Neo will not respond to well laid out arguments, at least not with any real meat behind his responses, I’ve tried on many occasions to get a response. His usual action is simply to ignore any thing he can’t respond to an start puking his word vomit on another thread.

Same goes for raisin tard, you corner him and he scurries away like a small rodent.

This is the only response you can expect from the tard twins…
http://instantcrickets.com/

Guess I just need to link to this thread whenever he posts, to show people that he can’t stand up to real arguments.

Obvious spam is obvious.

When I was young, my Dad told me the RIAA was good because they took care to ensure our music was reproduced with as high fidelity as possible. For example, the RIAA worked with the recording industry to establish techniques and standards for ‘storing’ bass on vinyl by attenuating it, but incorporating offsetting amplification to restore the bass to its correct presence allowing for more music on a single vinyl disk. Thus the RIAA was there to ensure or help ensure the best possible music experience.

Oh how things seemed to have changed. I don’t know if my Dad was correct (I didn’t do the research), but regardless, the RIAA certainly seems to be the antithesis to the ‘old’ RIAA. Today the RIAA sounds more and more like organized crime, except that to date, for some reason, every thing they do seems to be deemed legal.

So, it seems the RIAA has become evil. It’s probably time people tried to fulfill their musical quests elsewhere as much as it may be possible. If you still need and want to listen to Janet Jackson, so be it, but:

Someone on slashdot turned me onto this before, I feel it important others check it out… I’ve signed up and have been a member of emusic for a while now, and now have over 300 non-drm’ed mp3s and love it. And, I don’t have to worry about the RIAA, at least I don’t think I do. After reading their staked ‘claims’ in the article, I’m not so sure. Regardless, should it actually be so, check emusic out.

dear god neo, you are quite literally a halfwit, the phrase ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ seems to be tailor made for you

I couldn’t have said it any better!

Thus ends the sad tale neo.styles!

Classic pirate!

You started right off with an assumption that I’m a “pirate.” How can you prove that I’ve ever downloaded something illegally? Or do you just assume that I must be one since I oppose antipirates?

Seriously though, I have consistently seen this from all people who support “filesharing” you resort to name calling all the time. Look at how much trouble people have calling Reasoned Mind by his actual name.

My accusations of trolling are not unfounded. I explain them. Why is this so difficult for you?

People claim that me and anyone else who doesn’t support piracy is only speaking out against it because they are supposidly being paid to do so by the music industry.

Yeah… you don’t pay attention at all.

You are taking it it without permission? How is this not stealing?

I’m not even going to bother with this. If you’re unable to see by now why copyright infringement is not theft, you’ll never be able to.

So when the record labels (who help the bands more than you or any pirate ever will) uses a track with authorization it’s theft, but when you do it, it’s not?

The teenager who uses it without permission it does so just to listen to it. The record label who uses it without permission does so for profit. Are you capable of seeing the difference?

Taking what isn’t yours isn’t something that differs from person to person. Everyone learns from the time they are little, that taking other people’s things is immoral.

Copyright infringement != theft. And millions more people think it’s okay to download than rob a bank.

Time and time again, people bring points of view that differ from your own and all you do is chant “troll” over and over again.

Time and time again, you antipirates ignore the explanations behind your trolling and simply insist you’re being persecuted for having a differing opinion.

n the above link you have several examples of petty name calling. For example, people call Reasoned Mind Raisin Brain.

Doesn’t invalidate all my other points.

Besides, in your link Reasoned Mind is completely misrepresented. No one is against all downloading. We are against illegal downloading. Downloading of material that people depend on to make living (something which is evidently like an alien language to you.)

Separate downloading into four categories:
-Downloading everything you want in lieu of paying (type A)
-Downloading things to “preview” them so that you can buy the good stuff (type B)
-Downloading commercially rare or unavailable works (type C)
-Downloading free or otherwise legal content (type D).

Would you state that you are only against Type A?

OK, so, you’re talking about a balance between artists and the general public and you propse that everyone get’s this for free and artists receive nothing in return for their work?

Nope.

I don’t disagree with the idea that artists should get compensated for their work. I massively disagree with the idea that in the digital age, every copy of a work should be under such severe lockdown, considering how technically trivial it is to replicate and distribute works now. You will understand this if you think of it on a scale: on one side are copyright maximalists and on the other side are copyright minimalists. Somewhere in the middle is the compromise of copyright law that will solve the problem.

