You have 23,767,325 of 23,767,325 known music FLACs.

Your ‘Wild West’ analogy doesn’t stack up I’m afraid.

In the frontier days, poor helpless colonists were at the mercy of ruthless bandits on horseback. You seem to be equating the four major labels with the quivering townsfolk of old.

Really? The same four labels that sue dead people? And children? And sign the ‘talent’ into disgusting terms, in which they have to repay the production costs before they see a cent?

These are the people that need protecting?

Seriously?

Yes, things will change. But unlike the wild west, these days most people seem to think its the system that’s wrong, not society. Every poll, every anecdote I hear, tells me that most folk see little to no problem with sharing media, copyright or otherwise.

Copyright makes no sense in the digital era. It needs to be replaced.

Yes, artists need to be paid, and we need to find a way to do that. But the days of people paying a per-unit price so that some record label exec can keep his Maybach gassed are rapidly drawing to a close.

Music is a social phenomenom. Soon, it will belong to the people.

Come on your telling me you never let someone borrow your car, your clothes, or your ipod. PLEEEAAASEEE. You are just as liable. All those companies own the rights to those items, why don’t they sue. This is just beaucratic b.s. They only want what they can’t have. My head on a platter. I download and share terabytes of data annually and i will continue to do so. Reasoned mind you should be ashamed of yourself. You ever boughta cd/dvd and loaned it to someone, by definition you shared it. And since you can’t distinguish sharing from piracy you are guilty as charged. GTH

quoted for truth.

Wow, i do not even know where to start. Short version: no you did not get it.

A bit longer: You did not read the “AS LONG AS THERE IS A DEMAND OF CULTURE/KNOWLEDGE, ARTISTS/RESEARCHERS WILL GET PAID ONE WAY OR ANOTHER” part did you, or maybe you just did not understand? The true creators WILL ALWAYS GET PAID.

Regarding the legal responsibility: Yes i do think that there should be some responsibility (for example, creators should still have exclusive rights to “sell” the product). But I also believe there is ways of reducing the costs (by for example cutting out the middle man, and more efficient distribution)and then making people willing to pay the “correct” price. Spotify is a good example (although they have not cut out the middle man) of digital distribution which has reduced the costs and I happily pay my 9.99 (although some of my favorite artists are not even included). I am also sure that this service would have never come to life if it wasn’t for the fact that the music industry had to adopt in order to compete with the “pirates”. However if a law (that even you seem to believe is not the will of the people) is passed making it possible for the media companies keep operating like they are currently doing (or even worse), then there will not been any progress.

This is why I also believe that a law, that is not the will of the people should never be passed, because it is only in favor of outdated media companies and waist of resources. You also asked if I believe that industry employees should find some other way to earn their livings. The answer is that once the middle man is cut out they will have to, don’t they? Why should a protectionist law like ACTA be passed for the “media” industry. What gives them the right to gain such an advantage compared to others?

On topic that i have not yet discussed is if “the people responsible for this lawbreaking should enjoy immunity from the law” (as the law is now). My answer would have to be yes, because if they all (which of course would be impossible) would be convicted for “making illegal copies” (NOT THEFT!!!) then there would be no incentive for “the industry” to change.

And all of this….because the group that robbed you is in greater numbers than you are.

1. the greatest industrial looting of all time should be allowed to continue because it’s the “will of the people.” (minority or not.)
2. anything digital in the future is fair game for taking without concern, essentially gutting any promise of a paying digital career for anyone in any industry. Let them do something else on the side that can’t be stolen, right?
3. In this one case the rule of existing law should be ignored and you should not be under any obligation to prove your case. You are in the majority (in your view if not in actual numbers) and that’s all that counts.
4. those people who’s products have been looted should not be granted any legal rights in protection or recompense in the courts. from your perspective, thousands of industry employees in music, books, movies, games, business, touring, graphics, a variety of artistic careers and hundreds of thousands of artists whose work has been taken all without intended payment these past 9 years should all just shut up, assume their losses and go home and find some other way to earn an income for themselves and their families. It is understood that they deserve to be paid, you just don’t want any legal obligation to ever do it, while enjoying free and unimpeded access to their life’s work.
5. the people responsible for this lawbreaking should enjoy immunity from the law and not be held accountable to their illegal actions nor to any of the damage they have (illegally) done because it is their own will. And the people trying to stop this ransacking and protect their legal interests are actually the bad guys.
6) these outcomes should be allowed to stand as precedent examples for other lootings and acts of lawbreaking in the future, if they are the will of the people.

