Wei: Take this year’s Merdeka promotion. It was definitely better than in the previous years. I foresee that the trend of good deals for new cars will continue until the end of the year, at the very least.
The process of buying or selling a car is often associated with tedious negotiations or fear of discovering serious defects long after the transaction is over, which cost both time and money. Enter Tookar and MUV — two online platforms that aim to make the process easier and create greater transparency so that consumers can have a better experience.
Tookar is the first online car exchange in Asean that allows consumers to buy new cars that are cheaper than those found in showrooms. The platform lets interested buyers bid for a particular model online and then matches them with dealers willing to meet that price. Hence, the car exchange acts as an enabler for both consumers and dealers.
Datuk Wei Chuan Beng, angel investor and co-founder of Tookar Sdn Bhd, says with the platform, consumers no longer have to go through the hassle of visiting many car dealers to find the best deal as they are now able to do so in the comfort of their own homes. He adds that consumers can ask for the lowest price realistically possible when bidding.
“For example, you may have seen a dealer offering a RM2,500 discount. On Tookar, you can ask for RM3,500 or even RM4,000. It is possible if you are lucky enough,” he says.
Why would car dealers accept such deals? Wei says there are times when dealers want to clear their stock as fast as they can.
“Manufacturers will always produce new cars. That is why dealers have to be efficient. Some of them try to keep minimal stock. But at the same time, they buy supplies in bulk in the hope of getting a better price from the manufacturers. So, to recover their working capital, they want to quickly sell. This leads them to be more flexible in terms of the selling price,” he explains.
Dealers also face the problem of storing the cars. Wei says it is very difficult for a dealer to store more than 100 cars on their premises. “They don’t have the space. Cars are not like clothes that you can just fold and hide away in a closet. At the same time, new models are coming out, so the dealers want to quickly clear their old stock.”
While Wei encourages consumers to ask for the lowest possible price, he says they need to bear in mind that they may not necessarily get the price. If no dealer accepts their offer within two days, he says they should increase their asking price to make the deal more likely.
Although the platform is changing the car buying and selling experience, it is not disrupting the dealers’ business. In fact, the car dealership industry is being transformed into a more efficient one with Tookar, says Wei.
As consumers are turning to online resources to conduct research on the cars they are interested in and sales can be done via the platform, dealers may no longer need to hire and train a lot of sales personnel, he adds. Also, they may not need to extend their operating hours.
“Tookar offers an easy, fast and convenient platform to generate additional sales revenue for the dealers, thus encouraging them to offer better bargains to a ready pool of buyers. That is why the platform is a win-win situation for both dealers and consumers,” says Wei.
He adds that dealers are very important stakeholders, especially in terms of the platform’s value-added services. The car dealership industry, meanwhile, is divided into four categories — 1S (sales only), 2S (sales and services), 3S (sales, services and spare parts) and 4S (sales, services, spare parts and surveys).
“In Malaysia, it is normally either 3S or 4S. The dealers have these roles and we want to acknowledge that. In fact, these roles are becoming more important as they have a clear value-add in terms of delivering warranties and other services,” says Wei.
Meanwhile, MUV is the first car exchange in the country that allows consumers and corporates to quickly sell or auction off their used vehicles. The platform has introduced an open bidding system that lets dealers from across the country to simultaneously bid for these vehicles. This allows the seller of the vehicle to get the best possible price. Also, unlike other used car platforms, it aims to increase transparency by informing potential buyers about any possible defects upfront in its listings.
MUV started out as the used car division of the Tan Chong group in 2013, with three branches in Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor. In September 2014, the online MUV platform was launched.
Nicholas Tan, the founder of MUV Marketplace Sdn Bhd, says the open bidding system was implemented because used cars are very difficult to price. With the system, sellers are able to get a fair price for their cars.
This is where MUV comes in. The cars that are put up for auction are cleaned and given a 180-point inspection. This gives the sellers clarity about the reserve price, which is based on the company’s records of previously transacted prices for a specific model and make. It also takes into consideration the current market price.
The 180-point inspection, which takes 45 minutes to an hour, includes looking at the condition of the engine, chassis, steering, brakes, transmission, seats, headlights and any small exterior dents that are visible to the inspector. MUV will then give an overall rating for the interior and exterior of the car. A detailed report on the parts that are no longer in top working condition is also provided.
“Unlike selling new cars, where I give you a catalogue telling you all about the wonderful specifications, here I tell you everything that is wrong with the car. When we first voiced this idea, people laughed at us and told us it was not a smart move. They said we were not supposed to disclose everything in black and white because it would reduce the price and people wouldn’t put their cars on the platform,” says Tan.
But the move has worked in MUV’s favour. To date, it has successfully sold almost RM400 million worth of used vehicles, conducted 67 auctions for more than 18,000 vehicles and had an average success rate of 75%.
While many platforms do not disclose the final selling price, MUV records every bid and transaction to be transparent about the entire process. “The other people who are listing alongside you may be giving a ridiculously high or low price for two of the same models that are made in different years. People looking at the listings will be very confused. To them, it does not make sense,” says Tan.
While the condition of used cars cannot be compared with new ones, the former are still valuable assets to the consumers, he says. “You may not be the first to use it, but it does not matter because the price you pay is a risk-adjusted one, not the price of a new car on which all the taxes are levied. By the time you get the car, all the duties have been fully paid by the first or second owner. You, as the next owner, get the maximum economic utility.”
