Shame on you Torrentfreak…

I really enjoy ripping your arguments to pieces. The slightly depressing thing about it is that 4nd seems to be better at it than I am (respect 4nd, btw)

Ho hum, tag in…

[Quote]..that is, piracy is (a fact we can all agree) a civil infraction at the moment and not yet has it been made criminal. [/Quote]
Great. Could you stop calling it theft, stealing and pilfering in the meantime? It’s damn annoying.

[Quote]Not buying was the smart and sensible, legal way to change business methods and models if that was your goal.[/Quote]
I haven’t bought for years…

[Quote]If you think there is more honor in being a mouse who by definition must sneak around while breaking laws, take your best shot I suppose.[/Quote]
No.

I think there’s honour in tearing down a corrupt, immoral, malignant scurge on society. The media cartels have thoroughly deserved their immininant fate, and I consider it my moral and social duty to be among those that help deliver it.

[Quote]The landscape is littered with the Daniel Doves and the Jammie Thomas’s and Tenenbaum will be next; punitive actions are really only just now getting started in earnest.[/Quote]
Wow, they sure are taking their time… You’re able to name every high-profile ‘victory’ of the cartels so far. Chuck in a few thousand faceless victims of the lawyer intimidation policy and… no, still doesn’t represent a drop in the millions-of-downloads-per-day ocean of the filesharing community. Utter, unabashed, FUD-spreading rubbish.

[Quote]So instead of arguing theory, why not build a good case why the work of one particular industry (and so far only one) SHOULD be demonetized and decoupled from long standing purchase and licensing agreements. If you are Communist, that might be your basis. If you really do see merchandise as mere “zero’s and one’s” with no other intrinsic value and therefore not worthy of sale or license, explain why, because more and more will be digitized in our future.[/Quote]
There is no point in arguing this. Any industry whose products can be digitised will have to adapt. Period.

That’s not to say that those industries don’t add value, simply that it’s impossible to quantify that value based on unit sales. Any attempt to do so is anachronistic and doomed to fail.

[Quote]If you really believe artistic creation is unworthy and in fact songs or movies or books or games should not be paid for, offer a good and workable solution how their creators can earn a living.[/Quote]
Sorry to be blunt, but it’s not the job of consumers to establish how companies should make money. Give the market a tenable product and it will respond. You reject outright the idea of mechandise and live performances. I would argue that trying to scarcify something that is inherently universal is just plain stupid. The only realistic options are to bring the product back into the physical realm or impose some kind of levy.

My prediction? At some point, the media companies will realise they’re about to go to the wall. At that point, they’ll ’settle’ for being a minor facilitator, rather than the profit-creaming gatekeepers they’ve gotten used to being.

And we’ll all be better off. Even Reasoned Mind\neostlyes.

Think about it: music can be marketed and distributed independantly online by anyone, and with todays technology it doesn’t take a million dollars (or even 10’s of thousands of dollars) to make an album. I’ve heard plenty of recordings done on laptops in garages that have sounded fantastic. So who needs these middlemen anymore? I swear that this whole exercise is less about pirating music and more about making it seem like the record label execs still perform a necessary function.

As new artists we have to say NO to the current system, and as consumers we have to say NO to the product of that system.

There seems to be quite a few well known artists who feel that the degree of this punishment is completely ridiculous and I agree. However they don’t seem to actually be doing anything aside from voicing their disdain.

What I would like to suggest is that they intervene and pay the cost of this poor woman’s recenlty acquired debt.

After all, actions speak louder than words. I doubt it would be as detrimental to the pockets of say moby and radiohead than it would be to this single mother.

Also it would begin a public rift between big record companies and big artists. Something I would personally like to see.

This is just my two cents.

the math involved is this:
Time+Creativity+Idea

simple as that
whoever put a PRICE on art should be shot to death

art is free
free is power
and NIN learned this early on and
you will learn it too eventually

rule#1
don’t feed the trolls

Maybe if they did not outsource all the tech jobs to India we would have money to BUY your products, but being I do not have money I have been taking this route for years.

