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.

“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.

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”.

”
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.

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.

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.