What´s about protected internet hääää? you should get access, are you out of your mind. fuck you. oh you ll see what the future will bring you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcP3V9bgUoI

“Emily of the State” a Canadian parody about the government snooping on citizens online.

This is the ultimate nightmare that we all most struggle against.

Please, neo, FFS. If you’re going to try and educate us poor ignorant fools, at least try and know what the hell you are talking about.

1> Theft: I deprive you of property, such that you no longer posess it.

2> Copyright infingement: I distribute a likeness of a work that you control distribution rights over.

1> Is a crime. I can be imprisoned for it.
2> Is not a crime. I can be sued for it.

Copyright infringement != Theft.

Stop stealing language.

Seriously, welcome back. I was really starting to worry we wouldn’t see your special kind of anti-logic around here any more. Often impersonated, but never convincingly.

I’ve been trying to put myself into your mindframe, the same way criminal profilers do with terrorists and perverts.

I think, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that you believe that society will be made to see the error of its ways. If that cannot happen by enforcing your views on morality, then it shall be decreed by technology and law.

And so I went on a journey to see how that could happen. How could one force the vast majority of the population to ignore common sense and conform to the wishes of dying business cartels?

It would certainly take legislation; to the point that would make a totalitarist regime blush. Every computer would have to become a state-authourised ‘network access point’. You’d have to log on with a fingerprint or retina scan. Logging on for someone else would be an imprisonable offence. God forbid, don’t even MENTION unsigned code. Linux would become a death sentence.

And then common sense kicked in.

The internet is not the wild west. Stuff that really needs protecting – banking, corporate VPNs, eCommerce – they’re doing just fine. It takes constant vigilence, but they are, and will continue to be, adequately protected.

The reason media is so universally pirated is because, as a basic instinct, society does not value it to that kind of level. It’s a commodity. You turn on the tap, you get water. You turn on the internet, you get music. Or films, or software, or eBooks… Try and change this and you will be opposed at every turn.

Faced with this kind of threat, people do not seek to change the law. They seek to change technology. And they’re better, quicker and smarter about it than you are. Or for that matter, the lawmakers.

You are seriously in the minority in your hopes here.

Not quite. Property rights protect the individual ONLY because the majority of the people agrees that property rights should be there. This majority of the people however could care less about your business model; your ‘property right’ does not have a basis in realism because most people regard your position on the matter to be absurd.

__

yes you are. you couldn’t care less about the content creators.
__

Pretty much everyone cares for the content creators. They are, after all, the band or people that the listener really likes. People who we DO NOT care about include but are not limited to:
- Label companies
- Corporate Executives
- RIAA
- RIAA
- RIAA
- etc.

__

This convoluted, unproven system is not the answer.
__

There’s plenty of cases where bands are able to succesfully launch an album based on donations. You probably lack the willingness to investigate this due to your ideological background. In any case, better to have a system that might work then one that clearly doesn’t work at all, correct?

__

The public does not have a right to distribute other people’s copyrighted work. this is a right that does not exist. please stop citing imaginary rights based on nothing. thanks!
__

Yes they do. Something that can be shared infinitely and effortly for non-profit and philantropical reasons should rightfully be done so by the public. The right to freedom of information DOES exist. In any case, it does not matter whether or not it exists. The internet is a place where all material CAN be shared because that is the very nature of it. Either deal with it or gtfo. If you try to destroy or corrupt the net, then yes you make people your enemy because the people ARE the net. That’s why sharing is pretty popular nowadays. Not because it is free but because sharing allows people to share ideas, information and culture with eachother. If you cannot respect that, then we cannot respect you.

The problem is that copyright takes away the rights of the public to favour a minority.

so does EVERY property right. what’s your point? that it’s bad? grow up.

i am not against creators being paid

yes you are. you couldn’t care less about the content creators.

but there are other ways to do that, one of which is the pledge system. the creator declares what they want to do and how much they want to do it. the public at large can then make pledges.

this convoluted, unproven system is not the answer.

there are other ways as well. and probably many that haven’t been thought of. but we need ways that don’t take away the publics rights

the public does not have a right to
distribute other people’s copyrighted work. this is a right that does not exist. please stop citing imaginary rights based on nothing. thanks!