You got it wrong. Before it WAS balanced. People payed for things and people enjoyed the hard work of artists. Illegal file sharing upset the balance by thumbing their noses at copyright holders.

You leave out the fact that copyright law wasn’t designed for the Internet. In an age where copying and distribution were nontrivial actions, copyright law worked. Unfortunately, it’s a broken concept, precisely because of the wars we’re seeing of the entertainment industries and the general public.

How much incentive would someone have to create a good product if they know that people are just going to exploit them and pay them nothing for their work.

Which is why I am not against the fundamental concept of copyright. Artists need to eat, too. What I am against, wholeheartedly so, is our current implementation of copyright. Life plus 70 years? DMCA? DRM? No, thank you. It all needs to go if we’re going to get that balance back.

What you call public domain is OTHER PEOPLES WORK. You are NOT entitled to it by default.

Um… yes we are. Creative works are supposed to eventually belong to the public at large, free of any copyright restrictions. This is why copyrights expire and why the Constitution only authorizes copyright for a “limited Time.” By giving artists limited controls over their works, the indirect goal of copyright is to give us a rich public domain from which to build and create. That’s such a fundamental aspect of copyright law that I’m severely disappointed that you didn’t know it.

Send em a letter about how your right to have everything for free is being violated.

Didn’t you read my arguments about copyright itself? It’s not about being able to get things for free.

So lawsuits should only happen when they are “fair”?

Lawsuits should only happen when they are justified.

Do you think a person who draws graffiti on the side of a building can stand up the deep pockets of company that owns that building? So you think that they should just ignore it when their building is vandalized?

No, but at most they’re going to get fined maybe a couple hundred dollars and have to clean it up. They won’t be put in jail for years or fined hundreds of thousands (or more) dollars for this light offense.

Where is the artist in all this? Why don’t you ever touch on how the artist/creators are affected when people weasel out of paying them for their work, hm?

The problem here is that it’s not the artists that file lawsuits against file sharers, it’s the labels/movie studios/whatever. It’s Big Content, not the little guy. Yes, some artists have spoken out in favor of this litigation, but many others have condemned it.

You think being expected to pay for things is “complete control”?

Yes. In a very general sense, culture is not something that should be locked entirely up behind a paywall, disadvantaging those who coincidentally don’t have the economic resources to access it.

By the same token, do you also think that the government is “completely controlling” you when they tell you that you have to pay taxes and follow driving rules?

No, because those have nothing to do with my arguments.

It’s not your work and you don’t get to decide what to do with it.

The CREA prevented old works from falling into the public domain. And that’s all it did. So I gues s you’re against the public domain, then? Care to justify that for us?

Give me some hard evidence that supports a different business model that results in profit for the artist.

Wikipedia, which is funded entirely by donations, raised seven and a half million dollars in donations over a period of eight weeks. So I think it’s clear that people who like something enough are willing to pay for it, even if it’s free.

Look at Red Hat. Gives away the software, charges for other things like support and custom distros. Last I checked, they were pretty profitable, despite the main product being free.

And then of course there’s the popular NiN example. Before you argue that he only got as popular as he did because of the labels, let me remind you that how he got popular is irrelevant. There are other ways to build a fan base. Once more artists begin capitalizing on that (which is sort of happening already), yet another use of the labels will disappear.

Paying for things is the only logical solution that rewards people for their hard work. The only.

Sure. But the “copies sold” business model is not the only way to do that, and on the Internet, it’s not the most practical.

1) CDs and other physical media are no different than digital versions.

How? They are completely different things, with different rules of physics governing them. Saying CDs and digital media are the same is like saying that ice and water vapor are the same.

2) No one is against all download, just illegal downloading. What gave you that idea?

I addressed this above.

3) Logical fallacy : Reasoned Mind is a troll just because you are automatically right and if he doesn’t see it that way, he must be a troll. The idea that YOU are wrong has never occured to you.

Incorrect. I do not simply call him a troll and leave it at that. I call him a troll and explain why. Again, you ignore this fact.

All you talked about are people’s “rights”. What about the the rights of the creators? Do you think they are your slaves who you can abuse however you see fit?

All you talked about are creators’ and copyright owners’ “rights.” What about the general public? Do you think we are all your slaves who you can abuse however you see fit?

You still fail to bring up a good reason as to why you are entitled to what is not yours.

