Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics

Ernesto
July 15, 2012
194
Dan Bull,
youtube
Print

Earlier this week news broke that rapper Lord Finesse is suing his colleague Mac Miller for “stealing” one of his beats. This prompted UK rapper Dan Bull to respond with a parody track, calling out Lord Finesse on his hypocritical stance. However, Finesse’s lawyers didn’t appreciate the criticism and managed to pull Bull’s clip off YouTube, essentially abusing copyright as a censorship tool. However, by doing so they seem to have made matters worse.

Dan Bull is known for his protests against draconian copyright legislation such as SOPA and ACTA, and this week it once again became clear what he’s fighting for.

After Bull responded to a “ridiculous” lawsuit brought by rapper Lord Finesse against his colleague Mac Miller, the critical response was censored from YouTube on copyright grounds. Interestingly enough, plenty of other Lord Finesse copyrighted content on YouTube was not censored, suggesting the takedown was political.

Needless to say, this has made Dan Bull even more angry than before.

“I have fought ACTA, SOPA, DEA and various other forms of censorship in the name of copyright. I will not be silenced by this kind of abuse of the copyright system. The DMCA is not supposed to be used in this way,” he writes.

In the video below Bull explains in detail how ridiculous the situation is.

Bull’s response

This is not the first time YouTube’s takedown procedure has been (ab)used as a censorship tool. The same happened December last year when Megaupload’s “Mega Song” was taken down by Universal Music Group (UMG). This prompted Megaupload to sue UMG.

Bull doesn’t know whether he will respond legally, but he is encouraging people to bring attention to the situation.

“I still need to decide what route I will take in challenging this action further, but I want you all to be aware of what has happened. Please like and share this video. If you are a content creator yourself, read up on fair use and fair dealing so that you are able to defend your own rights should this kind of thing happen to you,” Bull writes.

The irony of it all is that Lord Finesse has yet to learn the finesses of the Internet. When you try to censor something online on dubious grounds, this often results in the opposite effect.

After Bull’s video was censored, many copies were quickly uploaded to YouTube and other video sharing sites. A perfect example of the Streisand Effect.

Bull’s original track with video clip.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Dansthemuthafuckinman

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

The fight is on, we the file sharers will win.
- http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
  
  When file-sharers win we all lose. Don’t romanticize it – giving stuff away that other people made still sucks for people like me that actually make the content.
  - Jose
    
    If you’re good you don’t need Copyright, you just sell your stuff to people who want to buy the real -physical- thing. I don’t think bands like Pearl Jam would lose a lot of money if file-sharing prevailed. Anyway you think Copyright changes this behavior, bad news for you -it doesn’t. Nowadays Copyright law really doesn’t make any difference, people behave as if it didn’t exist, really it’s just a nuisance that you can avoid easily
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      People get good by selling their product. Artists don’t just wake up in the morning and create spectacularly profitable work.
      
      If the top 2% of artists are making 95% of the profits, something is REALLY wrong.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      People get good by selling their product. Artists don’t just wake up in the morning one day and create spectacularly profitable work. There are milestones. Those milestones can’t be met if we have to slog through 60 hour work weeks (non art related) to make ends meet.
      
      If the top 2% of artists are making 95% of the profits, something is REALLY wrong.
      
      File sharing may not kill art altogether, but it’s crippling it in ways that can’t be felt by most people.
    - No1_2_u
      
      I agree w/ you 100%, & your example of Pearl Jam is a perfect example, They’ve been sticking it to the music Overlords for decades & still make money.
      
      Over the course of the band’s career, its members became noted for their refusal to adhere to traditional music industry practices, including refusing to make music videos and engaging in a much-publicised boycott of Ticketmaster.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_jam
      
      So up yours “Jay”, if & when you actually produce something worthy of us paying for it, we will buy it “If you build it, (they) will come”.
    - Lulz
      
      “If the top 2% of artists are making 95% of the profits, something is REALLY wrong.”
      
      Maybe the other 98% suck balls. It’s a big world and lots of people want to be an “artist.”
    - Milton Freewater
      
      ”File sharing may not kill art altogether, but it’s crippling it in ways that can’t be felt by most people.”
      
      I could not disagree with you more. File-sharing, Youtube and so on saved music. It inspired all kinds of new innovations in the 00s – mashups, dubstep, bloghouse, 8-bit, and there are tons of others. And that was after the late 90s, arguably the least interesting period ever for popular music. Music and its audiences are more educated and sophisticated now than at any other time in history.
      
      The same is starting to happen with video – Netflix deserves some credit there, but there would be no Netflix without file-sharing.
    - Derp
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      Way to make this about something else.
      The article is about some artist abusing copyright to not only censor his competition but also the criticism he got for doing so.
      
      We need high fines for the abuse of copyright to censor.
      
      Further more, all the things you claim have been refuted here, again and again.
      Frankly i’m getting a bit sick of having to explain the internet to every breadcrumb artist. But let me give you the tl;dr version.
      
      It is NOT possible to stop people from sharing online. Besides turning off the internet. No law, no software, nothing. It is how the internet was build. This goes for all digital content. People that believe they can change something do not understand the protocols. Even SOPA would have been a wax nose, a paper tiger.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      I was responding to a comment – not the article. It’s called “context”. You seem like a smart guy, sorry I had to point that out.
      
      Furthermore, I would never even begin to say that file sharing could/ should be stopped – however, I AM against the romanticizing of it. Often times you get kids on here that make it seem like it’s just so damn cool to file share. It’s not. It fucking blows for those of us with products that get shared.
      
      If you had a product you relied on to pay the bills, would you LIKE to see it be given away for free? If so, then you’re definitely the minority (and maybe not as smart as I was lead to believe).
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Furthermore, I would never even begin to say that file sharing could/ should be stopped – however, I AM against the romanticizing of it. Often times you get kids on here that make it seem like it’s just so damn cool to file share. It’s not.”
      
      It’s not? Everyone on earth that has a computer and Internet access has instant access to all culture that was ever created completely free of charge, and that’s not cool??? The positive value with filesharing is infinite, it’s just as cool as libraries were when they came, but even a thousand times cooler, because it is not limited by the laws of physics. For someone who loves having access to culture it’s definitely cool.
      
      > “It fucking blows for those of us with products that get shared.”
      
      That’s how the free market works. Do you have a problem with the free market?
      
      But your claim is yours alone, it is no reflected in reality, those scientific studies that have been made, and the content industry’s current record revenues. There are hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs that can handle themselves on the free market, competing with free, so they only point that you manage to prove is that you personally are a weak failed entrepreneur that can’t handle yourself on the free market, and as such you deserve no monetary reward whatsoever. You deserve fucking blows. That’s how the free market works.
      
      > “If you had a product you relied on to pay the bills, would you LIKE to see it be given away for free?”
      
      Your product is not given away for free, you confuse the product with the intellectual work, but those are two different things. Your product is the goods or service which you sell, and that has never been the actual intellectual work, as in the song, movie or whatever you create. What the filesharing community deals with is not your product, it’s information describing the patterns of their property, that they own.
      
      > “If so, then you’re definitely the minority (and maybe not as smart as I was lead to believe).”
      
      Well, based on all the illogical, incorrect and ridiculous claims you have made, you don’t appear to be so smart either..
    - Plop
      
      @Kunu:disqus Bullshit. As an artist who works for a living I have to say that you’re talking out of your arse if you think it’s not possible to create commercial quality music whilst working another job to support yourself. If you’re ONLY in it for the money then you’re just not an artist anyway, you’re a leech on our cultural heritage.
      
      People don’t ‘get good’ by selling anything. They improve through practice and experience, neither of which is influenced in any way by monetary compensation. Musicians and producers develop their craft through hard work in their own time at their own expense and they do this because they love making music, not because they feel entitled to some kind of ‘return on their investment’.
      
      Yes you’re right that if the top 2% of artists are making 95% of the profits something is REALLY wrong, because something IS really wrong and we’ve all known about this for about as long as there have been ‘major labels’ who monopolise the marketing and distribution of music. Or at least, they DID monopolise it, but that was before the internet and before the democratisation of distribution which was in no small part helped by file sharers.
      
      File sharing is not now and will not EVER cripple art. It may cripple ‘art’ (in the pseudo-cultural way that big business refers to their poor quality output), but then that’s to be celebrated – let’s kill these dinosaurs who believe that everything in our world should have a purely monetary value rather than a more esoteric value and in the process set the genuine artists free. Free to create without the yoke of corporate power restricting their avenues for distribution the way we see them currently shutting down access to channels like The Pirate Bay, Megaupload and a growing number of others who are feeling their payment processors under pressure.
      
      Only then will we be able to say ‘yes’ to copyright. Yes, it should protect artists. But it shouldn’t exist to ‘protect’ artists from their fans, it should exist to protect them from predatory corporate power and abusive business practices. That is something I’m sure all file-sharers would support.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @870f04a07db87da7cd8ab61b32685b80:disqus I stopped reading after you said I’m only in it for profit. I give away 10x more art than I sell. I’m a fucking saint when it comes to how much I give to others.
      
      Oh, but I want $2 from a customer – I must be the Devil.
      
      File sharing hurts, it’s disrespectful, it’s wrong, and anyone that believes it’s cool or helpful to the industry is a dumb fool.
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      you’re not the devil because you want $2, you are simply an asshole because you insult everybody, hasn’t got anything to do with you charging $2 for… something.
      
      and if you give stuff away why are you so butthurt if people share your stuff? clearly you are fine with giving it away, I don’t understand you
    - Plop
      
      @Kunu:disqus You want $2 from a customer? Why don’t you ask for donations then with a suggested value of $2? You’d be surprised how far a bit of common courtesy can get you.
      
      Too bad you were too lazy to read the rest of my post – figures though, I suppose, if you can’t even be bothered to work for a living by gigging like the vast majority of other musicians. Maybe if you got off your arse and put in a bit of hard graft you’d have reason to whinge. As it is, you just sound like a whiney brat.
      
      Oh – link to the stuff you’re giving away for free so that we can see if this 10x claim holds up?
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      “If the top 2% of artists are making 95% of the profits, something is REALLY wrong.”
      
      No, it means that being an “artist” still means that many are called but few chosen. 98% of “artists” simply aren’t able to create anything worth noting or capable of generating widespread enthusiasm. Being an artist isn’t a 9-5 job with a guaranteed paycheck. Similar to athletes only very few will EVER be able to live off their hobby.
      
      “People get good by selling their product. Artists don’t just wake up in the morning and create spectacularly profitable work.”
      
      It’s the other way around. Artists who become successful have usually tried to promote themselves for years. Once they get enough people enjoying their work and achieve critical mass, they can give their stuff away and still make cash. As has been proven any number of times.
      
      In short, to be able to make money, first get known enough. You’re honestly telling me that in an age where bloggers can make heaploads of money just writing blogs for free, an “artist” can not?
      
      What planet are you living on?
    - VanceClifton55
      
      There are three kinds of men. The one who learns by reading. There’s a few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
  - Anyone
    
    right, because there was no real music before you could sell recordings
    
    Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc all just talentless hacks
  - No1_2_u
    
    “People get good by selling their product. Artists don’t just wake up in the morning one day and create spectacularly profitable work. There are milestones. Those milestones can’t be met if we have to slog through 60 hour work weeks (non art related) to make ends meet. ”
    
    Welcome to the REAL world dipshit, we all bust our asses to make ends meet in jobs we hate, whishing we could do something else.
    
    Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to be an artsit, it’s YOUR choice; you chose a path that is saturated beyond belief w/ talentless hacks fighting for a piece of the pie.
    
    Moreover, music has been around for millenia & artist have ALWAYS struggled to make ends meet; a starving artist is not a chliche, it’s a fact of life (Ex: Mozart); deal w/ it princess!
    - Der Ultimative Mann
      
      “Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to be an artsit, it’s YOUR
      choice; you chose a path that is saturated beyond belief w/ talentless
      hacks fighting for a piece of the pie.”
      
      No one is forcing you to listen to the latest album, watch the latest movie, or play the latest game. Why do you think that you have the inalienable right to do so?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “No one is forcing you to listen to the latest album, watch the latest movie, or play the latest game. Why do you think that you have the inalienable right to do so?“
      
      That is an dishonest question that is asked backwards, it reverses the order of society and puts the burden of proof on the wrong party, and thus it’s question that should never be answered, little less asked in the first place. Are you aware of this?
      
      People only use their own property, that they own, when they manufacture copies through filesharing. Along with property rights goes the natural right to manufacture things with your property. So that’s the answer to your false and dishonest question.
      
      However, if anyone advocates that an exception should be made from that natural starting point with property rights, all burden of proof trying to justify such an intrusion into property rights lies upon the person who wants that to be the case.
      
      So the real question is: why do you think that you have the inalienable right to a legislative monopoly that intrudes into peoples property rights?
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Okay dickhead, if life is such a bitch and we should all just take it up the ass, then why fight copyright laws at all? By that token every file sharer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – and no one will/ should complain because ‘that’s life’, right?
      
      And what the fuck? Of course it’s not a guarantee that one will make it big, I’m not sure why you’d jump to that conclusion. We’re not talking about guarantees here, we’re talking about file sharing and how it undermines an entire industry. Fuck if I care whether you give a shit about my plight – I don’t want your sympathy, nor do I think you have the capacity for it – but to denounce the entire artistic community just because we want to make a career out of it, well, that seems to put your intelligence somewhere between ‘mollusk’ and ‘rock’.
    - Anyone
      
      yes, filesharing undermines the industry
      and that is a great thing for the artists
      
      in music the “big four” already lost the majority of the market share to indy labels or selfpublishing artists, I’m sure the movie industry will follow once crowdfounding is more mature
      
      that means the artists have more control over their art, are no longer forced to give most of their profits to the middlemen and can still make a decent living
      
      everybody wins
    - No1_2_u
      
      @ac772b48d6728242138b1df18c9716e5:disqus Der Ultimative Mann
      
      “No one is forcing you to listen to the latest album, watch the latest movie, or play the latest game”.
      