Incredible how you mention Jammie like that. No shame at all?
Oh, ye of “Reasoned Mind”, how do you keep on going with that morality when getting payed with the money that should be going to the artists.

do not buy music or movies anymore
live without the or listen to the radio!!!

do not support these RIAA companies any longer they are to powerful today!!!

if u want to buy music buy independent label artists the ones not with Sony, Warner,BMG,ect… if u support these companies u support the unlawful mafia style tactics they use…

mainly “special interest groups” (the reason the usa turned to all HDTV was in thanks to a “special interest group” they only paid just over $1mil to public officials to get them to give a yes vote)

you and me as an individual can not afford to lobby like this… so its whom ever has the most cash rules… this is mainly an immoral act and all most all the laws put down on us today are thus motivated by “special interest groups” meaning they are dollar driven no morals needed!!!

do not buy music or movies associated to companies like the RIAA or MPAA… if u do the tyranny will only continue to get worse!!! they will use the money to make laws to put u in jail!!!

Since people tend to see something of themselfs in others….

If people don’t like these laws, they will find a way to neutralize them.

One way is to join the Pirate Party.

But what i dont understand is that everybody here tries to convince themselves that free file sharing is the solution.
As is being discussed here in many posts, it looks like a lot of people are fine with paying a subscription for a (sometimes expensive) VPN or USENET connection , just to be able to download copyrighted material “for free” !!!! Doesn’t that sound wrong ?

No it doesn’t, what does sound very wrong is people saying that they buy something from those bastards liars from the MAFIAA. Stop buying now! if you have to download their stuff do it but don’t pay for it, but I will tell ya all go look for alternatives, in TV you have Miro that have a lot of free channels, for music you have magnatune and jamendo and for movies you have your bittorrent at the moment but fans are making good movies like “the search for the gollum”

People will start using steganography technology, such as StegoShare: http://stegoshare.sf.net

This is the industry’s idea of how to treat and view us.

Don’t expect an inch of sympathy from me.

If the industry is so stupid as to make me pay 10 EUR a month to a VPN instead of to a culture flatrate, then that’s their loss.
I really would prefer being legal, but there is just no way of anything but a flatrate model making available the type of “random walk” use of unworried search and discovery real media/culture omnivores prefer.

You just can’t pay for all seasons of your favorite 20-50 sitcoms, all 50-100k+ mp3s, all 200-500+ watch-once-then-erase movies, etc pp.

It’s just not possible, even if the people who are downloading instead of buying actually HAD/have a job.

And who are the ones creating the illusion we always have to have everything, now, and at once?
The same people suing us for following up on the incited urges and needs they planted in the first place.

Fvckfaced thieves and liars, all of them.

Don’t get it twisted, y’all.

And after printing billions (so called quantitative easing) to give to foreign bank creditors whom the government feels obligated to bail out, they now decide that internet connections should be taxed (in additional to vat) to fund new infrastructure. This is analogous to the “Let them eat cake” statement by Marie Antoinette, for revolution is upon us.

I understand your position and it is something that I have given a good deal of thought. This has led me to the conclusion that by their actions, the record labels are making me their enemy. In parralel to being an avid pirate, I used to buy the things I really liked, averagely spending about 30 euros per month. But then I realized, I am paying them money and they still make me out as a criminal? Where’s the morality in that?

From that perspective it would be foolish of me to give money to an organisation that is systematically attacking the rights and freedoms of me and my fellow citizens. No, the only solution here is not to keep buying music and films, but either one of the following:

- Artists gain popularity by online filesharing and are able to make a carreer through concerts.
- Artists must be supported through donations.
- Artists get regular jobs on the side and operate from a non-profit ideology.

As I know that the latter is for some of the more professional artists out there not feasible as they invest too much time in their music, I am in favor of a combination of the first two options. Results have already been made in experimentation by bands such as Radiohead and Maudlin of the Well. The latter is an especially exceptional case in which the band was able to create their new album based on donations they received before recording rather than after. This shows the feasibility of this model in order to support artists in their carreer.

I am still thinking of an alternative to this for the gaming and movie industry, since the matter is bit more complicated. It will take some sunday afternoons sitting outside pondering to come up with something for that :-)

Then explain how come all movies are as expensive, every CD coming out is as expensive and in there are 2 or 3 classes of games each with their own price…

The prices are rising higher and higher up to insane heights. If i want to see a movie in the theatre i now have to pay 9 euro’s… 9 euro’s and then my drink costs 4 euro’s just for half a litre, some M&M’s, at least twice the shop’s price. Then i get to sit in a cramped chair for 1,5 hour (yes, i’m pretty tall and i cannot sit decently in a theater as it is more important to stash as many people in as possible).

Can you blame us for downloading? Because we are sick and tired of the prices? The fact that making agreements on prices is accepted nowhere except when it comes to music games and movies?

Do sth about that.

By the way, in The Netherlands they put a remark on the law. There have to be decent alternatives, which could take years. Also, apparantly they want users to buy the rights to a game/movie and not just a copy of it. As u should be allowed to copy your own stuff. Also, if you buy the PS3 version of a game you should also be allowe3d to play the XB360 version without paying again.