I’m tired of this “entitlement” argument so I’m going to refute it. I do not lay any claim to copyrighted works that I did not create. I do not believe that I, or anyone else, should “get everything for free” even though that’s probably all you’ll think I’m saying. What I think is that we need that balance back. We have to find a way to pay artists without sacrificing the rights of the general public like we have. Copyright has gone horribly wrong. “Piracy” is just a convenient excuse for the big corps to justify their war on culture and their desire to control everything we watch, read, listen to, and interact with. It’s far more about our culture than it is about “getting things for free.”

People claim that me and anyone else who doesn’t support piracy is only speaking out against it because they are supposidly being paid to do so by the music industry. You never complained about “unfounded” when you saw those dumb statements did you? Hmm.. I wonder why..?

I don’t even know what your trying to saying here???? Definitely poor speaking/writing skills, your teachers should be fired!

The record company and the artists own the music.

Yes, the record company does but not the artist, they get ‘pirated’ see here…
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i418c5bc24c7b68c55ff2356aef63ae05
and here…
http://torrentfreak.com/sony-music-office-raided-090907/

You are taking it it without permission?

Try these links for who takes and profits from without permission…
http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-face-60-billion-damages-for-pirating-artists-091207/

and here…
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

and here…
http://torrentfreak.com/pirated-by-itunes-artist-turns-to-bittorrent-080206/

So when the record labels (who help the bands more than you or any pirate ever will) uses a track with authorization it’s theft, but when you do it, it’s not? Nice contradiction.

See here for how the record labels are ‘helping’ themselves to profits that once belonged to the artist.
http://musicians.about.com/od/ah/g/360deals.htm

People who take what isn’t theirs, without permission are theives. Look it up in the dictionary. It’s very, very simple.

Some definitions of copyright infringement and theft for you since you obviously have not bothered to look them up…

The actus reus(guilty act) of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another’s property which must be accompanied by a mens rea(guilty mind) of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:

“A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

“(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud… The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.” — Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

Isn’t it time you paid better attention to the links you yourself post.

You do not bother to provide any links to supporting data for any of your accusations.

OK, so, you’re talking about a balance between artists and the general public and you propse that everyone get’s this for free and artists receive nothing in return for their work? Clap clap clap. Brilliant. Im impressed.

Where exactly did he say that? Do you lie on purpose?

You got it wrong. Before it WAS balanced. People paid for things and people enjoyed the hard work of artists. Illegal file sharing upset the balance by thumbing their noses at copyright holders.

The proper spelling is paid, you really need to use spell check because your atrocious spelling makes you look uneducated. Yes, we thumb our collective noses at the copyright holders, not the artists.

How much incentive would someone have to create a good product if they know that people are just going to exploit them and pay them nothing for their work.

Where is the artist in all this? Why don’t you ever touch on how the artist/creators are affected when people weasel out of paying them for their work, hm?

See my earlier links on this subject.

You don’t want them to decide how copyright affects their own work but you have decided that copyrights should expire so people’s own work is no longer under their control? I want my neighbors TV!

If you take your neighbors TV that is stealing because they no longer have it. Sharing files is only a copy. You know, the thing you use to post your comments.

Give me some hard evidence that supports a different business model that results in profit for the artist.

I will answer this with a quote from you…

In case you haven’t realized, Itunes is selling legal movie downloads and I don’t think that anyone would say that they have no value since tons of people are buying them.

The problem with iTunes is they are over priced and the fact that they limit how you can use the media that you have legally purchased. If I have paid for it I should be able to use the media on whatever device I choose. What if auto manufacturers said you could only drive their car on roads they say you can? People would not allow that to happen. Much like what is happening now with media in all its flavors.

All you talked about are people’s “rights”. What about the the rights of the creators? Do you think they are your slaves who you can abuse however you see fit?

Rights of the creators? Yeah right, like this…
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/02/riaa-dima-want-to-slash-songwriter-royalties-for-digital-music.ars

It is you who needs to do some searching! Not one thing in your post is logical or has any supporting data. I would say that you failed epically but that would give you too much credit. Instead I will say you fail miserably in your poor debating skills and a poor grasp of the English language. I know your from the States by this comment so don’t try to deny it.

This is America, where people have the opportunity to become rich if they work hard enough.

You might try working on your language skills before posting again!

Tip: you should stop posting until you can learn the language. Maybe I can’t do little quote boxes but one thing is certain:

‘You are taking it it without permission? How is this not stealing?’

