Filesharing Part One...

This is a post that I posted on a filesharing forum back in June of 2005, I've just re-found it and thought I'd drop it in here, it is/was supposed to be the first of a series of articles I was going to post on filesharing. I may still continue the articles...

If I recall correctly (and who knows with my sieve-like memory, there were another round of lawsuits against filesharers at the time I posted originally... The only thing I've changed is I've removed the name of the forum...

So...we've had the big decision and it seems that everyone is jumping on the doom and gloom bandwagon again, nothing new there, but how will it affect us? Will it even affect filesharing as it is at the moment?

Most of what I see on News sites concerns programs like Kazaa, and Grokster...not much about the 'community' that we have here*1. Ok, so we break the law occassionally, what is the difference between me downloading an album and some corporation employing an accountant to find tax loopholes? None, both are morally wrong yet they accuse us of stealing without looking at themselves.

The *AA's continually harp on about our actions 'stifling creativity' but I've been introduced to so many new bands that I would never have had the opportunity to hear if I listened to the mainstream crap that is pumped out on every radio station. Let's look at the RIAA...who do they represent? The artist? Of course not. They represent the Record Companies, you know, the ones who write the contracts for the artists.

There are enough articles out there that show how the record companies treat their artistes, of course it's easy for Sheryl Crow and Don Henley *2 to say what they do because they are at the top of the tree, not at the bottom.

It is my opinion thart it is not, and never has been, about copyright infringement, it's about money. Everything boils down to the bottom line for these people. Once it may have been about the music, but now...

Should artistes be paid for their creativity? Of course they should, it's the hangers-on that shouldn't be...why does a CD have to cost so much? Because of 'overheads' they say. Well, I say, cut the 'overheads'. If something is not cost-effective, get rid. Isn't that a basic economic proposition?

Lets look at a breakdown of a CD cost *3

($15.99 CD)
$0.17 Musicians’ unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists’ royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead


We can see that there are a lot of overheads at both the label and retailer end, and there is a profit already added on for both the label and retailer ($1.70 and $0.80 respectivley). Something needs to be done about it. Gone are the days of the customer (I refuse to use the word consumer (I consume nothing) as I am a customer) just paying blindly for his goods.

And why can't I make a copy to give to my friends? Hell, I've bought the product, it now belongs to me and surely I have the right to do with my own property what I want? Apparently not...

Why? Because someone thinks that I am causing a loss to someone else. They can't 'prove' that I am, but they keep on spouting it and everyone in the media just keeps on regurgitating the crap that these organisations spurt out...what was it Goebbels said? Oh yeah, that was it - "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".


*1 I mean of course the whole BitTorrent comunity not just this forum :D
*2 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=887177
*3 http://www.almightyretail.com/

Shot at Dawn - UPDATE

Today it appears that the Defence Secretary Des Browne is seeking a mass pardon for all those who were shot during World War One for military offences.

Mr Browne said: "Although this is a historical matter, I am conscious of how the families of these men feel today. They have had to endure a stigma for decades.

"That makes this a moral issue too, and having reviewed it, I believe it is appropriate to seek a statutory pardon."*1

*1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796579.stm

Photo's

OK, this is not like my previous posts. I made an agreement that my next post wouldn't be too interesting.

Thought I'd drop a few photo's in of myself...

Ok, here we are in good ole 1964...note the lack of hair :( Took a while for my hair to grow...


A bit of a jump now to when I was round 6 or 7 years old... the strange thing is that I know that it's me but he looks like someone completely different to who I am... I find it hard to explain the feeling, maybe it's something to do with age... Perhaps it's because I no longer look like that...

I used to hate having curly hair and tried as much as I could to flatten it... It never worked :( I must be somewhere around 10 on this photo, it's evidently one taken at school (the inclusion of my sister and brother gives it away)


And then we move into being a teenager (about 14 in this pic)... See what I mean about the hair? Bloody horrible thing, always luggy in a morning...


Aaaah, the first one that I can date definitively, taken in 1983. 18 when this was taken... I gave up the fags ten years later... :) But I still wear hats of some description... :) And what is that under my nose?

Let's have a closer look at the "caterpillar" under my nose... What was I thinking?
Bit of a big jump now, into my late 30's... Taken when I'd be about 38, you can see that I bear no resemblance whatsoever to the pictures of me when I was younger. But at least my hair is straight now (well, what bit I have left) Talking about hair, from having none, to having curly hair we are back to "square one"... :D

And thence to the most recent photograph of me... Taken at Ladybower Reservoir in March of this year...
I'm not sure if this quick journey through my 41 years is interesting, I find it is. It maps who I am and who I was.

Donations

Not monetary, but donations of Blood, Bone Marrow and Organs after death. This is something else that I am passionate about and believe in 100%. I have been a blood donor for a long time, my last donation was my 31st.

