Facebook Comments Subsonix Said...
As much as I'm a fan of Stephen Fry, I'm also a victim of filesharing free-tards.
I'm sick to death of finding my releases freely available by a quick Google search and blocking the websites (particularly the eastern european and russion ones)seems to be the only way of stopping easy access to these (at least from the UK).
I'm all for freedom of information but not the illegal kind. It can't be that hard to differentiate.
I'm sure if Mr Fry had seen his income slashed to pennies instead of pounds he would not be so inclined to view these new laws from such a Utopian view point.
10-Mar-10 11:47 AM
Kevin Nolan, Dublin, Ireland Said...
Stephen Fry is a wealthy person because of the historical protection of his property for sale. How sickeningly rich of him to pontificate about a treat to freendom of speech by laws trying to protect value in peoples creative output.
The internet and WWW emerged in a world where copyright, ownership and financial worth existed. Sustaining a viable business model for creative output has nithing to do with freedom of speech or the ability for free thinkers to produce new anarchies in the future.
I'm a composer and an author of a world wide released popular science book which has sold in the single thousands of copies but whcih as an ebook has been illegally downloaded over 150,000 times. It has devastated my income and destroyed any prospect of me making a living from writing. I'm taking it oin the chin and am not bitter and always look forward, but it would be nice to be able to earn a living from my creative output and perhaps only 3-5 years ago that would have been possible. Not today.
Stephen Fry demands a big fat fee from the BBC and whomever else he offers his talents to; and I am sich and tired of these aging fatcats spouinting about freedom of speech, when al they are douing is using this issue for their own publicity.
Fry had nothing of substance to say on the BBCs porogram "The virtual revolution" and here he has even less to contribue.
10-Mar-10 02:56 PM
someone else Said...
How far does this go? What about youtube? Along with the genuinely useful material and massive amounts of rubbish, there are also illegally shared music videos on there. Presumably this means it will get blacklisted. How about google? That links to pirated material. What about sites hosting bittorrent clients (which are used for legitimate file distribution too.) What about a host which has some legitimate sites and some with dodgy material? Blanket blocking at ISP level is too blunt a solution to this problem. It's also a gargantuan task, basically asking ISPs to censor the entire internet. If nothing else it will cause their costs to increase and mean we wind up paying more to access less. Yes piracy is a problem, but this really doesn't seem like a good solution. It all likelyhood people could still get around it using proxy servers elsewhere so it probably wouldn't even work. I'm not a big fry fan, but I think he's got a point.
11-Mar-10 10:51 AM
Rabbi Terry Said...
How about using the internet to promote your music as free advertising and move with the times mate.
28-Mar-10 05:15 AM
Post a comment
