Pirate ISP Launches In Sweden

Originally posted by J.Clear
Huge thread on Filesharing - views, implications, philosophies and opinions:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm like the guy above, I am fully paid up on the software I use for creating music now but perhaps wasn't always. I'm a big fan of CC and up to now I've made all my music free through netlabels and a few other sources. I've just gotten my first ever album release on CD this week, however, and I hope after making all that music free previously and getting thousands of downloads that some folks will buy it now! However, that Saul Williams/Trent Reznor album that followed the "In Rainbows" idea and ended up with very few people actually paying for it at all makes me pretty much lacking in any optimism about it!

PEOPLE DONT BUY CDs ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY OLD

why would u buy a CD if you use an IPOD or any other type of that thing

why would u buy a CD if you have a cellphone that plays mp3

come on ... the reality is that we are living in a transition between technologies but the industry dont want to change ... thats why there is this freaking conspiracy to try to find pirates ... the reality is that they need to change their business model NOW!

This could be really good for some people, but in all honesty I have to at least question the motives of this idea...

It could just be a great way to get everyone who the governments want caught to all join one ISP therefore making it very easy to collectively blacklist them all.

Not saying this is true, but we never really know the true motives behind any action, by anyone or anything.

reply to post by EspyderMan


I am in total agreement with you. However, to what degree do we trade security for freedom? I use some antivirus - does that count? That's not meant to be sarcastic either, it's the small end of a sliding scale of internet security that I use, my farcebook account is as secure as it can get (probably not very), I am also very cautious about some things I post online - especially on farcebook.

In addition to our freedoms we also need to be responsible, which I think should morally extend to how we act towards others.

May be a bad analogy, but you wouldn't sell a gun or a knife to a child, if you're an ISP you should take the strongest possible action if you discover someone is using your service against Terms & Conditions. I'd hope a responsible ISP would specifically state in their T&Cs that ANY kind of child exploitation is forbidden.

Anyone heard of the Jessi "Slaughter" case? An 11 year old girl goes onto youtube, claims to have been having a sexual relationship with a pop-star, when people start becoming incredulous and post comments to her account, she retaliates by making death threats and the whole thing snowballs... her parents didn't even know she was doing this???

Related Thread (by me)

Originally posted by TylerKing
mixing the Beatles with Lady Gaga is not creativity by the way.

Here, I think you really highlight the ISSUE with filesharing/torrenting/etc... I totally think it was worth my hard earned money to go out and buy the last Silver Mt Zion vinyl, it really was. Would I pay for Lady Ga Ga?
Kids today would rather buy Playstation/Xbox games than an album, does it occur to anyone that it's because they're getting more out the game than the hideous homogenised music?
The McDonalds example fits too - I wouldn't pay for that either, but if I was starving I might steal it.

Edit to add:

Originally posted by Faiol
PEOPLE DONT BUY CDs ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY OLD

why would u buy a CD if you use an IPOD or any other type of that thing

why would u buy a CD if you have a cellphone that plays mp3

come on ... the reality is that we are living in a transition between technologies but the industry dont want to change ... thats why there is this freaking conspiracy to try to find pirates ... the reality is that they need to change their business model NOW!

I buy cd's - vinyl alternative preferably, if available though. I have an MP3, which is nice for work and back, but in all honesty I'm a total music snob/fascist (LOL) ~ I like tha packaging, the pictures, the lyrics, the information, the textural feel of these things.

You're right though, the business model is screwed: example Sony have Coldplay, Warners want a band that sounds like Coldplay, so we get Snow Patrol, EMI want one too so we get Keane... ...and all the time we're just getting carbon copies of something, further devaluing the product - anyone remember hearing something by a band and going WTF??? What the hell is that, that's new, strange and EXCITING!!!
I do, it still happens too and I think the same applies to film. I part with my money sparingly for these things, but some things are too good to pass up.

The internet has made a lot of us lazy, myspace was an interesting phenomena, the way it dealt with music, but for a lot of us - especially the young, I think it made music that bit less special. Kids today aren't going to have the memory of going to a record store, coming home on the bus with (insert favourite format) in their hands, anticipating getting it home and listening to it in their room, studying it, enjoying it.

[edit on 26/7/1010 by jokei]

Originally posted by Faiol

PEOPLE DONT BUY CDs ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY OLD

why would u buy a CD if you use an IPOD or any other type of that thing

why would u buy a CD if you have a cellphone that plays mp3

come on ... the reality is that we are living in a transition between technologies but the industry dont want to change ... thats why there is this freaking conspiracy to try to find pirates ... the reality is that they need to change their business model NOW!