MUV does not plan to disrupt the used car industry, but rather collaborate with it to create a common place to orderly dispose of trade-ins and fetch the highest value to help recover the profit margin. “If we are disruptive, then we are only disrupting corrupted private agendas or deals that are done in secret,” says Tan.
“When we first came into the picture, car auctions were conducted by auction houses. They were pretty much like private parties — invitation-only and everybody knows each other. These guys would call their cronies to discuss how they would bid so that the prices never get high enough to justify the car’s worth. This is what we are trying to prevent.”
MUV is also trying to reduce the human aspect of the transaction which, Tan says, is the root of some avoidable problems. “For example, some of us may have experienced sales people who did not handle the paperwork properly, so the car still had the previous loan attached to it. It can also be the other way around if you are selling your car.”
He adds that he is also trying to eliminate the problem of dishonest dealers, who could be “double dealing”. “Let’s say you ask a dealer to get a buyer for your car. An unethical one could cheat you by intentionally stalling and telling you that he could not get anybody, thus forcing you to accept a low price. The dealer, having bought your car at a low price, can then sell it to his customers at a high price. That is why the more we move away from the need for human interaction, the better.”
With MUV, the sellers and car dealers no longer have to worry about the transparency of car auctions. As openness is the key to its business model, it will continue to focus on improving market transparency, says Tan. “We also carry the Tan Chong name, so we have a reputation to maintain and there is a level of trust to be expected.”
Tan says MUV also aims to facilitate the redistribution of used cars to places where there is demand for such cars. “These used vehicles, especially the national cars that have fully depreciated, can be bought at a very low price. So, they can be distributed to places that have a demand for them, especially where ride-hailing services are not available.”
He points out that there is a clear economic disparity in the country. By comparing the number of Road Transport Department-registered cars with the Malaysian population, MUV found that there are 2.2 cars for every man, woman and child in Kuala Lumpur, whereas it is only 0.1 car per person in Perlis.
“What we are seeing is churn. While we are fully supportive of ride-hailing and car-sharing services, together with the Goods and Services Tax, inflation, a higher cost of living and the introduction of the mass rapid transit, we are going to see an influx of used cars. MUV aims to suck up this supply and redistribute ‘the rain’ where there is drought,” says Tan.
These platforms are expected to take off because consumer behaviour has changed with the advent of new technologies. Consumers now prefer to search for their desired cars on the internet instead of visiting showrooms or used car lots. All of their research is done online or via their smartphones, says Tan.
“The process of searching online before making a decision to buy a certain product is known as the ‘zero moment of truth’, as coined by Google. This is opposed to the ‘moment of truth’, where you physically check out the products,” he adds.
“This is especially true for used cars. The used car lot is not a customer-friendly place. There is no air conditioning or marble flooring. So, when a customer walks in, he would have already done some research online and is a serious buyer.”
For example, a consumer who wants to buy a family car may already have in mind a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or a multipurpose vehicle (MPV), depending on the size of the family. Based on his internet research, he would already know the price range and model that would fit his needs even before visiting the dealer.
Wei says consumers are now buying cars online because they do not want to deal with the time-consuming and stressful parts of the process. “Although it is exciting, buying new cars involves the hassle of meeting and negotiating with multiple dealers. The negotiations with middlemen are often the most tedious and unpleasant part of the experience.”
He adds that consumers no longer put an emphasis on car specifications, but look for dealers who are able to offer the best value for money instead. “Back then, people would test-drive a car to know if they are interested in owning it since there is a significant difference between the car models in the same price range. The car technology has been around for more than 100 years — it has turned into a mature technology.
“Today, however, there are few technological differences in the same range of cars. They continue to be refined until every car manufacturer gets very close in terms of mastery of the technology. If any model falls short of the technology in the same price range, it will surely fail to attract buyers. That is why nowadays, whoever gives the largest discount or additional features will be the most attractive.”
In the past, distance was always the biggest constraint of the car-buying experience. While it may not be true for those living in cities, consumers who live in small towns may only have access to one or two car dealers, who may not offer the best bargains. Online car exchange platforms completely diminish this problem by allowing people from across the country to buy cars at the best price.
“Can you imagine being in Kuala Pilah, Mentakab or Sabak Bernam and you have to travel all the way to the big city to buy cars? These people in small towns are actually equally important stakeholders in the whole market. Tookar is able to meet this demand by giving them equal access to the lowest buying price,” says Wei.
In the current economy, is it wise to buy cars? Wei says this is the best time for consumers to get the best price as there will be a surplus of new cars. This will cause dealers to be more flexible in terms of pricing.
“Take this year’s Merdeka promotion. It was definitely better than in the previous years. I foresee that the trend of good deals for new cars will continue until the end of the year, at the very least,” he says.
Wei is also optimistic about the future. He expects more than 50% of car bookings to be done online in the next five years, especially since consumers are evidently getting more comfortable with the idea of e-commerce, including for large transactions.
Data released by the Malaysian Automotive Association (MAA) showed that 666,674 cars were sold last year, a slight increase from 666,465 in 2014. This year, however, it announced that car sales in the country were expected to fall for the first time in six years, to 650,000 units. As at June, only 275,459 cars had been sold. The drop is attributed to a subdued consumer sentiment, sluggish economy, weaker ringgit and tighter lending requirements.