It is not stealing because it is defined as copyright infringement. Rape involves taking without permission, but no one has ever been convicted for stealing p***y. Door-to-door salesmen take up your time without permission, that’s not stealing. The goverment taxes you all the time without your permission (well, that might not be a good example). The point is it does not meet the definition of stealing.

Another:

‘So when the record labels (who help the bands more than you or any pirate ever will) uses a track with authorization it’s theft’

Once again you failed to read. The incident referenced was using unlicensed tracks without paying royalties when a compilation sold for profit. And legally, it’s still copyright infringement (criminal, though).

‘Please do some searching next time before you go spouting off.’

Exactly

Finally since no one has the time to point out everywhere you are just completely wrong:

‘What you call public domain is OTHER PEOPLES WORK. You are NOT entitled to it by default.’

That is the definition of public domain, you idiot!!!

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

Gotta do something with that billion from Avatar…

As to my affiliation with the MPAA, that is none of your business.

But it is all our business. People on TorrentFreak have a tendency to not believe people who are from the MPAA.

Not to mention, you said once before that you were explicitly not from the MPAA. Have you gotten more secretive since then?

Woah, it’s neotroll! Sure, I’m up for some fun.

Classic pirate! Ladies and Gentlemen, watch him open up his argument by using a personal attack to compensate for his nonexistent argument!

Seriously though, I have consistently seen this from all people who support “filesharing” you resort to name calling all the time. Look at how much trouble people have calling Reasoned Mind by his actual name.

See that, sports fans? Neo is being classic neo! Not only is he using unfounded generalizations to attack people, but he bravely sides with the heroic entertainment industry in its fight against the evul pirates. Truly a show of courage! I don’t even think he flinches when confronted with the fact that those industries he defends have done far more to rip off artists than file sharers ever could, through decades of abusive contracts and even outright theft!

Wow, you really have not been paying attention, have you? People claim that me and anyone else who doesn’t support piracy is only speaking out against it because they are supposidly being paid to do so by the music industry. You never complained about “unfounded” when you saw those dumb statements did you? Hmm.. I wonder why..?

Despite the way you choose to dramatize things, this is essentially it. The record company and the artists own the music. You are taking it it without permission? How is this not stealing? Whether you think that this makes piracy “evul” is up to you..

So when the record labels (who help the bands more than you or any pirate ever will) uses a track with authorization it’s theft, but when you do it, it’s not? Nice contradiction.

Please do some searching next time before you go spouting off.

Well, there’s not much new here, folks. Historically neo has adhered to a fairly narrow selection of tactics in order to find content for his trolling posts. Accusing sharers of having no morals is one of his old favorites, and it’s astounding that he chooses to use it even after having been told that morals are a subjective thing and that people believe in different things. That won’t stop him from dictating to others what he thinks is right, however.

I don’t want it to be wrong so it isn’t! That’s just like saying “some people believe that bank robbery is wrong and some people do, so it’s okay if you go rob a bank.” Taking what isn’t yours isn’t something that differs from person to person. Everyone learns from the time they are little, that taking other people’s things is immoral.

How does someone who exploits other people recreationally have any morals? You statements defy common sense.

Do you really think that the accusations of trolling are baseless? Even when the basis behind Reasoned Mind’s trolling was already demonstrated earlier? But no, it doesn’t matter to you whether someone makes an argument. You’ll just ignore it! Can’t have somebody else’s insight ruining your trolling fun, after all. No, neo, for you it’s completely ignoring what others say aside from what might possibly help you parrot the same crap over and over and over and over.</blockquote?
People who take what isn't theirs, without permission are theives. Look it up in the dictionary. It's very, very simple.

And you aren't? Time and time again, people bring points of view that differ from your own and all you do is chant "troll" over and over again. Probably the most disingenuous thing you could do. You aren't responding to people's posts. You're just calling them names which doesn't help your case at all.

Isn't it time you paid better attention to the links you yourself post. In the above link you have several examples of petty name calling. For example, people call Reasoned Mind Raisin Brain. Is this the brilliant demolishing of anti filesharing arguments you repeatedly refer to..? This is only because they have no actual argument.

Besides, in your link Reasoned Mind is completely misrepresented. No one is against all downloading. We are against illegal downloading. Downloading of material that people depend on to make living (something which is evidently like an alien language to you.)