We can’t help we are smart enough to figure this out and we will KEEP ON leeking info. You can’t stop an army of nerds. By the time you come up with some lawsuit, we are busy coming up with easier ways to file share.

Keep giving lawsuits..slow yourself down what do we care…

We have our heads sucked into coding while you are playing games with AIR.

You can’t sue the world.
There are more of US than YOU.

I hate to say it but Moby’s Tea place had what they call jewish lightening…a “sudden fire” to collect whatever insurance money he could get out of his business.

1.) moby sucks
2.) radiohead doesn’t
3.) there is a calculator program on every computer so no-one should be doing bad at math
4.) capitalism is…wal-mart

She should sue for being made the one out of many to be made an example of rather than being treated equally by the law.

….it only works if you believe in it…

Original post, which was huge, was cut down for tl;dr purposes.

He was talking about deleting your material. When you share a pencil with somoene, you have one less. When you “share” something with someoen using P2P, bittorrent, you aren’t depeliting any of your material, because you always have it on your computer. Real sharing requires a selfless act, which conflicts with the nature of piracy. At it’s core, piracy is just thinking about yourself.

Once again you’re comparing physical sharing with intangible sharing- another on your list of constant mistakes. Is the sharing of ideas selfish at its core as well? No, because that’s exactly how we as people learn. Do I commit a selfless act by sharing an idea? Yes, because although it might not significantly cost me anything, it can still be a selfless act if it benefits someone else. To be technical, I must take the time to share the idea. The same principles apply to digital files.

Indeed, if there was no music industry, there would be no artists to begin with.

Uh… there was music long before there was an industry for it. But oh, right, you can’t understand that because you see music as a commodity to profit from.

That would essentially cut the recording’s profits in half. Who are we to make that kind of decision for them?

Translation: Who are we to exercise our rights as human beings if it supposedly deprives commercial entities of their profits, according to those entities?

You keep on calling laws draconian. That’s asanine, considering that for the purpose of this discussion, all they are telling you to do is pay for your things. It sounds like you just have a problem with following rules in general.

If not, then please explain to me what is so mind boggling about actually paying for things?

And you keep generalizing and putting words in my mouth. Explanation coming up.

If we lived in a world where absolutely everything, even human life, had monetary value and could be bought and traded and sold, that world would be incredibly sad. What room is there for morals and true justice in such a world? Oh, I saved your life, so now you must pay me. If you do not, I’ll just kill you to “repossess” what I did. There’s nothing wrong with financially supporting those who you appreciate, but compelling people to do so in exchange for what is otherwise freely, and justly, available to the world’s people is asinine. No, it’s not that, it’s greed.

The “draconian” laws are those that deny people the privacy and freedom they are entitled to as humans.

There was a personal attack, but you shouldn’t side step the point. It feels like you’re cherrry picking when it comes to your responses. Anon was trying to say that you pirates only thing about yourself and that’s exactly it.

M’kay, you want me to reply to it? Fine.

what happened to “sharing” in the cost of development for the products you enjoy? is that the one kind of “sharing” you freetards don’t like?

In response, I has link:

http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html

It talks about why charging for digital copies is flawed. It applies to all things digital, not simply software.

Uhm, yeah.. Bittorrent spreads awareness by giving out the whole thing for free. At this point, the spoiled brat has what he wants.

Will you stop with the personal attacks?

The pirate has his music, hans’t paid a cent, and there for doesn’t care about anything anymore.

…and with the generalizing?

Im sorry, but your logic here is just aweful

Thank you! It’s nice to hear that my logic is grand enough to inspire awe in people. :D

When music is someone’s entire career, I don’t think “maybe I’ll get paid” is good enough to place all your trust in.

The problem is making music into a “career” because you turn music into a commercial commodity with monetary value. Music is a work of art, not a commodity.

Amongst all the talk of thew new information age, you should have realized that intagible propety still property, according to the law,

According to intellectual property laws, which I’ve established are themselves flawed. You can’t own ideas and you can’t own something you can’t hold in your hands.

and as evidenced by massive piracy losses.