Despite the decline in car sales, Tookar will not slow down. “This year, we may still see more than 600,000 cars sold. The numbers may decrease for the overall industry. However, for the number of online booking transactions, there is nowhere to go but up,” says Wei.
Meanwhile, Tan says MUV is looking to improve its offerings, which are consumer-to-business (C2B) and business-to-business (B2B). It plans to launch its business-to-consumer (B2C) service very soon. The service will allow consumers to bid for these cars as well (currently, only dealers can bid).
He adds that despite the fact that new car sales may drop this year, the used car market will continue to thrive. “We are not like other companies where the market is still growing. Our market is always there. There are 13 million vehicles in Malaysia, the bulk of which is cars and motorcycles. So as long as people continue to buy new cars, we will still have our market.”
Tookar is a car exchange platform that allows consumers to bid for a particular model online. The bid period is determined by the consumer when the booking is made. When a dealer agrees on the price, the platform notifies the consumer via SMS and email.
There is no charge for the booking. The deal is only sealed with an online deposit via credit card and the signing of the Vehicle Sales Order. The buyer can discuss with the dealer additional details about the car such as colour, tinting and trade-in. The dealer will then arrange the loan and car upgrades, if necessary.
The dealer will deliver the car to the buyer for free, provided that the location is not too far from major cities, with a specific time frame. The buyer can negotiate the delivery fee with the dealer if he wishes to have the car delivered to a more remote location.
Tookar buyers get access to the same model, warranty, maintenance, promotion, benefits and services as any normal walk-in buyers. They may also go to any authorised service centre nationwide as all the dealers on Tookar are authorised by the brand principals.
MUV offers consumers two options — to quickly sell their vehicles to the company or sell them through an online auction platform that has more than 400 buyers at every auction.
If they choose to quickly sell their vehicles, they have to book an appointment with an MUV valuer for an appraisal. The appraisal can be done at any of the company’s 29 locations, including Kangar, Kota Baru and Batu Pahat. The valuer will inspect the engine, transmission and exterior and interior of the car. The process takes about 30 minutes.
Once the seller agrees on the price, he is required to hand over the vehicle to MUV within five working days. He is then paid by cheque.
If the seller decides to auction the car, a more thorough inspection is required. After obtaining the “quick sell” quote, the seller has to leave the car at one of MUV’s locations for a 180-point inspection. After inspection, the reserve price is set by MUV according to its records of previously transacted prices. By auctioning the car, the seller can get up to 15% more than the reserve price.
The seller has to deliver the vehicle to MUV’s yard five working days before the auction to allow bidders to inspect it. It takes about two weeks for the seller to receive payment from MUV if the car is sold. The seller is charged a premium of 10% on the differential between the transacted price and the quick sell quote. This is capped at RM300.
If the car is not sold at the auction, the seller may choose to re-auction the car or sell it directly to MUV. Sellers who withdraw their vehicles are charged an administrative fee of RM150.
Word History: The first known occurrence of the word nerd, undefined but illustrated, dates from 1950 and is found in If I Ran the Zoo, a children's book by Dr. Seuss (Theodor Seuss Geisel). The book's narrator lists various imaginary creatures that he would keep in the zoo if he were allowed to run it, whatever objections other people might raise to his projects: "And then, just to show them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And Bring Back an It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo A Nerkle a Nerd and a Seersucker, too!" (The nerd is a small humanoid creature looking comically angry.) The next known attestation of nerd appears in the October 8, 1951, issue of Newsweek, in which the slang of American youth is described: "In Detroit, someone who once would be called a drip or a square is now, regrettably, a nerd, or in a less severe case, a scurve." Authorities disagree on whether the two words—the name of Dr. Seuss's creature and the 1950s teenage slang term—are related. Some maintain that Dr. Seuss is the true originator of nerd and that the word nerd ("comically unpleasant creature") was picked up by the six-year-olds of 1950 and quickly passed on to their older siblings, who restricted and specified the meaning to the most comically obnoxious creature of their own class, a "square." Others claim that there is no connection between the two and propose other origins for nerd, such as an alteration of the word turd. It has also been suggested that nerd comes from Mortimer Snerd, the name of a dummy depicting a comically stupid yokel that was used by the American ventriloquist Edgar Bergen, one of the most popular performers of the 1930s and 1940s. In support of this theory, the noted scholar of American slang J.E. Lighter points out that Mortimer Snerd was used in a 1941 work as a nickname for a fellow of the kind that might today be called nerdy. Strong evidence for any of these theories is lacking, however, and the ultimate origin of nerd remains unknown.
assimilator, learner, scholar - someone (especially a child) who learns (as from a teacher) or takes up knowledge or beliefs
Heroes Reborn" star Zachary Levi started the event, which takes place at the New Children's Museum in San Diego, in 2011 with his company, The Nerd Machine.
Though he's not a scientist, he has ample nerd cred, including a doctorate in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Nerd Corps is noted for its highly creative vision that generates entertainment experiences for children that reach across platforms, from television to mobile, online, toys and more.
Since the NeRD has no Wi-Fi capability, its users can't download new titles from an online store, so it was important to create a suitable catalog of ebooks.
Three decades ago, I happened on an undercooked and half-baked treatment, "Revenge of the Nerds," worked on it with an expert on the subject (my then 16-year-old daughter), then turned it over to a friend, Ted Field, who was searching for a tenable "youth movie" to produce.