      I never said I did, & nobody else does either; I don’t know where you got this idea, that’s why shitty artists like Jay are starving.
      
      “Why do you think that you have the inalienable right to do so?”.
      
      Because I work in an industry that rewards hard work & creativity & doesn’t rely on laws to protect impotent people producing shit; in a proper market economy that’s called “survival of the fittest”, I guess in your world you would have governments funding losers, which sounds like a communist system to me.
      
      Have a nice day
  - Fredrika
    
    > “When file-sharers win we all lose..”
    
    This is your personal and rather ignorant belief, a belief which is in no way backed up by any statistics, facts or scientific evidence, which all just happens to point to the opposite of your belief.
    
    However, if the political pirates loose, as in their fight for right to privacy, free speech, and the human rights protected freedom to without interference seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers, we all definitely loose, because they fight for things that are way more serious and important than possibly harsher terms for creators of culture.
    
    > “..giving stuff away that other people made still sucks for people like me that actually make the content.”
    
    If your goal in life is to live a life that doesn’t suck, then the responsibility to make sure it doesn’t suck is yours and yours alone!! That’s how entrepreneurship and the free market works for everyone, including you!! If you fail on the free market, for whatever reason, you deserve suckiness.
    
    > “People get good by selling their product.”
    
    Good at what? At selling? Artist get good at creating by practising, not selling.
    
    > “Artists don’t just wake up in the morning one day and create spectacularly profitable work.”
    
    Actually, in reality there exists a large amount of creators who succeeded with their début. They obviously got good before ever selling a single copy.
    
    > “Those milestones can’t be met if we have to slog through 60 hour work weeks (non art related) to make ends meet.”
    
    That you personally can’t make it doesn’t mean that all other creators are as weak and failed as you.
    
    > “File sharing may not kill art altogether, but it’s crippling it in ways that can’t be felt by most people.”
    
    Do you have any facts to back this claim up, or are we just supposed to take the word for it, the word from a weak failed entrepreneur that can’t handle himself on the free market, someone who argues against history?
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Wait, what the fuck are you actually arguing FOR, here? Are you telling me that I should just give everything away and I should LIKE it?
      
      Obviously you don’t make SHIT. Everything you’ve said is spoken like the dumb fucking leecher that you are. Why don’t you actually create something, then let me know how it feels when I take it from you and tell you to shut the fuck up.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Wait, what the fuck are you actually arguing FOR, here?”
      
      I’m not arguing for anything, i’m simply trying to clear up some misconceptions at your end.
      
      > “Are you telling me that I should just give everything away and I should LIKE it?”
      
      No. Which sentence did you interpret in that confusing manner? Please quote it and i will help you read it properly, so that you can also understand it.
      
      > “Obviously you don’t make SHIT.”
      
      Don’t pretend to know anything about what i create or don’t create.
      
      > “Everything you’ve said is spoken like the dumb fucking leecher that you are.”
      
      So someone who explains how the free market actually works to you is a leecher? Do you have a problem with the free market? Are you advocating communism or a planned economy?
      
      > “Why don’t you actually create something, then let me know how it feels when I take it from you and tell you to shut the fuck up.”
      
      You seem seriously confused. You can not take something, that i have created, from me through filesharing. Nor have i told you to shut the fuck up, although maybe i should..
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Fredrika, you’re saying a whole lot of nothing. You have no argument. Let me know when you figure out exactly what you’re fighting for. You’re saying I’m wrong and that I have misconceptions, but you’re not offering anything that could be considered ‘right’. And clearly you’re not ‘teaching’ me anything about the system – you only seem bent on undermining my statements and nothing more.
      
      Come up with a good argument and maybe we can continue.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Fredrika, you’re saying a whole lot of nothing.”
      
      Are you saying that you don’t understand what i’m saying? If so, please ask for help.
      
      > “You have no argument.”
      
      I’m not trying to argue for any standpoint, regarding how things should be, or why. I’m simply trying to clear up some misconceptions at your end.
      
      > “Let me know when you figure out exactly what you’re fighting for.”
      
      I’m fighting for that people should try to stick to the facts, and not use straw-man arguments or other logical fallacies, or deny or reverse reality in their arguments as you do.
      
      > “You’re saying I’m wrong and that I have misconceptions, but you’re not offering anything that could be considered ‘right’.”
      
      Please re-read everything i wrote, and you will clearly see that i do indeed explain exactly how things actually are regarding the points which you have misunderstood. What someone personally believes is right have no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.
      
      > “And clearly you’re not ‘teaching’ me anything about the system..”
      
      Are you saying you are incapable of learning?
      
      > “..you only seem bent on undermining my statements and nothing more.”
      
      Yes because your statements are based on misconceptions and incorrect claims?
      
      > “Come up with a good argument and maybe we can continue.”
      
      Argument for what? I’m not trying to argue for any point?
    - Anon1
      
      Fredrika, please have my babies.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Fredrika, please have my babies.”
      
      I’m to young to have babies, can’t you see that!? =)
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Fredrika, you haven’t refuted me with one single ‘fact’ in all your replies, despite your claim to them.
      
      If you think the ‘facts’ are on your side, then let’s hear them.
      
      The thing is, you’re hiding behind wild assumptions as to my state of mind, extrapolated from so little information it’s comical.
      
      You’re nobody. You’ve got no original ideas. You’re not risking ANYTHING by talking to me, which means you’re not worth talking to.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Fredrika, you haven’t refuted me with one single ‘fact’ in all your replies, despite your claim to them.
      
      You claimed that people are taking your products or giving them away, which is obviously an incorrect claim. Your product is not what people filesharing are dealing with, they are dealing with their own property. That was one, would you like me to continue?
      
      > “If you think the ‘facts’ are on your side, then let’s hear them.”
      
      Again, please re-read my previous comments. Everything you ask for has already been stated in them.
      
      > “The thing is, you’re hiding behind wild assumptions as to my state of mind, extrapolated from so little information it’s comical.”
      
      Well if it isn’t bitching you’re doing, maybe you should look at how you try to get your point through, because the only thing you come of as is a bitching failed weak entrepreneur that can’t handle himself on the free market.
      
      > “You’re nobody. You’ve got no original ideas.”
      
      Again, do not pretend to have any knowledge about who i am or what i do.
      
      > “You’re not risking ANYTHING by talking to me, which means you’re not worth talking to.”
      
      So people must risk things for them being worth talking to? Ok then. Exactly what are you risking by bitching around here?
    - zRandom
      
      Jay, my man.. please stop the arguing, consider yourself owned because I won’t buy shit unless it’s good and not only a $59.99 dollar sign on top of uselss product! SHAME ON you.
    - Happyartist
      
      Thank you Fredika for consistently pointing out the truth.
      
      And Jay in case you really want to know what Fredrika is arguing for.
      The rights of artists – the 98% you mentioned anyway (it’s far more than 98% though). Most artists will benefit from the changes that come about when the current business model fails.
      The well being of art itself. Corporations and accountants don’t make the best art.
      The rights of every person (even you). The government doesn’t really care about filesharing. Can you think of some other reasons why the government might want to allow the kinds of laws that are being proposed? I can, and none of them are good for us.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      “Your product is not what people filesharing are dealing with, they are dealing with their own property.”
      
      So you’re saying that people have the right to own any of the files on my computer, simply because it’s copied?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “So you’re saying that people have the right to own any of the files on my computer, simply because it’s copied?”
      
      No. But you still seem confused. It’s not your files, on your computer that people filesharing are dealing with. They are dealing with their own property, that they own, as in their computers and their copies on their harddrives. You do not own their copies. That’s their property. Do you not understand the concept of property?
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Happyartist, Fredrika is not arguing for artists’ rights.
    - Anyone
      
      yes she is
      
      that you still don’t bother to actually read her posts or try to understand them is astounding.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      ”No. But you still seem confused. It’s not your files, on your computer that people filesharing are dealing with. They are dealing with their own property, that they own, as in their computers and their copies on their harddrives. You do not own their copies. That’s their property. Do you not understand the concept of property?”
      
      Who gives a fuck? This isn’t about me reaching onto someone’s hard drive and delete something I created – and this isn’t about how easy it is to circumvent a law that has a shitload of loopholes – this is about how file sharing sucks for those that rely on digital sales for income.
      
      The only people that don’t care are leechers like you. You don’t create anything – you have no idea how it affects people – you read an article that throws numbers and legal jargon at you and you decide that file sharing is no threat. And then you have me come and tell you to your face that it is and all you can do is attack me for it. Real fucking smart.
      
      And no, I don’t need to PROVE anything to you. Like I said you’re nobody. I’m telling you that it sucks. File sharing fucking blows. Period. You can try and spin my motives any way you want but you have no idea what it means to the other side – to see your hard work given away.
      
      Don’t you see? You don’t matter – you’re insignificant because you’re not a part of the conversation – you’re just standing outside throwing rocks and not giving a fuck (I’m being abstract, not literal – you seem to have trouble with telling the difference between the two). Because you don’t care you have nothing to risk. Even now you’re not saying anything – you’re simply replying to me in order to take up my time. That’s it. You have no point, you’re not on any side – you’re no one. You’re a dumb observer with no stake in the outcome.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Who gives a fuck?”
      
      Understanding the concept of property is a good start if you’re going to discuss the copyright monopoly.
      
      > “This isn’t about me reaching onto someone’s hard drive and delete something I created..”
      
      There’s nothing on anyone else’s hard drive which you created.
      
      > “..and this isn’t about how easy it is to circumvent a law that has a shitload of loopholes..”
      
      Nor have i ever claimed that it is.
      
      > “..this is about how file sharing sucks for those that rely on digital sales for income.”
      
      You claim this.
      
      > “The only people that don’t care are leechers like you.”
      
      First of all you know nothing of whether or not i leech, regardless on what kind of leeching you’re talking about. Secondly, it’s not anyone else’s responsibility that some entrepreneurs who rely on digital sales for income are so weak and failed so that they can’t handle themselves on the free market. That’s their responsibility alone.
      
      > “You don’t create anything..”
      
      For the third time, do not pretend that you know anything of what i do or create.
      
      > “..you have no idea how it affects people..”
      
      The free market rules obviously affect weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market. That’s how the free market works. That’s how the free market should work.
      
      > “..you read an article that throws numbers and legal jargon at you and you decide that file sharing is no threat.”
      
      I have not decided any such standpoint, regardless of which party that could be considered threatened by it, nor do i know of which article you refer to.
      
      > “And then you have me come and tell you to your face that it is and all you can do is attack me for it. Real fucking smart.”
      
      Of your own free will, and ignorance no doubt, you make incorrect claims. If you feel attacked by me pointing out the flaws in your clams, well, then stop making them?
      
      > “And no, I don’t need to PROVE anything to you.”
      
      Nor have i ever claimed that you have to.
      
      > “Like I said you’re nobody.”
      
      For the fourth time, do not pretend that you know anything about who i am or what i do. You simply don’t.
      
      > “I’m telling you that it sucks.”
      
      Of course the free market sucks to a weak failed entrepreneur that can’t handle himself on the free market. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
      
      > “File sharing fucking blows. Period.”
      
      Must everybody share your confused and ignorant opinion on that matter?
      
      > “You can try and spin my motives any way you want but you have no idea what it means to the other side – to see your hard work given away.
      
      You still seem confused, it’s not your hard work that’s given away. Nothing belonging to you is involved when people fileshare.
      
      > “Don’t you see?”
      
      More than you apparently.
      
      > “You don’t matter..”
      
      Nor have i ever claimed to.
      
      > “..you’re insignificant because you’re not a part of the conversation..”
      
      What conversation would that be? The conversation i’m participating in right now? Just because your ignorance makes it impossible for you to understand what other people are saying, or because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean they aren’t participating in a conversation.
      
      > “..you’re just standing outside throwing rocks and not giving a fuck (I’m being abstract, not literal – you seem to have trouble with telling the difference between the two).”
      
      First of all, please quote the specific sentence from me which you interpreted in a way as that i don’t understand the difference between abstract and literal, and i will gladly help you read it properly, so that you maybe also can understand what i actually wrote and meant.
      
      Secondly, i do care about a lot of things, among others people’s right to privacy, free speech, due process, and the human rights
      protected freedom to without interference seek, receive and impart
      information through any media and regardless of frontiers.
      
      What i don’t care about is bitching weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market, because nobody is forcing them to be an entrepreneur in the first place.
      
      > “Because you don’t care you have nothing to risk.”
      
      Whether or not i have something to risk is in no way dependent on whether or not i care for some weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market.
      
      > “Even now you’re not saying anything..”
      
      Again, the fact that you don’t understand what other people are saying, or agree with it, does not equal that they are not saying anything.
      
      > “..you’re simply replying to me in order to take up my time.”
      
      In no way is what i write written to take up your time. None of my words are written solely for your benefit. You seem to be a bit self-centred.
      
      > “That’s it. You have no point, you’re not on any side – you’re no one. You’re a dumb observer with no stake in the outcome.”
      
      On the contrary, all people have a stake in the outcome of the fight for right to privacy, free speech, due process, and the human rights
      protected freedom to without interference seek, receive and impart
      information through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    - Anyone
      
      are you stupid on purpose?
      every independent study has shown that non-profit filesharing has a positive effect
      
      how else do you explain record year after record year for the MPAA?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “are you stupid on purpose? every independent study has shown that non-profit filesharing has a positive effect how else do you explain record year after record year for the MPAA?”
      
      Please, if you’re gonna post replies to others as replies to me, at least quote their signature first so that nobody mistakes which person you believe to be stupid, regardless of how easy it may be to understand which party that’s an idiot.. =)
    - Anyone
      
      sorry, but there is no reply button that far down, only the like button :/
    - Fredrika
      
      > “sorry, but there is no reply button that far down, only the like button :/”
      
      I know that(although there are tricks to get around it), but if there’s no other way and you feel that it’s most appropriate to post the reply to me, at least write the signature of the idiot you’re responding to at the top of your comment!! =)
    - Guest
      
      Jay, you’re absolutely fucking pathetic. The truth is that filesharers(or “leeches” as you like to call them) are the best customers. You are just scapegoating them for your own failures.
      
