Free culture is epitomized by innovation and collaboration, if the ppl doing the innovation want to share, otherwise its about driving the digital business model at the content business expense, and providing a excuse for the morally challenged consumer who does what to pay for what they use.

If you’d bothered to actually read what I wrote you’d have understood that the whole point of my post was to draw a distinction between people that the content industry refers to as “thieves” and “pirates” and those who collaborate and contribute without applying restrictions to the results of, or expecting payment in return for, their work. They do this because they want to, because they enjoy doing it, because of the value inherent in sharing. My post was about these people and the value of their contributions. It was not about people who ignore copyright terms and conditions, and share work against its creators’ wishes.

I use the term “free culture” correctly, to refer to the primarily Internet-based activity of creating and sharing content that is not governed by restrictive licensing conditions. I’m not interested in content that requires a permit to view, copy, and share. I’d be happy if the Internet was entirely free of that type of content as its presence provides an excuse for “big content” to lobby governments to introduce restrictive controls on our use of the Network. In my opinion, the content you are referring to is the tail attempting to wag the much more important dog. It’s a turd in the swimming pool.

Free culture is primarily about content that is free as in speech. I’m sorry if advancements in technology have rendered your once viable business model unfeasible, but adapting to the new realities is something that all in the business are just going to have to have to learn to deal with.

As for Google being a “conduit of theft”, have you taken leave of your senses? If anything, content providers should be paying the search engines, for they (brilliantly) enable potential customers to find what they are looking for with an awesome degree of accuracy and granularity. Search engines are the answer, not the problem, and the Web would be orders of magnitude less useful without them, for all users, not merely buyers and sellers. The ability to copy a music file is down to the nature of digital technology, not search engines. Besides, Google’s profits have little to do with kids sharing their albums on P2P networks. If all music rights holders were able to remove all “illegal” copies of their music from the web tomorrow, the effect on Google’s profits would be utterly negligible. Google and other search engines owe the music industry nothing whatsoever. If anything, some money, at least, should flow to them, not just ad revenue.

If I want to licence code using the GPL, or attach a share-and-share alike licence to a digital image, I’m perfectly within my rights to do that, and vendors of restricted content ranting at me because their business practices are unsustainable in the age of right-click > copy is pointless, for it’s simply not my problem. That may sound harsh, but that’s the way it is. Technology doing a home run around outmoded business practices has no bearing on my perfectly legitimate right to collaborate and share unrestricted content with my friends, family and colleagues, and with anyone else I wish to make it available to. And I’ll be buggered if I’m going to pay a “content tax” in order to prop-up outmoded, self-indulgent and increasingly unfeasible methods of earning a living. Translation: stop railing against digital technology, stop trying to extort money out of Internet users and go and get a proper job, suited for the digital age (e.g. plumbing).

I suggest you “put your bullets where the Indians are” and take your frustrations to the blogs and forums that actually condone and encourage the behaviour that you’re protesting about. Despite my dim view of DRM’d content, I don’t condone or encourage anyone to break the terms of a creator’s licensing conditions. If one doesn’t like the license or copyright restrictions, don’t use the content. Simple really.

Free culture is fine if those producing wish their produce to be shared for free. Otherwise your providing no more than a philosophical justification for theft…oops..you Freetards don’t like the suggestion your stealing…. it’s copyright infringement, but not being prepared to pay the infringement fine….

Freetards think its not me that being ripped off, so using other people produce without paying is fine, and anyway all artists are filthy rich whores being leeched off by labels, who counter to the freetard pipedream (of theft justification) are mostly all making losses or in decline currently, If their not moving into other areas.

All the whilst the ISP’s and the digital co’s feeds off the music & content industry, and make massive profits without reinvesting in artists. (The whole worldwide record industry turnsover half of what 1 new media company “google” turns over.) But Freetards don’t mind paying the digital conduits of mass theft.

And all the freetards go on about hating RIAA product, but still download RIAA music, whilst ignoring 95% of all the additional “new” music that has been generated by a multitude of people who have been kidded into thinking they can all be in successful bands with average talent and effort, a broadband connection and p2p SW.