Blast from the past: Ken Levine's blockbuster games mine the history of racism, extremism, and American exceptionalism--and you still get to blow shit up
Indeed, Kitces foresees that society is headed toward a central computer experience where all the world will be a supercomputer--and, no surprise, he proudly lays claim to being a big nerd.
The Teesside University graduate has set up Lair of the Nerd, an online clothing design shop selling T-shirts, hoodies and the like.
Émile Léonard Mathieu (May 15, 1835, Metz – October 19, 1890, Nancy) was a French mathematician. He is most famous for his work in group theory and mathematical physics. He has given his name to the Mathieu functions, Mathieu groups and Mathieu transformation. He authored a treatise of mathematical physics in 6 volumes. Volume 1 is an exposition of the techniques to solve the differential equations of mathematical physics, and contains an account of the applications of Mathieu functions to electrostatics. Volume 2 deals with capillarity. Volumes 3 and 4 with electrostatics and magnetostatics. Volume 5 deals with electrodynamics, and volume 6 with elasticity. The asteroid 27947 Emilemathieu was named in his honour.
Categories: French mathematicians | 19th-century mathematicians | 1835 births | 1890 deaths | Alumni of the École Polytechnique | Group theorists | French mathematician stubs
the Pirate Party of the United States was formed after a 2006 raid by the Swedish police on the servers of The Pirate Bay, a popular file sharing website?
This article is about file sharing over the Internet. For printer and file sharing as local area network service, see shared disk access.
File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information, such as computer programs, multi-media (audio, video), documents, or electronic books. It may be implemented in a variety of storage, transmission, and distribution models. Common methods are manual sharing using removable media, centralized computer file server installations on computer networks, World Wide Web-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer (P2P) networking.
File sharing is not in and of itself illegal. However, the increasing popularity of the mp3 music format in the late 1990s led to the release and growth of Napster and other software that aided the sharing of electronic files. This in practice led to a huge growth in illegal file sharing: the sharing of copyright protected files without permission.
Although the original Napster service was shut down by court order, it paved the way for decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as Gnutella, Gnutella2, eDonkey2000, the now-defunct Kazaa network, and BitTorrent.
Many file sharing networks and services, accused of facilitating illegal file sharing, have been shut down[citation needed] due to litigation by groups such as the RIAA and MPAA. During the early 2000s, the fight against copyright infringement expanded into lawsuits against individual users of file sharing software.
The economic impact of illegal file sharing on media industries is disputed. Some studies conclude that unauthorized downloading of movies, music and software is unequivocally damaging the economy, while other studies suggest file sharing is not the primary cause of declines in sales. Illegal file sharing remains widespread, with mixed public opinion about the morality of the practice.
Some of the most popular options for file sharing on the Internet are peer-to-peer networks, such as Gnutella, Limewire, Gnutella2 and eDonkey network.
Users can use software that connects to a peer-to-peer network to search for shared files on the computers of other users (i.e., peers) connected to the network. Files of interest can then be downloaded directly from other users on the network. Typically, large files are broken down into smaller chunks, which may be obtained from multiple peers and then reassembled by the downloader. This is done while the peer is simultaneously uploading the chunks it already has to other peers.
Files were first exchanged on removable media. Computers were able to access remote files using filesystem mounting, bulletin board systems (1978), Usenet (1980), and FTP servers (1985). Internet Relay Chat (1988) and Hotline (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through chat and to exchange files. The mp3 encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and which substantially reduced the size of audio files, grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, MP3.com and Audiogalaxy were established, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was unanimously passed, and the first mp3 player devices were launched. MP3.com offered music by unsigned artists, and grew to serve 4 million audio downloads daily.
USENET was created in 1979.[1] It is a network that was initially based on the UUCP protocol for dial-up connections and has, since being transported over the Internet, used a specialized client-server protocol, the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP). Its main purpose was the exchange of text based messages, but through attachments allows users to encode files and distribute them to participating subscribers of Usenet newsgroups. USENET remains one of the largest carriers of file sharing and Internet traffic.[2][3] Recently legal challenges to P2P systems have spurred a resurgence of Usenet.[4] USENET has also been itself the target of legal challenges pertaining to its use in file sharing.[5]
In June 1999, Napster was released. Napster is a centralized unstructured peer-to-peer system,[6] requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In the Napster case,[7] an online service provider cannot use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the DMCA if they have control of the network with a server. Many P2P products will, by their very nature, flunk this requirement, just as Napster did.[8] Napster provided a service where they indexed and stored file information that users of Napster made available on their computers for others to download, and the files were transferred directly between the host and client users after authorization by Napster. Shortly after the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. loss in court Napster blocked all copyright content from being downloaded.
Gnutella, eDonkey2000, and Freenet were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. Gnutella, released in March, was the first decentralized file sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no central point of failure. In July, Freenet was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the eDonkey2000 client and server software was released.
In 2001, Kazaa and Poisoned for the Mac was released. Its FastTrack network was distributed, though unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as Morpheus off of the FastTrack network.
In July 2001, Napster lost in court and was shut down. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its exponential growth.[9] The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the LimeWire client and BitTorrent protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file sharing program despite bundled malware and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue and an RIAA lawsuit effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.
From 2002 through 2003, a number of popular BitTorrent services were established, including Suprnova.org, isoHunt, TorrentSpy, and The Pirate Bay. In 2002, the RIAA was filing lawsuits against Kazaa users. As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). With the shut down of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the Razorback2 eDonkey server and temporarily took down The Pirate Bay. Pro-file sharing demonstrations take place in Sweden in response to the Pirate Bay raid. In 2009, the Pirate Bay trial ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker.