      I hope you can’t make ends meet. I hope you’re forced to give up on your work. Because the creative landscape needs less prima-donna pieces of shit like you in it.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      God you’re a waste of time. Fredrika, file sharing is NOT the free market. Unless you mean ‘free’ literally. Your opinion on the matter means nothing, but I’ll amuse you:
      
      File sharing does not strengthen competition. File sharing refuses to compete, which is why it’s not fair.
      
      You keep saying I’m a failed entrepreneur but that’s bullshit goading – I simply want the free market to be FAIR, and to be a MARKET. That’s why we have things called “laws”. Just because I want things to be fair does NOT mean that I’m unsuccessful. In fact, I want competition – bring it on, I say. But this is not about competition – file sharing is about the LACK of competition. THAT is what hurts the industry. File sharing hurts the industry. It just does. It’s anti-competition, like a competitive void with a zero-sum game.
      
      I know because I have a product on the market, and file sharing has hurt me. What part of that do you not understand? You need me to juggle numbers in front of your face? You want me to ram some statistic down your throat until you believe? Well, fuck that shit – the ‘truth’ is not in some numbers on a page. I’m telling you it hurts me – that’s proof right there; an eye-witness account.
      
      To be pro-free-market is to be pro-consumer. After all, consumers are the ones that make the free market work – they decide with their wallets what gets consumed. A movie exec doesn’t look at how many downloads a movie gets when deciding whether to make a sequel – he doesn’t care, and it doesn’t matter. File sharing means nothing to the free market.
      
      You don’t have a product on the market, I know you don’t – that would have strengthened your point of view to the nth degree – but you haven’t, and as it stands your opinion on the matter doesn’t mean shit because you don’t have any stake in the outcome, and you have no position in which to take. Words can not express how foolish and weak you are, Fredrika – if they could you would have stopped engaging me long before now.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “God you’re a waste of time.”
      
      And your opinion on this is relevant how?
      
      > “..file sharing is NOT the free market.”
      
      Not have i claimed that filesharing is the free market.
      
      > “Your opinion on the matter means nothing..”
      
      For something which means nothing to you, you seem to spend a lot of time replying to it.
      
      > “File sharing does not strengthen competition.”
      
      Not have i claimed that it does.
      
      > “File sharing refuses to compete..”
      
      Filesharing is an act which people perform amongst themselves. Filesharing in itself is not an entity which can compete, or refuse to compete. Whatever that means.
      
      > “..which is why it’s not fair.”
      
      Your personal opinion on what’s fair or not isn’t necessarily shared by others, but are you saying that the free market and it’s rules, where no party is privileged with a legislative monopoly, is unfair?
      
      > “You keep saying I’m a failed entrepreneur but that’s bullshit goading..”
      
      Successful entrepreneurs aren’t sitting around bitching about the free market effect of filesharing. They accept how the free market works, and make money on it successfully, without bitching.
      
      > “I simply want the free market to be FAIR, and to be a MARKET.”
      
      Which it is. The fact that people do what they wish with their own property amongst themselves does not mean that the free market isn’t fair.
      
      > “That’s why we have things called “laws”.
      
      No, we do not have laws to satisfy your subjective opinion on what’s fair.
      
      > “Just because I want things to be fair does NOT mean that I’m unsuccessful.”
      
      Not have i ever claimed that it does.
      
      > “In fact, I want competition – bring it on, I say.”
      
      Good, then accept filesharing and the competition it offers your sales.
      
      > “But this is not about competition – file sharing is about the LACK of competition.”
      
      Correct, because of the legislative monopoly their is no competition, which stifles the market and prices, and filesharing solves this problem.
      
      > “THAT is what hurts the industry.”
      
      The same industry that is currently making more money than ever before, when at the same time other industries are going down? Is hurt another concept which you don’t understand?
      
      > “File sharing hurts the industry. It just does.”
      
      No it doesn’t, it just doesn’t. =)
      
      > “It’s anti-competition, like a competitive void with a zero-sum game.”
      
      A phenomenon that means people can get what they want elsewhere than from you is by definition competition.
      
      > “I know because I have a product on the market, and file sharing has hurt me.
      
      That you claim this or that you believe this does not make it a fact.
      
      > “What part of that do you not understand?”
      
      I understand perfectly what you claim and believe, but that still doesn’t make it a fact.
      
      > “You need me to juggle numbers in front of your face?”
      
      The only thing you can prove with numbers is that you sell less, and the reason for that is because you are a weak failed entrepreneur that can’t handle yourself on the free market. I do not need any numbers juggled to understand this. You have convinced me beyond reasonable doubt long ago.
      
      > “You want me to ram some statistic down your throat until you believe?”
      
      I want you to understand that the numbers you have do not prove what you believe they prove.
      
      > “Well, fuck that shit – the ‘truth’ is not in some numbers on a page.”
      
      Ok then, so it’s possible that your declining numbers depend on other issues.
      
      > “I’m telling you it hurts me – that’s proof right there; an eye-witness account.”
      
      Your poor eyesight and belief does not constitute proof of what you believe it does.
      
      > “To be pro-free-market is to be pro-consumer.
      
      Are you saying that you are anti-consumer because you are advocating a legislative monopoly?
      
      > “After all, consumers are the ones that make the free market work – they decide with their wallets what gets consumed.”
      
      No, they decide with their wallets what is purchased.
      
      > “A movie exec doesn’t look at how many downloads a movie gets when deciding whether to make a sequel – he doesn’t care, and it doesn’t matter.
      
      Your opinion on that matter is noted.
      
      > “File sharing means nothing to the free market.”
      
      Your opinion on that matter is also noticed.
      
      > “You don’t have a product on the market, I know you don’t..”
      
      For the sixth time(i believe), do not pretend that you know anything of what i do or whether or not i have a product on the market.
      
      > “..that would have strengthened your point of view to the nth degree – but you haven’t..”
      
      God forbid that other entrepreneurs that have products on the market doesn’t share your belief or come to the same conclusions that you do, right?
      
      > “..and as it stands your opinion on the matter doesn’t mean shit because you don’t have any stake in the outcome..”
      
      All people have a stake in the outcome of how far reaching the copyright monopoly and it’s intrusion into peoples property rights comes, and it’s later enforcement.
      
      > “..and you have no position in which to take.”
      
      I have taken it long ago. Peoples right to privacy, free speech, due process, and the human rights
      protected freedom to without interference seek, receive and impart
      information through any media and regardless of frontiers, will always be more important than a legislative monopoly and the opinions and demands of some weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market.
      
      > “Words can not express how foolish and weak you are, Fredrika – if they could you would have stopped engaging me long before now. “
      
      What you are saying is that you are completely unable of coming up with any personal attacks that means anything to me? You are correct.
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      I think what Fredrika is arguing against is the attitude of entitlement. And, to be honest, with the attitude you have, I can’t help but wonder if it comes out in your product, and that’s why you’re unsuccessful. Don’t treat your fans like criminals, like thieves. Embrace their desire to experience your work, regardless of their income level. The money will follow, there are ways to be profitable on the internet, but they all require good PR and a good relationship with your fanbase.
      
      …which is what the thieves are. They’re your fanbase. That’s who you’re railing against, people who like your work enough to want to share it with others, to enjoy it for themselves when they don’t currently have the money to pay for it. And loyal fans always pay it back in spades, both the good and the bad. Keep that in mind.
      
      They say the worst thing an artist can experience is anonymity. If nobody knows who you are, you won’t sell a single copy. At least if people are sharing your work they know who you are and it’s a step in the right direction.
    - Anyone
      
      Jay, try to think of your fans as fans, and not as either consumers or thieves
      that should help cure your many misconceptions that you have
      
      and yes, non-profit piracy is part of the free market, often it is the only product available because of stupid licensing deals (see Game of Thrones), but it is a product.
      and iTunes, Netflix or Steam show that it is absolutely possible (and profitable) to compete with free
      
      so stop looking for the reason of your failure in the “evil filesharers” and try and look at yourself, maybe your art simply isn’t worth buying or you are trying to sell it in the wrong ways (too expensive, riddled with DRM, bundled with insults)
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @Gene_P00le:disqus ” And, to be honest, with the attitude you have, I can’t help but wonder
      if it comes out in your product, and that’s why you’re unsuccessful.”
      
      Oh please. I SELL A PRODUCT. Selling a product is not a bad thing. I’m not some Communist, entitled dickhead that thinks he deserves everything for free.
      
      I’m not ‘unsuccessful’. I dislike file sharing because it’s disrespectful and wrong and it hurts the industry. There’s plenty to dislike about it long before I get into what it’s doing to my profit margins (but there is that, too).
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      the only one being disrespectful is you
      
      and as I said before, hurting the industry is a good thing, the arts should be free from the industry so they can prosper
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      Your stance on whether filesharing is disrespectful or not is immaterial.
      
      Please educate yourself on the concepts of economics and capitalism. Then work within the guidelines available to you. that’s really all there is to it. Arguing against innovation will not change the progress of technology. All it will do is ensure that, by failing to adapt to the times, you will fail, much like the legacy industries have time and again.
      
      Adapt or die, motherfucker.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Everything you’ve responded with is irrelevant. You’re not even trying to make a point.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Everything you’ve responded with is irrelevant. You’re not even trying to make a point.”
      
      That you don’t understand the point or points i’m trying to make doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. As i’ve said several times before, if there is something of what i write which you don’t understand, please quote it and ask for help, and i will try to clarify it for you further, until even you understand what everyone else here already understands.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @Gene_P00le:disqus I’m surrounded by morons.
      
      File sharing is NOT competition. It’s anti-competitive. No company can ‘adapt’ to free shit, motherfucker.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “I’m surrounded by morons.”
      
      > “No company can ‘adapt’ to free shit, motherfucker.”
      
      In reality thousands of companies and entrepreneurs already have, successfully so, so that you personally can’t only means that you personally are a weak failed entrepreneur that can’t handle yourself on the free market.
      
      Everyone else here already understands and knows this, and you call everyone else for morons? =)
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      I’m sorry that you don’t understand. I hope that you can comprehend the things being discussed here before it affects you too detrimentally for you to be able to cope.
      
      It may be that everyone here is a fucking idiot. It is the internet, we’re all 13 year old girls if I recall correctly.
      
      Or maybe we understand a concept you haven’t grasped yet. If that’s the case, then pressing your hands to your ears and shouting “blah blah blah you’re wrong I can’t hear you” doesn’t help anybody, least of all you.
      
      I genuinely wish you the best. If you port some of those themes to android, I would likely buy them, because they look nice and I like them.
      
      Good luck.
    - Fantesticle
      
      TL;DR version.
      
      Jay: The file sharers are correct when they say that sharing is good. What we are seeing now is the democratisation of media, this gives the faceless big media conglomerates THE FEAR. Which is great. It’s great to see more and more artists releasing under Creative Commons Non Commercial licenses, rather than full conventional copyright. This lets the fans share and introduce new fans, and if the artist does get used in a big TV advert (for example) – they get a fuckload of money.
      
      People are able to interact directly with artists and though that feel like a part of what the artist is doing. By giving media away for free the artist encourages the consumer to “repay the debt” later, by purchasing special editon DVDs, going to live shows, or getting on Kickstarter where they’ll happily front money for a speculative project just for the love of it.
      
      Fredrika: Stop being a FUCKING IDIOT. Yes, wonderful fallacy, a file is a few 1s and 0s that your HDD created a second ago. It’s a silly argument – I’d rather watch Game of Thrones compared to the static between channels. Both contain the same amount of data, but one represents the careful application of millions of dollars and the other is shit.
      
      A musician hoping to create the perfect album needs to dedicate WEEKS if not MONTHS of his time to creating music. He needs instruments, equipment to record those intruments and the aforementioned TIME. He also needs to pay his rent and buy his food. We don’t all live at home for free. How does he overcome these fixed costs?
      
      [Looking at you]
      
      We’re on the cusp of a revolution, but unfortunately this shit costs money. It won’t happen without us.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “..a file is a few 1s and 0s that your HDD created a second ago. It’s a silly argument..”
      
      It’s not an argument, it’s a fact? A file is a file whether it’s created in a CD-pressing plant or at home, and the owner of the file is the owner of the physical item which the file is located on, which in the case with filesharing happens to be the owner of the computer, and not the creator of the intellectual work.
      
      > “How does he overcome these fixed costs?”
      
      The responsibility for the entrepreneur to get his business idea to work financially lies solely upon him. That’s how entrepreneurship works.
      
      Asking someone else how to get one’s entrepreneurship to work is a free mentality that normal entrepreneurs not privileged with a legislative monopoly wouldn’t dream of displaying.
      
      > “It won’t happen without us”
      
      Well it’s a good thing then that people and pirates are currently spending more money than ever before on culture, and that the previously necessary costs for manufacturing and distributing copies is wiped out by technological advances, which means that more money than ever before can go to the creators, instead of middle men.
    - Anyone
      
      @a808adc41d2ecfa85af635c41abb3897:disqus
      you said it yourself, if the art is any good, people will pay for it in some way
      
      now Frederika is on one extreme of the argument, but she just brings it to the logical conclusion, the internet is a giant copy machine that can copy stuff at such low cost that many people give it away for free, effectively creating unlimited supply
      and this approach is more realistic than the entitlement approach that basically criminalizes everyone and tries to extort as much money as possible
    - Fantesticle
      
      Like so many things in this world, things are so many different shades, we have to use a slightly obtuse preposition to get closer to the truth.
      
      Information has value. How you store the information does not remove that value.
      
      I send you two audio files, one of Justin Bieber humming whist on the toilet for an hour, and the other a copy of your favourite album. Are you saying they are of equal zero value. Will you listen to them them equally?
      