Do I have this essentially correct?
On second thought Eddy, it’s probably better that you don’t take your ideas to your congressman or government representative.

Second, do you actual believe that these new anti-p2p laws are the will of the people? If we for example could cut out 90% of the cost by eliminating the middle man (that is the record companies, “film distributors” etc.), do you think that the majority still would support a law that aims to protect media companies from dying. We both know the answer, NO…

Also, i did not mention that the artist did not have the right to get paid. Of course they do, and they always will. Do not try to tell me that we need to pass ACTA in order to protect the artist. AS LONG AS THERE IS A DEMAND OF CULTURE/KNOWLEDGE, ARTISTS/RESEARCHERS WILL GET PAID ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. If they do not get paid, then no culture/knowledge will be produced. Then when demand is sufficiently high people are willing to pay. This is called equilibrium.

The point I make is that ACTA and other laws only serve to protect the media companies (which are not needed anymore), and therefore are not the will of the people. (Also today’s CD&DVD and other physical formats system is a terrible waist of resources)

I have respect for Democracy, Eddy, and I hope you voted in your respective elections as I do (and did). The laws actually do reflect the will of the majority of people at the moment. The majority of the people will elect their representatives along ideological lines that appeal to the majority in the future. Anarchy gets you arrested and little more. Sweden will vote their reps out if they truly feel artists should have to deal with this kind of thinking. If you are correct, the majority will change the laws and that is exactly what I suggested to be the far smarter path forward for pirates. But everyone here knows that a big component of online digital theft is the financial/commercial advantage, the avoidance of the price and the money you keep from the artist and the rights holder.

“Illegal file bartering has been held to be a commercial use, cutting off the defense of fair use in the U.S.: “…[C]ommercial use is demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.” A&M Records, Inc. et al v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), at 1014.”

So by thieving online, you hand this issue to law enforcement on a silver platter and you know it, then whine about the easily foreseeable result. In that regard I have zero sympathy for anyone caught and punished. You use privacy statutes to hide while you grab harddrives of “free” stuff intended for someone’s livelihood and then wonder why privacy is threatened and complain about free speech when you get caught. The artists, their agents and the content creators continue to work along democratic, legal lines in the legislatures and the courtrooms while you ransack their products. Do you wonder why you receive so little regard? You receive the regard you earn with your conduct.

When pirates organize a clear voting majority and find the courage to come out from behind privacy laws, then you’ll have your chance to genuinely influence history. The people brought down an American President 30 years ago pre-internet, they can certainly eliminate copyright today if the majority really wants to.

But they don’t. Not really, and certainly not the majority. So far it’s all been about hiding, taking all the “free” stuff and whining about how you never get a chance to be heard. The creator of the product properly sells or controls that product and sets the price. Others can buy it or live without it, and content creators will fight you to the end for their right to these principles. You can count on that. If paying for a movie or a song or a game is “enslaving the people” then I invite you to push back, Eddy, if this is what you think is fair. This is just getting started with artists and their agents supporting the ACTA so they can get paid again, and I’ll take no pleasure watching you get busted while sitting in the good (legal) seats in the house. Better still, overthrow the government for your “right” to steal artists digital products online and off. All in the name of “free speech”, of course.