Then explain how come all movies are as expensive, every CD coming out is as expensive and in there are 2 or 3 classes of games each with their own price…

The prices are rising higher and higher up to insane heights. If i want to see a movie in the theatre i now have to pay 9 euro’s… 9 euro’s and then my drink costs 4 euro’s just for half a litre, some M&M’s, at least twice the shop’s price. Then i get to sit in a cramped chair for 1,5 hour (yes, i’m pretty tall and i cannot sit decently in a theater as it is more important to stash as many people in as possible).

Can you blame us for downloading? Because we are sick and tired of the prices? The fact that making agreements on prices is accepted nowhere except when it comes to music games and movies?

Do sth about that.

By the way, in The Netherlands they put a remark on the law. There have to be decent alternatives, which could take years. Also, apparantly they want users to buy the rights to a game/movie and not just a copy of it. As u should be allowed to copy your own stuff. Also, if you buy the PS3 version of a game you should also be allowe3d to play the XB360 version without paying again.

The problem is that copyright takes away the rights of the public to favour a minority. i am not against creators being paid. but there are other ways to do that, one of which is the pledge system. the creator declares what they want to do and how much they want to do it. the public at large can then make pledges. if the amount required is met the pledges are collected and the money goes to the creators to make the product. BUT the end result goes to the public domain and belongs to everyone. there are other ways as well. and probably many that haven’t been thought of. but we need ways that don’t take away the publics rights, not least of all because the only way to enforce those monopoly priviledges is to invade the privacy of the public on a massive scale.

I myself have used bittorrent, mainly for US TV shows that i like which are not broadcasted in my country or only months or weeks after their original air date in the US.

I know that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. What people fail to understand is that if everything is available for free, soon enough there wont be much to share if the artists themselves cant make a living from their work.

And i am not talking about established artists who can afford to be in favor of file sharing, but more about small artists getting ripped off by their labels, who rely on CD sales or legal downloads to get a small share of the profit and carry on doing good music.

I agree the whole systems is rotten, that the majors take the bigger share of the money and all of that, and that the business model should be changed.

But what i dont understand is that everybody here tries to convince themselves that free file sharing is the solution.
As is being discussed here in many posts, it looks like a lot of people are fine with paying a subscription for a (sometimes expensive) VPN or USENET connection , just to be able to download copyrighted material “for free” !!!! Doesn’t that sound wrong ?

Now, if a legal downloading service existed where i could download legally all the content i wanted, with a decent downloading speed, and costing the same price as VPN or less, and where i know that some of the fee i pay would go to the artists so that they can continue to produce good music , I would go for that…

I read the article you refered me to and i found nothing other than a dry recital of the law as it stands. the site i refered you to actually explained the reasons behind the law and the difference between rights and priviledges. the fact that copyright is in fact a priviledge and not a right. to obtain those priviledges they have to take the public’s rights away from them. i can only conclude you are a paid troll. for anyone else interested the site is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk
it is very informative and i believe the author explains the reasons copyright is failing very well.

I am not playing moral martyr. The only thing I am doing and will be doing is acting according to my moral beliefs. Don’t try to make me appear as the bad guy. It won’t work and you are well aware of this.

And should I get caught I will not take my punishment and shut up. Do you really believe that I am going to abide by an un-constitutional law that was implemented into place by the likes of you? You must be out of your mind or an cleverly pretensive troll to think that any person would willingly believe that such laws are the result of ‘reasoned minded’ governments rather than profit motive schemes. Under this perspective, no, I will not accept your ‘revenge’ action under the false flag of justice

In the meanwhile, I’ll be sending letters to MP’s and discussing the issue with other people in order to combat your current illigitly lobbied position. Do not forget, the current generation will have power within 10-20 years. For us, it is merely a matter of time until we win. Good luck to try and stop us.

it is not the law! The DMCA is unconstitutional and therefore it is not a law! Not only that but trying to enforce a pseudo law such as the DMCA who enfringe the constitution is punishable by fines and prison time.

Copyright holders should have only rights to the physical incarnation of their art and not the idea.

People should be able to do versions of music and movies no be bother and if an artist tries to claim ownership he should be punished for stifling competition.

Public display of arts should be considered like buildings people should be able to record and utilize those images freely.

Actually, it’s not against the law. Downloading in countries such as the Netherlands states that the downloading of copyright files for personal use is not against the law. This is not inferred, or implied, it has been explicitly stated.
You are wrong, your argument is now null and void.
Please vacate the premises immediately.