http://pulsedmedia.com/clients/aff.php?aff=006

They have a ton of different options. Both 100mbps and 1gbps servers. And, they dont get all their servers from OVH like a lot of resellers, they get servers from many different providers to always have the best and fastest speeds. Currently they have a 1TB HDD, 2GB ram server for only 21.95€/Mo, unmanaged! And with your choice of OS!

They also have a starter version with 70GB HDD, 250MB Ram unmetered for only 11USD a month as well as a 8TB hdd, 8gb ram server for 150 USD a month!

Check them out…

http://pulsedmedia.com/clients/aff.php?aff=006

A common fallacy. On a public street or in a strip club you do have a right to certain privacy. You aren’t forced to check your id every time you go to macdonalds and certainly aren’t required to identify yourself at the entrance to most clubs.

“The Internet” as you call it is more comparable to a road net or a power grid in general. Having cops catching speeders with radar traps is quite ok. Having the same cops search every vehicle or checking their intended destination is not. Under any circumstances barring wartime law.

Now put that in perspective of “internet regulation”. We already have gone far beyond what is either reasonable or constitutional.

As for catching child porn distributors the major factor here is the same it’s always been – undercover cops in closed forums. It has nothing to do with the recent spate of filter lists, mass surveillance or ISP-level monitoring of customer traffic which is primarily the sort of regulation we do not want and should not have.

I do not care much for the idea that if I go outside I have to have my picture taken along with a time stamp saying when I left my house and home if I’m not under surveillance for good and solid reason. Neither do I like the idea of the same blanket surveillance as regards the internet.

Hence I use a VPN from home in order to safeguard myself.
I lock the door to my toilet as well and it isn’t because I consider what i do there either reprehensible or illegal.

If you think the internet “regulation” we are opposed to is kosher in your eyes then I can only assume that you wouldn’t mind having a camera in your bedroom either – as long as you could make a case that “Well, sooner or later someone’s going to catch a pedophile that way”.

Your argument isn’t sound. Tracking child molesters is best done by having cops impersonate teens on shady sites which is what is done, after which a case can be made for surveillance and tracking. That method fits beautifully with real-life jurisprudence and is nothing anyone opposes.

Today as a civil case the sky’s the limit and they can ask 2000 dollars per song they find on a p2p peer swarm from whoever is unlucky enough to get pointed out – right or wrong – as an uploader. Without needing to present real evidence nor impartial expert advice.

If copyright infringement was a crime no court would touch an ordinary copyright case, ever again. In the rare exception the settlement would be around 100 bucks, give or take, for even the most rampaging seeder.

Brad Sucks

KaOS

But I guess unless it’s mainstream it doesn’t get heard on the internets.

Being put into public domain willingly compared to being put into the public domain illegally are two VERY different things. I think you know that. The point of BBC’s argument is that it is null but even your counter isn’t the same thing as what BBC was trying to claim (invalidly.)

I don’t even fully understand all of the arguments taking place here. On one hand, the Question Copyright site doesn’t even provide any reasons as to why we shouldn’t allow copyrights.

Another suggestion mentioned that people should only have copyright for five years since the majority of works don’t make any money after that. So what? You’re saying J.K. Rowling shouldn’t make anymore money off of Harry Potter if someone makes a purchase today. What about a fifteen year old who was five when they all came out. Rowling shouldn’t have the right to make money now because the majority of other books don’t sell the same? Why?

another suggestion was that someone should be paid before and during the creation, so afterwards they don’t have to worry about infringement. Well, who is going to do the upfront paying? Who is determining the value? How are those paying going to recoup their investment? This idea discounts all new and aspiring creators. Surely, a publisher may pay Stephen King upfront, but who is going to pay Noname Author? Are you suggesting only those already in the business can make money in the business?