There are a couple of things in your statements about the responsibilities of governments that are truly frightening, and can only attributed to your disrespect for democracy. First, let us make it clear that a government should be elected BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. Seconde, laws should reflect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Now let us consider some of your statements: “Government will always protect the law abider, and take out the law breaker, just as it should be.” What if the law do not reflect the will of the people, but only of a few? What if the current copyright laws are not supported by the people? Should the government still uphold such a law? No it should not, it should seek the reform the laws as reflected by people. I argue that ACTA and other anti-p2p laws are not the will of the people, for example, the large majority in sweden opposes the new IPRED-law.

Now lets consider another statement: “Pirates follow no laws, not legal nor moral, so we’ll craft the laws as we need them and some degree of piracy will inevitably pay bigtime. REALLY bigtime.” The fact that your are using the term “we’ll craft the laws as we need them” is very interseting. If the majority of people are against these new anti-p2p laws then who will “craft the laws”? Your are implying that the government should uphold laws that are in favor of the mediacompanies shareholders. (Not the artist or producers, as long as there is a demand for culture/knowledge these will be just fine). This is not democracy, it is dictatorship.

For the first time, there is a chance to cut out the middle man (the mediacompanies and other). Of course mediacompanies will try to stop this progress by spreading fear and lies, like you are doing now. Interstingly you talk about unmoral pirates (the people), when it is infact the mediacompanies that in their mindless hunt for profits will stop at noting, including corrupting the government and enslaving the people. However, the more you push us around, the faster and more powerful our response will be.

cry more you whiny bitch.

That’s one hell of an assumption. Sure, we might “expect” it to be deemed illegal and shut down (if caught), but most people also “expect” major uploaders of copyrighted material to be deemed illegal and shut down (if caught). These expectations have nothing to do with what we believe to be correct.

When I was a kid, friends would record songs off the radio and share them among their friends. Blatantly illegal (which we didn’t know at the time) but none of us believed it SHOULD have been illegal. Those were physical copies. Given away for free. Now apply that to a larger scale. Then to a global scale. Then to the internet. Same thing in all cases, just on a larger scale and in different formats. And the vast majority of people participating don’t think it should be illegal.

Your assertion that pirating drive-swaps will supplant online piracy is likely true but that wasn’t my point. My interest is in the daily damage pirates are doing to the internet. Drive swaps will place that particular issue back into the material realm again and legislatures, law enforcement and the court systems will address that incrementally and in due time. Frankly, I don’t care whether old music survives or not. My interest is in that moment of epiphany where pirates finally realize it is their own (illegal) behavior that is giving government little choice but to regulate and destroy what they claim to love in the first place.

I seriously doubt that “any work in digital format” will inescapably be subject to the gutting of market value because of a plethora of ones and zero’s. Technical possibility in no way presages inevitable likelihood. Were that true, highway speeding and retail shoplifting would be off the charts, and we all see how they are being curtailed.

While it is true this network was originally envisioned as free and open, 1) so is any new realm at first and 2) freedom is always narrowed on balance with privacy and other concerns until wrongdoing is curtailed. The network is rife with illegal activity at the moment. Curtailing it is a clear pattern well established over the course of human civilization. My point is that pirates appear to believe that this new realm will remain anarchic and somehow be different, that is, either “impossible to police” or “allowed to remain rogue” by civilizations choice, and I just don’t see it. I think both these outcomes are highly unlikely in a realm brought to us by the industries we are currently ransacking and regulated by the same governments bringing us the ACTA.

I honestly believe that government in general would love to leave this free and open and not commit resources to policing but I also believe pirates will not self-regulate and so will not allow that to happen. I think pirates can be intelligent but are fundamentally stupid. The debate over copyright and rights in general are only ancillary issues, and sorting out online freedoms on this particular playing field of willful illegality and civil disobedience–as piracy has required it–is a very bad decision that will have negative repercussions to our network that are likely not reversible.

Our personal freedoms both material and digital exist in direct relation to how and how often we abuse them. Most studies place illegal network abuse at 30-50% of the traffic. So my point remains that any pirate here who thinks this goes on indefinitely because you intend to abuse the network indefinitely is precisely the person doing the destruction in the first place. You are ruining this for everyone. You could be organizing and taking this to your governments properly, but instead you are simply looting and calling it “free speech” and government is reacting accordingly.

