Perhaps copyright laws are up for a change, no doubt about that, I agree completly, but until such time, we cannot go around taking products just cause we feel like it. There is such a thing as ownership. These corporations do own RIGHTS to these products. How long they have rights to them? Well I guess thats up to these laws, and we sure could change them (any law can be changed), but until such time, again, we cannot go around just taking products for free.

If your answer is YES to download free products, then thats your choice. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Donations and what-not is not part of buying a product. When you donate money, you dont donate expecting something in return.

Im sure there are artists out there that take donations and give away free music, of those I agree, go download their products from the NET, as their product is FREE, and they make their money thru donations and concerts and merchandise.

What we talking about here are not those types of artists. These are corporations that make money off the PRODUCT, not from donations, therefore, the product is not free for download. Why? Because these corporations put a copyright on the product.
Could these corporations take the same road as those free artists? Perhaps, but thats not what they are and what they do.

Trying to compare 2 different individuals (or in this case an artist to a corporation) is not likely to be viewed correctly. Your mind is set to artists that make their money on donations and concerts and what-not.
These types of corporations are not similar to your free artists. They spend millions of dollars on ADs and the creation of the product, therefore, creating thousands of jobs. In any given time, corporations have hundreds, and sometimes thousands of employees. They need to be paid thru the products they create.
Your free artist is just himself. Perhaps he may have a few people here and there, but thats it. Think about a world without corporations. Our unemployment would be half the world. Sorry to tell you, but that does not sound to delightfull to me. Are these corporations greedy? More then likely, but thats where your freedom comes in. You choose to buy their product or not. If you see a corporation that greedy, then dont support their products. Dont download and take their products. Thats one way to teach them to stop being greedy. (then again this is wishfull thinking)…

“Scuze, I dont get this. Can you ellaborate more on this? I dont want to assume (again)…”
Currently copyright for something is the life of the author + 70 years, don’t you think that is WAY too long? I think it should be until someone successfully gets around the DRM or whatever to use it however they like, that would then encourage the corporations to make better forms or DRM, and would boost sales dramatically as everyone will buy it to try and crack it.

“The question is, should you be allowed to download products (that are copyrighted) for FREE???”
The answer is yes. There is such a thing called donations, it allows you to give an artist/NPO/whatever money without having to buy their product (or buy it another time.)

Funny thing is I don’t distribute it, I have nothing to put onto a torrent and upload, there are many torrents fir the same stuff, me uploading it would just mean that the same amount of peers are divided among even more torrent files.

You are missing the point here. Im not talking about YOU (you alone). We talking about all the people that share software/movies/music.
They all share the same common interest. To download paid products for FREE, therefore, all of them distribute the product for FREE.

I am aware of the fact that is not a criminal case, but a civil one. Im not a lawyer, so I cant speak for this, BUT, what happens if you get charged with piracy and they fine you say XYZ amount of dollars and you cant pay. Not sure if you go to jail or not. I was under the impression that you would, but maybe im wrong on that one. Again no a lawyer so I cant say. I just assumed….

You said:

The difference is how long it takes them to break it, maybe I.P. laws should change, so the object in question’s copyright expires when the DRM is null and void, myabe these corporations will then make better DRM rather than

Scuze, I dont get this. Can you ellaborate more on this? I dont want to assume (again)…

Im sure they could spend lots and lots of time on protection, etc etc.
I believe what they are trying to do is to teach some of the people a lesson, so that others will follow piracy. That wont work, on the contrary, it makes people even more pissed off, but again that irrelevant. The fact is they take a product and distribute it for free. They loose money. They will be pissed off, hell you would too if someone took your work and distribute it for free, whereas, you could have made money off it.

I dont deny that many of them (corporations) are *******, but thats not the question here. The question is, should you be allowed to download products (that are copyrighted) for FREE???
My answer to that is NO. Will people do it? Heck yeah, but you know its wrong. What you choose to do, its YOUR choice, just dont go all nuts when the corporations start to sue you for taking their products.

Funny thing is I don’t distribute it, I have nothing to put onto a torrent and upload, there are many torrents fir the same stuff, me uploading it would just mean that the same amount of peers are divided among even more torrent files.

“I understand again why you think this way. You are not in US, thats one, you dont understand how corporations work, thats two, and you want everything for free, thats three.

Well Ill give you the first 2, but the third one, sorry, you need to learn how the world works, and that is MONEY.”
I never stated I wanted everything for free, I get a satisfaction in earning things and being able to afford things when others can’t. That is my main drive for cash, otherwise I would never dream of earning money, I could just live off welfare, like some many others do in the world.

“OK, point taken, but I would not talk that easily when someone shows up at your door with a warrant for a court date, you loose and spend some time in jail. Im sure you will do just fine in jail (I hope that ownt happen to you, seriously now)…”
Filesharing is a civil case, not a criminal case, so unless they changed the laws while I was last sleeping, I wouldn’t go to jail for it.