Why did I put out a CD? Simple answer - because someone else is paying for it. If it was my own money, I'd go with vinyl - I explain why in the Filesharing thread. But as I say, I'm a big fan of CC and Netlabels. I take full advantage of the new mediums. But, as you hint there, there is still a reality that music magazines review CDs, not mp3s. That's why I'm happy to have a CD out.

Of course there is another reason to still use CD - audio fidelity. MP3 is lossy. Someone may follow me up here and say that they use lossless formats blah blah, but reality is most mp3s generally floating around the place are at very best 320kbps and even that is lossy compared to a wav file. For 99% of people, it's enough, but not for me. I want the absolute best sound experience, why should I settle for less after putting so much work into making the music? And that's part of the attraction for me with vinyl - the reproduction method and the (what I think are) enhancing artifacts present in the listening experience.

Originally posted by FaiolPEOPLE DONT BUY CDs ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY OLD

why would u buy a CD if you use an IPOD or any other type of that thing

why would u buy a CD if you have a cellphone that plays mp3

come on ... the reality is that we are living in a transition between technologies but the industry dont want to change ... thats why there is this freaking conspiracy to try to find pirates ... the reality is that they need to change their business model NOW!

Change their business model to what exactly? Free isn't a business model.

Originally posted by TylerKing
Change their business model to what exactly? Free isn't a business model.

Actually it is. Offering something for free, lets say anti-virus software and then later on adding things to the program and charging for the extras is a fine business model. AVG offers a completely free anti-virus package that's pretty damn good, doesn't cost a penny, nothing. They also offer a version with more features for a little bit of cash. AVG quickly burst onto the market because it was effective and FREE.

So yeah free can work as a model to promote a product and giving people the option of buying extras gives income.

The same goes for music, offer your stuff for free and ask for donations. Gigs are not free and bands used to make a good portion of their money on gigs alone.

High cost media (films) need to be sold, but they could make more money by reducing ticket costs and allowing people to stream them at home on the day of release. Check out services like hulu which have taken off and made some serious money. Netflix also is a good example. Making things cheaper and available means more people buy them and cannot afford the cost of buying them.

Tv is already very cheap because they use advertising to fund it. Some of it is even offered free! So yes there are some very clear ways things can be offered for free to the consumer while making money from them.

Im from Sweden and I will get this if they make it available where I live.

Its a great idea and I hope they can financially pull it off. They will offer no tech support so its for people who already know how to troubleshoot connection problems, but most of us Swedes know someone who is a computer wizard so it shouldn't be a problem.

I have never called my ISP tech support since I got them.




[edit on 26-7-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by TylerKing
Change their business model to what exactly? Free isn't a business model.

Actually it is. Offering something for free, lets say anti-virus software and then later on adding things to the program and charging for the extras is a fine business model. AVG offers a completely free anti-virus package that's pretty damn good, doesn't cost a penny, nothing. They also offer a version with more features for a little bit of cash. AVG quickly burst onto the market because it was effective and FREE.

So yeah free can work as a model to promote a product and giving people the option of buying extras gives income.

The same goes for music, offer your stuff for free and ask for donations. Gigs are not free and bands used to make a good portion of their money on gigs alone.

High cost media (films) need to be sold, but they could make more money by reducing ticket costs and allowing people to stream them at home on the day of release. Check out services like hulu which have taken off and made some serious money. Netflix also is a good example. Making things cheaper and available means more people buy them and cannot afford the cost of buying them.

Tv is already very cheap because they use advertising to fund it. Some of it is even offered free! So yes there are some very clear ways things can be offered for free to the consumer while making money from them.

I agree with you, but really all this does is make the big corporations bigger. The artists have to rely on advertisements from said businesses to make a living which only feeds the machine. It seems to me to be a way to kill the little guy to spite the big, which won't really affect them.

Originally posted by TylerKing
I agree with you, but really all this does is make the big corporations bigger. The artists have to rely on advertisements from said businesses to make a living which only feeds the machine. It seems to me to be a way to kill the little guy to spite the big, which won't really affect them.

It would champion the little guy. Until now the little guy would struggle to get their art into the public domain without using large corporate systems, like record labels.

Even so it doesn't matter, yeah sure maybe some corporations would grow but the consumer could choose to buy or not to buy while having access to all the media they want without breaking any laws.