Multi-protocol file sharing software such as MLDonkey and Shareaza now support all the major file sharing protocols, so users no longer have to install and configure multiple file sharing programs.
A significant number of people share files in a way that infringes on the legal rights of copyright holders. Copyright holders have challenged the legality of file sharing networks. This has led to litigation by industry bodies against certain private individual file sharers.
Digital rights management is intended to curb copyright infringement by preventing file sharing but has proved unpopular with consumers due to the restrictive usage policies imposed.
The first peer-to-peer case was A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). In the Napster case, the 9th Circuit considered whether Napster was liable as a secondary infringer. First, the court considered whether Napster was contributorily liable for copyright infringement. To be found contributorily liable, Napster must have engaged in "personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."[14] The court found that Napster was contributorily liable for the copyright infringement of its end-users because it "knowingly encourages and assists the infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights."[15] The court goes on to analyze whether Napster was vicariously liable for copyright infringement. The standard applied by the court is whether Napster "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities."[16] The court found that Napster did receive a financial benefit, and had the right and ability to supervise the activity, meaning that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of vicarious infringement.[17] The court denied all of Napster's defenses, including its claim of fair use.
The next major peer-to-peer case was MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court found that even if Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which the Sony court found was enough to relieve one of secondary copyright liability, Grokster was still secondarily liable because it induced its users to infringe.[18][19]
It is important to note the concept of blame in cases such as these. In a pure P2P network there is no host, but in practice most P2P networks are a hybrid (see "Computer science perspective" below). This has led groups such as the RIAA to file suit against individual users, rather than against companies. The reason that Napster was subject to violation of the law and ultimately lost in court is because Napster was not a pure P2P network but instead maintained central server. This server maintained an index of the files currently available on the network.
Around the world in 2006, an estimated five billion songs, equating to approximately 38,000 years in music were swapped on peer-to-peer websites, while 509 million songs were purchased online.[20]
In November 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Secure Federal File Sharing Act,[21] which would, if enacted, prohibit the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing software by U.S. government employees and contractors on computers used for federal government work.[22]
File sharing is a contentious issue in the UK and one the government wishes to act on to help drive the UK’s vital creative and digital sectors to bolster future growth and jobs. [23] Harris Interactive believe there to be 8.3 million file sharers in the UK. Moreover the BPI claim in 1999 UK music purchases totalled £1,113 million but has fallen to £893.8 million in 2008. However it has also been said that there is no accurate way to know the full extent of the problem.
March 15, 2010 saw the Digital Economy Bill passed through the House of Lords. It now moves into the House of Commons where, if passed, could have repercussions for both file sharers and internet service providers.
The Digital Economy Bill proposes to suspend internet access for repeat offenders of illegal file sharing. The bill will enforce internet service providers to reduce copyright infringement as well as making conditions for the regulation of copyright licensing. A 'three strikes' policy will be in operation despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convicted of copyright offences [24].
The bill has been met with a mixed response. Geoff Taylor of the BPI claims the bill is vital for the future of creative works in the UK [25]. Moreover Conservative spokesman for Culture and Media believes that those illegally downloading should be given a criminal record. Conversely Liberal Democrat spokesman for Culture and Media, Don Foster, claimed the bill was reckless and dangerous stating that children could unwittingly be file sharing causing an entire family to lose their internet connection.
Internet service providers have also been hostile towards the bill. Talk Talk suspending access to the internet breaches human rights. Furthermore Talk Talk Director of Regulation, Andrew Heaney believes that file sharing is a problem but the answer is to educate people and create legal alternatives. Heaney also argues that disconnected offenders will simply create other user names to hide their identity and continue downloading. Talk Talk also believe that 80% of youngsters will continue to download regardless of the bill and that internet service providers are being forced to police this without any workable outcomes.
Virgin media have also criticised the Digital Economy Bill believing it to be heavy handed and that it will alienate customers. Virgin are arguing for the government to use persuasion rather than force to try and eradicate the problem on illegal file sharing.
The economic effect of file sharing on music revenue is controversial and difficult to determine. Music sales dropped globally from approximately $38 billion in 1999 to $32 billion in 2003, and a number of studies have found that file sharing has a negative impact on record sales.[26][27][28] However, a study analyzing logs of downloads on file sharing networks concludes that file sharing has no negative effect on CD sales, and possibly would slightly improve the sales of top albums.[29] It may be difficult to untangle the cause and effect relationships among a number of different trends, including an increase in legal online purchases of music; illegal file-sharing; drops in the prices of CDs; and the extinction of many independent music stores with a concommitant shift to sales by big-box retailers.[30]
The MPAA had reported that American studios lost $2.3 billion to Internet piracy in 2005, representing approximately one third of the total cost of film piracy in the United States.[31] The MPAA's estimate has been doubted by commentators since it is based on the assumption that one download was equivalent to one lost sale, and downloaders might not purchase the movie even if illegal downloading were not an option.[32][33][34] These numbers are further suspicious due to the private nature of the study, which cannot be publicly checked for methodology or validity.[35][36][37] On January 22, 2008, as the MPAA was lobbying for a bill which would compel universities to crack down on piracy, it was alleged that MPAA figures on piracy in colleges were inflated by up to 300%.[38][39]
Piracy rates of one-quarter or more for popular software and operating systems are common, even in countries and regions with strong intellectual property enforcement, such as the US or the EU.[40]
File sharing is not always illegal, even if the works being shared are covered by copyright. For example, some artists may choose to support freeware, shareware, open source, or anti-copyright, and advocate the use of file sharing as a free promotional tool.