I have carried a donor card since I was 16, then it was just to donate kidneys, now it's heart, lungs, kidneys, pancreas, liver, small bowel corneas, skin, bone and heart valves.

I think it's something that every healthy person should do... Did you know that in 2005 the National Blood Service (NBS) of the UK collected 2.1 million donations? *1 Sounds a lot doesn't it? But it only comes from 1.6 million donors, thats about 5% of the population donating two to three times a year. Why do I donate my blood? Simple really, I like to think of others and how I can help them in their time of need, and if their time of need is blood then I've done my bit. And isn't it good to think that if we were involved in an accident and needed blood urgently that there was someone there who was prepared to give it selflessly?

Of course, blood nowadays is only used whole when there is an instance of severe blood loss, most ofthe time it is separated into it's constituent parts;

Red Cells
Used to treat anaemia, sickle cell disease and when red cells break down in newborns.

Platelets
Used to treat bone marrow failure and post transplant and chemotherapy treatments, and leukaemia.

Plasma
Used in during cardiac surgery and to treat loss of blood in childbirth.

Factor VIII
As I'm sure most of you are aware this is used to treat haemophilia, and the albumin within plasma is beneficial to burns patients.

Why blood is vital even for the dying*2

Everyone knows blood is literally a lifesaver for those who’ve been in an accident or need it to help survive treatments and operations. But for some, whose illness has no cure and that last battle they face just can’t be won, a blood transfusion can help to improve their quality of life during their final months, weeks or even days.

Karen Clarke, a Community Nurse who gives transfusions to the terminally ill in their own homes, says, "These vital transfusions give patients a better quality of life. It gives them the energy and ability to enjoy this precious, final time with their families."

But this time is often a gift that only blood can provide. In some serious accidents, its use can mean that a critically ill patient can stay alive long enough for their loved ones to reach the hospital to see them, one last time. Priceless.

Thats a lot of uses for the 470ml of blood that is taken on each visit. A little discomfort in order to help your fellow humans is a small price to pay. At the same time as giving blood it is possible (in the UK) to also ask to be put on the British Bone Marrow Register (I am on the Anthony Nolan Trust Register) as a potential donor of bone marrow.

As for Organ Donation I believe that with the acute shortage of organ donors that it's time the Government changed the law and made it an opt-oput scheme rather than the current opt-in. Of course if you have opted in and joined the Transplant Register*3, make sure your loved ones know of your wishes. At the moment far too many people are dying from a lack of donations, think about helping those less fortunate than yourself, it's a great feeling knowing you are helping someone to have a better quality of life after you die.

*1 National Blood Service figures
*2 www.blood.co.uk
*3 www.uktransplant.org.uk

Shot at Dawn...

This is something that I've recently started looking into. The injustices served in World War One on those men who volunteered to serve their country and were then tried, convicted and shot at dawn for "cowardice".

People like Harry Farr...

Harry Farr was evacuated after five months in the front line and treated for shell shock. He returned but was treated again before he finally refused to fight. A nurse who looked after him said he was shaking so much he couldn't write.*1

Harry defended himself at his Courts Martial and it was all over in twenty minutes, no mention was made of the shell shock and Harry was duly executed on 18 October 1916. Whilst I agree that these were different times to the one's we live in today, I still find it ridiculous that the Defence Secretary (of a supposedly Socialist forward-thinking Government) still finds it hard to pardon Harry Farr and the other 306*2 soldiers that were also shot for "cowardice".

To say that they wont even look into the cases of all 306 men is a disgusting oversight in my opinion. After all, they can pardon someone whom they "judicially murdered" incorrectly so why not these soldiers? They volunteered, they weren't forced, and looking back most of them were denied the Right to a Fair Trial. It was Bingham LCJ himself who stated "that in the court's judgement the summing up in the case by his predecessor Lord Chief Justice Goddard, "was such as to deny the appellant that fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen"*3.

It is my belief that Harry Farr did not receive a fair trial, nor did Private Thomas Highgate (the first to be shot), his trial, sentence and confirmation of the Death Penalty were all concluded on the same day. Hardly a fair trial, and with no means of Appeal?

The trial was hastily sanctioned by General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, the commander of 2 Army Corps, who noted that because of the proximity of the enemy, it had not been possible to permit Highgate the authorised time to prepare his defence.*2

Does that look like a fair trial? Of course not, yet still the Government refuse to look into it. On the Roll of Honour in the village Private Highgate came from, there is a name missing...

It wouldn't be so bad if they had treated the Officers the same, but 15 Officers were spared the indignity of being shot and instead were charged with the leser "crime" of Scandalous Conduct, some even received a Royal Pardon and were reinstated to full military honours!