And if this path continues, history will lay the inevitable online police state directly at the feet of these very selfish, very stupid “pirates”. If you see an alternate path where government and industry just folds their tent and let’s online anarchy reign–thereby gutting monetized digital industry and the potential of digital distribution of product—I’d like to hear about it. I think you are kidding yourself. And I think history backs me up.

“If you ever wonder why the industries and governments don’t listen to you and your suggestions about how they should run their businesses, just read the moronic comments above.”

Yes, and all black people are lazy. Congratulations, you just accused the industries you love so much of being bigoted, backward-thinking entities. Which is what pirates have been saying the whole time. We’re glad you finally agree with us :).

By using Certain software that logs activity, that software your using right now you are opening yourself up to a world of HURT.

Is there a choice in software that works to protect you?

Fight the fight of the century untill we wont need Digital rights any more.

What about the damage that the rights holders have done to the people? There was no widespread internet piracy back in 1998 when Disney and others begged the government to extend copyrights to 70-95 years after the death of the author. There was no widespread movie piracy in the early 1980s when the movie industry tried to kill the VCR.

How is it “leveling the playing field” when the rights holders get all the rights and consumers have none? You don’t even “own” any media any more, you only get a license to use it. Not to mention that copyrights are now being used for things that were never intended. Like the guy who was convicted of copyright infringement for taking and selling the CDs that were rejected by music club members and which the record company didn’t want back. They claimed that even though the post office was instructed to throw them away (where they then become fair game), they still owned them. In what world does that make sense?

Why is it that if I buy a DVD player, it comes with a warranty against defects? If a defect in the manufacturing causes damages, I can most likely sue the company. On the other hand, all software comes with an anti-warranty where the company assumes no responsibility whatsoever for any defects in their product, or any damages that it might cause. How is that fair?

Someone I know bought the special edition of a Sony movie on DVD the day it came out. He paid full price, only to discover that it wouldn’t play in his slightly older DVD player. Sony’s response? Tough s***. They didn’t use those words exactly, but that was the general idea. No offer to replace the disc or refund his money just a “We can’t guarantee that every DVD will work in every player.” Excuse me??? That’s EXACTLY what the DVD “standard” is supposed to ensure. Where were his rights?

Maybe I’ll respect their “rights” when *I* start getting some of my own. And no, I don’t mean getting everything for free. I mean the right to use legally purchased copies of media however I want, including converting them to other formats for my own use and/or breaking the encryption to enable me to play them on the devices of my choice. I mean a guarantee that my legally purchased movie or game is going to play on the player or computer of my choice as long as it meets the stated requirements. I mean copyright terms shortened back to a “limited time” as originally envisioned by the creators of copyright law, not this life+xxx years crap. I mean being able to exercise true “fair use” of small pieces of media without the rights holder firing off a DMCA complaint at the first hint of a single frame of their media. I mean actual penalties for rights holders who abuse the DMCA takedown system.

Until then, I look at downloading as truly “leveling the playing field”.

Couldn’t have said it better myself :D – Spot on!

Actually, Canada is a country that tolerates noncommercial piracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I only use BitTorrent because I’m only 15 and I can’t be bothered to illegally obtain a credit card and actually pay for all the stuff.

@ 95:

“Online will prove no different over time.”

But it already has proven different. And I have to disagree on your point that the Internet will become controlled, because then it would cease to be the Internet. The Internet was designed to be an “open and free” network.

And your “whatever it takes” clause troubles me. China already does these things with censorship. Do we North Americans really want to go the same way, just to protect the rights of the minority? Certainly the minority has rights, but these rights are not an absolute priority.

@ 12 and 21:

An absolute boycott does nothing more to send a message that pirating the video/music doesn’t already do. If nobody is buying the CD but it has a massive piracy ring online, I think the message it should send is, “People like our music, but they don’t like paying so much for it, or they don’t like DRM, etc.”