Some advocates claim that sharing helps the affected industry by allowing the consumer to sample the product before spending the money to purchase it. This, they claim, in turn generates a new fan base as many discover artists that would be virtually impossible to discover otherwise, thus generating more album sales.[citation needed] Once the consumer is allowed to "sample" a lower-quality version, they might decide to buy, whereas they might never have bought it had they not been allowed to sample the media on their computer first.
Another pro-file sharing argument is that movie, game, and other types of media are not seeing any drop in sales; but a rise. P2P file sharing is only one of many factors attributed to the recent drop in CD sales.[41]
In the case of music, another argument is the alleged overpricing of CDs. Many consumers feel that CDs are far too expensive relative to decreasing costs of production. Consumers who only want one or two songs that have not been released as singles believe they should not have to pay the entire cost of a CD.[citation needed]
Some file sharers argue that the companies whose intellectual property is being copied are large and generate high profits, and can thus afford the possible loss in profits.
Other advocates of file sharing believe that file sharing does not affect artists' profits and only benefits the distribution company.
Many advocates adamantly believe that access to music and films is, by its intrinsic cultural value, a right that should not be subject to distributors' oligopoly.
A further argument in favour of file sharing is that not all of its users would buy all of the material that they download. In other words, one illegal download will not immediately translate to one lost sale, as many anti-piracy groups maintain.
A different type of file sharing is also occurring in academic and research circles, where researchers wish to access subscription journals and books, but do not wish to pay a licence fee. File-sharing websites allow researchers to request articles, which are then found by those who do have access to them, and then the articles are posted to the website for all to access.[42]
Significant cultural sources for arguments against copyright include the Free Software culture[43], anarchism, the pirate and warez cultures, libertarian and civil libertarian groups [44][45][46]. Rasmus Fleischer argues that Web 2.0 has changed society so significantly that personal behavior and business models simply make copyright law irrelevant.[47]
In 2004, there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing.[48] According to a CBS News poll, nearly 70 percent of 18 to 29 year olds thought file sharing was acceptable in some circumstances and 58 percent of all Americans who followed the file sharing issue considered it acceptable in at least some circumstances.[49]
In January 2006, 32 million Americans over the age of 12 had downloaded at least one feature length movie from the Internet, 80 percent of whom had done so exclusively over P2P. Of the population sampled 40 percent felt that downloading copyrighted movies and music off the Internet constituted a very serious offense, compared with 78 percent who felt that of taking movies and music from a store.[50]
In February 2008 the LA Times Blog published results of a US campus attitude survey which showed that 64 percent of respondents download music regularly through file-sharing networks and other unauthorized sources. The respondents were also asked to rate on a 1 to 7 scale "how nervous they were about being punished for illegal downloading" (1 being "not concerned" and 7 being "extremely concerned"), two-thirds answered 1 (43 percent) or 2 (24 percent). Only 4 percent answered 5 or 6, and none answered 7, "extremely concerned".[51][52]
In July 2008, 20 percent of Europeans used file sharing networks to obtain music, while 10 percent use paid-for digital music services such as iTunes.[53]
In February 2009, a Tiscali UK survey found 75 percent of the American public polled were aware of what was legal and illegal in relation to their file sharing. However, there was a divide as to where they felt the legal burden should be placed; 49 percent of people believed P2P companies should be held responsible for illegal file sharing on their networks, 18 percent viewed individual file sharers as the culprits, while 18 percent either didn’t know or chose not to answer.[54] In the same survey, 60 percent of people reported downloading music because of a limited budget. A common attitude concerning music downloading was that of ‘why should one pay for something when they can get it for free?'
According to an earlier poll, 75 percent of young voters in Sweden (18-20) supported file sharing when presented with the statement: "I think it is OK to download files from the Net, even if it is illegal." Of the respondents, 38 percent said they "adamantly agreed" while 39 percent said they "partly agreed".[55]
Researchers have examined potential security risks including the release of personal information, bundled spyware, and viruses downloaded from the network.[56] Some proprietary file sharing clients are known to bundle malware, though open source programs typically do not. Some open source file sharing packages even provide integrated anti-virus scanning.[57] Recently, there has been a drastic increase of inadvertent P2P file sharing of personal and sensitive information. This became evident in 2009 at the beginning of President Obama's administration. On February 26, 2009 the blueprints to the helicopter Marine One were made available to the public through a breach in security through a P2P file sharing site. Access to this information has the potential of being detrimental to national security.[58]
Two days prior, the Today show reported that more than 150,000 tax returns, 25,800 student loan applications and 626,000 credit reports were all inadvertently made available though file sharing.[58]
Over the last six years identity theft has become more prevalent. On July 9, 2008 there was another inadvertent revealing of vast amounts of personal information through careless use of a P2P site. The “names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of about 2,000 of the firms clients, including Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer were all exposed.”[58]
In an attempt to avoid these security leaks, current legislation in the United States is being debated, the Informed P2P User Act.[59] According to this act, it would be mandatory for individuals to be aware of the risks associated with peer-to-peer file sharing before purchasing the software. Informed consent of the user prior to use of these programs would be required. In addition, this act would allow users to block and remove P2P file sharing software from their computers at any time.[60] The Federal Trade Commission would enforce these regulations.
