Posts by Patrick Archibald

Network Administrator

Interestingly (or not - you choose), no paper money is legal tender in Scotland.

You can't lose what you don't have

I listened with interest to a recent radio interview with a student who had recently downloaded the latest Radiohead album. Givin the option of paying as little as 50p, he chose to pay £5 for the album, which he considered a fair price; but had the album only been available on CD, for typically around £12, he would have downloaded it for nothing, as he could not afford to pay that much.

The RIAA et al. cannot claim every album downloaded by someone unable or unwilling to pay the full CD retail price as a lost sale. If the free download (or copy of a mate's CD) were not available, then many would simply not have a copy. There never was a potential sale to lose.

As for protecting the artist, if you managed stop those who will never buy the CD from enjoying the music, would they then lose interest in the band? would they then also stop buying tickets to the gigs, where the artists are increasingly making the real money? Of course, if the record companies don't get a share of the ticket receipts, that's not really their concern.

The IT angle

You wanted to know the IT angle? Well, it's Joe's Adobe-style pricing policy.

But where does the Jesus Phone fit in?

English language defender

Defender - someone who defends.

Media defender - someone who defends media, whatever that means. Media Company Defender might be a more appropriate title for this bunch of criminals.

Media Defender Defender - someone who defends Media Defenders. That is surely actually the opposite of their intent. Perhaps they should engage their brains before trying to adopt a soundbite-friendly title.

Complaints about the quality of someone's work is not a valid excuse for stealing it. On the other hand, we live in an instant access, on demand, immediate gratification world; so if you can't provide the public with what they want, in the format they want, when they want and at a fair price, you shouldn't really be suprised if they take it for themselves.

The BBC may be covered...or not

As the requirement to check online regularly is clearly stated in their initial terms and conditions, you may be deemed to have agreed to that when accepting their terms. How well that might hold up in court might depend on how sweeping or fundamental any change in terms might be; but you couldn't make the same claim not to have been warned, as in the Talk America case.

On the other hand, if you include an unusual or contentious clause, buried in a long and apparently otherwise quite standard set of terms - like a requirement to look out for future, otherwise unannounced changes - that may not be accepted as fair warning.

Oh, yes - no, I'm not a lawyer, so take all of the above with a pinch of salt.