It does when dozens of people throw your own words back into your face and you just happily pretend they didn’t. Don’t you ever read the replies to your bullshit? People don’t just “say” you’re proven wrong. They do it.

I hate to break it to you, but calling someone a “troll” doesn’t count as brilliantly refuting someone’s arguement.

What was once a happy balance between artists and the general public, in which there were clear benefits to be had by both sides, has, in the digital and post-industrial age, become a stumbling block to creation and innovation, a silencer of free speech, and a great tool for large corporations to use against the general public for their own profit. Our lawmakers’ responses to new technology over the past century, with regards to copyright modification, have been exactly the opposite of what we as a civilization have needed. We no longer have guarantees of a rich public domain, not with the ever-increasing copyright terms. We no longer have fair use- the DMCA took care of that in the US, and ACTA threatens to extend that to many other nations worldwide. We do not have access to the remix/mashup culture that we should have considering that we have the Internet. Right of first sale is being taken away. As consumers, as producers, and as human beings, our rights are being stripped away from us for the benefit of large corporations who can profit from it.

It almost hurts how poorly thought out this drivel is. It comes through in literally the first 5 seconds.

OK, so, you’re talking about a balance between artists and the general public and you propse that everyone get’s this for free and artists receive nothing in return for their work? Clap clap clap. Brilliant. Im impressed.

You got it wrong. Before it WAS balanced. People payed for things and people enjoyed the hard work of artists. Illegal file sharing upset the balance by thumbing their noses at copyright holders.

Next, let’s adress the part about innovation. How much incentive would someone have to create a good product if they know that people are just going to exploit them and pay them nothing for their work. But of course you wont understand since you have probably never had to work to earn money.

What you call public domain is OTHER PEOPLES WORK. You are NOT entitled to it by default. We don’t live in a communist society where everyone get’s paid the same. This is America, where people have the opportunity to become rich if they work hard enough. One of the most treasured principles of American society is people working hard to profit from their work. Piracy, being the beacon of communism it is, walks all over it by denying people the fruits of their hard work.

So, what are you waiting for.. this is America. When people have a problem with the way things are going, they write to their representative. Send em a letter about how your right to have everything for free is being violated. Im sure many people will want to support your cause of entitlement.

Instead we have a culture of lawsuits, of unfair harassment by large corporations against individuals (because, you know, single mothers can totally stand up to the legal power and deep pockets of a big corp… yeah, totally fair playing field there!), increasing control over “intellectual property,” the total commercialization of art, and an attempted return to the “golden years” of complete control over every aspect of culture and the days of passive consumption of media as opposed to active creation.

So lawsuits should only happen when they are “fair”? Do you think a person who draws graffiti on the side of a building can stand up the deep pockets of company that owns that building? So you think that they should just ignore it when their building is vandalized?

Where is the artist in all this? Why don’t you ever touch on how the artist/creators are affected when people weasel out of paying them for their work, hm?

You think being expected to pay for things is “complete control”? Wow, so I guess we can add laziness to the list too? By the same token, do you also think that the government is “completely controlling” you when they tell you that you have to pay taxes and follow driving rules?

Let me make this perfectly clear. If you give a big company a way to make money that is either legal or illegal but they have a low risk of getting caught, they will do it. For Big Content, that includes lobbying and bribing Congress to get stronger IP laws, which have been demonstrated to be at the detriment of the public but to the benefit of Big Content. There was one motive behind the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998: More money for rights holders. And it passed despite the obvious harm it has been doing to our culture. Name one other possible benefit to the Sonny Bono act that justifies the retroactive (!!!) extension of copyright by 20 years. Name ONE, neo.

Uhm, how about… It’s not your work and you don’t get to decide what to do with it. You don’t want them to decide how copyright affects their own work but you have decided that copyrights should expire so people’s own work is no longer under their control? I want my neighbors TV!

There is something you either don’t get or do understand but ignore because you’re a troll. The large corporations you defend… they’re acting on laws that have long overstayed their welcome. It is not the “pirates” that need to change. There is plenty of activity that’s considered “piracy” that is totally fair. Did you know that you’re infringing copyright when you download a work that nobody has made commercially available in years (so you cannot buy it anywhere)? Where’s the harm? You can’t buy it! Yet this is illegal, and unreasonably so. When facing revolutionary new technology, the correct response is to move with it and adapt to the changing world, not try to make the changing world adapt to you. Who the hell does the MAFIAA think they are to dictate to everyone else how things will be done? Oh, wait… that sounds exactly like you, neo!