      If you do, then you are a very sick person! :P
      
      No – one obviously has value above the other. They’re the same number of bytes! But still one is somehow more valuable than another. This why I think the “zero-value” argument is a fallacy.
      
      Ask yourself what is money? and what is the point of money? – It’s about assigning a value to something that may or may not have a real value. I don’t for a second suggest the system is perfect. But this weird nihilistic reductive world view, that Fredrika is just one of many proponents of, is something I just can’t get behind.
      
      Wierdly I blame the corporate media. They have changed how we see and how we value the content they force upon us. The new world is going to be a more democratic one, but in order for it to happen, we have to assign value, not only in the stores, but in our own minds.
      
      We need to move away from this instant-get-it-all-for-free mentality and perversely that will set us free from the domination and stranglehold of Big Content.
      
      That’s a much more noble goal that I believe will lead to the end of copyright as a controlling force.
      
      Which is good for all. Cos the old way is rubbish.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “But this weird nihilistic reductive world view, that Fredrika is just one of many proponents of, is something I just can’t get behind.”
      
      What are you talking about? You know nothing of my world view, i have not argued anything regarding how i believe things should be or why, i have simply stated a couple of facts about property, and how the free market works, to try to clear up a couple of misconceptions that others seems to harbour, and asked a bunch of questions that never gets answered.
      
      If there’s something of what i actually wrote that you interpreted in such a bizarre manner, please quote that specific paragraph and i will help you read it properly, because as it is now, you seem to have seriously misunderstood something.
      
      > “We need to move away from this instant-get-it-all-for-free mentality..”
      
      Need? Since there exists no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports the thesis that filesharing, if that is what you refer to with “instant-get-it-all-for-free mentality”, constitutes any kind of problem to neither society, the economy, culture, creators, the content industry’s current record revenues or the goal with copyright, there’s at least least no need for those several hundreds of millions of people that fileshare to move away from that value creating concept. They can continue as they wish.
  - Indie Musician
    
    Excuse me, please take that tampon out of your ass. I’m an indie musician and 98% of my revenue comes from file sharers who share my songs, like them and then go buy them.
    - Spencer greff
      
      Link to your content?
    - Happyartist
      
      This is exactly why I say filesharing is the best thing that has happened to music in a long time. You make money because people like your music. People know they like your music because you let them hear it.
      
      I agree with one thing Jay said:
      
      >”If the top 2% of artists are making 95% of the profits, something is REALLY wrong.”
      
      Although I’d say it’s less than 2% (and not much of that 95% makes it to the artist), and musical talent has little to do with whether you’re one of the few getting that small cut of the profit.
      
      Filesharing means that artists like you will be heard. It also means that whether you make it as an artist will depend on your ability as a musician. This is what really scares the recording industry.
      
      I anxiously await the days when 95% of the profit gets spread out among lots af artists. And as a side effect, the artist will actually get a significant portion of that profit.
      
      Artists should (and do) make art because it’s what we love to do. Fans should help support artists if they enjoy the art. Money is not the only way to support an artist. If you share a song, you’re supporting the artist too. Advertising yourself is expensive and contrived. Fans sharing your music is free and honest endorsement of you. So please share the music of your favorite starving artist, the exposure is worth more than some people seem to want to realize.
      
      Is it me, or is it mostly non-musicians that think sharing music is bad? I know a lot of musicians and they all agree that filesharing will save art.
      Do people really think that corporate executives with only profit on their minds will guide art to a better place. I suspect that artists and fans are the best choice to guide art where it should go. The less business is involved the better it is for fans, artists and art itself.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      I’m sorry to hear that you’re an artist that doesn’t know his own value. Good luck becoming anything more in life, loser.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “I’m sorry to hear that you’re an artist that doesn’t know his own value. Good luck becoming anything more in life, loser.”
      
      Since he’s selling, and you’re not, it seems his value is higher than yours, regardless of how you individually value yourself.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Fredicka, you must have some magical fucking fairy dust if you can extrapolate my sales numbers from anything I’ve said here today.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “..you must have some magical fucking fairy dust if you can extrapolate my sales numbers from anything I’ve said here today.”
      
      Based on how much you bitch here they must be really low. Someone who’s sales are decent wouldn’t bitch as much. =)
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      > “..you must have some magical fucking fairy dust if you can extrapolate my sales numbers from anything I’ve said here today.”
      
      > Based on how much you bitch here they must be really low. Someone who’s sales are decent wouldn’t bitch as much. =)
      
      That makes no sense.
    - No1_2_u
      
      Actually, I think he’s got “sand in his vagina”, but that is just semantics.
      
      He made a statment about whatever, & now he’s been torn a new asshole by everybody here.
      
      The fact of the matter is, if he isn’t selling anything, & needs to work 60hrs/week to make ends meet, it’s because his stuff sucks.
      
      Time to change careers Jay, & learn to say, w/ a smile, “Would you like fries w/ that”.
    - Timmy
      
      @6624c24f23dabe5f2c0f776efd293454:disqus Just want to step in here and tell you that artists who still have day jobs have them NOT because they suck. It’s a taugh industry where only a small percentage of artists can become wealthy or live off their job as an artist.As someone from the metal community, all the bands (who have a large strong fanbase) still have day jobs. They go on tour, sell merch, sell music etc. Yet still have day jobs. Some of them don’t ofcause, but that’s the odd few which are extremely famous within the metal community.To make good music doesn’t mean you’ll be a success, as we can tell from the mainstream music today. It’s all about marketing, if you can’t market the right people or the people who’d like your music can’t find you… then, you’re screwed.
  - Wallace
    
    You must hate birthday parties and Christmas.
    - No1_2_u
      
      @ Timmy
      
      “Just want to step in here and tell you that artists who still have day jobs have them NOT because they suck. It’s a taugh industry where only a small percentage of artists can become wealthy or live off their job as an artist”
      
      I know that Timmy, you know that, we all know that, & that’s my point. Jay chose the path of being an artist, which from a historical perspective have always struggle to make ends meet; it’s not fair for you, or anybody else, but I don’t make the rules.
      
      “As someone from the metal community, all the bands (who have a large strong fanbase) still have day jobs. They go on tour, sell merch, sell music etc. Yet still have day jobs”.
      
      Timmy, I am a Metalhead & have discovered tons of bands I would never have heard of outside of torrents because my local music stores would rather sell Justin Bieber than Metal; so, Jay whinning like a baby about us “stealing” his material is pure unadulterated bullshit. If the stores don’t stock your music, how can I buy it?
      
      When I download an album of some unknown, to me, artist, if I like what I hear, then I will support the band as best I can; Jay shouldn’t expect to make money just becasue he makes music, that’s not how “Supply & Demand” works in a free market economy.
      
      “It’s all about marketing, if you can’t market the right people or the people who’d like your music can’t find you… then, you’re screwed”.
      
      Many people here, as well as Indie Musician & yourself just now have pointed out this fact to Jay in their comments; however, he refuses to understand that times have changed & he needs to adapt as you & Indie Musician have. Jay doesn’t want to comprehend that, as a musician, you now have to see your Album / CD as advertisement for your tours, merchandise & make money that way, & stop relying on a corporation, who really doesn’t give a shit about the artist, to sell your products for you.
      
      Have a nice day.
  - Spencer greff
    
    I find it interesting that you mod OS interfaces as if they were yours. By your own standards you are a thief.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      I’d love to hear you explain this one to me. I dare you.
  - Happyartist
    
    >”If you had a product you relied on to pay the bills, would you LIKE to
    see it be given away for free? If so, then you’re definitely the
    minority (and maybe not as smart as I was lead to believe).”
    
    I do have a product that I rely on to pay the bills. Without filesharing, I’d still make music but not many people would hear it and I wouldn’t make much money from it. What minority are you talking about? The few people making millions of dollars or the millions of people making a few dollars. Maybe you just got that backwards?
    
    >”When file-sharers win we all lose. Don’t romanticize it – giving stuff
    away that other people made still sucks for people like me that actually
    make the content. ”
    
    The only one who lose when fileshares win are middlemen and the untalented musicians making money because of them. There are some talented musicians making money in spite of the current model. They’ll make money either way. Most of the money being made from the music business is from the business instead of the music. Those people won’t make money when art wins.
    
    Let me rephrase you:
    “When art wins, we all win. Don’t deny it – giving stuff away that other people made is great for people like me that actually make (and care about) the content.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Most of the art I create I give away for free. I give it away at a loss to my time, energy, and money.
    - Happyartist
      
      Jay,
      It’s good to hear that you give away your art for free. I see things a little differently though.
      
      You create your art at a loss of time, energy and money. You give it away at a gain of free exposure, and assuming people like it, a growing number of fans. The more people that like your art, the more likely it is for you to make money.
      
      I say this a lot, but It just needs to be repeated:
      You make art because you love to make art.
      You let that art be seen or heard because you want others to share the experience of what you created.
      You make money from it because others love to see/hear you make art.
      
      Somewhere inside I think you understand this. You’ve been told so many times that you can’t make money unless you force people to pay you that you think you believe it. Ask yourself this: If you like an artist, do you give them money because you have to or do you give them money because they deserve it?
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Happyartist, I don’t know about you, but I can’t survive on happy vibes and adoring smiles from my fans.
      
      If someone wants to support me then there’s a structured way they can do so – buy purchasing my product. It makes for a fun argument to say that there are people out there that won’t buy my product unless they can get it for free, but those people are the extreme minority.
      
      My product has been taken (with no reciprocation) anywhere from 15 to 20 times more than those that are willing to pay. There is absolutely no way to spin that in my favor, or to look at it as a good thing.
      
      I’m well aware of my inability to do anything about it – file sharing simply can’t be stopped. But I can do my part to tell readers and listeners that it fucking blows. The greater portion of the population doesn’t know what it’s like to be affected by file sharing – I’m here to explain to them that it sucks.
      
      I file share myself. I’m against copyright abuse and DMCA takedowns as they’re currently used. But I make it a point not to take from people that will suffer a loss. I only take files that are created by large corporations whose workers make a salary regardless of the product’s success.
      
      I’m a small artist, and file sharing hurts me. Don’t do it. Don’t take files from people that need sales on a day-to-day basis. Please. It’s a punch to the gut to have people take something I made without paying. It sucks. If you’re happy about others taking your work, then fine, but I don’t like it one bit.
    - Anyone
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI
      
      since you don’t listen to us, how about you listen to Neil Gaiman
      listen, understand, take a deep breath, and then tell us how he has no idea and he should sue his fans into oblivion
    - Happyartist
      
      Jay,
      >”I can’t survive on happy vibes and adoring smiles from my fans.”
      
      I can’t either. But I do pretty well on the money they give me when they like it. And the money their friends give me when they also like it.
      
      How much do you think I’d make if I only got money when someone randomly bought my music hoping it might be good? Even if only one out of a hundred people pay for it, I still end up with a lot more money. Filesharing gives you so much exposure that even one in a thousand people paying would be a lot of money. How about people who didn’t pay, but come to see me play. They wouldn’t be likely to want to see me if they never heard of me.
      
      I know lots of musicians who only make money from shows. Before filesharing it was much harder to get known, and good luck being known outside of your local area. It’s possible now to sell out a club hundreds of miles from where you live. You can even sell CDs to the people at the show. Because they’ve heard you, and they already like you.
      
      I’m not saying you can’t try to lock down your music, I’m just suggesting that it’s not helping you at all to do so.
      
      To put it another way:
      You can’t survive on angry vibes and middle fingers from your angry ex fans. You also can’t survive on would-be fans who never heard of you.
      
      I’m sorry you think filesharing will hurt you, I don’t know how to show you the truth.
      
      Let me ask you something though. Why do you give away most of the art you create?
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus Fuck Neil Gaiman. That man is crazy-successful. It literally costs him nothing to sit in front of a camera and side with file-sharers.
      
      I’m not calling my fans thieves – my fans are the ones that respect the cost of my product – I’m simply calling the thieves disrespectful dickheads, fans or not.
    - Anyone
      
      I chose Neil Gaiman because while successful he is not a multimillionaire or even widely known
      
      and if you actually listened to him you’d hear him say that he had the exact same misconceptions about piracy as you do, until he saw evidence to the contrary with his experiments.
      
      science!
    - Plop
      
      @Kunu:disqus Seriously, if you RELY on digital sales to pay the bills you really need to get yourself a proper job – you know, like PLAYING SOME GIGS!
      
      You seem to be living in some fantasy time in the 80s or 90s where people would tour to promote an album, then get rich off album sales. The reality of course is that MOST people didn’t get rich off album sales – rather, they got hugely indebted to a record label off expenses. And now that those days are gone it’s a good thing.
      
      What we have now is a system where the ‘album’ (digital download or whatever ‘product’ format you may be putting out there) promotes the ‘tour’. So the more people who hear your music the more people will pay to se you play live. You can’t change this system by stomping your feet and saying ‘not fair not fair’, it’s the way society works. In this system file-sharing helps to promote the artist and the artist makes more money than if he relied solely on people happening to find her/him/them by chance on a distribution channel like iTunes Music Store.
      
