There are people who bring serious harm to our children, to society, to everybody really. They are responsible for global warming, and they will go to the very special hell – the one that is reserved for people who talk in theatres.

I’m not talking about rapists or mass murderers or people killing dozens of innocents by blowing themselves up. I’m talking about people who illegally download music from the internet. For free!

They …

• … harm the music industry by illegally getting access to CDs and spreading the data on the internet
• … harm the artists – especially young artists – because these sell less CDs, become poor and commit suicide
• … are a very bad lot indeed.

That is why countries like France, Great Britian and Germany (sic!) have implemented or are going to implement a so-called “Three Strikes Rule” – if you get caught doing illegal activities on the internet three times, the state shuts down your internet, and you may not access it anymore. This idea is a completely awesome, and we have seen it employed properly in the middle ages a lot – for instance by chopping of a thief’s hand after he stole three times.

Unfortunately, a scientific study has popped up – god I hate science. Anyway, they kind of questioned a sample of 1.000 British 16- to 50-year-olds, and found that the minority of 100 people who admit downloading music illegally spend £77 a year on music, whereas the other 900 only spend £44.

To sum it up:
People who illegally download music from the internet without paying for it are the music industry’s main clientele, because they are at the same time the very people who buy the most music legally.

And this makes a lot of sense – because people who get to know more music, people who listen to more music are much more likely to find bands they wish to support. And I bet that 90% of the visitors of concerts of bands which are not yet superfamous are people who accidentally, or by recommendation downloaded music of this band before going to the concert.

Peter Bradwell, who is employed at the think-tank Demos, which commissioned the new poll said:

“The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry. Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access”

Mark Mulligan, Forrester Research:

“The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music. They use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism.”

(Source: independent.co.uk)

Lebenswert heute: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat den Chaos Computer Club gebeten, eine Stellungnahme zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung abzugeben, da dort gerade eine Verfassungsbeschwerde läuft. Das Gutachten ist hier zu finden.

Festhalten.

Die Europäische Union hat gestern China offiziell gerügt, weil die Internet Seiten filtern.

“Das Blockieren oder Filtern bestimmter Internet-Inhalte ist für die Europäische Union völlig inakzeptabel.” Diese Worte hat EU-Medienkommissarin Viviane Reding der chinesischen Regierung ins Stammbuch geschrieben. Die von Peking geplante Einführung eines Internet-Filters ziele darauf ab, das Netz zu zensieren und die Meinungsfreiheit einzuschränken, sagte Reding in Brüssel.

Diese bösen Chinesen! Aber halt mal, wieso machen die das eigentlich?

China hat erklärt, der Filter richte sich gegen Seiten mit pornographischem Inhalt und diene dem Jugendschutz.

Irgendwoher kommt mir diese peinliche Ausrede bekannt vor … Moment, war das nicht das Wahlprogramm der UNION? In diesem Punkt auch noch klar von der SPD unterstützt?

Update, 29.06.2009:

• Und Wikipedia taugt doch was … das ist mit Abstand die übersichtlichste, kompakteste, qualitativ hochwertigste Zusammenfassung der Kritik am Gesetz zur Internetzensur, die ich bisher gesehen habe. Klasse Artikel!
• Auch Hochschulen müssen die Richtlinien des Zensurgesetzes implementieren, was zu massiven Problemen führt, und den Steuerzahler sehr viel Geld kosten wird (was für den Arsch ist, wenn das Gesetz vom Verfassungsgericht gekippt wird). Hier ein sehr kritischer, offizieller Bericht von ITlern der Universität Stuttgart.

– via Netzpolitik.org, und ein bisschen fefe :p

Passend zu meinem letzten Eintrag ist das Unions Wahlprogramm geleakt (siehe WIKI-Leaks für das Original) – hier berichtet die ZEIT sehr kritisch darüberm und verlinkt unter anderem auf den Aufruf von netzpolitik.org: nicht CDU/CSU wählen!

Zum Thema passend: ein Interview mit Familienministerin von der Leyen und Franziska Heine (Initiatorin der Petition gegen das Zensurgesetz des Bundesregierung), auch in der ZEIT.