“Yes you are correct, I give you that. They could improve it, no doubt about it.
Remember, what one man can build, another can break. In other words, anytime a person builds something (in this case a layer of protection), someone else will come up with that idea of how to break it.”
The difference is how long it takes them to break it, maybe I.P. laws should change, so the object in question’s copyright expires when the DRM is null and void, myabe these corporations will then make better DRM rather than

1. do illegal shit to catch people filesharing copyrighted material
2.sue
3.????
4.profit

You said:

“These corporations don’t own the software, they own the RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT, so all they do is put that movie onto a DVD, slap on copy protection (which if they didn’t want us to rip they could honestly just improve it) put it in a case and ship it out to your local stores.”

Bingo, you finally get it. Quite amazing, really.
They OWN the RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE.
Do you know what that means?

That means, they own the right to make copies and distribute that movie to anyone, anywhere (either consumer or retailer).
You are becoming them. You are NOT the corporation. You say you despise them, yet you are THEM (in a way).
They distribute the software/movie to the public (for a price of course).
You do the same. You buy a copy of a movie and them distribute it to the mass (internet users).
The only difference is you dont charge for it.
The corporation does. The only reason they do and you dont is because THEY MADE the product. It cost them MONEY to make it (and lots of it).
It cost you a fraction of what it took to make that product, therefore, it does not give you the right to distribute that product for free.
You own the right to view and enjoy the product, NOT to distribute it to others for free.

I understand again why you think this way. You are not in US, thats one, you dont understand how corporations work, thats two, and you want everything for free, thats three.

Well Ill give you the first 2, but the third one, sorry, you need to learn how the world works, and that is MONEY.
Not sure what country you in, but in this country we have a say:
Money talks, bullshit walks…

That may sound a bit rude to you, but thats reality…

You said you understand them, and that you dont fear them???
OK, point taken, but I would not talk that easily when someone shows up at your door with a warrant for a court date, you loose and spend some time in jail. Im sure you will do just fine in jail (I hope that ownt happen to you, seriously now)…

“You honestly believe they cant improve DRM………..”

Yes you are correct, I give you that. They could improve it, no doubt about it.
Remember, what one man can build, another can break. In other words, anytime a person builds something (in this case a layer of protection), someone else will come up with that idea of how to break it.

My grammar is just fine. Perhaps our way of talking here is a bit different, and if you dont undertand something, please ask. Ill be more than glad to elaborate further…

How many times will I have to tell you, stealing REMOVES THE ORIGINAL, that is if a store has 10 copies of Transformers, stealing a copy would leave them with 9 copies, when I go out and buy Transformers, then rip it to my HDD and upload it to The Pirate Bay, that is not stealing, I bought the movie, but then I copied it and uploaded it, allowing millions to download that ONE copy. These corporations don’t own the software, they own the RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT, so all they do is put that movie onto a DVD, slap on copy protection (which if they didn’t want us to rip they could honestly just improve it) put it in a case and ship it out to your local stores.

Also, could you please improve your grammar? It is really difficult to understand half of what you say….

“Its a natural way of humanity, to hate something you don’t understand or something you fear.”

I understand them, I do not fear them, even if I got a DCMA notice (hey, what would I care, last time I checked I didn’t live in the US, and US law doesn’t apply here :D) rather, I despise them, and so I will not fund them, will use what is available to get something that they shouldn’t have any power over. If I could, I would happily pay all the people who worked to make it far more than what I would buy the product for, they deserve it, not the corporations.

Are you so naive that you honestly believe that these corporations can’t better protect the products they sell? It would be much easier to just improve DRM technology, but you can make a lot more money suing everyone for every fucking cent they have.

You got it partially right.

Yes, the internet its FREE INFORMATION, and still is.
The internet its NOT free downloads for paid products.

There is a difference. Information is free (well minus the darn ADs, lol), but NOT products.
You are sick of America doing business they way they do, but thats their choice. If you dont like it, dont support them by buying their products. Meanwhile, dont download them either, because if you do, then you just contradicted yourself.

Simple…

You opposing them, and taking their product is not of understanding.

You may oppose them, fine, many do anyways, because of their business believes and what not.
But you taking THEIR product. Hate them, dont hate them, you still taking their product, so in the end, YOU STILL want what they make.

If they were not here to make these products, then you would not have it. You would not watch that movie, or this movie, or listen to this music of that music.

You see, you dont think about this rationally. You think about this with hatred and confussion.

Many people hate corps out there. Its a natural way of humanity, to hate something you dont understand or something you fear.
These people want to make the most money ouf of each movie/song…

Yep, they are greedy, no doubt about it.
Yep, they suck, no doubt about it.
Yep, they reap all the benefits, no doubt about it.

But its still THEIR product. If they choose to make a product and protected with certain types of rights, guess what? ITS their right to do so, as its THEIR product, NOT yours.

If you were thinking on a larger scale of things, perhaps you would understand that it is STEALING.

Since you think with hatred and disagreement, then you will not think its stealing.