      Unlike you I don’t live in a fantasy world, I live in the real world and I write/play music. I give music away for free so I wouldn’t care if you were to ‘steal’ my stuff – I’d probably give you MORE if I knew you liked it that much, and then encourage you to come and watch me play so that I could make more money from repeat bookings at a venue, or increased ticket sales. It’s not easy, but I think you’ll find most people (non-musicians that is) have jobs that are either easy and don’t pay well, or not easy and don’t pay all that well and struggle their way through to pay the bills, so what makes you so special that you shouldn’t have to put in the hard work? If you play about 6 or 7 gigs a week you’d be surprised at how much of a living you can earn for, lets face it, about half as many working hours as the average person out there.
  - zRandom
    
    That stop being such a douchebag and lower the cost for all media!
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Huh?
  - No1_2_u
    
    “…why fight the copyright laws”, let me explain it in simple terms just as Fredrika already has, as you seem to have even less intellect than a “mollusk” or a “rock”, , the present laws are not about “copyright(s)” that protect you the artist, they are about making money for huge corporations, which don’t give a fuck about you the artist. Our present struggle is about preserving our rights & freedom.
    ‘Of course it’s not a guarantee that one will make it big, I’m not sure why you’d jump to that conclusion”; you’re the one complaining about having to working “60hrs/week” to make ends meet.
    “I don’t want your sympathy, nor do I think you have a capacity for it”; I do have a capacity for sympathy; however, I work in an industry (I’m a chef) where NOBODY has any copyrights whatsoever, you make money by busting your balls 16hrs/day, minimum, day in & day out, where creativity is not a requirement, it’s the job description.
    As for my “intelligence” being somewhere being a “mollusk” & “rock”, as EVERYBODY on this forum has owned you, that in itself speaks volumes about your lack thereof.
    Have a nice day, loser.
  - Rag
    
    Hip hop and rap is all built on sample sharing. I make lots of content people use it I make money because I’m good. Your content must be , not so good.
    - Anyone
      
      too bad they reduced sampling in the 90s because of lawsuits
      
      if the Beastie Boys album “License to Ill” (one of the all-time best selling HipHop albums) was made today it would be at a net loss, because of the ridiculous license fees for samples as short as 2 notes.
      
      another case of copywrong destroying art
    - Plop
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus Why do you think the follow-up to 3 Feet High and Rising was such a flop for De La Soul? THey got mired in so many licensing issues over clearing samples that eventually they had to strip out all of the unlicensed stuff and what was left sounded shite.
    - Anyone
      
      @870f04a07db87da7cd8ab61b32685b80:disqus
      HipHop is not my music, so I have no idea what you are talking about ;)
      
      I just read an article about “License to Ill” and how it would bankrupt the Beastie Boys if it were made today, despite being sold millions of times; all just because of copywrong
      
      time to get our culture back from the middlemen trying to suppress it
    - Plop
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus No worries – just supporting the point you were making with another classic example of copyright ruining culture :)
  - tao54nyc
    
    All filesharers are doing is underscoring what many in the “copywrong” business fail to grasp: There is a LOT of stuff out there that is unadulterated crap. And we’re not paying for it anymore. Put out good stuff and we’ll pay for it. Put out crap, and we’ll share it and laugh derisively at it, then tank it from our systems. But we’re not paying for it. A 17-track album with only 2 good tracks on it for $20 doesn’t cut it anymore. You can’t rip us off that way any longer.
    
    Downloads Unto Death
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Use however much you want, but only pay for what you choose to is the worst economic model I can think of.
      
      Communism DOESN’T WORK.
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      it’s not communism (and communism does work, just not in large scale)
      
      it is a model that does work, and it is the most costumer friendly model to date
      
      no more getting tricked into watching a shitty movie with an awesome trailer
      or buying the whole CD for 1 good track
      
      it’s a great new world out there, and lots of people have adapted and rake in the cash, you should try that, too, instead of bitching and moaning
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus   (thanks for being civil)
      
      Because in that economic model you completely redefine the notion of ‘worth’ to whatever the consumer feels at the time. It’s more like Anarchy than Communism, actually. In anarchy, maybe the consumer decides they ‘deserve’ their service for free. Thinking that you ‘deserve’ a free service is completely different than their ‘right’ to that service. Humans have very few ‘rights’ in life.
      
      Anyway, it’s the responsibility of the consumer to know what they’re buying. No one is forcing someone away from their money (only the government can do that). In a capitalistic society someone offers a service at a fixed price, and it’s up to the consumer whether to indulge in that service. Some exemptions are made, but not many.
      
      Buying a $20 album for two good songs is a fantastic example of why the capitalist system works. iTunes came along and stood that model on its head. It was a service that competed with the traditional CD and it proved extremely successful. THAT is capitalism. A new service that was smart, made money, and was profitable. It changed the world. File sharing is probably directly responsible for the entire idea of un-marrying the track from the album, but all the help stops there.
      
      File sharing (copyright infringement) itself, however, is simply a black hole. It doesn’t follow any rules, it doesn’t compete fairly, and it answers to no one. Imagine that as your government – it would be the most horrible economic model known to man!   It’s anarchy. It’s not even communism. Communism can at least survive for a time because it’s based on the real world, an on real objects of value. Anarchy fails before it even begins. Anarchy collapses into organization almost immediately. Entropy, as it’s known.
      
      I feel myself getting very abstract – but know this: file sharing is the solution to nothing. It doesn’t help anything, it doesn’t solve anything. It changed the way we buy our media, but that’s where the change ended. In the 10 years since, file sharing hasn’t done shit other than hurt companies. It’s anti-competitive because it removes ‘worth’ from the decision making process, and really the only thing it’s at all good for is allowing poor people to enjoy stuff they had no intention of ever buying anyway, which is why I don’t sympathize with them. The only file sharer I sympathize with is the rare one that comes to me and says how they stole my product but loved it so they bought it. Every other file sharer (whether they like my work or not) can go suck a dick because they don’t matter to me.
      
      I understand file sharing. All too well. I share stuff myself. However, I DO NOT romanticize it, and I don’t think it’s cool, and I buy 90% of what I download now because now I’m very careful as to what I download to begin with.
      
      File sharing is not some revolutionary process that will make mankind better. It’s anarchy. It’s an un-collapsed zygote of an idea that will ultimately go nowhere. And lets not forget those people that run torrent sharing websites that profit immensely from this. Where’s your share of the profits, huh? Shouldn’t you all get a piece of the pie? You want to talk about a company that exploits its workers, look no further than the torrent-hosting industry. The workers and their uploads don’t get shit.
      
      Yeah, file sharing hurts me – but you know what’s worse than that? It’s a bad idea. It creates a self-entitled mindset that poor, dumb kids without an ounce of self-worth latch onto and then proceed to exclaim how cool it is. Fuck that. It’s not cool, and it’s not a solution to any problem I can think of in this world.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “File sharing (copyright infringement) itself, however, is simply a black hole. It doesn’t follow any rules..”
      
      It most certainly does, it follows the free market rules, under which no entrepreneur is privileged with a legislative monopoly over manufacturing and distribution of certain gods or services. That’s how the free market works.
      
      On it anyone can manufactue something with their own property, for personal non-profit use, as people filesharing does, or to sell it, with intent to profit.
      
      Do you not understand the concepts of property, the free market and legislative monopolies?
      
      > “..it doesn’t compete fairly..”
      
      Again you say that the free market rules aren’t fair.
      
      > “..but know this: file sharing is the solution to nothing.”
      
      It gives everyone instant access to theoretically all culture that exists, completely free, without any physical limitations. That is an apparently appreciated concept that has never been achieved before. So it most certainly solves something.
      
      > “It changed the way we buy our media..”
      
      If you by media mean the intellectual works, people have never bought those. People have bought copies and services. Intellectual works does not constitute property or a service, and can therefore not be bought.
      
      > “..In the 10 years since, file sharing hasn’t done shit other than hurt companies.
      
      In the 15 years since, filesharing has in addition to other things helped the content industry reach new record revenues each year.
      
      > “The only file sharer I sympathize with is the rare one that comes to me and says how they stole my product..”
      
      You sympathize with ignorant people who don’t understand the difference between stealing something, and manufacturing something with one’s own property?
      
      > “File sharing is not some revolutionary process that will make mankind better.”
      
      Giving people access to as much culture as possible is the very core sought after goal with the conceptual copyright, and filesharing is doing just that, in a way that has never been achieved before. It sounds as if you are not agreeing with the concept of copyright.
      
      > “And lets not forget those people that run torrent sharing websites that profit immensely from this.”
      
      Successful entrepreneurs that offers appreciated search engines.
      
      > “You want to talk about a company that exploits its workers, look no further than the torrent-hosting industry. The workers and their uploads don’t get shit.”
      
      You seem confused. People chose of their own free will to perform the work of uploading.
    - Anyone
      
      filesharing is the solution to me getting US tv series ;)
      I’d have to wait months to get them either dubbed on TV or to be able to buy them as DVD (which I then would have to rip to my HD)
      there is simply no legal service that provides me with what I need, that’s what piracy solves for me
      
      and because piracy is getting more common the releasewindows will get shorter so it is easier to compete with it
      for example right now most movies open in the same week worldwide, a few years ago that wasn’t the case, that’s the direct result of piracy
      
      and people do still pay for stuff, but the entertainment budget is limited (at least mine is)
      and the need for a VPN substracts another $10 a month that could have gone to an artist
      
      but as I said, people still do pay for stuff, for a recent example look at the kickstarter from Amanda Fucking Palmer (Neil Gaiman’s wife, btw ;)) where people gladly paid $100 and more for her upcoming album and some other goodies
      
      and you mentioned iTunes
      without piracy (or more specifically Napster) there would be no iTunes, without piracy all the tracks would still be polluted with DRM, without piracy you wouldn’t get music at such a great price
      and if the RIAA would have embraced the change they wouldn’t have to pay 30% to apple today ;)
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      I dare you to read what Thomas Jeffersson had to say about intellectual property – then get right back to us and tell us how we are “communists” for believing in Adam Smith and Thomas Jeffersson. Supply and Demand is what governs any market. As soon as you step away from that paradigm, YOU are the one walking straight into state-protected plan economy territory.
      
      And that, I believe, is what Fredrika is trying to painstakingly explain to you. You don’t have a frigging clue what capitalist market model is and indeed you yourself seems to be the biggest proponent of the opposite around here.
      
      Not us “pirates”.
      
      Furthermore, you keep harping on how nothing can compete with “free”. Sure.
      
      That’s why the bottled water industry went bellyup years ago, hmm?. That’s why the entire open source sector dried up because there was no money in it? That’s why no one can make a living just blogging? That’s why content creators like coelho, rebecca black, trent reznor etc all gave away their stuff for free and went bankrupt…Oh, damn, NONE of that actually happened??
      
      No, seriously. If Rebecca Black can make over 20k out of a third-rate, first-try hack job on youtube, then what the hell is YOUR excuse for failing even that standard? There can only be one answer, that being that you suck as either an artist or at marketing. Because in EVERY instance so far, any artist with something to sell, a fan base and an unlimited market to sel lit on has prospered.
      
      EVERY argument you’ve made on this thread is either blatantly incorrect or fails due to irrelevance. Hell, every study ever made shows, very well, that filesharing is a tremendous boon, particularly for small to mid-size for content creators as it allows them to reach niche markets they wouldn’t have a hope in hell of reaching through any other means.
      
      For you, as a self-described small artist to spit on filesharing is like seeing a wannabe banker use dollar bills as toilet paper and wondering why the business is so bad.
      
      Honestly if you are being hurt by filesharing the answer’s pretty obvious – you can’t get people to like what you make even if you give it away for free. That being the case, I would advise you to look for another job.
  - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
    
    That’s really ironic, in an article about Dan Bull. Dan’s business model is based entirely on the try-before-you-buy model. He freely shares his material on The Pirate Bay and his website, and encourages people to buy his work if they want to, and share it with others whether they want to buy or not.
    
    You’re wrong, and you’re thinking of things in the legacy business model. Filesharing contributes to culture, it helps relative unknowns gain publicity for free, and there are business models that work with filesharing.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      File sharers are fucking morons. They think that a product’s worth is based on how much they liked the product. That’s retarded.
      
      How about we all go to a restaurant and ONLY pay for the food that we think tasted best?
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      there are restaurants that work on that principle
      you eat what you want, and afterwards you pay how much you think is appropriate
      
      and they are profitable and successful
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      How about we stick to the actual discussion instead of trying to create macro-level comparisons with digital issues that in no way translate adequately?
      
      A valid way to compare per your criteria would be a restaurant where there is infinite duplication of the meal once it has been cooked once, with no ingredients lost and everyone able to enjoy the food. Kind of like the replicators they had on star trek. Do note that on star trek Picard didn’t have to give money for the replicated “Earl Grey, hot” that he drank.
      
      With your attitude I think I can understand why you’re not making any money in your art. I know I wouldn’t support you, with you calling all your fans thieves.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Bullshit. There’s no way that business model is successful. In America we have all-you-can-eat restaurants, but you pay BEFORE you eat, and the food is cheap, bad for you, and contains so many fillers that there’s almost no way you could eat your money’s worth.
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      just because you seem to be greedy and selfish doesn’t mean all people are ;)
      
      here is an example of a big chain (Panera Bread) trying the concept of “pay what you want”
      http://nrn.com/article/panera-cares-one-year-later-0
      to sum it up: 60% leave the suggested amount, 20% leave more, 20% leave less
      that means it is about as profitable as a regular shop and they are thinking about opening more locations like that
      
      try to expand your horizons and don’t think everyone acts as selfish as you do
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus It’s a non-profit organization. They’re tax exempt for one, and for two: fuck that shit. It’s anti-competitive. By becoming non-profit they’re refusing to compete (or can’t compete, take your pick). There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make money, or wanting to make profit.
      
      I don’t subscribe to your Communist ideals. And let me remind you that the Communist ideal has likely caused more deaths by starvation and famine than any other human force in history – a Panera Bread restaurant on every block in America could never make up for the atrocities committed in the name of “a fair share for all.”
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      Again, try to keep to the topic at hand. macro-level discussions do nothing to help or hinder the discussion at hand.
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      right, you’re american, “communist” and “socialist” are insults over there
      
      but this doesn’t seem very communist or socialist to me
      it’s social, sure, but not really socialist
      
      now, I admit I have no idea about the tax laws in the US, but it seems there is enough profit in it that the idea can be expanded to other locations
      not sure how you measure success (since you stated earlier you don’t believe in numbers on a paper) but to me that is successful
      
      to me this is quite a capitalist idea, not the perversion the US calls capitalism with the motto “greed is good”, but responsible capitalism where everything is paid for by the customers, but they are not exploited so a few rich bastards can get their third MegaYacht
      
      how is this concept different from haggling?
      would you call that “communist” and “socialist” as well?
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      economics basics: the laws of supply and demand.
      
      specifically: the greater the supply, the lower the demand, and the lower the price.
      