An absolute boycott, on the other hand, will send the message that “nobody likes our music”.

Perhaps artists should move to boycott creating music, if piracy affects them so much. Then we would get the message.

Good luck with your plan to nail gravy to the wall.

You cannot fight basic economics. The cost of a product in a competitive environment will naturally tend to just over its cost of manufacture. The ‘cost of manufacture’ of a copy of an MP3 is so ridiculously low it would be quite an acheivement just to quantify it. There is no scarecity in ones and zeroes, nor can there ever be.

Broadband speeds are going up, storage costs are going down. It won’t be that long before the entire back catalogues of the music labels can be copied on an idle whim. Already a single drive could hold more music than the average music store holds in stock. Drive-swapping is fast, social and entirely off the radar.

It’s no longer a case of if the music labels will fail, it’s when. The film industry should take heed, and find another model while they still can. I suspect that whatever ends up replacing the labels, it will work better for fans, better for artists and better for society as a whole than the bunch of clueless douchebags that claim all the copyrights today. Old music is dying, I just wish it’d hurry up already.

Filesharing is killing old music, so do it copiously, constantly and with a cheer in your soul.

OK, I’ll stop feeding the troll now.

Were this a big dvd or cd copying operation in some warehouse somewhere, even if distributed for free, the majority of observers would expect this to be deemed illegal and shut down. But do the same exact thing online from a webpage and suddenly some percentage of those observers cry “free culture” and “freedom of speech” as the larger issue. There’s a logical disconnect here that pirates never address. It’s only a shift to nontangible format. The issue remains the same. And only pirates see this distinction as reason to allow it to go forward.

Addressing online filesharing is just one small part of the ACTA and the ACTA is just one small part of where global legislation will inevitably go. This is only the first tentative babysteps towards internet control. In the material world, no well sorted out government is going to be okay with a certain geographic region living in daily chaos and anarchy, with lawbreaking and theft of any sort allowed to continue as routine. Sooner or later, the government steps in and does whatever it takes—-whatever it takes—to gather a reasonable control of the region.

Online will prove no different over time.

It’s true that laws are not in place yet and digital phenomenon is way out ahead of the legislators at the moment. The online/digital realm is presently host to a wide variety of chaotic and anarchic memes: hacking and webpage defacing, credit card and atm info pilfered, identity theft, fraud of many kinds, pfishing for data, Nigerian banking schemes, copyright infringement, digital theft of a wide variety of products, the list goes on and on. At the moment, global law enforcement is 1) way behind the curve 2) working from a disjointed patchwork of antique legislation and 3) just trying to keep some degree of basic online organization in place until the world begins to decide on internet standards and work together to enforce them.

The internet we share is the greatest thing ever in communication, digital distribution, the free spread of CC information.

But pirate’s don’t seem to be interested in organizing and influencing this legally to their way of thinking, but rather do real damage to their cause by pretending that anything in the digital format is/should be fair game and free and then reach to ludicrous measures (assassination anyone?) as a response to a government pushback. If you ever wonder why the industries and governments don’t listen to you and your suggestions about how they should run their businesses, just read the moronic comments above.

The internet is far too valuable for the governments of the world to simply walk away and let this virtual domain continue indefinitely in the kind of fraudulent and infringing way it currently operates. My guess is that inevitably, governments will do “whatever it takes” to get this new wild west under some degree of reliable control, safe for sensitive information, safe for digital product. Because if they don’t or can’t, if pirates and hackers will always rule unabated, then the value of the network is basically lost for real business and truly secure communication. I know you love to bleat “they can’t stop us.” I wonder. I really wonder if government will–at some future point–just throw their hands up and allow the kind of behavior that is presently commonplace here to continue unabated.

I myself just don’t see it.

Scanlated manga probably falls under similar laws as fansubs. Meaning my reading scanlations online is probably a violation of the author’s copyright.