How will we determine the value? Are you saying Rowling should have been paid the sum of $10,000 for Harry Potter the same as Mike’s book above? If that were the case, Rowling would be back to living in her car right now while everyone gets a free copy. She was a nobody before HP was published so she would have been treated the same as any other Noname Author. It makes zero sense.

Finally, someone mentioned the Internet should be less regulated and doing away the creator rights will ensure this happens. This is simply not true. I worked alongside a computer crimes federal agency and infringement cases were investigated on a complainant basis, meaning they weren’t priority numero uno. This is just one more cog in the wheel to regulate and without that need, the wheels would still be turning. Why? Because 90% of child molestorsare discovered because of Internet surveillance. Before the Internet, there really was no indication of how many of these people were out there. So case after case of people producing this pornography, trafficking children, raping, etc are discovered because of the Internet. Terrorism is another major priority for investigators. Just last week attacks were prevented because of the Internet. Saying regulation would cease if you take away creators rights is just asinine.

And no one has is given an adequate reason as to why an unregulated Internet is a better Internet. The Internet is a public forum. I don’t get any privacy going into a strip club. I don’t get any privacy taking part in a public debate, so why do I get that on the Internet? Simply because I’m in my home typing away? No. I’m still interacting with other human beings. Are you saying an online college should be anonymous because it’s online? The greatest majority of people arguing for Internet rights are afraid of people seeing their porn and/or they want to steal content. Simple.

Open your Eyes records – Embraces Bittorrent, a major step that the RIAA has yet to do

Asthmatic Kitty label – “What we do – whatever it is that we do – could not happen without you: going to our artists’ shows, buying and listening to their music, writing encouraging emails and letters, and generally sending good vibes our way. It couldn’t happen without our contributing artists, who work hard and are as equally invested in the business as we are. ” Does the RIAA hold the hand of all of their musicians while they’re managing the brokerage fees? Thought so.

Nettwerk – Fights against the RIAA, abolished DRM, which is already an offense against humanity, and has no DRM
Artists of note: Barenaked Ladies, Sum 41. Also, just as disclosure, uses WMG’s Alternative Distribution Alliance even though it’s an indie label.

“I suspect, with good reason, that you are someone not dependant on income from the creative industries to sustain your lifestyle. That being the case it is wholly disrespectful of you to seek to speak on behalf of others or to seek to misrepresent the facts (historically or otherwise) of their activities within the creative industries.”

So I have to be an artist to comment on being an artist? Nope. Don’t want to be a musician to notice that the labels made some poor decisions both in the past and currently. And you can say whatever you want about my own creative endeavors. I’m not stopping you. It doesn’t make you right, though.

“They would stand a far greater chance of making a living if people paid for acces[sic] to / use of their music and copyright holders were allowed to exploit their works within the letter of the law.”

There is nothing that currently says paying for access to music will increase sales. How effective was Rhapsody to Napster? Better yet, why is Spotify lauded so greatly along with Turntable along with Jamendo (where you can download then decide) instead of most of the offers by the majors (which is mainly more iTunes)? Just because you put out a product and want to enforce it being the only alternative does not mean it will make you money.

“They are “middlemen” taking a cut from vulnerable artistes with no discernable benefit (aside from vanity) to the artiste(s). ”

And I’ll disagree. Your problem is how you compare these “middlemen” to the likes of the RIAA and the major labels that have a list of problems I’ve shown you in the above links. That’s what I’m criticizing. They aren’t middlemen taking away from the artists. They provide platforms for artists to stand out. Artists have a place to showcase their work. They help the artists by storing their songs and giving guidance. That’s what a smart label should do. Even then, if the artists want to do it themselves, they can as shown by Kickstarter’s success or Rockethub‘s has shown. I’m all for giving artists choices. They can try the conventional labels that seem to believe they are entitled to hold onto everything that they have. They can try smaller labels that cater to them. Or they can try it on their own. What I’m not a fan of is the mitigating damage shown to occur in trying to enforce their copyright choice on consumers of media.