Here we go again.. the “outdated business model” fail arguement again. So, you tell me, how should they change? Start handing out their work for free. Give me some hard evidence that supports a different business model that results in profit for the artist. Paying for things is the only logical solution that rewards people for their hard work. The only. Let me guess, you are going to suggest pay pal donations? Calling piracy “revolutionary new technology” is just like calling pedophilia a lifestyle choice. This “new technology” is just a tool to defraud rights holders. That would be like a person who was just robbed going “wow, look at that new card that they’re getting away in! It’s so high tech!”

Now about the trolling. You and Reasoned Mind, assuming you aren’t just the same person, are trolls. That is my assertion. I back this argument up here. It was written for Reasoned Mind, but a great deal of it applies to you as well. If you want to contest the assertion that you’re just a troll, go ahead and post a rebuttal to the statements in that link. Or you could just ignore it and prove to everyone that you are a troll.

In responce to your link.. I think it’s really time we step out of dream land :
1) CDs and other physical media are no different than digital versions. In case you haven’t realized, Itunes is selling legal movie downloads and I don’t think that anyone would say that they have no value since tons of people are buying them.
2) No one is against all download, just illegal downloading. What gave you that idea?
3) Logical fallacy : Reasoned Mind is a troll just because you are automatically right and if he doesn’t see it that way, he must be a troll. The idea that YOU are wrong has never occured to you.

In the end, your long winded defense did little. All you talked about are people’s “rights”. What about the the rights of the creators? Do you think they are your slaves who you can abuse however you see fit?

You still fail to bring up a good reason as to why you are entitled to what is not yours.

Some might call them “troll” but IMHO posts from ReasonedMind and neo.styles are often slightly higher calibre than flame bait.

Participation and debate should be encouraged. Insults just intimidate the opposition into withdraw.

This exemplifies the absurdity of file sharing arguments.

Classic neo! Ladies and gentlemen, watch him open his post by setting his usual precedent for his trolling: overly sweeping generalizations that lump millions of different people, with different actions, motives and beliefs, into a single stereotype: “Pirates are thieves.” An utterly smashing nearly successful tactic!

Apparantly, who believes in living an honest life and not ripping off artists and instead supporting them is only doing so because they are being paid off..?

See that, sports fans? Neo is being classic neo! Not only is he using unfounded generalizations to attack people, but he bravely sides with the heroic entertainment industry in its fight against the evul pirates. Truly a show of courage! I don’t even think he flinches when confronted with the fact that those industries he defends have done far more to rip off artists than file sharers ever could, through decades of abusive contracts and even outright theft!

Has it ever occurred to you that some people WANT to do the right thing? Do you have the slightest idea what a moral principle is? No, of course you don’t. You believe that it is your right to exploit people.

Well, there’s not much new here, folks. Historically neo has adhered to a fairly narrow selection of tactics in order to find content for his trolling posts. Accusing sharers of having no morals is one of his old favorites, and it’s astounding that he chooses to use it even after having been told that morals are a subjective thing and that people believe in different things. That won’t stop him from dictating to others what he thinks is right, however.

The only one who offers no real debate is you. When confronted with a point of view that is different from your own, you immediately resort to going “you’re a troll” or “you’re being paid off by the industry.”

Okay, enough of the commentary crap. Now you’re just an idiot.

Do you really think that the accusations of trolling are baseless? Even when the basis behind Reasoned Mind’s trolling was already demonstrated earlier? But no, it doesn’t matter to you whether someone makes an argument. You’ll just ignore it! Can’t have somebody else’s insight ruining your trolling fun, after all. No, neo, for you it’s completely ignoring what others say aside from what might possibly help you parrot the same crap over and over and over and over.

FYI, merely saying that we have been proved wrong doesn’t make it so.

It does when dozens of people throw your own words back into your face and you just happily pretend they didn’t. Don’t you ever read the replies to your bullshit? People don’t just “say” you’re proven wrong. They do it.

All you have done is accuse people of being associated with the RIAA or MPAA. This is because you have no argument.

You asked for it.