      You have chosen to create and market a product that is available in digital form, which can be reproduced at zero cost, or as close to zero cost as to make no odds.
      
      This isn’t communism, this is economics. filesharers are able to share it (something they have a right to do, and have always have an inalienable right to do, since the dawn of time) at such a low cost that they can actually hold onto their property whilst giving it in its entirety to someone else. That’s infinite supply.
      
      And you complain that the profit margin is too low. to blame your customers for your woes.
      
      That makes you a poor capitalist. And, unless I misunderstand the basis of the formation of the united states and the american dream, it also makes you a poor american.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus It’s socialist to think that someone doesn’t deserve a third of fifth mega-yacht.
      
      In fact, if someone can afford an entire fleet of mega-yachts that would be fantastic! How many people does it take to gather the resouces to build a yacht? How many people does it take to build it? To crew it? What about operational costs like gasoline and docking fees?
      
      That one person can support a giant army of citizens by giving them jobs.
      
      Socialists don’t see that. All they see is “that person has more than me, we should take it.” They would rather take ALL the money that person doesn’t NEED, and give it away to people that don’t work for it, but need it. Socialists think that the government knows how to handle your money better than you do – but the government is not a business! Governments do not exist to make a profit, and they don’t compete fairly.
      
      Socialism is a horrible, horrible thing.
      
      Penera Bread is not operating on the basis of giving the people what they want – they’re entire business model is built on undercutting the competition through cost, not quality. This is called “crony capitalism”. It’s shameful and wrong, however legal.
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      I have no experience with Panera, it’s just an example of a “pay what you want” establishment
      you could google countless others
      
      anyway, money is (mostly) a zero sum game, if that rich guy buys his third MegaYacht that is money he took from someone else, most likely with questionable methods
      if that is to be minimized it is better for everyone
      
      now I’m not saying the government should intervene and take away his MegaYachts, and I never claimed so
      also no government told Panera to open those “pay what you want” locations, they did so out of their own because they saw an opportunity to make a profit while helping people
      
      you see that? that’s entrepreneurs adapting to the market and being successful at it, capitalism at work.
      you should try that instead of whine and moan about the evil evil filesharer that are stealing your money and killing your dog
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus Whatever, I’m not saying you’re a Socialist.
      
      And I don’t think file-sharers are evil. I think they’re idiots. BIG difference.
    - Anyone
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      idiots?
      it’s pretty smart to produce as much as possible on your own and only pay for stuff you want to support because you love it so much
      
      I don’t see what’s idiotic about that
    - Plop
      
      @Kunu:disqus
      
      File sharers are fucking morons. They think that a product’s worth is based on how much they liked the product. That’s retarded.
      How about we all go to a restaurant and ONLY pay for the food that we think tasted best?
      
      You’ve heard of auctions right? Well at an auction people will only pay as much as they think an item is worth. If there is more demand for the item then the price will be higher, less demand and the price will be lower. The market (or in other words, the buyer) sets the price.And you know what is one of the biggest shopping websites of them all? Ebay – an auction site. So what was it you were saying about it being a poor business model?
  - Patrick Chenier
    
    Whatever it is that you do, I’m sure no one knows about it until they start pirating the fuck out of it, so just shut up ok.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      OH MAN BURN. Great post, Douchenier.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    Really? Content makers are more able than ever to promote their content and charge for it. Paulo Coelho, Neil gaiman, Mick Jagger, Trent Reznor, Blur, Radiohead…even people such as Rebecca black for crying out loud.
    
    If you can’t profit from your work becoming universally distributed then you, as a content maker, either suck, being unable to generate a fan base – or you are too lazy to set up an easy way for people to obtain your product.
    
    Trent Reznor managed to make the top sold CD on amazon.com in 2008 (one million sold in a year) from an album he was simultaneously giving away for free. If you can’t do the same you are merely proving that whatever content you create isn’t good enough to sell in the first place. Nothing else.
  - anon
    
    if i like something that i downloaded or saw on the website i buy an album, comic book, dvd, or donate to the person(s) that created it
    
    i believe it is the way it is going to be now, when everybody that can hold camera is photographer, everybody that know how to use windows movie editor is movie producer, every angry kid on the street is gangsta raper (etc.) less and less people want pay before seeing and actually enjoying content as there is so much stuff out there that there is no way to separate decent work from crap
    
    if they do, they will be happy to send a dollar or two via Pa***l (or other more decent service) for digital download, buy the album online etc.
    
    if they don’t do that they simply didn’t enjoyed this experience enough, so why to charge them for crappy service and half cold meal?
    
    instead of fighting this just put donate button where it can’t be overlooked
  - retaliate
    
    Yup, in EXACTLY the same way as:
    
    - open-source software
    - public-domain software
    - media content released for free by indie artists
    - documentaries distributed for free by producers
    - fair use clauses in copyright
    - releasing publicly-funded research into the public domain
    
    … make us all losers too?
Timo

It seems that fascism arrived earlier in the UK. Say whaat?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/You-Can-t-Link-to-the-London-Olympics-Site-Unless-You-Say-Something-Nice-About-It-281329.shtml
- http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
  
  Totally unenforceable and illegal as well. Even in the UK, if this was challenged, it wouldn’t stand in a court of law and they know it.
- Guest
  
  Holy shit.
  
  In light of this news, let me just say fuck the London 2012 Olympics which I won’t be watching as I have much better things to do with my time(like god damn anything else), and fuck the codgering old fascist psychopaths that run the International Olympic Committee.
  - Guest
    
    I fucking hate the Illuminati Olympic Games!
    - Tin Foil for everyone!
      
      Moron.
    - My Hat Is Pewter, Not Foil!
      
      @fab270bed8d62b9de14a6624e77d5288:disqus You should’ve linked THAT – just for the two-pronged attack ;)
  - zRandom
    
    ..than that make you an Communist ..almost the same. :
tailender1

great example of copyright abuse
g h

Mr. Bull is a MASTER at destroying this tuff..
TandoVotts

Shoulds be rather interesting to see how that all turns out.
Needing-Anon.tk
- TandoVotts
  
  Shoulds be rather interesting to see how that all turns out.
  I mean I wonder how many people will click on my link. Will see how that all turns out http://i46.tinypic.com/n76sl.gif
  
  Yours truly
  TandoVotts
Monster

As a man in my mid 30′s I grew up listening to lord finesse. Its a shame he would be doing something like this when he built his career “digging in the crates” doing the same exact thing he is going after miller for. Lost all respect for you Finesse!
Jason

Go get em Bull. Much <3. #sharingIsCaring
Pingback: Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics | Best Seedbox
Pingback: Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics | The Illuminati
Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services
Pingback: Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics | We R Pirates
Iseemtobelost

”People get good by selling their product.”

That could very well be the most patently absurd, stupid assertion I have read all weekend. You frankly deserve a shit contract with UMG.

J.
- Poontang
  
  Agreed. That statement is 100% ass backwards. People sell their product because they are it are not. Not the other way around like he said
- http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
  
  So where are all the artists that don’t sell any of their work? The answer is: no one cares.
  - Happyartist
    
    So when you decide what art to pay for, you choose art that you don’t like so the artist can get better?
    
    How does it make sense to you to say that artists get good by selling their product? You don’t think practice is what makes you better?
    
    I buy art from people who got good because they love to make art and spent lots of time becoming a better artist. I prefer it to the product created by someone who loves to sell stuff and claims that they’ll get better if I just give them money.
    
    Don’t get me wrong, if you can honestly say that you give money to people because they want to learn to make art then I have tremendous respect for you. Maybe you have a very good eye for potential talent.
    - BlurrTheTechnicolor
      
      the problem with Jay is as it seems he has a prime example in front of his face “DAN BULL” but he still doesnt get it
      
      how big he got with all his music getting shared over and over again(and yep in the beginning no money involved whatsover)
      
      filesharing for young artists is the best no money involved
      advertisement you can ever imagine
      
      i mean does it need anymore explanation can´t get any more obvious
  - Ribbed for her pleasure.
    
    Fuckface ‘Jay’ go back to selling drugs if you want a guarantee of profit.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Hehe, that’s my favorite response yet! +1
  - Guest
    
    Hey speaking of selling work.. did you happen to get a license from Disney to make all that Tron art? You seem like the type that really needs a good burn from the copy tzar.
Arb1

The same happened December last year when Megaupload’s “Mega Song” was taken down by Universal Music Group (UMG). This prompted Megaupload to sue UMG.
This Also happened to a show called TNT (Tech News Today) which is a tech based news webcast, they had a small clip of the mega song in on their news boardcast’s and it was DMCA’ed by UMG. Even though since its a NEWS program its protected by fair use of DMCA. UMG filed copyright claim a few times against it.
- http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
  
  They do that because there is little to no ‘negatives’ from doing that, abusing the DMCA. Even though it is ‘under penalty of perjury’ with those, very few people would have the money to take the big guys to court over it.
Pingback: Torrent News » Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics
ScrewEwe2

Damn Yo, DMCA be Whack for the Dan Bull attack.
…you know, I’m just sayin’, uh huh.
- http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes
  
  Dan B should do a rap-version of YMCA using instead DMCA & alternative lyrics of course. Now THAT would be cool :)
foff

The black pictured surely does not have the brains to write an ounce of original music but he does have to brains to steal from others and make a fortune off of it.
http://web.ncf.ca/shawnhcorey/ Shawn H Corey

“The DMCA is not supposed to be used in this way,’ he writes.”

Pure nonsense. This is exactly what the DMCA was created for, complete control of the web.
- Guest
  
  if DMCA was created for the complete control of the internet then prove it.
  - Ribbed for her pleasure.
    
    Soon your ISP will start charging a fee that will go directly media companies..an ‘auto-fine system’ just to gain access to the net.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    Actually the original version of the DMCA was deemed to do exactly that. And this was recognized by both congress and senate.
    
    Only after this was recognized were the “safe harbor” provisions entered.
    
    So yes, the original purpose of the DMCA was to give complete control (in the form of an automatic “veto”)of the online environment to a selected few industries.
    
    Even with the safe harbor provisions entered, the DMCA still allows copyright claimants to stifle free expression with, in practice, no proof required that a copyright infringement has even taken place.
    
    The proof is right there in how the DMCA currently works, in it’s original wording, and in the words of congress and senate when they struck down said initial creation. There is no doubt what the intent of this law was in when it was initially drafted.
Gear Mentation

I really want a Torrentfreak update about Tribler, which is supposed to be creating an anonymous bittorrent.
Guest

The true form of copyright shows its nasty face.
When will society face the facts? It’s not used to protect artists, artists are doing fine and people pirate or buy as they see fit.
Copyright is only a weapon of censorship, control and destruction.
It is like legal terrorism.
FuckFinesse

http://www.undergroundhiphop.com/lord-finesse-the-art-of-diggin-blue-note-state-of-mind/SSRMIXCD002CD/ <-Maybe finesse would like to answer to this via some EMI lawyers. This asshole jacks others and makes a profit from it then cries when it happens to him. What a bitch!
Pingback: Free and thinking » Upphovsrätten missbrukas för att inskränka yttrandefriheten och tysta kritiska röster - IDG.se - Störst på IT, dagliga IT-nyheter, tester, forum, guider och nyhetsbrev mm
Hey

In response to Jay’s comment earlier:

“My product has been taken (with no reciprocation) anywhere from 15 to 20 times more than those that are willing to pay. There is absolutely no way to spin that in my favor, or to look at it as a good thing.”

Actually, this can be taken to show that you have 15 to 20 times more exposure for your music than you would have had if it was only available to those who paid for it. There is no evidence to support that people are downloading it instead of buying it, only that it is being both download and purchased. What’s the issue?
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  And obviously Jay has absolutely no idea of how this works. If 20 people get the content that means 20 times more exposure, which means the one person willing to pay at all is most likely DUE to the previous exposure.
  
  For comparison a song can be listened to on the radio by several thousand people out of which one buy an album every time it’s aired.
  
  Without filesharing I’m betting Jay goes out of business completely within a few months. Exposure and market penetration are key. Even if only one person in a hundred pays it doesn’t matter if thousand times more people actually listened.
Andrew me

JAY

10 – 15 people share your music with each other and you are concerned about that, $15 worth of sales and you are mad, lol.
If you are so desperate to get those few people to pay for your music you are obviously not making a lot of money, and will $15 actually make much difference in your life, if so then you are one of the many musicians that should stick to listening not creating.

One question JAY, do you cry every time you hear your song played on the radio, damn imagine how many people have actually hears your song free, all that potential money if they had just been forced to buy it to listen to it.

Get of your high horse and come back to earth, music is free today, it has always been free, the studios managed to control music for a long time and create a few selected people to make a living from it, now the studios have to compete and artists have to compete, guess what , you have a 0.0002% chance of making a living from your music. So if you do you are just plain and simply lucky.
Mesziv0x

Jay, you seem to miss the point. I make my money from selling tickets and merchandise. Venues are mostly fully booked BECAUSE lots of people heard and like what they hear. The only people who make any serious amount of cash from selling records are the labels. If you are broke, you are being fucked in the ass by your label. I don’t have a label, infact, me and a collection of fellow musicans expose ourselves freely on media sites. If you think that the free-to-hear structure does work, go read up on the video game studios who create Free-To-Play games. They make the dosh by creating content for said game, but they offer the original product for free. Its a tried and tested method.
- Anyone
  
  before the internet artists toured to promote their recordings, now they release recordings to promote their tour
  
  it’s a new era
Guest

If he does not feel like an arse for this take down he is not human.
Jay´s Neighbor

I´m not trying to blow Jay´s cover here. I actually am a minor fan of his work. Jay, please don´t get upset, but I think the people should know that you are in fact stating your true feelings of frustration.