You forgetting something.
Its a product that you take. No matter how you take it, you still take a product. It does not matter if they have MORE of the product to give others, you still taking a product for free.
No matter how you look at it, YOU TAKING a product. Let me repeat. You taking a product, therefore, its stealing. Simple, very simple.

Im happy you enjoying Valve’s games and what not. Thats THEIR way of doing business.
If you dont like the way microsoft does business, than dont buy from them. Its quite simple.
If you dont like all these companies, then dont buy from them. At the same time, dont download their stuff either, because if you do, then you just contradicted yourself.

Lets put it in simpler terms.
You hate a company. You dont like their way of business. Great…
Dont buy from them. Dont download their stuff either.

You like a company (IE Valve). You download their stuff. You buy their stuff. Great, I agree with you and you are not stealing anything, as you support the company by buying many of their products.

See the difference?
When you hate a company and its ways of business, you dont want to support them, therefore, you dont buy their products, BUT, you download them. In other words, you taking from a corp products without paying for it.
Why dont you go download and take things from the companies you like so much?

Its quite simple you know. You can defend your downloads all you want, but you dont use the right decisions to make that choice. You use all the wrong decisions (IE hate the company, dont like the company, company suckx etc etc)…
Therefore, you dont rationalize your thoughts completely due to personal views and desires.

“The fact of the matter is that anytime you copy COPYRIGHT product, you stealing. You taking something from someone that cost them money, and you getting it for free.”

I accidentally the whole thing, what should I do?

“If you want a movie so badly, why dont you go buy it?

If you want a piece of software so badly, why dont you go buy it?

Can you give me a reason for these actions (your right to download)???”

If I bought them I’d just be supporting the companies I so openly oppose (eg; EA, Time Warner, Sony/BMG) and help fund corruption and twisted copyright. I would rather pay the same amount and have all the money go to those who produce it (director, writer, actors – but some of them get payed way too much, film crew, guys in effects, etc.) Those are the people who deserve all the money. In 1998 music corperations tried to make mp3 players illegal, as they thought it would ruin their profits, they have also done the same with DVDs, CDs and video cassettes. Once they figured out how to make even more money out of them they did all they could to get people to buy them. Valve is currently the only PC gaming company that I would consider buying PC games from. They have gone about things the right way with Steam and the source engine. As long as I sign in with my account I could have my games on 50 different computers. I can also have all my achievements and save files consistant across all of those computers. They also often have free weekends (where you can play a game for that weekend without buying it) you can send people a several day unrestricted demo of a game and they also often have discounts on games and have value packs for some of the games. The thing that I really love is, since most of their newer games run on the source engine files become smaller if you have more of the games. More corporations should learn somethign from Valve.

and now with that filter the government wants to put in…

what happened to a free information internet, as was originally intended?

i believe iinet will lose this one, but i’m crossing my fingers that a miracle happens…

If you want a movie so badly, why dont you go buy it?

If you want a piece of software so badly, why dont you go buy it?

Can you give me a reason for these actions (your right to download)???

Im aware that you have to defend your right to download for free. After all, who the heck does not want a free movie, or a free piece of software.

The fact of the matter is that anytime you copy COPYRIGHT product, you stealing. You taking something from someone that cost them money, and you getting it for free.

Its quite simple you know…

I produce a piece of software. I spent time on it. Took me say 3 years to make (persay).
I want to get paid for that time. Why would I want YOU to get it for free, when its (the product) demand is soo high, everyone wants it and everyone wishes it had it.
Let me put it another way.
Pixar goes and spends say $200M on a movie that takes 3 years to make (persay).
Who gives you the right to go and take it for free?

So your right to download free software, YES, I agree, share alllll you want.
To go and download a movie that costs money to make while you get it for free, ITS ILLEGAL, and will always be ILLEGAL.

Which part of that DONT you understand?
Download all want, im not against it, shoot everyone does it, but to go and download things that are COPYRIGHTED and it states right there on the screen before you watch a movie “COPYRIGHT IS PROHIBITED” is not legal, hence, illegal, hence BREAKING the law.

Do I agree with that? NO
Would I prefer free software? Hell yeah.
Would I want to see movies for free? Hell Yeah.

The fact of the matter is that all these products are NOT free. They cost money to make. They cost money to deliver. They cost someone’s time to make and think about how to make it.
Everyone’s time is precious. Everyone’s time cost money.

You going to download my product for free will infuriate me and will make me go and make it illegal for you to do it again.
Since its the internet, well its quite hard to do the above stated, as internet is endless.

Do people do it? Yes
Do people try to defend it? Yes
Do people want free products? HELL YEAH
Yeah, you send me a video link to someone that wants to defend HIS right to download products for FREE.
I bet if that person would spend months and months of his time on a new product WITHOUT any other income, you will see how he will change his idea and start to charge for his products.

You have a point, I totally agree, and that is, PEOPLE want free stuff.
I dont say its going to change anything by blocking these sites. Hell eveytime one sites goes down, another comes up.
But the morale of the story is, ITS ILLEGAL and STEALING. No matter how you look at it.
If a product costs money and you get it for free, thats stealing. Its simple, VERY SIMPLE…

We will have to agree to disagree then.
I know you wrong with your free downloads, you know you wrong with it too (but do it anyways to defend your right to get free products), and thus we will never come to a conclusion…

here go see one of the Pirate Bay founders talk in Stanford so you can grasp better what it is all about.