What was once a happy balance between artists and the general public, in which there were clear benefits to be had by both sides, has, in the digital and post-industrial age, become a stumbling block to creation and innovation, a silencer of free speech, and a great tool for large corporations to use against the general public for their own profit. Our lawmakers’ responses to new technology over the past century, with regards to copyright modification, have been exactly the opposite of what we as a civilization have needed. We no longer have guarantees of a rich public domain, not with the ever-increasing copyright terms. We no longer have fair use- the DMCA took care of that in the US, and ACTA threatens to extend that to many other nations worldwide. We do not have access to the remix/mashup culture that we should have considering that we have the Internet. Right of first sale is being taken away. As consumers, as producers, and as human beings, our rights are being stripped away from us for the benefit of large corporations who can profit from it.

Instead we have a culture of lawsuits, of unfair harassment by large corporations against individuals (because, you know, single mothers can totally stand up to the legal power and deep pockets of a big corp… yeah, totally fair playing field there!), increasing control over “intellectual property,” the total commercialization of art, and an attempted return to the “golden years” of complete control over every aspect of culture and the days of passive consumption of media as opposed to active creation.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If you give a big company a way to make money that is either legal or illegal but they have a low risk of getting caught, they will do it. For Big Content, that includes lobbying and bribing Congress to get stronger IP laws, which have been demonstrated to be at the detriment of the public but to the benefit of Big Content. There was one motive behind the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998: More money for rights holders. And it passed despite the obvious harm it has been doing to our culture. Name one other possible benefit to the Sonny Bono act that justifies the retroactive (!!!) extension of copyright by 20 years. Name ONE, neo.

There is something you either don’t get or do understand but ignore because you’re a troll. The large corporations you defend… they’re acting on laws that have long overstayed their welcome. It is not the “pirates” that need to change. There is plenty of activity that’s considered “piracy” that is totally fair. Did you know that you’re infringing copyright when you download a work that nobody has made commercially available in years (so you cannot buy it anywhere)? Where’s the harm? You can’t buy it! Yet this is illegal, and unreasonably so. When facing revolutionary new technology, the correct response is to move with it and adapt to the changing world, not try to make the changing world adapt to you. Who the hell does the MAFIAA think they are to dictate to everyone else how things will be done? Oh, wait… that sounds exactly like you, neo!

Now about the trolling. You and Reasoned Mind, assuming you aren’t just the same person, are trolls. That is my assertion. I back this argument up here. It was written for Reasoned Mind, but a great deal of it applies to you as well. If you want to contest the assertion that you’re just a troll, go ahead and post a rebuttal to the statements in that link. Or you could just ignore it and prove to everyone that you are a troll.

What has been proved wrong time and time again are the arguments you and people like you subscribe to.

So prove me wrong, neo. I dare you. Bring it.

Or just ignore my logical arguments. Troll.

Point: neostyles is illiterate.

Proof: ‘That we don’t believe that people will troll for fun? Well, I’m perfectly willing to accept that possibility about you.’ implies that they believe Raisin Brain would troll for fun and not money. Yet you write, ‘Apparantly, who believes in living an honest life and not ripping off artists and instead supporting them is only doing so because they are being paid off..?’

FYI : fun does not mean money.

Lies are not ‘a point of view different from my own’. They are lies – A point that cannot be viewed from any angle as they are neither true nor possible.

Derp.

I have also noticed new posts from people(that I won’t mention yet)that sound very much like his same drivel. I need to check the archives to be sure but will post when I am convinced.

Agree with all you’ve said. One thing to add: I’m heartened by the amount of anti-Reasoned Mind posts in this thread. Maybe if enough people express their dissatisfaction, TF’s staff will actually do something about it.

Like what, Raisin Brain? That we don’t believe that people will troll for fun? Well, I’m perfectly willing to accept that possibility about you.

Wow, you’re arrogance apparantly has zero limits.. Apparantly, who believes in living an honest life and not ripping off artists and instead supporting them is only doing so because they are being paid off..? Has it ever occurred to you that some people WANT to do the right thing? Do you have the slightest idea what a moral principle is? No, of course you don’t. You believe that it is your right to exploit people.

You’re really not in much of a position to act superior. You rip people off for fun.

I used to get annoyed at little trolls like Reasoned Mind and Neo Styles but all they are is pain little minions of Big Business. They are just earning a pay cheque to spout the corporate agenda and troll all sites like this. They offer no real debate as they spew nothing but corporate propaganda which has been proven wrong time and time again.