In 1929 Ernest Thurtle MP managed to get the Death Sentence for cowardice and desertion abolished, it's an disgrace that at the time those who had been "judicially" murdered by the UK Government hadn't been pardoned then. And it's even more disgusting that they still havent been pardoned over 70 years later...

EDIT:
Defence Secretary John Reid is to reconsider granting a posthumous pardon to a soldier who was executed during World War I for cowardice.
..
The Ministry of Defence said he would do so after Private Harry Farr's daughter launched a High Court appeal against an earlier refusal.
..
However the MoD said there had been no change in policy on granting pardons, but it would "rightly and properly consider what the court has said". *4


*1 Stotty on Sunday; Sunday Mirror 30 Oct 2005
*2 http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/
*3 Appeal of Derek Bentley's Family for Pardon 30 July 1998
*4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4847504.stm

Poverty

I'm not going to go on about poverty in the Western world too much, I'm talking about real poverty. Poverty in the developing nations of the world. I find it totally ludicrous that poverty should exist in the at all in the 21st Century. Let's start with a few facts;
Half the world (nearly 3 billion people) survive on less than $2 a day. *1
The wealth of the three richest people in the world combined is more than the GDP of the 48 poorest countries. *1
As we entered the 21st Century there was nearly a billion people who couldn't sign their name or read a book. *2
Less than one percent of the total amount spent on weapons could be used to put every child into school. *3
A billion children live in poverty (that's a staggering 1 in 2 children in the world), 640 million have no adequate shelter, 400 million are unable to access safe water, 270 million have no access to health services*4
10.6 million died before the age of five *5
And all the while the First World gets richer on the back of those in abject poverty. Everywhere we look we see that the disparity between the rich and the poor is on the rise - even in the wealthiest of Nations.

When looking at poverty on a global scale there are many issues involved, it is not sufficient to (or even correct) to surmise that those in poverty are there due to their own bad management. The conclusion could be reached that the poor are poor quite simply because the rich are rich and therefore have the power to make trade agreements that are more in favour of their interests than theose of the poorer Nations.

A major cause of Third World poverty has been the conditions imposed on the loans of given to the developing Nations by the IMF and the World Bank. Conditions such as cutting social expenditure (health, education, etc.) and opening up their economies in such a way as to offer cheap resources, lower wages and reduced standards to both corporations and richer Nations. These actions aea part of what is known as globalisation and have increased poverty and dependencyt for a lot of people, in addition to maintaining unequal trade rules in favour of rich Nations.

This is by no means the only factor involved in furthering poverty, there is also the part played by unscupulous political leaders that continue to build and maintain lavish palaces and lifestyles to the detriment of the people they 'govern'.

As we look around the world at poverty we also find hunger, people are not hungry because of 'over-population' (a common misconception) or a lack of available food but because they are too poor to buy the food. If the underlying causes of poverty are not addressed then no amount in the increase of food production or of availablility will help as the poor will still be unable to purchase food.

What need to be done is to write-off as much debt fro mthe Third World as there is (a process already begun by the G8 Nations) and make any aid available tied to improvements in both health and education, assist farmers to grow and sell their own food and cease the systematic raping of Third World countries by large, unaccountable non-democratic corporations.

The Third World, however, will always be in poverty because it is not in the interests of rich Nations or large corporations to bring them out of it whilst there are resources there cheap enough for them to exploit, whether it be labour or materials.

Some more facts to end the article on;
85% of the worlds water is used by 12% of it's population - this 12% do not live in the Third World*6
Global Priorities spending in 1998 in $US billion
Basic Education for everone in the world..............................6
Cosmetics in the US...........................................................8
Water and Sanitation for everyone in the world.....................9
Ice Cream in Europe..........................................................11
Reproductive Health for all women in the world.....................12
Perfumes in Europe and the US...........................................12
Basic health and nutrition for everyone in the world..............13
Pet foods in Europe and the US...........................................17
Business Entertainment in Japan.........................................35
Cigarettes in Europe..........................................................50
Alcoholic Drinks in Europe..................................................105
Narcotics Drugs in the world...............................................400
Military Spending in the world.............................................780 *7
I dont pretend to know all the answers but hopefully I've outlined some of the causes and given food for thought. All I want to do now is thank you for reading...thanks.

SOURCES:
*1 The Politics of Hunger - Ignacio Ramonet Le Monde diplomatique Nov 1998
*2 The State of the Worlds Children - UNICEF 1999
*3 State of the World - Issue 287 (Feb 1997) New Internationalist
*4 The Reality of Aid 2000 - Earthscan Publications 2000, page 10
*5 State of the Worlds Children - UNICEF 2005
*6 Water as Commodity - The Wrong Prescription, Maude Barlow
*7 Consumerism, Volunteer Now! (not dated)

New to the blogging arena... well, not really but thought it might be better to just have one blog where comments can be left... The first one I had didn't allow for comments to be left... Lets see how this one goes...