^ Marco Cerna and Laura Thompson. September 30, 2004. "University warnings and RIAA lawsuits fail to deter file-sharing", The Georgetown Voice.
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from December 2009 | Pages actively undergoing construction | Articles with unsourced statements from June 2009 | All articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases | Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases from February 2010
File sharing is the practice of making files available for other users to download over the Internet and smaller networks. Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files are stored on personal computers of the users. In this model, most people who are sharing files are also downloading files that other users share.
Clint Eastwood, Bradley Cooper and Warner Bros are laughing all the way to the bank as Michael Moore tries to stay in the headlines by attacking the fans of American Sniper, which eclipsed $200 at the domestic box office.
Moore included Jesus and church references in his latest of incendiary tweets aimed at dishonoring American soldiers, the filmmakers, the audience and the Iraq war in general.
From Moore: “Tomorrow’s Sunday School (1) What Would Jesus Do? Oh, I know what he’d do — hide on top of a roof and shoot people in the back!”
He followed that tweet with: “Sunday School: (2) But What Would Jesus Do if he could be a sniper & save soldiers lives by shooting “savages” in the back?”
“I tried to save more lives than a sniper ever could hope to — by preventing us from going to war in the first place,” he said. “So, Fox News and the other lazy media — quit making s**t up about me! You look ridiculous.”
American Sniper crossed $200 in US box office receipts and will cross $250 million globally today. Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore’s 2004 documentary aimed at attacking President Bush and the war in Iraq earnned $222 million globally and remains Moore’s most successful film to date. Moore last film Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) earned just $17 worldwide.
Moore is playing The Jesus Card? Really. Before believing his “honest, intelligent word” watch “Fahrenhype 9/11” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Moore used images of people did voice overs, but these people are very upset with his comments and production claiming he was untruthful. Would Jesus lie? Did Moore get the benefit of free speech being in this country because American troops fired from covered positions at redcoated, British marching forward in the open? Hmm, maybe he should leave this terrible country and deny those that gave him his rights.
Cork is overrun by jazz-hand revelers for the bank holiday weekend. Those about Cork, pick up a copy of Totally Cork for my Cork Jazz Festival rundown. Also see Thursday's Cork Evening Echo for my chat with Sara Watkins who plays Coughlan's on Monday evening and click here for my chat with Cathy Davey ahead of Friday night's Live At St. Luke's session.
I originally thought it was a nigger that did this, but I guess you can't take the Aztec out of the spic.
Though I tend to agree with Mr Piers Morgan that Jon Stewart was far funnier than Trevor Noah is, I must admit to having been a fan of The Daily Show for years now.
Especially so since I’ve discovered that you can select which segments to see and which not on Youtube. In this manner, I can skip the daily Trump bashing altogether and as I’m readying for bed and put my most current reading material aside, one of the last things I tend to do from time to time is to have a laugh at ‘current events’.
Unlike Mr Seth Meyer’s, whose ‘Closer Look’ segment mostly goes on for 50% of the time bashing the current US president no matter what the subject title is, or Mr Jim Jefferies who swears a tad too much for my generation, the 27 or so writers that provide Mr Noah with his material tend to be more international in their pickings and offer a lighter look on the issues I write about.
However, in the past three weeks or so, it has sprung to my mind that Mr Noah, who is of South African origin, has seemed to omit any reporting on the issues going on in his home nation altogether.
This seems amiss as the country once billed as the fastest growing economy of Africa has slipped into recession for the first time in a decade this week, mostly due to a surprise fall in agricultural output from the white farmers who own 72 of the land and seem to find it risky to plant new crops as they are unsure about their farm being expropriated or not.
It also comes at the time that US President Donald Trump sent a Tweet about South Africa after having seen a segment about the alleged expropriation of farmers on Fox and the killing of white farmers, a supposed white supremacist conspiracy theory.
And, lastly, also lending itself to humor and joking, the far-left party of Mr Julius Malema has gone on to call Ms Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister a ‘coloniser’ and claimed that there are ‘groups of white right-wingers trained by Jews to be snipers’.
All these topics should easily lend themselves to funny segments in my humble opinion, but apparently, the Daily Show writers fail to see the humor.
This week they were focused on the congressional hearings of President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court Mr Kavanaugh but omitted the hearings of Twitter and Facebook CEO’s going on at the same moment.
I don’t understand why we should expect the liberal morons to change. Wouldn’t that be like seeing someone do the same thing over and over and expect a different result……insanity? They’re cracked in the head and expect them to act accordingly.
You have to be an exceptional writer to find something funny in a country where the government wish to legalize theft?
"The duties of Social-Democrat media puppets consists of editing, rewriting and representing historical or political events in various forms of media in order to conform and reinforce the Social-Democrat Party’s version of the past and present.
The Social-Democrat Party refers to these tasks as the PC Speak, Future Speak or Rectification of records.
Put him on the spot. Make him talk about it. Like the guys who used to yell cnn is fake news, Noah needs heckled about this.
In 2011, for the first time, Colombia became Germany’s main coal supplier. This prompted me to undertake a research trip into the coal mining regions of this South American country.