The only one who offers no real debate is you. When confronted with a point of view that is different from your own, you immediately resort to going “you’re a troll” or “you’re being paid off by the industry.” FYI, merely saying that we have been proved wrong doesn’t make it so. You haven’t provided any argument at all. All you have done is accuse people of being associated with the RIAA or MPAA. This is because you have no argument. What has been proved wrong time and time again are the arguments you and people like you subscribe to.

Gimme a break. Yea, there might be some people that got the song from oink and sold on the streets for money but get a grip MAFIAA, conspiracy? You are the one digging your own grave by chasing those people that did nothing against you.

And the guy got 300k in donations? Wow, he is more loved than you – how much have you ever got DONATED for your services? Nothing? I guess it’s pretty obvious why. Also, is he using all the money for himself? Considering he’s programming and maintaining the site a small amount could go to him as a paycheck… Please, get evidence b4 claiming stuff…

It’s another classic case where MAFIAA will lose even if they win. Your victory is ours MAFIAA, every time you get innocents to the court you lose thousands of consumers. Fail.

We will know if the judge is corrupted or not once he accept or reject this lie for the corporation of parasites and terrorists.

meanwhile we are preparing the extermination of such corporations.

Why doesn’t TorrentFreak ban these morons?

A question I have asked many times. He does not just post his drivel here, but on other sites as well. Try a google search for “reasoned mind” and you will find him on any site dealing with p2p. He goes by ‘Sam I Am’ on p2pnet.net.

If he is just a troll, then ignore him, but due to his posting on many other p2p forums makes me believe he is a paid industry shill. Frankly if they are paying him to do this, they are just wasting more money because he is the description of fail! I say let them because it will hasten their ultimate demise.

You are hilarious, all of you, the poster at #18 is not me and the admins here know that, because they can see the email addresses of the posters

Look down at the bottom. Where you post comments. The two fields: “Name” and the comment itself. Do you see an area to enter an email address? Yeah, I didn’t think so, troll.

I have no affiliations with any professional organizations

So then you’d just be a regular old forum troll instead of a paid industry shill troll?

and your belief that I’d need to be paid to wind you up reveals a lot about you.

Like what, Raisin Brain? That we don’t believe that people will troll for fun? Well, I’m perfectly willing to accept that possibility about you.

Obvious troll is obvious.

@68

I used to get annoyed at little trolls like Reasoned Mind and Neo Styles but all they are is pain little minions of Big Business. They are just earning a pay cheque to spout the corporate agenda and troll all sites like this. They offer no real debate as they spew nothing but corporate propaganda which has been proven wrong time and time again.

+1

Why doesn’t TorrentFreak ban these morons?

::GolfClap::

The obvious trolls (aka Reasoned Mind and Neo Styles) are propaganda machines. They can troll all they want but no one here and elsewhere listen to their babble. They think they make sense, but from a neutral point of view they sound pathetic.

Obvious troll are obvious.

I used to get annoyed at little trolls like Reasoned Mind and Neo Styles but all they are is pain little minions of Big Business. They are just earning a pay cheque to spout the corporate agenda and troll all sites like this. They offer no real debate as they spew nothing but corporate propaganda which has been proven wrong time and time again.

The real problem is not just corporations running rampant over people that file share online; but the corruption and control they have over governments around the world.

Obvious troll is obvious.

off topic

I like Raisin Brain Troll. He makes my life better when I understand that I´m not stupid. Reason Nice

It was totally optional and did not give you any credit, I think all it gave you was a star or something next to your name.

He should of sold t-shirts instead like TBP then, or would that also be profiting from piracy.

I wasn’t aware profiting from donations was illegal anyway so he is not buggered at all.

I’m not sure of running costs on OINK but we had server costs > $5k a month, over 36 months that’s a massive $180k for 30k users and is a lot of money to find each month.

The online forum discussing thing that we do is good for sharing ideas, but nothing more. We will keep loosing in court rooms because they have the money, the judges and the politicians are already paid and unless we go for the head of the snake we will be on the run for a long time.

All it takes is for p2p users everywhere to unite. There are about 450 million p2p users on this planet, that is more than the population of the U.S.A, Mexico and Canada combined. Lets take to the streets and demand a truly open internet and abolishment of any copyright laws pertaining to intellectual rights.

email addresses? What you talking about? Now you’re (or your impersonator is) technically incompetent?

No affiliations with any professional organisations, yeah right!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious troll is obvious.

You are just getting your crank twisted by another poser. Obvious fools here are obvious.
It’s certainly entertaining.
lol