And realistically what are rights good for if you don’t have the means to enforce them anyway?

Look at anonymous P2P already operational all over:

- Omemo
- Winny
- RShare
- Share
- Herbivore (in trials)
- TOR Hidden Services(that make webpages anonymous)
- I2P
- GNUnet
- Marabunta
- Mute
- Waste
- Turtle F2F
- RetroShare
- Summi
- Rodi
- Perfect Dark
- Off System
- Hamachi
- ExoSee
- GigaTribes

A share of zero is zero. You can get mad and talk until you turn blue it’s just not going to change anything.

And who knows maybe in the future people will have 3D printers in their houses and will be able to produce anything they want from raw materials intellectual property will be nothing, services will be everything.

Society will have conquered the barriers to production and will have to evolve to the next step that sociologist call “Service Age” after conquered the agriculture and industrial ages :)

You are wrong ideas can’t be owned that is why copyright applies to distribution and the right to copy and that is why is called copyright otherwise it would be called ownershiprights for pete’s sake go read about copyright somewhere.

About the IEEE those are standards and refer to patents, patents only apply to physical implementations that is why is so damn expensive to patent things because you have to foresee every type of implementation that there could be and patent all of them to secure and invention have you ever patent something?

So if you want to say you are in on a standard yes you have to pay royalties to those who created the standard but that doesn’t mean you could not implement your own based on those standards if you come up with a different form that do the same thing.

And everyday I let people copy my ideas that is why I put everything under the GPL or CC commons.

And again you cannot own and idea just the right to some channel of distribution if there is no channel there is no rights are you mad? The public domain is not a channel of distribution there is no single point to control if there was TV and radio stations would have done it already. And the sad reality is that people don’t own the ideas they have they can own physical manifestations of that idea but not the idea it belongs to society.

You said:

Ideas are not products they cannot be owned is like water on the ocean once is there you cannot try and negate access to others because someone thing it owns part of the ocean it will lead to civil unrest, what people can do is make a product around it and capitalize.

Ideas can be owned. Thats why they call it copyright. You have an idea, you copyright it and nobody else can touch it, unless they pay you royalty fees.
TVs, and Computers and Cars and all products out there. They are not build from one idea, one concept. They are build from dozens and dozens of ideas, and each one, if copyrighted, they have to pay royalty fees. Look at IEEE, if your system has IEEE standards, which most do, the copyright holder must be paid.

You cannot make a product around my product and capitalize on it. Thats copying a product, therefore, reasons why you have all these lawsuits.
You want to make money, free from royalty fess? Make up your own product, with your own idea. Why you gotta make a product around mine? You now taking my idea and making a few small changes and viola, you making money from me (in a way).

If you had an idea, and you copyright it, would it be wise that some corp makes a product around your idea and then goes and makes billions of dollars??? I dont think so…..
Actually, I KNOW SO. I know you would not like it. Just think about it, Im sure you will understand it when you go thru these issues in your own life…

I understand your concept. If your concept were to be the right one thru many companies, than we would not be here to complain about these issues.
The fact of the matter is that these companies set their own rules. They put copyrights on their products. They put limitations on their products. We the public cannot force them and tell them, that they have to change those rules or else we will download their products for free, MEANWHILE, let it be lawfull.

They put COPY IS PROHIBITED on their products. They do it so that nobody can profit from it. Thats their way. If that kicks them in the behind later on, so be it, but thats THEIR rule. You can chooce to obey it, OR, to break it.
You break it, you get in trouble.

If the free products are soooo great, why dont you just use the free products? Why do you still go download photoshop? Or products that costs money? There is the problem. People like free, but they want the product that costs money too. Sorry cant have it both ways.

Yes sharing is great, but, if the product is FREE. If the product is NOT free, and is copyright protected, well guess what? Sharing is no longer allowed.
Communities share many programs and movies and music, etc etc, but those are the ones that are FREE. The paid products are COPYRIGHTED. That means you cannot make copies of it.
I understand your concept to download and share, I belive in it too, but you also need to understand the concept of PAID PRODUCTS, COPYRIGHTED PRODUCTS, products that costs money cannot be shared. Thats THEIR rule. Its their rule, not yours.

These ISPs should work together with the law to break the bad downloaders.
Ill tell you why. When you witness a crime (persay), and the police asks you questions and you deny any information to them, guess what? Thats against the law. They can put you in jail for that.
Well, kinda same thing here. The ISP is aware of where you connect and what you download etc etc. They are the ones having the information. If the law says we need that information and they with-hold it, than its breaking the law (in a way).
Than again, there is freedom rights, so there goes my above statement. Damn if you do, damn if you dont.

I dont say ALL downloads are wrong, NO WAY. Im not saying you steal when you download a music video/song thats free out there. I dont think is stealing when you download a free OS.

