Episode 95 – 29th July 2011

This week we have an eye witness report from Oslo, look at a new judgement on internet piracy with scary implications, find out what ATOS have been up to and much more!


[Direct MP3 Link] [Podcast Feed] [Add to iTunes]

If you enjoy the programme, please support us by subscribing to donate so we can continue doing what we do.

Oslo Eyewitness (1:35) by Trish Hann
Copyright Censorship (8:47) by James Firth
What’s Wrong with ATOS? (15:19) by Steven Sumpter
Patent trolls vs Inventors & Developers (26:24) by Salim Fadhley
The AHS (36:05) by James O’Malley (ft Jenny Bartle and Mike Paynter)
AltMed Regulation (45:16) by Dr*T
Michael McIntyre Response (49:14) by Steve Leedale (performed by Alex Foster)
Edinburgh Ghost Tours (53:00) by Ash Pryce
The sketches were by David Lovesy, Brian Two and Steve Clark

Follow-up Links:

7 thoughts on “Episode 95 – 29th July 2011

  1. I understand the censorship risks James, but I’m no closer to knowing what’s to be done about Newsbin who are charging to access copyrighted content. I doubt the cash gets back to the artist, do we let them trade online knowing this?

  2. @Paul let big film cop it sweet. Piracy is actually ‘progressive taxation’ of sorts, ( Cory Doctorow ) it’s just another business expense like till shrinkage. The benefit to the economy as a whole is better served by a flexible copyright system rather than protecting the right of a few to set their own private taxation. Turning a blind eye to completely free systems such as *REDACTED* will cut the revenue to sites such as newsbin anyway.

  3. Of course, if you turn a blind eye to free sites you are turning a blind eye to people effectively stealing.

    There is a strange assumption that people should have the right to access certain media for free. It annoys me a little when file sharers claim this, because it something of a non-existant middle argument. Copywrite law needs bringing up to date, true, but we can’t assume that should mean a free sharing of all materials. No, not because I am an uber capitalist who assumes that every big studio should be able to greedily make as much profit as possible. Because it costs money to pay the people who make the films.

    When you go to see Captain America and are waiting for the Avengers Teaser after the credits count the names you see, and tell me which of those guys doesn’t deserve their money. Then think about the fact you are sitting in a cinema, that costs money to run. The DVD costs money to buy, and the store needs to take their share. There is no viable model to pay for the production, marketing and distribution of the film that can be done for free.

    Then there is the ethical issue. If I was talented enough to write a novel or make a film I would really like to make it free if it were possible (lets assume I didn’t need the money, or like the PD editors I was doing it as a hobby in my spare time) but surely that was my choice. It is something else to have somebody else declare that I should have my work made available for free. The issue is not if the world would be a better place if everybody DID endorse file sharing and piracy of their work, it is the far more important question of if the choice lays in the hands of the producer of the work, be it film, music, books, etc.

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>