However, because I like One Piece, Naruto, Death Note, Elfen Lied, and Full Metal Alchemist so much, starting next month I’m planning on buying 2-3 manga volumes per month, probably more when money allows.

So, in this case, my piracy has resulted in numerous future sales, whereas if I hadn’t read it online, it’s unlikely I would have even known they existed, much less have found out I liked them.

Little blurb summaries you often see don’t do any job at all of conveying how good or bad a 10,000 page (500+ chapters and about 20 pages per chapter) manga series like One Piece is, and anyone that buys something based on that is quite stupid.

Why, just get rid of them. The
movie and music industry could charge less and make billions. They just cant seem to get over the fact that their is now competition in an industry that they once monopolized and set prices to anything they wanted. Very few of us have that luxury. The A’s will wipe out the internet to keep the monopoly.

A smarter approach would be to market their product over the internet and pass the savings of publishing, shipping, and retailing on to customers (worldwide).

Im talking billions $$$ and they would not be around to sue kids, network printers and dead people.
(and then keep the money).

Look at the Islamic extremists who performed attacks against the US in ’01 and a few years later in England. Did these attacks result in the downfall of the West? No. Did these attacks result in general hatred of Muslims becoming tolerated, hundreds of thousands of deaths during the Coalition invasion (mostly civilians), and the U.S. government becoming more imperialistic? Absolutely. The end result of their actions was paranoia, hatred, and the West committing actual atrocities against them.

As for this law, of course the Industry will advocate extreme copyright laws. Conversely, most of us will advocate the extreme opposite. It really is too bad the leaders in the file-sharing community and leaders in the Industry can’t sit down together and find a solution that benefits everyone. The thing that truly keeps this from happening is the fact that the Industry sees us as a problem that will go away if pressured. They are gravely mistaken in this.

The ONLY way we can actually change the system is to defy it openly while not purchasing ANY entertainment products. Downloading is an excellent act of civil disobedience to show our defiance. We must also bring the masses into our fold, as that will be the only way to cut the proverbial umbilical cord from the entertainment industry.

sieg riaa/sacem/holywood/other parasites.

Unfortunately the US justice dept is being filled by RIAA lawyers.

see: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/13/obama-adds-yet-anoth.html

They will have your broadband and your ipod next. Shut down the internet so a bunch of dinosaurs and hangers on from the 50′s can continue to milk the artists and patrons for their pound of flesh.

If we could get rid of these lampreys and the media business change their business model a little, millions could be made.

Peace Out.

“(b) In determining the amount of damages of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities shall consider, inter alia, the value of the infringed goods or service, measured by the market price, suggested retail price, or other legitimate measure of value submitted by the rights holder.”

Measured by the retail price? Are they insane? Now the content providers think they can sue filesharers for the retailers cut of the profits, as well as their manufacturers profit margin?

Wow.

So does that mean that they will give the profit from each case (RRP – their manufacturers selling price) to my local music shop for their ‘percieved loss’?

Or would they simply keep the difference, as well as not having to pay the artists (as they would if I bought a song from itunes), and not pay for marketing, distribution, storage, bandwidth, etc?

What a BRILLIANT business model. All they have to do is pay to produce ONE album, then they can live off mega-profits forever, without any further expenditures, thanks to the legal system.

I’m in the wrong job…

If you actually look at the effects of what killing does for most situations it’s only an elaborate way of covering your eyes and ears with your hands shouting “I can’t see/hear you”. Killing NEVER solves a problem. It solves your perception of the problem (as far as idiots are concerned that’s enough for them) but if you really want to solve a problem the proper way you can’t do that through violence. Once you’ve eradicated ANYONE who disagrees with you people from your own team will start feeling guilty about all the crimes they have committed and start working against you from the inside. Problem solved? I don’t think so.

And to be quite honest, you (and I assume you’re a ridiculously stupid jackass with violent fantasies and a very small penix) wouldn’t want to live in a society of the kind which you seem to imagine.

Can we pre-establish the calliber?

Can we pre-establish the calliber?