Re: Slightly off topic...
If the Synology box acts as a UPnP server, then it should. If not, you'll have to plug it in directly. But I'm still testing...
1435 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
Your research needs to be much better before you post long essays of advice for the media industry. Advising them to do things they've tried doesn't show a firm grasp of the subject. It's just wasting your time.
I can see why you don't want to put you name next to it. I wouldn't...
Firefly ain't coming back, get over it.
>> To the advertisers: Gather a team of people who can judge the viability of script ideas. You are now in a position of greater power than you've ever been before. Don't screw it up <<.
I can't wait.
If I were you I'd get up to speed on the reality of the ad business, because most of what you recommend has already been tried. It crashed and burned.
You've confused budget deficit with national debt.
"don't we need to take account of the following (advised by a friend who works in Central Govt.)"
The bank bail out cost £850 billion (NAO figures).
So your friend in Central Government can't tell the difference between the deficit and debt. That explains a lot.
>> The inherent contradiction is that the telcos involved claim they must examine everything all users send/receive in order to check for naughty P2P traffic <<
I don't know any who make that claim. And they positively don't want to, because it's expensive and pointless. Ask ISPA.
Have you been eating the cheese that fell behind the fridge again?
You're still arguing that creative people ...
a) get poorer not richer
b) give up rights, so somebody mean doesn't have to pay
These aren't progressive values. In fact, they have more than the whiff of fascism about them. They show an abnormal sense of entitlement.
Most labels are small, most performers get very small amounts in royalties.
I haven't seen a technological advance since the printing press that has made creative people poorer, less autonomous, or have fewer rights.
What you're saying is that you know a lot of musicians whose output isn't very marketable.
You then say the only people who desire to market their rights also fail your Anonymous Coward Morality Test: they are either synthetic or greedy. (Or both). In other words, they don't deserve to market their rights.
From this you imply that these music rights should be destroyed, and nobody would mind much.
But there are lots of people who do have marketable rights, and are entitled to pursue them. Your argument takes rights away from people, only you don't quite like it when it's spelled out so clearly.
The question is why anyone would listen to self appointed moral arbiter who can't describe things honestly.
One of the reasons musicians output isn't marketable may be that they're not very talented. Another is that they can't afford to - and by removing marketable rights, you actually make that even less likely.
hi Ed, I wasn't making an aesthetic judgement on RW either way.
Merely that there are some artists want to be mega-world-famous, the market supports some mega-world-famous artists, and this market exist in the future, it's not going to go away. The majors are undeniably very good at this.
I'm glad you finally found the comments section Francis.
You were certainly the most prominent legal opinion associated with ORG, and you were given a full story to yourself in The Register (via Out-Law). I'm also glad you've been able to profit from the Act professionally.
:: I suspect it will waste a lot of people's time and money and absorb a lot of energy and effort.
Funnily enough, so do I. But these measures have been discussed since 2006 and were promised by Triesman over two years ago. There has been plenty of time to lobby against it, building the kind of coalitions I describe.
:: Next time: why not get in touch with me before writing about me?
You answer this question a bit earlier:
:: I doubt I had any real influence over the strategy either ORG, the music industry or anyone else for that matter deployed in fighting over the Bill.
Indeed.
:: I'm with Austin Mitchell on this one, a plague on everybody's houses.
It is tempting to succumb to fatalism, but it might be more constructive to think about how both industries could profit from the technology, create new markets, and make money.
I appreciate this outside your area of expertise.
anonymouse > unless on 7 May the incoming Conservative Government repeal the act
Why would they do that?
> "If Tory MPs only supported it because ORG annoyed them"
You seem to accept a little bit more reality with every post. What you're having trouble with is the idea that patient, rational argument can go along way to eventualy political success.
Some nerds lack empathy and are happy doing student gesture politics forever though. (And not just nerds)
Perhaps an "Open Letter to Andrew Orlowski" should have actually have included me as a recipient. You forgot to do that, so it's really "An Open Letter About Andrew Orlowski Addressed To Nobody In Particular" ;-)
Your point about grey Tories doesn't make much sense:
> The Tories always knew they had limited capital to exert influence during the parliamentary wash-up.
The Tories actually had the Government by the balls, this is the nature of wash-up. They could have thrown out any parts of the bill. There would be no Digital Economy Act worth speaking.
Either you can learn the lessons, or keep losing - it's really up to the activists on what the goals are. Some obviously like losing, it's good for business.
Trebles all round.
It seems to me your determination absolve the most prominent activists of ANY BLAME you're really struggling. I'm not sure why you want to do that, maybe they're friends.
Chris Marsden > "Once it got to the Commons, why would the Tory front bench bother to annoy the copyright industry (Murdoch before an Election)"
Well, you weren't following this, because that's exactly what they did.
Chris, as an "academic expert" you really ought to pay closer attention. If you didn't know that the Tories had helped kill c43, then you must be getting your information from some dubious (but no doubt, politically-correct) sources. Twitter perhaps? ;-)
"If ORG hadnt existed, would the legislation have passed or not?"
Nobody played the Trump Card. No.2. If a group had started making that case two years ago, then no, I don't think the Tories would have backed it. The Tories would prefer a pro-business anti-regulation position on most issues. They were pushed into a Law and Order one instead.
"I dont see how ORG made it worse."
see above.
Epic fail:
"As a freetard try competing with a billionaire and his bloody great yacht moored somewhere in the Med offering various luxuries to those onboard..."
It's a really pathetic line of argument. You're resorting to conspiracy theories when you should be fixing your arguments. Now mull on this:
ORG made legislators more sympathetic to the BPI position. I didn't hear this complaint from legislators about ISPA, Which? or other consumer groups which were allied to ORG.
So there is something about the style or substance (or both) of ORG specifically that made something bad, much worse.
ORG made legislators more sympathetic to the BPI position. I didn't hear this complaint from legislators about ISPA, Which? or other consumer groups which were allied to ORG.
So there is something about the style or substance (or both) of ORG specifically that made something bad, worse.
blackworkx-
I believe Ofcom is obliged to throw away the sticks if it isn't impressed with the reciprocal carrots. If Ofcom judges that the music business has failed to come up with attractive new services (the carrots), it must refuse them the sticks. Parliament can also do this.
So there will be opportunities to deploy the Trump Card (Point No.2 in my article) - but I think the activists are still getting their rocks off on the Ooman Rights arguments.
A letter that has no legal validity is junk mail. We're about to see a blizzard of letters with no legal validity. Whether you want to call them junk mail is up to you: the people sending them prefer to say they will be educational.
Hopefully you will eventually learn the difference between an empty threat and a valid legal threat before you are too badly scammed. The unscrupulous tend to target individuals who are ignorant or mentally infirm, who can't tell the difference.