parlare poi della convergenza tra l’esperienza musicale e quella delle altre arti, della comunicazione, dell’informazione. Oggi siamo (almeno potenzialmente) mucche davvero molto diverse da quelle che eravamo nei pascoli del ventesimo secolo: spesso sta a noi comprenderlo e agire di conseguenza.

A me questi cambiamenti sembrano di un’evidenza incredibile e di un’importanza forse superiore – anche nelle sue sfide e nelle sue incognite, pensiamo alla difficoltà e alla fatica che la nostra mente fa nel gestire questo marasma di input e di contenuti – rispetto a qualsiasi ragionamento sulle bibite e sui provider. Poi, se vogliamo, si può anche parlare di quello e di macroeconomia e di dinamiche industriali. E’ senza dubbio un tema interessante, decisivo, e ci sono alcuni spunti nell’articolo di Bianchi che non possono che essere condivisi. Ma la musica (anche quella su Internet) non è solo macroeconomia. Anzi, credo che per il 99% degli appassionati, la musica sia la cosa più lontana possibile dalla macroeconomia. A maggior ragione oggi che con questa musica si possono fare molte più cose che in passato.

Byez.

Since 1996, the United States Congress has been attempting and passing laws involving the Internet. The big push is now for “Net Neutrality laws,” may have just gotten a boost thanks to Britain.

Many people believe that the new Internet Law that just passed is bad, very bad. The Digital Economy Bill consists of penalties for people who seem to upset the entertainment industries. They have a “Three Strikes” rule that would allow your entire family to be severed from the internet, if anyone has been accused of copyright infringement…with or WITHOUT proof, evidence, or even trial.

Those people accused of copyright infringement can expect a fine of $82,383.30. It even goes to say that ISP’s are required to monitor and report their customers activities, if they refuse they can expect a fine of $411,916.00.

They even went as far as to state that a single individual would be responsible for making up as many new penalties and enforcement systems that they desire. Peter Mandelson the unelected “Business Secretary,” said that he plans to appoint private “militias,” that are financed by rightholders groups. These militia’s would be capable to spy on your internet use, block websites, remove files, and even kick you off the Internet. The Internet Czar will be able to invent any penalty, even including jail time for any incident that they decided your guilty.

The law doesn’t go to stimulate the digital economy in anyway what so ever. It doesn’t allow/mandate nationwide WiFi or even any fair practices for ISP companys.

The Open Rights Group (a lobbyist organization) released a statement about the new law that just passed and it reads:

“This plan won’t stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet – unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socializing,” it said.

Damn You Britain…Damn Yous!

Not the Average Ninja

A twelve minute documentary  ”about how copyright laws have been contorted to benefit the financial needs of corporate rights holders and no longer benefits the public nor the artists who create the work itself.”  The doco cuts between interviews with New Zealand lawmakers and technologists to a remix of Disney clips used to define and comment on copyright law.  Politician Peter Dunne, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith from the Creative Freedom Foundation and  Tech Journalist Juha Saarinen discuss the problems with the proposed copyright law,  specifically Section 92a.  The connection between free trade with the US and  changing New Zealand copyright law is identified as one of the reasons the government has moved in this direction.

New Global Internet Treaty — as bad as everyone’s been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

BoingBoing.com
November 20, 2009

There is, however, little detail in the bill on how the government will stimulate broadband infrastructure.

The UK Internet Service Providers Association ( ISPA ) and broadband ISP TalkTalk ( The Carphone Warehouse , Tiscali , AOL etc. ) have both come out in strong opposition to some of yesterdays Digital Economy Bill measures, which have been designed to tackle illegal downloading.

The Bill proposes that the Government can introduce new measures to punish people they think are infringing copyright without having to prove their case in court. This so-called secondary legislation appears to side-step any debate, oversight or public scrutiny. Both are particularly concerned that the proposals grant far too much control to the Secretary of State, who will have the power to make specific recommendations on costs and impose an obligation on ISPs to use technical sanctions. The ISPA believes that an independent body would be a fairer way to assess these factors.

ISPA Secretary General, Nicholas Lansman, said:

“ISPA is extremely disappointed by aspects of the proposals to address illicit filesharing. This legislation is being fast-tracked by the Government and will do little to address the underlying problem. Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the Government should be asking rightsholders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding.”

ISPs believe that to reduce illegal filesharing, music and film fans must be encouraged back to legal services through education and by making content available in a form and at a price that people find acceptable. TalkTalk’s own research shows that over 85% of people think there is not enough legal music and film content available on the Internet at a fair price. Dunstone has again reiterated his promise to only release customer details to rights holders following a court order, although ironically yesterdays Bill promised that details would only be released to copyright owners for further action “after obtaining a court order“. TalkTalk added that they would refuse any request to cut-off customer accounts and take legal action to protect their users.

Meanwhile the ISPA has also raised concerns about the allocation of cost. Consistent with the principle of beneficiary pays, ISPA rejects an apportioning of costs and believes that rights holders should shoulder this burden including reimbursement of ISPs’ reasonable costs. Presently the copyright owners will only pay the cost of notification letters. Both TalkTalk and the ISPA also oppose all of the new technical measures, which include the ability to slow a customers connection, block illegal sites and services or even cut-off user accounts, and have called for them to be dropped from the bill. Sadly we fear this is highly unlikely to happen as the government has proven unwilling to listen. It should be noted that ISPs do appear to support the notification / letter warning system.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/11/21/uk-broadband-isps-sound-opposition-to-new-illegal-file-sharing-laws.html