Also creativity is increased by allowing small producers of art or tools (like software) to get their stuff into the public domain. The costs of advertising would also come down allowing smaller producers to reach a larger audience, further levelling the playing field

In my opinion the thing about the Piracy party is they are actually pursuing good meaningful agendas and ommon sense when it comes to privacy and the internet in general, but then they have ruined everything by calling themselves the pirate party and attaching the stigma to it.

I'd vote for them given a choice definitely but most people will look at the name and think it's either a joke or they are thieves.

Some copyright laws and privacy laws definitely need fixing for the good of all unfortunately I don't think they will ever achieve anything meaningful without a name change. Like I said before in the thread though I'd definitely switch to an ISP I knew wasn't spying on me or trying to sell my data.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Teknikal]

Originally posted by TylerKing
Change their business model to what exactly? Free isn't a business model.

They need to do what every business needs to do.
Look at their product
Look at their customers
Analyze where and how they can sell their product.
People who want me to buy data in a cardboard box, and drive to get it, are not getting any money from me. I do not require their service to get the data. I dont buy it therefore.
Other people might be interested in boxes. I am not.

Service & Quality very regularly competes with free, btw. Often very successfully.

The publishing industry is like blacksmiths. They used to provide a valuable service (Horseshoes) and thrived. Unfortunately some jerk later invented the automobile, and took all their money. Too bad, blacksmiths werent as smart as publishers, and demanded laws that required everybody who drives a car to buy horseshoes yearly.

Originally posted by Teknikal
In my opinion the thing about the Piracy party is they are actually pursuing good meaningful agendas and ommon sense when it comes to privacy and the internet in general, but then they have ruined everything by calling themselves the pirate party and attaching the stigma to it.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Teknikal]

You are aware that the publishing industry doesn't want to call it "piracy" anymore, because it sounds too romantic?

reply to post by debunky


That's a bad analogy. An upgraded or a newer version of the old product is not the same as asking money for the product vs giving it away for free.
If they want money for it then they have the right to ask it. You don't need it.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It would champion the little guy. Until now the little guy would struggle to get their art into the public domain without using large corporate systems, like record labels.

The little guy does not need the help from large corps. Upload your music to youtube and if people like it you'll get your deserved popularity.

You don't need expensive advertisement in the digital age.

[edit on 26/7/2010 by DGFenrir]

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by debunky

 

That's a bad analogy. An upgraded or a newer version of the old product is not the same as asking money for the product vs giving it away for free.
If they want money for it then they have the right to ask it. You don't need it.

[edit on 26/7/2010 by DGFenrir]

Oh, no.
The product is getting from A to B.
For ages riding a horse was the best way to do that.
The product publishers (not artists) provide is making copies, and making them availiable to the public. Both things used to be very expensive. (We are talking planes, ships, trucks, and factories to make the actual media)
For those two things planes, ships, trucks, factories and brick and mortar stores are as usefull as horseshoes for a car.
BTW: I do spend money on 0s and 1s. I just don't spend money on boxes.

reply to post by debunky


*Facepalm*

You don't pay for the production costs in the entertainment industry. You pay for the entertainment!
Even with the 1's and 0's it still costs time and money to produce high quality stuff.

Show me a free movie that is as good as the Hollywood ones or a free video game that is as good as the ones backed by major publishers. The same with music, no point in owning a high end sound system if you can't get the best out of it.

Someone else created the product. It's up to them to choose whether to charge you for it or not. It's not your decision and you are not entitled to getting it for free. Especially if we are talking about the entertainment industry.

[edit on 26/7/2010 by DGFenrir]

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by debunky

 

*Facepalm*

You don't pay for the production costs in the entertainment industry. You pay for the entertainment!
Even with the 1's and 0's it still costs time and money to produce high quality stuff.

Show me a free movie that is as good as the Hollywood ones or a free video game that is as good as the ones backed by major publishers. The same with music, no point in owning a high end sound system if you can't get the best out of it.

Someone else created the product. It's up to them to choose whether to charge you for it or not. It's not your decision and you are not entitled to getting it for free. Especially if we are talking about the entertainment industry.

[edit on 26/7/2010 by DGFenrir]

www.watchtheguild.com

www.spelunkyworld.com
www.mekwars.org
...
I must say particulary with games that most "professional" titles are rather lackluster, same ol same ol. Independents in that area are much more experimental and creative.