But, it is stealing when you go download a piece of software that costs $800 or an album that costs $15. Fine, you do it here and there, once here once there, great. But there are people that download thousands of gigs of music and movies. Sorry but everything has a limit.

Anytime you take something that costs MONEY, and you get it for free (unless its a gift or something), than thats called STEALING. Dont matter how you look at it, dont matter what the product is, dont matter if its a physical product or a virtual download product. They costs money and they are copyright protected, THEREFORE, its stealing.

All other downloads that are free, GO FOR IT, and nobody can tell you that you steal it or break the law, because you dont….

Go to Jamendo or Magnatune.

OpenSource games:

- UFO: Alien Invasion
- UltraStar Deluxe(Singing game)
- FlightGear
- Alien Arena

Want to see TV for free and not be in the wrong side of the law?
Use Miro and be happy

OS for free there are hundreds just go to “distrowatch” and confirm for yourselves who needs Vista LoL

Radio and TV already proved that you can give something for free and still sell products otherwise people would never buy a DVD or a CD they just make mixed tapes and rip movies and shows to the DVD burners and in the past tho video cassette tapes.

People buy CD and DVDs because of boxes and extras that they would not have otherwise and like water in a bottle people buy it because they think it is more pure even when is just tap water filtrated with added minerals basicly people are buying the bottle the same is for music people listen to music in radios and go buy the box(CD). You don’t go claiming ownership of the ocean.

Ideas are not products they cannot be owned is like water on the ocean once is there you cannot try and negate access to others because someone thing it owns part of the ocean it will lead to civil unrest, what people can do is make a product around it and capitalize.

No I’m not comparing apples and oranges, the nearest internet igual is TV and Radio stations.

TVs and Radios don’t make money out of the public(that represent the public domain) they make their money from the commercial domain(companies) and for all effects and purposes TV and Radio stations don’t make money from the viewers do they?

And like the internet companies will not make money from the users they will make money from other companies is that so hard to understand?

About people downloading and selling things and paying nothing to the creators if they state that they have too I agree with you that is stealing and I know that there are people who do it, I don’t but that is me I don’t use Vista a use Linux(Fedora) and Red Hat don’t complain about it and the nice thing about it is that I can go to the app manager that is included and search a library of thousands of opensource free applications in which you can find “Gimp”(Photoshop), “PaintNET”(think Photoshop) or “Blender”(think 3D Max) the Gimp is so good that the industry used to make some films already like “Scooby Doo” and “300″ if you are a music artist the options are very good for professionals too and I didn’t even talk about the free apps for education like “Dr. Geo” or “Stellarium” or Games like “Tremulous” all available to windows too opensource is a new paradigm and it proved to work is not some theoretical rhetoric it’s real and happening right now.

The thing that it proved, is that you can give away your intellectual property and still make money out of it. And this happened because copyright laws started to encroach on the Public Domain, I cannot argue that the law today don’t give the right to copyright holders to do a lot of things this is just what is wrong copyright today is a powerful tool to negate acess and use of all kinds of uses even the legit ones like copying for personal use and transform consumers into mensalist ignoring the long held tradition of ownership and putting a intolerable burden on society morally there is nothing wrong with sharing not even in mass sharing something if you could you should. So under the current laws in some places you are right people are infringing copyright under others laws you are wrong there is no infringement going on but this will change under ACTA if it is brought to light and I will harm economies everywhere.

Copyright started as a set of rules that give the artist the minimum necessary to explore his creation. Did you know that the first copyright law gave artist 15 years to collect what they could and sudently this expanded to “life” plus 95 years, that those laws were made in the 1700 or was 1800 where there was no electronics and that it was based on the fact that nobody can own intellectual property and it all belongs to the public domain and is lend to the copyright owner so he could explored for a “brief” period and returned to the public domain?

Laws change this time it will change from social pressure because people want stop sharing(pirating) it’s a natural phenomenon it is not planned or some evil plot to destroy an industry it is a new field were the public domain have an expanded territory and people are just sharing in a global scale but still is just sharing and intellectual property, music in this case cannot be separeted when is in the public domain(the internet) and copyright owners don’t have powers in the public domain and should never have this lead us to the transparent civil disobedience when copyright is infringing in the rights of society trying to negate them the right to share, the right to use and the right to own something.

“because of TV and radio stations that have the same effect that of the internet and that effect is people don’t pay for music an movies do they?”

Your statement is wrong there. Yes, TV and Radio stations do play music and movies, shows, etc, BUT, you forgot one very important thing.

TV and Radio stations PAY for it. Everytime a song is played, they pay royalty fees. Everytime there is a movie played, they pay royalty fees.
So you see, you cant compare Radio/TV with Internet.
On the internet, you dont pay royalty fees for downloading the products. You get them for free.

Thats the big difference. Thats why a Radio Station has a license to raive music out to the public, and TV Stations raive out movies to the public. They pay for it in return, and how they make money? Thru ADs. Thats the reason you have TVs commercials and Radio Commercials, to pay for their license to air out music and movies.