Jay Ferguson (is my neighbor), but he is also a baby boomer, and produced music content (known as albums) in the 70s. He is 65 years old and his last recorded output was in 1982. He was also a member of the 70s group Spirit before he went solo. You might remember him from his hit single ¨Thunder Island¨ back in 1978.

Jay´s work is freely available through ¨pirating¨ and as such he has not made a penny on any of his work in the last 10 years and is curently living off of ¨past laurels¨ as they say. No offence to him, because he is actually a decent guy to talk to when he is not lamenting or regretting the way he managed his career.

Jay is too old to be starting from scratch. So, he has to rely on historical output for his livelihood from music. That is what is sad about Jay.

Not sure what else to say here, because I think it is Jay´s own fault that he has not produced anything that is marketable/licensable over the past 30 years. Groups like Camel (used to live down the street from us) have had their own production company since 1990 way before the internet went mainstream when every label turned down Andrew Latimer´s demo and he had to distribute it himself. Luckily there were DJs and small time business owners who loved Camel and thus he had few obstacles in getting his product out and he was able to shoot the finger at the recoed companies and still collect royalties from albums that are licensed. Andrew produced 4 more albums and did several world tours AFTER he went independent with Camel Productions. Camel was prolific in that they put out at least 12 albums before going independent. The only reason Camel moved back to the UK is because Andrew like Jay is also 65 and is in fact retiring from the business after a prolific career in rock music.

Jay, however, stopped producing back in 82 when he did not get a record deal. Instead of doing what Camel did (Camel was a rare example) he worked within the system hoping to at least extract sme royalties from some of his better known work. Well, he failed and now he is paying the price.

You can listen to Jay´s most famous song here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEKZJp-x-Dc

And in closing, I´ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Jay´s song:
I held her close

until the storm passed

And we fell down laughing in the wet grass

Both our bodies drying in the sunshine,

sweet sunshine

So

Sha, la, la, la, la, la my lady

In the sun with your dress undone

Now every mile away and every day

Cuts a little bit deeper

I’ll remember the nights in the cool sand

Makin’ love out on Thunder Island

Goodbye Thunder Island
- Effin Epic
  
  FUCKING EPIC!!!
- Monster
  
  Come on..no wonder you dont make any money & cant believe you bitch about file sharing as I can’t honestly believe anybody would ever download that crap you put out. It’s fucking horrible! hahaha
GeorgeDWarren

Bottom line is that most people cannot be trusted to act ethically and morally, that is why we have laws that end up giving a lot of power to big corporations, they in turn also act unethically and gouge prices forcing people to piracy and so on and so on, its a vicious cycle. IF people pay for content that is reasonably priced, support independant producers of media, then we start to take away power from these large corporations.
So if you see an app, or a song, or anything that is reasonably priced, and you can afford it PAY FOR IT! Don;t be a low life scumbag thief.
Louis CK released a standup routine for $5 without DRM and it sold quite well, however, there are many torrents with thousands of seeders of the same content, now those are the lowlifes i’m talking about, with people like them, nothing will change and this ‘war’ will escalate, and everyone loses!
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  The problem is “ethics” have to cut both ways. Having bought every ABBA song three times over I’ll be damned if I want to pay for the same song when I download it once again.
  
  And yet according to the composer I’m just as big a thief as the next-door leech. Well, he got his way. I grew up listening to those guys but these days they’re mainly off my playlist and I can’t even listen to them anymore without feeling quite sour. I’ve met some former Metallica fans with the same attitude.
  
  Most people do adhere to ethics and morals. Very few people will rob, kill, steal or rape, no matter the motivation thereto. There is, however, no moral argument against making a copy of something. Indeed, whereas depriving someone else is intuitively seen as bad, sharing information is the opposite and is a survival trait bred into us for millions of years. The very idea of “copyright” goes against human nature in the first place, where laws banning theft and murder do not. The same way most people are willing to expend resources in order to reward others who have done them a good term. Which is why in the end people grudgingly pay their taxes more or less willingly.
  
  Bottom line? If you find an artist who makes you feel good with their content then you will usually pay – even if it’s just to get CD’s as birthday gifts for friends. In the end that’s still a net gain, and even more advertising, for the creator of the content.
  
  What goes around, comes around, as they say. And the same applies in the reverse, of course.
  
  However…you will never get away from the fact that there will always be thousands of unsanctioned copies for every legitimate one. Human nature will more or less guarantee that. Similarly there will be no compromise from the other side -there’s just too much money involved if the current big corporations can hold on to the old model for just a year more.
  
  I think you can take as given that this ‘war’ will escalate. No matter how reasonably you or anyone else try to argue for the opposite. For one side involved, any compromise is a titanic loss (the loss of the market niche of middleman distribution). For the other side, even achieving a compromise would be like herding cats as it concerns hundreds of millions of filesharers from all over the globe.
  
  Just as with cassettes, VHS and CD’s/DVD’s though, it’s an escalation of a war we’ve already won.
  Nothing is as ugly, however, than the last desperate rear-guard actions of a losing side. And that’s why there just is no reasoning with the corporations responsible for the pro-copyright lobbying. Until those corporations actually do lose their market niche’s to the indies there just isn’t a ceasefire visible on the horizon. You’re right about that.
  
  Bear in mind though, as long as said corporations actually do retain lifetime+95 years of total monopoly on a large assortment of popular classics, they will keep living, until those classics fade from the collective memory and desires of the people.
  Even if the indies come to dominate the market, achieving a “peace with honor” this war will only see it’s last shot fired if copyright is completely reformed…or in a century’s time.
  
  Until then I don’t think anyone has the moral obligation to feel guilt for ripping off a con artist. Only for ripping off those earnestly trying to do you favors.
  - GeorgeDWarren
    
    SDM: Unfortunately, your argument does not take into account the real losers of the current situation. It’s not the mega-corps, maybe not even the indies, its def not the pirates, its the people who actually pay for the content. Thus people are being penalized for acting morally. That is what society has come to, that is the cost of this ‘war’.
    Most of the developed world does not live under socialist rule, they are governed by capitalism, its the core of our economy, it’s a fundamental part of our quality of life. At the very core of this economic model is intellectual property rights. It drives the economy and it drives innovation. Do you actually believe there would be an iphone if not for IP? Why the heck would they make one if they cant patent the heck out of it. Would there even be android if there was never an ios, nobody realised the scope of the smartphone market, thats why Jobs is considered an innovator, what would have been his motivation if there was no IP? Sorry, but goodwill and love doesn’t build smartphones.
    Would there be an Avengers movie? $300 million budget for something that they have no rights to?
    Owning something is fundamental to human nature. Just because its physical doesnt mean you have more rights to something. like a movie, or a song, its the same as your car, you paid a price for it, whether its the effort , sacrifice etc.. you earned it, you own it, its yours, no one can take it without yor permission.
    Your logic about paying 3 times for an abba song is now moot, you can buy a digital copy of a song and download it again if it you lose it, for free.
    Ofcourse i expect you to backtrack your argument, modify it somehow, to allow certain situations where copyright is ok, and situations where its not ok etc. etc. etc.
    bottom line is that IP rights will NEVER disappear, it is here to stay, it drives innovation, it drives the economy, and it will never be reformed to a point that any pirate will find acceptable, because in their minds, even paying 1 cent for something they can steal is unacceptable. They will hide behind ethical issues, and create mumbo jumbo logic to justify what they do, but you know , and i know, its crap.
    I’m not saying i dont pirate, i sure do, but i’m not deluded.
    - Guest
      
      You’re missing the point. You are suffering the brunt of punishments and penalisations not directed at you – instead of protesting against these hamhanded tactics, you’re more willing to consider everyone who disagrees with you as a thief?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “..its the people who actually pay for the content.”
      
      Nobody is paying for any content. You can only buy and pay for gods and services, which content doesn’t constitute.
      
      > “Thus people are being penalized for acting morally.”
      
      People who of their own free will purchases gods or services are not penalized. Secondly, what’s acting morally is a personal subjective issue.
      
      > “That is what society has come to, that is the cost of this ‘war’.”
      
      No, the cost of this war is that certain civil liberties, such as free speech, the right to privacy, due process, and the human rights protected freedom to without interference seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers is being dismantled.
      
      > “Most of the developed world does not live under socialist rule, they are governed by capitalism, its the core of our economy, it’s a fundamental part of our quality of life. At the very core of this economic model is intellectual property rights.
      
      BS. The free market and capitalism is the core of society’s economy. Legislative monopolies such as IP disable the free market, and they are certainly not the core of that economical model.
      
      > “It drives the economy and it drives innovation.”
      
      BS. That’s myth, that no scientific evidence whatsoever supports.
      
      > “Why the heck would they make one if they cant patent the heck out of it.
      
      To make money obviously. Lack of IP does not equal that’s impossible for entrepreneurs to make money from inventing new products. It already happens.
      
      > “Owning something is fundamental to human nature.”
      
      Which is exactly why people instinctively disregard legislative monopolies that intrude into their property rights.
      
      > “Just because its physical doesnt mean you have more rights to something. like a movie, or a song, its the same as your car, you paid a price for it, whether its the effort , sacrifice etc.. you earned it, you own it, its yours, no one can take it without yor permission.”
      
      Please learn the basics regarding property before you comment any further. An intellectual works does not constitute any kind of property. Property is something that can be owned, sold or bought, and it is something which has an inherent scarcity, which means only one person at a time can use it. Intellectual works does not fulfil any of those criteria. Intellectual property does not refer to the intellectual work in itself, it refers to the copyright monopoly, which is a piece of intangible property.
      
      > “..bottom line is that IP rights will NEVER disappear..”
      
      Your ignorant belief in this matter is relevant how?
      
      > “..and it will never be reformed to a point that any pirate will find acceptable..”
      
      It already is in some countries in the world, and in the worlds strongest economy, the EU, the only growing political group in parliament has adapted the pirates political stance on how the copyright monopoly should be reformed. In the next EU elections in 2014 that group will most likely grow with another 50-100 new pirates, when they enter the elections in all EU countries instead of just one as the last time, and after that an EU-wide reform of the copyright monopoly according to the pirates demands will most likely take place within a year or two.
      
      > “..because in their minds, even paying 1 cent for something they can steal is unacceptable.”
      
      You can not pay for something which is free. The price for manufacturing a copy with your own property, as pirates does, is free, The price is not up for discussion. What anyone thinks in their mind is irrelevant to this indisputable fact.
      
      > “..and create mumbo jumbo logic to justify what they do..”
      
      Their reasoning is that it’s their property. Do you call property rights for mumbo jumbo logic?
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      Not sure why my last comment was flagged, but here goes, at risk of double-posting…
      
      ”
      Most of the developed world does not live under socialist rule, they are governed by capitalism, its the core of our economy, it’s a fundamental part of our quality of life. At the very core of this economic model is intellectual property rights. It drives the economy and it drives innovation. Do you actually believe there would be an iphone if not for IP?”
      That’s a lot of false claims right there…
      
      1) Capitalism, according to Adam Smith’s definition of it, adheres to the law of supply and demand, and centers on consumer choice. “Intellectual Property” completely undermines this paradigm as it abolishes consumer choices. Milton Friedman went one step further and stated that “Intellectual Property”, most notably “copyright” isn’t a case of property rights, but an actual abolishment of such.
      This also adresses your erronous belief regarding “Ownership” – if party A has an idea that idea is “owned” only until it is released at which time every person informed possesses the same idea.
      At which point you are saying that party B should be precluded from doing with his/her own resources what s/he will? That is a manifestly absurd re-definition of the entire concept of “ownership” altogether as it tries to restrict party B from doing what they want with their own property.
      
      2) Android, Linux, and the entire open source sector is demonstrably proving you false here. People will innovate and keep innovating for as long as they are able. No, there wouldn’t be “an iPhone” if not for IP – there would have been hundreds of models of which only half a dozen of the most popular ones survived. Real competition means that – as is the case with today’s android phones – the innovation rate has escalated to a pace undreamt of when Apple was still “owning” the lion’s share of the market. If Apple wouldn’t manufacture an iPhone, some other entrepreneur would. And he in turn would be toppled from the market the second he stopped innovating on it.
      
      3) Your definition of “theft” doesn’t fit any definition of law, any definition of ethics, nor any definition agreed upon by any court in any nation. Or any dictionary yet published for that matter. That leaves only your personal moral argumentation that we ought to rewrite the definition of a word so it encompasses your own personal opinion. That’s a bit rich.
      
      4) Regarding your “real losers”…what you are saying is, in essence, that because corporations who abuse Intellectual Property laws are holding consumers hostage everyone who finds the situation untenable should quietly submit and aquiesce?
      I think I’ll submit my honest opinion that there are quite good arguments for taking the other view. Your argument simply states that it’ll be the fault of pirates if corporations start abusing the civil rights of other people. Yes, and if the uppity wife just kept her mouth shut, daddy wouldn’t take his frustrations out on the kid. Honestly, that’s taking 3rd-party culpability way beyond any reasonable limit.
      
      5) There is only one paradigm where information control is a norm – and that is communism. Capitalism by it’s very nature does not recognize monopolies. You are in fact the one espousing the socialist model here, complete with a hardline stance favouring state-enforced monopolies interfering with any sort of free market.
      
      6) Today merely in order to start innovating you need an entire legal team checking that no one has any patent you might be infringing on in the west. That restricts any innovation to a very few select actors in the west for a great many important markets. If IP didn’t exist, those same actors could simply invent a great product, market it, and make sure to innovate themselves to the top spot on the market. With a six month head start, they really can’t complain if they then get railroaded by a better entrepreneur. Indeed, that is the way the market should work in any capitalist model.
      You are saying no one will invest? Wrong. Genius entrepreneurs will. Others will fall to the roadside. Again, the way a real free market should act.
      
      Your problem seems to be that you have a severely deficient understanding of the words “Ownership”, “Capitalism”, “Communism”, and “Theft”. I suggest you remedy that before even trying to argue these concepts.
- http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
  
  Ethics and morals have NOTHING to do with any of this. It is entirely ethical for a consumer to look for the lowest possible price for a product, and if the price of the product is free, all the better! The reason they have “buy one get one free” offers is because of this, consumers care about deals. That’s why all the prices end in nines.
  