What are massive piracy losses? Losses suffered by filesharers? I don’t get it, so I ran it through a BS filter and it told me that you’re talking about industry losses due to filesharing. Losses that are reported by trade groups that have a commercial interest in fighting filesharing and have been known to be less than honest with their reports and actions and therefore can’t be trusted. See where you’re wrong?

Even if you make copies, and leave the original, you are still harming people.

Who? The record labels who make the vast majority of the money from CD sales? Let’s see, I can help out the common man or I can help out rich corporate executives.

and tangibly speaking, i hope the next time you bring your car into the mechanic’s, he copies your keys and shares them with random people along with your address

One, music is not private information. You can’t compare someone’s music, which they have released to the public, with their address. Two, copying and distributing someone’s car key falls squarely into the category of “things that we are not, in fact, free to do because it directly harms someone else.” Nobody is going to have their car stolen or their house broken into if their music is shared. And preemptive strike against your counterargument: Filesharing does not directly harm anyone at all because: nothing is being taken, it betters humanity to share, and you can’t claim you lost what you never had.

The law authorities in several countries have committed millions of dollars to bringing down piracy (n addition to international efforts), so in retrospect, no. Whether you like it or not, piracy is a crime. Im sorry.

No, whether you like it or not, piracy is not a crime. I know, it sucks to have one of your buzzwords that you use as propaganda to fool people shot down, but I’m not really sympathetic about it. Law authorities in Iran are also committing to suppressing protests against the election; does this mean that protesting is a crime? Oh, and don’t forget the criminalization of homosexuality! Just because people spend money on fighting it doesn’t mean it’s a crime.

It’s how the music industry and the software industry experience million dollar losses every year thanks to you and your freetard friends.

Personal attack. You do NOT advance your cause by calling people names, you only piss them off.

But I just know that you’re going to be all “Even though there was a personal attack, the point still stands.” Actually, no it doesn’t. I can choose to ignore it because you backed it up with a personal attack. Rephrase your point without being a jerk about it and maybe I’ll consider it as a legit argument.

Why do you think it’s called, piracy dipshit? Is your head that far up your own ass that you can claim that something called piracy is legitimate? And if you’re going to try and allege that this title isn’t official, you need only look at the PIRATE party.

DUDE. What the hell are you trying to accomplish by throwing around swearing? This is yet another point I get to ignore because you won’t post in a civilized manner.

Even if I went with your claim, I can find no website to support it.

Then you fail at online research. Here’s proof, straight from the MPAA itself: http://mpaa.org/researchStatistics.asp

I seriously doubt that if this was the case, the government would just let this slip under the radar.

Politicians are paid off by the RIAA’s lobbyists. That’s why they aren’t prosecuted for any of the obviously evil crap they do.

Those all harm people. If anything pirates are the terrorist. They inflict huge losses on the industry while at the same time trying to change government policy in favor of the same ideology that causes those losses.

Do they really, now? One, how can you inflict a loss when you aren’t stealing from anyone and you aren’t depriving anyone of anything? Two, once again I remind you that anti-piracy figures come not from independent studies, but from organizations with commercial interests in fighting filesharing. They are dishonest and cannot be believed.

Wrong. Many torrent sites make huge amounts of money off of their advertsising, making ita criminal offense.

I’ve asked you to prove this before, and you’ve not done so.

PROVE IT.

Bootleggers make physical copies of copyrighted material and sell them for. Again, profit is involved which makes it a crime.

This is called guilt by association. It’s a logical fallacy. Basically you’re saying that because people who commercially profit from downloading and selling copyrighted material are criminals, the people who download said material are also criminals. You’ll find very few filesharers that support commercial downloading. Try again, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

WOW, that was a ton of crap I had to wade through! It boggles the mind that you continue to waste your time here by throwing around:

-Lies
-Swear words
-Personal attacks
-Logical fallacies
-Evidence of your complete ignorance regarding filesharing.

Why not benefit humanity as a whole and just leave?