Again, you compare apples and oranges. TV/Radio, Internet, all different. They pay for their rights to air out products. You get them for free from internet.

Thats where it gets tricky. If a song is copyright protected, that means is illegal to copy it.
When you download it, you copied it to your system, which is illegal.

LOL, funny. Yeah, bottle water costs money, because it costs money to bottle it, to deliver it, to package it, etc etc.
You go to a river and get the water for free, cause its a river, mother nature. Again you compare apples with oranges here.
You cant compare what you can really get for free VS what costs money.
Do most people sing for free? NO
Do most people make movies for free? NO
So when you go see a movie, its not free. Same with your river/bottle concept. You cant compare the two.

@116
You said:
“If anyone use something to make money out of copyrighted material I’m right there with you preaching that it is in fact stealing otherwise I don’t see it like that.”

I agree with your statement. To sell something thats not yours, yes.
When you download, it does not cost money, I agree.
Here is where it gets tricky:
What you download is copyright protected. Its not how you get it, or if you pay for it or not, its a mtter of the product itself.

Does the product say “COPY IS PROHIBITED?”
Yes they do, thus, in reality, its actually taking something that costs money and downloading it. Therefore, its going against the laws that the corp set.
You cant twist it whichever way, but the bottom line is “COPY IS PROHIBITED”
That means, its against the law for you to COPY IT. When you download, you copying the product.

You also have to understand that many download sites are being used to make money too. Yeah I know, you say “You crazy, they dont make money”

Yes they do:
Lots of people that download from these sites, go and put them on DVDs and sell them to people that cant download, and buy them for a third of the actual cost. Trust me, they are out there.
These sites runs ADs and what not, right? Thats revenue coming in, correct? Thats money they make for free.
People that use photoshop to make art and sell it. They get photoshop for free, and then go and make art for sale. Thats stealing a product and making money off of it.

We can argue on and on and on. Why doesnt just 1 person go buy Microsoft Windows Vista, then put it online, and let everyone else download it for free? What you think will happen???

You call it download, I call it stealing, fine. I can justify your actions with stealing. You cant justify your actions with free products, because nothing that you download (well almost nothing), its free, they all cost money to make, and the owner states “NO COPY”
Its quite simple. No copy, no broken laws, you start to copy, BAM, law is broken (unless the copy iis for backup purposes)…

You have the right to copy your own music/movies for BACKUP Purposes. The law states as such. Thats how they CD/DVD/Blu-Ray burners were able to justify their existance…

The right picture would be of bottled water if you go to a store and take a bottle of water and don’t pay it than your are a thief but if you go to the river and take water from it than you are not stealing anything are you?

Same thing with music if it’s in its bottled form(CD, DVDs etc) and you take it then your are stealing but if it is in the public domain that is the airwaves or internet and your intent is not financial gain then you are not stealing you are sharing with other and it does not affect negatively business or copyright owners or we would not be having this discussion because of TV and radio stations that have the same effect that of the internet and that effect is people don’t pay for music an movies do they?

I will insist that sharing is not stealing.

There is such a thing as public domain where TV and radio stations live but don’t make money off of it.

They give things for free or you see people paying for Air TV streams and radio shows and music?

Are all the people listening to radio and watching TV pirates?

Those people don’t pay nothing for it and shock they also record it and the industry is paid for alleged lost sales in the form of levies and even though those damn pirates form TV and radios don’t pay up artists still get paid I wonder why that happens?

The internet it’s not a store nor is a physical product it’s part of that thing called “public domain” which implies it is the territory of the people and not commercial interests, which means it is fair use which means society have rights to and that the limits to ownership ends there and again this means it is not stealing.

If anyone use something to make money out of copyrighted material I’m right there with you preaching that it is in fact stealing otherwise I don’t see it like that.

So you found an alternative to Adobe Photoshop expensive software package? Good, thats fantastic (no sarcasm here). Photoshop is very expensive, but we all know its a very good piece of software, thats why its sooooo darn expensive.
Its a matter of demand. If its in demand, price will go up…

You dont trust corps and site? Well who the heck does, I dont either, but needless to say, there are billions of sales being done online. Im not telling you how to shop or where to get your products, but to use that as an excuse is not really a valid point.

Anyways, Im sure everyone thinks of stealing differently. My opinion is: If you take a product that costs money and that states “Copy is prohibited”, thats stealing, either by taking it out of a store, or by downloading it.

Ohh yeah, how about that.
You go to a store, and you take a piece of software and somehow you made it outside. Does that consist of stealing?
After all, the store has dozens of copies of that software, right???
Why dont we all just go and take whatever software we want from the store, without paying???

Get the picture?

I never once stated anything about being unable to afford them, just that paying over $2,000AU to get Photoshop CS3 Extended is way too expensive, especially as GIMP is as good as it and costs nothing. I have used both of them and I have a copy of GIMP. I am sick of you acting like filesharing is stealing.