Ich möchte euch hier auch unbedingt den Artikel von Kristian Köhntopp ans Herz legen, der wie bisher kaum ein anderer schildert, wo das Problem bei der ganzen Debatte liegt. Und wenn ihr den Artikel gelesen habt, und in den letzten Wochen mitbekommen habt, dass die Gegner der Gegner der Zensur oft als “Internet Ausdrucker” bezeichnet wurden, schaut euch den Link am Ende des Beitrags an …

Read the rest of this entry »

Panasonic hat eine Reihe von Firmwareupdates für Digitalkameras vorgestellt. Doch die Kameras können danach nicht mehr mit Akkus von Dritthersteller betrieben werden. Panasonic begründet das mit Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Kritiker vermuten eine bewusste Störung des lukrativen Zubehörmarktes.

Schwierig. Ab jetzt Finger weglassen von Panasonic Produkten? Es muss bedacht werden, dass die Akkus der großen Hersteller extrem überteuert sind, und damit massiv Geld verdient wird.

– via fefe via golem

Quoted from Lessig’s book Free Culture:

File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn’t make it available for free. Most probably wouldn’t have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.

B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he’s not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.

C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend “recalling” old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero–the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

Read the rest of this entry »

Auf die Richter vom Bundesverfassungsgericht kann man einfach bauen … sie haben in letzter Zeit eine Reihe guter Entscheidungen getroffen. So auch diesmal: sie haben die Verwendung der Wahlcomputer bei der Bundestagswahl 2005 als verfassungswidrig eingestuft.

tagesschau.de schreibt:

Da Programmierfehler oder gezielte Manipulation der Software schwer zu erkennen seien, müssten Bürger bei ihrer Stimmabgabe “zuverlässig” prüfen können, ob die Stimme vom Computer “unverfälscht” erfasst worden sei. Als Beispiel dafür hatte das Gericht in der mündlichen Verhandlung einen zusätzlichen Papierausdruck genannt.
Die bei der Bundestagswahl 2005 eingesetzten rechnergesteuerten Geräte hätten diesen Anforderungen jedoch nicht entsprochen. Damit sei der Grundsatz der Öffentlichkeit der Wahl verletzt worden.

Experten (wie der CCC) hatten schon damals gewarnt, dass die Computer leicht manipulierbar seien, und zwar so, dass im Nachhinein Manipulation nicht mehr festgestellt werden könne. Aber wie es leider in Deutschland so häufig läuft: Politiker hören nicht auf diejenigen, die technischen Sachverstand bzgl. des zu diskutierenden Punktes haben, und zitieren lediglich eine kleine Gruppe von “Experten”, die Lobbyisten sind, und die Produkte zu verkaufen suchen.

Eine kurze und knackige Einführung in das Thema Wahlcomputer liefert dieser Beitrag.

This is so utterly ridiculous … I actually thought it was a hoax first. You simply have to read this Email from a teacher:

“…observed one of my students with a group of other children gathered around his laptop [...] The student was showing the ability of the laptop and handing out Linux disks. After confiscating the disks I called a confrence with the student and that is how I came to discover you and your organization. Mr. Starks, I am sure you strongly believe in what you are doing but I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom. At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows. Mr. Starks, I along with many others tried Linux during college and I assure you, the claims you make are grossly over-stated and hinge on falsehoods. I admire your attempts in getting computers in the hands of disadvantaged people but putting linux on these machines is holding our kids back.

This is a world where Windows runs on virtually every computer and putting on a carnival show for an operating system is not helping these children at all. I am sure if you contacted Microsoft, they would be more than happy to supply you with copies of an older verison of Windows and that way, your computers would actually be of service to those receiving them…”

You should read the full article, as the reply of Ken Starks is very interesting as well …

[...]
Now. You give that boy his disks back. Aaron is a brilliant kid and he’s learned more using Linux than he ever did using Windows. Those disks and their distribution are perfectly legal and even if he was “disruptive”, you cannot keep his property. I have placed a call to the AISD Superintendent and cc’d him a complete copy of your email. It looks like we will get to meet in his office when School starts again after the holiday. I am anxious to meet a person who is this uninformed and still holds a position of authority and learnedness over our children.

Lebenswert heute: Kommentare im Code … folgenden Abschnitt habe ich gerade im Footer eines Blog Templates gefunden:

< ?php endif; // if you delete this the sky will fall on your head ?>