The psychological condition of the villagers affected by coal mining was shocking. They were distraught, paralysed by a feeling of powerlessness thanks to the mining companies’ often ruthless behaviour. They were suffering the consequences of the mining: dust, noise, water shortages and resultant crop losses, along with the threat of losing their homes and land. What’s more, people everywhere had lost their sense of togetherness. The companies had succeeded in weakening or destroying the village communities and creating a situation in which organised resistance was impossible. In the face of existential threats, every family was fighting for its own survival. People couldn’t expect to receive any support from state institutions: on the contrary, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos described the mining industry as a driver of development in his country. Special divisions of the Colombian army were stationed in the mining regions to ensure that nothing was allowed to disrupt the operation of the coal mines.
Tamaquito was faced with just as many threats as the other remaining villages. Here, though, the mood was completely different. There were no signs of resignation. The community seemed strong and self-confident. It was led by a young man who radiated quiet authority and self-assuredness. How had these people succeeded in maintaining the integrity of their community and negotiating on an apparently equal footing with representatives of the mining companies? I had a small research camera with me and, as I filmed in Tamaquito, I knew that this was where I wanted to make the film. Our group’s visit lasted only around three hours. When it came to an end, I asked Jairo Fuentes, the village’s young leader, if he could picture us recording Tamaquito’s resettlement process. He responded that it was a decision for the village’s general assembly. He also said, “But I see no problem with it. We’re fighting the same fight”. These were our parting words in September 2011.
The general assembly of Tamaquito agreed to the project. It took more than a year to develop the film proposal and raise most of the necessary funding. In January 2013, we finally began filming in Tamaquito.
As many people are aware, one of the biggest concerns environmentalists are facing is the use of non-biodegradable products. In particular, plastic. Plastic can be found everywhere in our daily lives. It's used to make grocery bags, package millions of miscellaneous items, and is integrated in toys, kitchen supplies, stationary, and the list goes on and on.
Plastic has become a staple in all sorts of industries. It's synthetic, easy to produce, and fairly durable, so why is plastic so bad? Well it has to do the fact that the material isn't biodegradable. The alternative for now is to try and recycle as much plastic as possible, but this has its own risks too. Melting down and recycling plastic will produce fumes called VOC (volatile organic compounds) that are capable of harming living organisms that reside near the industrial side. The heat needed to melt the plastic also releases carbon emissions, and that's a whole other story.
This along with other harmful effects have caused a new practice to emerge - down cycling. Instead of being recycled into the same product, the plastic is now down cycled to become a different, often less useful product. The processes of down cycling and recycling usually cannot be repeated again after a plastic product has gone through the cycle once, which means although the plastic has sustained a longer lifespan, it will ultimately end up in the landfill too. Plastic bottles are a prime example. In the US alone, approximately 50 billion plastic water bottles were used in the last year, yet only 18 billion were recycled.
So what can we do to combat this? In the past few months, Skipping Rocks Lab has developed an innovative new "water bottle" that is 100% plastic free! These squishy, orb-like containers go by the name of Ooho. They are made out of a brown algae and calcium chloride membrane, and biodegrade in about 4-6 weeks after production. To drink the water inside, you simply pierce the membrane with your teeth and slurp away!
What's great about this product is that the production costs are cheaper than plastic as well. During the industrial process, the manufacturing of Ooho produces 5 times less the amount of carbon dioxide emissions and uses 9 times less the amount of energy needed to synthesize plastic.
The company is hoping to start integrating Ooho by having it available at events such as festivals and marathons and slowly make it's way to the mainstream market. Although skeptics criticize that Ooho will never truly replace the conventional water bottle, there's no denying that it certainly is a step in the right direction.
I found some different goodies at my Mike's in New Jersey. I thought I would share with you a few things that I hadn't seen being shown by our fellow shoppers! I am spending the day scrapbooking, but I will be back later to do a "Gift-Away" to start the New Year off right!!! Thanks for watching ~
We work really hard to make sure our courses are fun, informative and offer good value for money. To get feedback from students confirming that we're achieving our aims makes it all worthwhile! Take a look below at some of the feedback we have received from our students over the past seasons. Also, click here to view our glowing Facebook reviews!
100% of students agree that the Course Manual and Recipe Book are useful and will be referred to during their season.
100% of students agree that they would be more confident to work as a Chalet Host having attended a course at The Hive.
"Very knowledgeable staff, who are happy to answer any questions and told us handy tips to maximise our slope time by improving efficiency in the kitchen."
"I was well prepared with the information that I was given, and any questions prior to arrival were answered promptly."
"I had a fantastic week. It was informative and useful; and fun all at the same time! I've learned a lot and I'm sure it will be very helpful in my season! A brilliant cookery school!"
"The tutors were fantastic at providing further knowledge around why we do things a certain way and also gave us loads of tips and advice when cooking and running a kitchen."
"After not knowing what to expect, the course fulfilled my expectations and was thoroughly enjoyed."
"Thank you for a wonderful experience. I could not have asked for nicer, more competent or fun people to learn from."
"I had such a great time at The Hive. I was quite nervous when I arrived, but settled in very quickly. The tutors are very reassuring and are very good at making you feel capable."
"Brought on my confidence and knowledge in the kitchen, as well as enjoying the location and company."
"Good amount of downtime in between learning to allow time to overcome being tired and maintaining concentration."
"All round good experience, very helpful and enjoyable. I have definitely improved in my skills and knowledge. Thank you."