  Likewise, it is entirely ethical for the content owners to try to get the greatest profit from their content as possible. And for many years this worked well. The Industry created artificial demand by creating a bottleneck, where they generated demand through various streams, because they had control over distribution. This is no longer the case.
  
  This is not an ethical issue, not a moral issue. The groups making these claims are the ones who now stand to make less money, because they no longer have control over the distribution and are no longer able to manufacture demand to inflate price. This is as it should be, under the basic laws of economics.
  
  That’s all this is, and I really wish people would stop trying to make it about anything else. It is possible to compete with free (see bottled water) and the sooner the industry stops whinging about the past, the sooner they can jump on board and increase profits by giving the customer what they want.
  
  What a novel concept.
- GeorgeDWarren
  
  Genepoole: how can theft not be considered a moral issue? whether its warranted or not, its still a moral issue. A starving man may me morally correct to steal food to save his life, but we’re talking about consumable media here, not life or death issues.
  And ofcourse it is an ethical issue as well, corporations over-charge for their products simply because they have exclusivity to said content.
  Ofcourse a consumer can seek the lowest price possible, but if the company that owns the content unethically chooses to charge a ridiculous amount that the consumer cannot afford, or is unwilling to pay that amount, does it then become morally ok to steal it?
  morals and ethics are at the very CORE of the problem, if companies acted ethically, and consumers acted morally, we would NOT have this problem!
  - Fredrika
    
    > “how can theft not be considered a moral issue?”
    
    First of all, when people manufacture copes with their own property, that they own, as people filesharing does, it’s never theft. This is an indisputable fact that can be verified in both the law and a dictionary.
    
    > “..whether its warranted or not, its still a moral issue.”
    
    Some people, maybe most of them, might not share your moral belief, regarding what’s immoral and not.
    
    > “And ofcourse it is an ethical issue as well, corporations over-charge for their products simply because they have exclusivity to said content.”
    
    No, they overcharge for the products and services they sell because they have a legislative monopoly over manufacturing, distributing and selling said products and services.
    
    > “Ofcourse a consumer can seek the lowest price possible, but if the company that owns the content..
    
    They do not own the content. They own the legislative monopoly. Content does not constitute any kind of property, and it can therefore not be owned.
    
    > “..unethically chooses to charge a ridiculous amount that the consumer cannot afford, or is unwilling to pay that amount, does it then become morally ok to steal it?”
    
    Nobody is stealing anything, so the question is false. Secondly, the question reverses the order of society, and is therefore dishonest. The question is not whether or not it’s morally ok to manufacture something with your own property, and by doing so performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly, the real question is if it’s morally ok to intrude into peoples property rights with a legislative monopoly, when no evidence exists that proofs that such a legislate monopoly is beneficiary to society and the goal with copyright.
    
    Apparently several hundreds of millions of people doesn’t feel that such an intrusion into their property is ok, so they act accordingly, and simply disregard this immoral monopoly.
    
    > “..morals and ethics are at the very CORE of the problem..”
    
    Possibly, but definitely not in the direction that you seem to believe.
    
    > “..if companies acted ethically, and consumers acted morally, we would NOT have this problem!”
    
    If politicians did their job, and simply legalized filesharing, since no evidence supports the thesis that it must be illegal for the goal with copyright to occur, we wouldn’t have this problem.
    - GeorgeDWarren
      
      Are you on drugs? IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO SHARE / DISTRIBUTE MEDIA THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO. Any court in the EU will back this if proven without a doubt. The grey area are the sites that host links to illegally distributed media. You have to be pretty brain damaged not to accept this, i would dare you to openly and publicly distribute movies that you have bought a copy of since you say that nobody is stealing anything. please post a link here, with your ip and other details.
      You have to abide by the law in your society whether you think its right or not, otherwise please leave your country and settle down in somalia, where everyone will agree with whatever you say.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Are you on drugs?”
      
      Have you heard of the concept of Ad Hominem? You should try to stay away from it, not embrace it.
      
      > “IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO SHARE / DISTRIBUTE MEDIA THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO.”
      
      Under some circumstances, in some countries, far from all circumstances and far from all countries. But that has no relevance to any of the claims i put forward. Referencing what the law currently says is not an argument, because that would be circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.
      
      > “Any court in the EU will back this if proven without a doubt.”
      
      You are aware of the fact that there are countries in EU where filesharing, both uploading and downloading, is legal?
      
      > “The grey area are the sites that host links to illegally distributed media.”
      
      There’s is no grey area? They are considered fully legal by the judicial system.
      
      > “You have to be pretty brain damaged not to accept this..”
      
      There are no facts that i have claimed to not accept?
      
      > “..i would dare you to openly and publicly distribute movies that you have bought a copy of since you say that nobody is stealing anything.”
      
      Nobody is stealing anything, this is an indisputable fact that you can verify in both the law and a dictionary. What i do personally has no relevance whatsoever to this fact. That the crime of copyright infringement might be committed does not mean that something it stolen. Stealing as in theft is a completely different crime than copyright infringement. It has nothing more to do with copyright infringement than what arson or vandalism has.
      
      > “You have to abide by the law in your society whether you think its right or not..”
      
      When hundreds of millions of people aren’t obeying a certain legislative monopoly, you have to be rather shot sighted to simply argue that the law should be followed, because it is the law. It’s not even an argument in the first place, it’s only circular reasoning.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      @GeorgeDWarren:disqus
      
      “Are you on drugs? IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO SHARE / DISTRIBUTE MEDIA THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO.”
      
      There is a law in Illinois which states that you must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile, there is a law in california forbidding animals to mate publicly within 1500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. There was a law prohibiting black people from sitting in the front part of the bus, and there was a law prohibiting women from voting.
      
      There are plenty of laws which have no moral support from the citizenry which are honored more in the breach than in the observance. Indeed, you can easily make a case that in most countries there exists no citizen who is not a criminal by some law or other.
      
      And even so you aren’t even qualified to speak about legal situations at all until you understand that making a copy of a file is not and never has been “stealing”.
      
      The difference is profound. “Copyright infringement” – which is what you are describing – is to begin with in all jurisdictions a civil violation, not a criminal one, like theft is. Numerous other stringent criteria must be fulfilled in order for something to be a theft – to whit, the other party must be deprived of said item.
      
      Needless to say that is not the case if person A copies a file from person B, the copyright of which belongs to C. Neither person is deprived of anything, as the only action taken is that copies have been made.
      
      That’s the actual legal basis.
      
      No, Fredrika isn’t on drugs. Judging by the way your rhetoric just degenerated, a case can possibly be made that maybe you should be.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    Right. so in your definition of “theft”, it includes the equivalent of person A manufacturing a perfect copy of an item in the possession of person B.
    
    This does not correspond to any known dictionary definition of “theft” of which I am aware.
    
    Indeed, it’s as relevant as describing a Stephen King novel as a conspiracy to commit murder.
    
    As for morals and Ethics, I’ll be quoting one of the founding fathers on the issue, I believe:
    
    “13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333–35
    It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought thatthese monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
    Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
    The Founders’ ConstitutionVolume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 12http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.htmlThe University of Chicago Press
    The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.
    
    Apparently, according to you, Jeffersson severely lacks both a moral and an ethical view.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    ”
    how can theft not be considered a moral issue?”
    
    There is no definition of the word “theft” which covers making a copy of anything. Not by any dictionary definition, not by any law, and not by any normal understanding of the word “theft”. There have been numerous rulings in courtroom to utterly strike down said definition.
    
    I could call an elephant a bird and be as accurate in that statement as you are with your “theft” argument.
    
    Yes, theft is indeed a moral issue. Using that word at all in this concept is instead what is known as an “irrelevant straw man argument”.
Anonymous

So this censorship thing doesn’t actually work, does it? After reading this post, I still can’t make out what is censored from me.
Pingback: Abusando de derechos de autor para reprimir la disidencia y censura crítica | Tecnocápsulas
James

What’s shameful is that there are people in countries like China who are genuinely censored and their rights abused but we’re supposed to feel sympathy for a guy who clearly makes money from his parody videos off a monetized YouTube channel? He even offers MP3′s of his parody tracks on iTunes! As a performing artist himself he made the same mistake as Mac Miller when using someone else’s music on a site that would generate him money, so parody or not I’ll save my sympathy for someone who genuinely deserves it. Freedom of speech didn’t die here, someone exploiting another person’s copyrighted material on a paid website got shut down!
James

I find it very hard to believe Dan Bull’s video got taken down for criticizing Lord Finesse when the man was taking hits from all sides before that video was posted online, and after it was taken down. What a hypocrite for attempting to champion censorship when he runs a fully monetized YouTube channel. I think a point most Finesse fans would probably want made is why do you and others keep saying that “Finesse” had it removed and it was because they were opinions he “didn’t like”? That’s definitely speculative on Dan Bull’s and his fans part following suit, and probably not true when you look at the facts. The opinions on Oscar Peterson were out there before Dan’s video through the likes of Soul Strut and they’re still there now along with new threads, so what value in suppressing that information by removing the video? But as fans like myself are trying to point out Dan’s opinion on the “sampling” is not one we share, and Finesse through his statement, as Mac Miller didn’t sample Oscar Peterson himself or “sample” Lord Finesse. He jacked his entire beat and his camp haven’t even denied they made money off it in their recent statement, they just said Finesse hadn’t objected to it before now. WOW! There’s no denying Dan makes money of being an artist in his own right creating videos for his YouTube channel, so it was always risky with so many legal and industry heads watching this case. Have copies of the video been taken down, or others stopped? No, and I’d guess that’s because unlike Dan Bull they weren’t in a questionable position of actually profiting of using the copyrighted material on a monetized website. But had he voiced his opinion like this guy, maybe we’d all be spending less time up in here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQTsCfWd__YWhy ‘Lord Finesse Vs. M
- retaliate
  
  Most of what you’ve posted, I can’t really argue with as a lot is subject to opinion and speculation. Only thing though… monetizing your efforts online doesn’t equate to you censoring others, so he’s not really a hypocrite on that specific issue. (unless you know something we don’t!!?) ;)
blah

Hip-hopcracy.
Pingback: Hip hop artists » Copyright Enforcement Irony: Hip Hopper Lord Finesse Silences YouTube … – ReadWriteWeb
Pingback: Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics – July 15, 2012 at 09:32AM | Lifestream
yuji

tinyurl.com/cyk9xz2
Chewy

@Kunu:disqus @flphpp:disqus @81074fd39e4c0a3fc09aafe0d78d97d7:disqus
Hey, all you people, stop arguing for a second:

i think we all can agree that times get HARDER*** especially when there are changes happening with technology as corruption across worldwide become more prevalent, no?

so i think the objective of THE ARTICLE**** is to inform us PUBLIC to be aware of such malignant acts happenin around worldwide and we all should def thank torrentfreak for that(contributor of article) and keepin our guard up.(I use VPN personally)

Now, this is the impression that I GOT**** from reading pages of bitching:
don’t get me wrong, i found out infos that i didn’t know if i neva read through pages of bullshit but :
1. i think you all should realize yall r smart individuals who r capable of distinguishing things like these happening, but we should FOCUS**** on finding solutions to these.. dont you think so?
2. jay, youre not so optimistic, are you?
3. fredrika, why you arguing with him? leave his dumbass alone…. there’s only so much you can do about it.

but besides all of the above shits goin on, i just hope that the older generation of the people(in 80′s or the 90′s, i really dont care how far back) can learn to embrace younger generations rising up to inherit their culture and the younger guys sharpening their skills and bring the game up to a higher equilibrium.

lets face it, IF ALL OF YOU READ THE VERY BOLD LINE ON TOP OF THE ARTICLE, and understand how mixtapes are made then it pretty much summarizes how LORD FINESSE IS BEING A DICK****

and if you watch the video by Dan Bull ( its a new video uploaded by him), @ 1:10 ~ 1:30, he metions how COPYRIGHT LAW IS BEING USED TO SILENCE CRITICISM OF COPYRIGHT LAW!

SHIT! Dan is on point! still after being some BS done to him.

—————————————————————————————————————————-
Dan Bull’s Video talkin about his video being taken down by copyright lawsuit
(its not the same video he made to defend mac, but a diff 1 to express his position)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-pT1CMy0EU&list=UU1hkAIJnb2CSmm7SPJaPR-A&index=3&feature=plcp
—————————————————————————————————————————-
btw, after i read this article, i lost respect to him cuz now he’s just another ignorant old grumpy ass hindering our development in music distribution. paying homage to him? maybe i’ll reconsider. hm.

I never said torrenting is Legal, but that’s how celebrities like Drake got known and got his fame. that idiot thinks he’s the hot shit that made all the money. Dead fucking wrong.

and if you didnt know, This article from TorrentFreak Explains how Utorrent is helping artists monetize FREE CONTENT!
http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-helps-artists-monetize-free-content-120724/

So Jay, if youre here to tell us that youre not making money through the content you distirbute, you better step your wackass up or get beat the fuck down.
Actually, you should be grateful for people who listen to you and represent your style.

See? the problem was never about copyright, who owns what. Once it starts to get distributed, then that’s when greedy ass fags step in to make it impossible for all of us fans to even cop a decent album. fucking haywire like these need to be prevented from happening.

it makes me depressed every time more people have to deal with more shit.
JUST HOW MUCH MORE SHIT DO WE HAVE TO DEAL UNTIL THIS PROBLEM GETS RESOLVED!?!?!?!

Who Knows.
- Chewy
  
  i lost respect to him(lord finesse) i meant.

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Abusing Copyright To Stifle Dissent & Censor Critics

Bull’s response

Bull’s original track with video clip.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Search TorrentFreak

Bull’s response

Bull’s original track with video clip.

Related Posts

NewsBits

MostDiscussed

CopyQuote

PopularArticles