Anyway: There is only one situation where you can set the price if you produce anything: If you don't care wether you sell it or not. Otherwise you will have to look at what the market is willing to give to you. Even if you have a monopoly.
This "Producer sets price" thing gets said so often, I really start to wonder who came up with that ridiculous idea. Any hints on where you got that from?

reply to post by DGFenrir


Someone has already said it but "The Guild" is an absolutely fantastic show. Incredibly low budget, very funny, well written, witty and provided for free online.

As for games, you realy need to do some checking around.

Entropia for one is a well designed world, pretty decent graphically and completely free to play. As i mentioned earlier a better system of business would be to provide something for free and either use advertising or offer extras for cash.

Entropia for example is free to play, but if you want extras you can either work really hard to get them, or pay some cash to make things go faster. There are a number of online games like that.

there are also some community driven games coming about using the old ethos of the 90's PC gaming era. The game is provided bare bones and users program additions using a toolkit or simply their programming talents. It's all free and some of it is fantastic, the best parts get downlaoded more, used more and therefore the game improves overall.

Ever heard of Second Life?

So quite simply as you used one of the rather lame internet comebacks of "facepalm" to a user i will do the same to you.

FAIL!

reply to post by debunky


That isn't exactly what I was asking for. There's a lot of web serials like that on the internet. Show me something like Pioneer One but with better camera work, dialogues, acting and special effects. (I like sci-fi).
And a free 3D game that competes with the big boys. 2D isn't exactly what I'm expeting to play on a 1000$ PC or a PS3/XBOX360. Indies are good but not that good as people make them sound. Most of the indies fail, very few are successful.

I'd really like to see someone make a free game that could compete with the latest Battlefield or Call of Duty, Final Fantasy XIII, the upcoming Mafia II.
I'd like to see a free movie which is just as good or better than any of the current movies that are currently shown in cinemas.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've never like those micro-payment MMOs. They always limit the free players and give the paying ones huge advantages.

I used to play Entropia. It felt a bit cheap and unpolished. I played it back when they were still on Gamebryo. Almost all mmorpgs are repetitive and so was this one. I prefer offline RPGs.


Still looking for a free movie that can compete with hollywood or a video game as good as the ones made by the mainstream developers.

[edit on 26/7/2010 by DGFenrir]

reply to post by TylerKing

Gigs, it's all about the gigs. A real musician enjoys playing his/her music out four or five nights a week. This is where the money is and it's how to take the music away from the big corps and bring it back to the people.

Forget charging for shonky CDs and freely available MP3s. Chuck out a few sexy looking promo vinyls once a couple of years and earn the rest of your cash in gigs.

But you see our issue here is that the young bucks that now class themselves as 'musicians' do a thirty date tour once a year and go home crying to either rehab or mummy.

I'd personally love to smash my axe over the face of Simon Cowell and other such toilet scums... I'd even smash up Hannah Montana... despite her old man having the ability to gig and play the guitar. But you don't want to hear about who I'd happily smash up do you?

Originally posted by and14263
reply to post by TylerKing

 

Gigs, it's all about the gigs. A real musician enjoys playing his/her music out four or five nights a week. This is where the money is and it's how to take the music away from the big corps and bring it back to the people.

Forget charging for shonky CDs and freely available MP3s. Chuck out a few sexy looking promo vinyls once a couple of years and earn the rest of your cash in gigs.

But you see our issue here is that the young bucks that now class themselves as 'musicians' do a thirty date tour once a year and go home crying to either rehab or mummy.

I'd personally love to smash my axe over the face of Simon Cowell and other such toilet scums... I'd even smash up Hannah Montana... despite her old man having the ability to gig and play the guitar. But you don't want to hear about who I'd happily smash up do you?

I think I completely agree with you I hate the fact that people think they can do a few recording sessions with auto-tune usually and then think they can do nothing for the rest of their life and are owed a steady income.

That is not how it should be you shouldn't be able to live on a few weeks work forever and start blaming everyone and everything when the money starts to dry up.

In my opinion if a musician wants to make money he/she should be out on gigs giving the fans the experience of real live music and if they haven't got the talent to do it live they should find another job. I'm sure this would result in a lot more CD sales as well not mention other merchandise.

I pretty much feel the same about a lot of copyright and patents as well it sickens me people can live financially of these things and do absolutely nothing of value but attempt to restrict what others can do. They should last for a few years at absolute most. I know not all patents are bad but there are some absolutely awful ones granted lately for things with tons of prior art.