On the point of them catching me, even if they could give enough evidence to prove it (who says my wifi has a password on it, or that it was because I am using an anonymisation program, due to being paranoid) do you honestly think I would care? Boo hoo, they took my money! Oh wait, I could just go and work to replace that money! Of all the music that I listen to and downloaded, if I ever see a CD for the bands I really enjoy I will buy it, without a second thought.

@111

I do not like putting my details online, I do not trust corporations and sites enough. Still, of the software I really liked using if I ever see it available in store I will happily purchase it.

You said:
Nothing is for sale where I live.

Really? You have internet right? Its full of places to purchase whatever you desire.
Your statement is flawed…

You said:
“Plus don’t you think that if someone was giving away your stuff on bittorent that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t worth buying, or too expensive?”

If thats the case, then you want something that you cant afford. Your statement above shows directly that you are stealing. If you cant buy something, that means its out of your league. In that case, you go and get it anyways (by other means), therefore, its now called stealing.
Hey, I want a Ferrari or a ZR1, but you dont see me going taking one.

I want the entire trilogy of 007 on blu-ray too, but you dont see me going downloading it.

I want the entire trilogy of Star Wars on DVD, but I cant go and buy it, cant afford it.

Pretty much your statement says this:
If I cant afford it, im gonna get it thru other means.

We all want things in life iShare, but this does not mean you go break the law. You could, and many do, but dont complain when they try to catch you and make up excuses about it.
You need to learn the definition of Trolling first, then state as such within your statement.
You would not go corporate level because you choose that. These corporations choose differently. Who are you to tell them how to distribute their product?
Its their product. You have no right to say how their work gets sold. Its their choice.
You have the freedom to choose either to support their corporation by buying their products or not.

Again, your statement holds no water.
What you are doing its against THEIR RULES. Its THEIR RULES, not yours…

I don’t know about others, but if I couldn’t pirate something I wouldn’t go out and buy it, I’d find the closest alternative, but I would NEVER steal it. Nothing I download is for sale where I live anyways. Plus don’t you think that if someone was giving away your stuff on bittorent that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t worth buying, or too expensive? If you keep ignoring the fact that we tell you that filesharing IS NOT, and WILL NOT BE stealing, you are effectively just trolling.

Plus if I was making a product I wouldn’t go to corperate level, I wouldn’t NEED to, because if I make something I will ALWAYS have it under the kopimi licence, which is there to encourage people to share it, modify it and distribute the modified version, if the person likes it and wants to donate for me to keep updating the original version and fixing bugs and such, then that would make me really admire that person for paying me because they LIKE it, not because I am forcing them. People encourage others to do it for smaller companies/artists that they enjoy listening to.

Yes they did bottle air in cans. It was in China. It didnt work for a long time, BUT, they now have restaurants type places where you go in and breathe clean air thru a mask (type of like on an airplane emergency mask)…

They also had a policy for a while in Brazil where you were not allowed to catch Rain Water (which is the most clean form of water out there), YET, corporations were selling bottled water in the store. Sad but true….

You said:

“But wait, says you! I am stealing because I did not buy a legit copy of the movie, software, CD, etc, that I downloaded! So what? Just because I downloaded something does not mean I would have otherwise bought it; this is the “each download is a lost sale” theory that is pushed by the industries, but one that is also baseless.”

What you mean So What?
Just because you downloaded something DOES mean you would have bought it, or else you would not have download it.

Lets put it this way.
You download something because you want that product, correct?
Well in that case, if the download would not have been available, guess what? You would have PURCHASED the product.

Your statement is based on a material idea. Just because there are thousands of copies of DVDs out there, does not constitute you have the right to just copy one for yourself and give it away for free. The product that you downloaded comes with copyrights. In other words, the product itself was made in a way where its illegal to copy it. Does it not say at the beginning of every movie (most movies), COPY OF THIS PRODUCT is PROHIBITED????

Thats because you are stealing when you copy.
I know you will try to justify your free downloads til end of time, no doubt about it.
I understand how people want free stuff, but needless to say, it is stealing. You may not steal a material item such as a car or a game console or a computer or whatever, but you are stealing an item that produces $$$$$ and also that states “COPY OF THIS ITEM IS PROHIBITED”

Yes, you dont want to buy a crappy product, very true, but thats why they have ADs, short videos, previews, etc etc.

Im aware that you disagree with my statement. Im aware that you rather give an item away for free on P2P sites to gain popularity and make more money later on, BUT:

These companies dont need popularity. They dont need to be known out there at this time. Why? They are already known. They already built a base. They already have a corporation. You say “I would rather give it away for free on P2P Sites”, yes you would, and thats great, BUT, when you become soo popular where you start your own corporation, now you gotta think about sales, gotta think about the people’s jobs, those that create the ADs, that work behind the scenes. They need to get paid. How you gonna pay them? With free downloads? Come on….

The reason you think the way you do, its cause you are not at a corporate level YET. As smart as your idea is (and it is a good idea to start), later on when you have your own Corp, guess what? Your idea will changes.