RIAA and the multitude of Independent labels, publishers and managements, have always provided a variety of services to artists, and although the exact nature of the role may be changing and combining, I don’t know many artists who want to spend all their time marketing their music ( or whatever other product or services their going to have to sell to make a living) on their computer, doing deals and administrating - because mostly their time is more valuable than that . And so a role has and always exist for music service professionals. its naive and ignorant to think otherwise.

All you freetard that go on about RIAA middlemen ignore those facts, not to mention the laughable concept of cutting out middlemen. Most work in life is in the midst of a chain or services that add value. Good middlemen add value.. most freetards are middlemen themselves.

Very few of the bands credited with being internet stars do it without a traditional working team behind them.

As for the all labels are thieves,and don’t pay artists, well you’ve obviously never tried producing and marketing offerings in an ultra competative market that may have the shelf life of a raw prawn.
It’s you the freetard (as consumer) that mainly wants to listen to what is successful already, and is only to happy to dump an artist between albums or singles, moving on to the next blog hype….. and so you should have that right.
but it does mean that it costs a fortune to get to the stage before you the consumer can be bothered to listen to the music, and that , that investment rarely lasts onto the second LP. Which is why most artist don’t recoup and dont get paid royalties, tho the vast majority get advances to live on, and the promotion necessary to give them a shot at success, where they also make money from live, publishing, and merch.
Meaningful Sponsorship is mainly for v.succesful acts.

Whereas the digital media and programmed freetard contribute little to music, apart from this brand new world, of thieving for everyone, where everyone no matter how untalented has a platform, and most distribution systems are clogged up with average to bad music, and so it far harder for the new genuinely talented to rise above the mire. But new media gets paid.

Those that spout the “let them play live” routine seem oblivious to the fact that all p2p has done is make the 5% of most successful artists even more so, and its harder for everyone else. ask your self how many of the 9 miliion odd acts on Myspace do you expect to get a gig near you any time soon.

Funny how most Freetards who propose free culture mostly don’t produce anything of value themselves. that their prepared to see shared.
To them an artist who may have spent 2 years on their LP has no more worth than 60MB of info to pass round the world. They confuse ability to do something, with whether its right or not.

Self serving hypocrites

I’m running Firefox 3.0.9 on Intrepid and the video plays fine for me (with Adobe Flash Player 10 and the ubuntu-restricted-extras package installed)…

You’re absolutely right, this is not the first story of its type (if it was I would have given the US police the benefit of the doubt). It’s because incidents like this have become so common and because our police here in the UK are also in the process of being armed with Tasers, that I’m so concerned about the device and the mentality of those who point it at members of the general public.

Over and over again, she has shown contempt for British democratic values and for our country’s long fought-for basic liberties.

She pushes evermore for ID cards, which undermine our country’s basic tenets of liberty and of personal privacy. She fought for 42 days detention without trial, dismissing Magna Carta and all the other great milestones in this country’s long fight for freedom.

She advocates logging every British citizen’s phone call, computer E-Mail and website visit for a year.

Now she presides over the of arresting an MP who is standing up to the state - in exposing uncomfortable truths about it.

If all of the above are not the actions of a typically totalitarian regime - akin to the one of Stalinist Russia - then I must be missing something.

I am deeply concerned that the very fundamentals of British justice and the British democratic system are threatened.

A vital move for this country I feel, would be the immediate sacking of our Home Secretary - this person, who has such contempt for our country’s long-cherished freedoms.

Here are some more up to date information on what actually happen with UK e-voting.
http://blip.tv/file/574494

Open Rights Group, knitting, BBC and daleks.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1461891/glyn_wintle_of_the_open_rights_group_at_mashed08/

If anyone reading this wants to help with ensuring that we do not take terrorism by the state against the people lying down and without a challenge, please follow the petition link above and also go to:

http://internet.massmediamagazine.com

and see how you can help with a new group forming to make sure this legislation is not allowed to hobble internet and telephone users and cut civil liberties off at the knees.

This pernicious legislation must be stopped.

It’s sole intention is to make the people chattels of the state and cripple them with fear.