Episode 28 – 2nd April 2010


[Direct MP3 Link]

Simon Singh vs the British Chiropractic Association by James O’Malley (ft Simon Singh, Simon’s lawyer Robert Dougans, Mike Harris from the Libel Reform Campaign and more)
Taking on Tredinnick by James O’Malley (ft Dr Michael Brooks)
Response to Reggie last week by Pete Hague
Vatican Statehood by Sean Ellis
Sanal Edamaruku interview by Salim Fadhley

Follow up links:

9 thoughts on “Episode 28 – 2nd April 2010

  1. The pro file sharing guy misses one important point. As a musician, I have seen my industry be destroyed by the devaluing of music through file sharing. Music is now expected to be free and so it is all but impossible to earn money through music and other freely shared arts. So we are expected to give away our hard work free. We are expected to invest thousands of hours, tens of thousands of pounds and years of study, practice and work in return for nothing, so you can have free music. The standard of artists are dropping and the ability to make money through arts is crumbling as the one thing we had to insure income, copyright, is being ignored by those who don’t want to pay as little as 50p for it. File sharing isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about greed and a lack of respect for those who provided the arts for the people who consume them.

    Rich

  2. If that is the case, that music simply cannot work without revenues from distributing copies of it, then explain why music predates the technology to record sound by about 10,000 years. Copyright, recorded sound, and digital sound have all come about in recent history. The current state of the music industry is a historical anomaly, not the definitive form that music and music distribution must take. It isn’t worth clumsily threatening civil liberties just to preserve this paradigm which has only briefly existed anyway. Music will continue, just not necessarily in the form it does now. And why should it?

    People are not being greedy (like Reggie, you are quick to try and pin intentions on people despite knowing nothing about them). People have plenty of respect for musicians; this is why they pay to go and see them live. If you can’t make a living from live performance, then to be blunt you need a day job.

  3. It isn’t about file sharing. It’s not about music or movies. It is about whether or not a narrow group of special interest should have the right to veto technological innovation because it doesn’t fit with their business model.

    Whether one is pro or anti file sharing is as relevant as whether one is pro or anti car. The fact is that the car has put a lot of blacksmiths out of business. This sucks, but it is pretty much inevitable. Adapt or die.

  4. In fact, with the record industry having forced through a bill that actually poses grave dangers to freedom of speech and democracy – it becomes a moral imperative to destroy their livelihood as absolutely quickly and thoroughly as possible. Ruining their business model therefore becomes not a problem, but an absolute requirement.

  5. I think it is a big mistake letting the fight for our digital rights to be seen as a right to ignore copyright.

    I for one am not demanding an end to copyright. My objection is to letting copyright enforcement trump everything else. If you were suspected of using a photocopier to infringe copyright, should you have your electricity disconnected? No.

    If, as an artist, you were suspected of copying musical ideas from another musician, should you have your instruments confiscated? No.

    In all these cases, if damage is known to be done, it can be remedied, and if it isn’t, no amount of bullying of the innocent will ever be justified.

    Music was not destroyed by radio. TV and film were not destroyed by VHS. Yet these technologies increased the amount of entirely hidden copyright infringement.

    I don’t suggest muscians ‘ought’ to make a living from live performance. That seems like another stone age imposition. But find a way that doesn’t involve bullying your fans.

  6. Bravo Pete, Tom and David!

    As someone with a store room full of obsolete bought VHS tapes and a bookcase full of soon-to-be-obsolete DVDs, I find it very hard to sympathise with an industry which cynically prices the next generation of media 25+% higher than the last in the hope of reaping another CD-replaces-vinyl type harvest. As long as musicians and other creatives continue to sign contracts with the big labels/studios, they are tacitly endorsing their actions.

    And not to labour the point, but it’s the filesharers themselves who are still the biggest purchasers of legal content. They are the ones who like being able to access content before they spend their hard-earned cash, go to gigs, buy merchandise, etc., and do not appreciate being labelled and persecuted as criminals.

  7. Pete
    Can you spot the unfairness in your comment?
    “People are not being greedy (like Reggie, you are quick to try and pin intentions on people despite knowing nothing about them). People have plenty of respect for musicians”
    Apparently I know nothing about ‘people’ but you do!
    I accept that not all people are greedy but telling musicians that they have no right to expect payment for music sales sounds a bit harsh(Armstrong and Miller).
    I agree lets kill off the big labels and defend civil liberties and free speech, yes without doubt.

  8. Have you noticed that pod delusion podcasts are for sale?
    Contributions and subscriptions and donations and sales are all basically the same thing, its asking for money in return for work.
    Should we tell James O Malley to ‘adapt or die’ and give up hope that he can give up his day job and make a bit of cash out of producing podcasts?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>