I dont surf the corporate websites and listen to corporations. By far, I dont even listen to the damn news, just here and there I get on digg and torrentfreak when im bored at work. So im not blinded by the corporations, far off that point. I dont like em either, thats for sure. I dont want to pay $15 for a danm movie. I stopped going to the movies cause its sooo damn expensive.
I understand and agree with many download sites, thats for sure. I dont mind to get a movie for free, BUT, never-the-less, its taking something for free, which actually costs money. That my friend is stealing, no matter how you look at it.
Just because its not your old fashion type of stealing, its still stealing. You taking an item that costs money and give it for free. Let me say it again, you take something that costs money and give it for free. What is that called? (if its not stealing)…

No it is not, I cannot take the money from your wallet then MAKE A COPY and give that copy to people, while you STILL KEEP the money that was in your wallet. Infact, stealing is removing it from your possesion, in laymans terms, I keep the item, you loose the item. Also, last time I checked people who upload .torrent files onto sites such as TPB they didn’t make money from it, that then would become gross commerical copyright infringement, which would be a criminal offence, if memory serves me correctly.

If you still don’t get it then here is a nice picture for you http://www.vincentchow.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/piracy.png

You said:
“What I do disagree it is the point that people are stealing something when they are sharing it with others for free even though it hurts sales.”

Here is the problem with that. You are sharing something that is COPYRIGHT PROTECTED. You are sharing someone else’s work. You are sharing a product that is for sale on the market, yet you give it for free.
What does all above mean?

Its means you steal someone’s work and distribute it for FREE. Does that not constitute STEALING????

Think about it, honestly now. You take XYZ from ABC Company and give it away for THE WORLD for FREE. Thats the same as if you go into my back pocket, take out my wallet and distribute all my cash to everyone for FREE. Its the same thing, no matter how you look at it.

People just dont want to admit that its stealing, because it PROFITS them.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Either way, its stealing. There is no point anyone can make otherwise. Im not being unrealistic, on the contrary, I am being VERY realistic, just most people forgot about reality and since downloads are sooo common these days, hell, its no longer stealing, but in reality it is stealing.

Will it ever stop? Will it change the world if it stops? Will it stop if corps are making it cheaper?

Well I cant answer those questions, but thats not what the article is about…

39B Communication by use of certain facilities

A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.

I know you probably don’t care but the article is downright inaccurate.

The Federal Court judge did not ‘kick out the conversion claim,’ the applicants in the case removed it themselves after a judgment where the judge suggested the claim might be arguable, but had to be pleaded correctly. Further, the applicants agreed themselves to pay the costs in relation to that claim

Dear RIAA etc, stop wasting the courts time and let us focus on things that actually matter. Like ID theft, privacy, Education etc.

I read once about people that /have/ bottled air and sold it. Rather sad.

You seem to be under the antiquated and rather baseless idea that piracy is theft. How many times are different people going to have to explain how flawed this is before an industry-indoctrinated person such as yourself can understand? If you wish to speak of reality, then here is something to think about.

Trade groups and industrial organizations love to attribute piracy to theft by use of examples such as the MPAA’s “You Wouldn’t Steal A Car” campaign. Wiki it if you are not familiar with it. However, these examples are baseless in that they are based on a real-world concept that is not present online. If I steal someone’s [insert object here], then I deprive them of their object. I have it, they do not, although I gained it through illegitimate means. Now look at the online world: Someone uploads a copy of a file they have to the Internet. I download a copy of that file. I have not taken anyone from anything because of the concept of digital copying. The file’s source still has his copy, and now I have my copy. Nothing has been stolen, so piracy is not theft. In fact, the term “piracy” is a bit misleading because of this, but this is not a big deal.

But wait, says you! I am stealing because I did not buy a legit copy of the movie, software, CD, etc, that I downloaded! So what? Just because I downloaded something does not mean I would have otherwise bought it; this is the “each download is a lost sale” theory that is pushed by the industries, but one that is also baseless. The industries lack a widespread and effective “try before you buy” system; nobody likes spending money on something that ends up sucking. I have done so a few times and regret it, for if I had been a party to filesharing back then, I could have saved my money. If something sucks, I want to learn that first-hand, but I do /not/ want to pay to do so. If I buy something, I want it to be worth the money I spend on it. (This would also tie into the argument that CDs and such are way overpriced.) Furthermore, I wish to remind you that the basic moral code among filesharers is to support, even in a small way, the makers of the things you download and enjoy. It’s not all about “gimme gimme gimme” when it comes to file sharing.

Now, here is a personal reason I download, that may not be universally shared among file sharers. The industries, in my eyes, have lost whatever ground they once had to stand on while rationalizing their anti-piracy movements. I’ve done a little reading about when p2p first popped on the scene with Napster back in the late 90s. The RIAA, instead of embracing this new technology and adapting their business model to benefit everyone, sued. They turned p2p users into enemies by labeling them as criminals. Since then, across the various p2p networks out there- BitTorrent, eDonkey, KaZaA, etc- the industries continue to aggressively attack file sharers, creating conflict when cooperation could have once been possible. To do this they use tactics that are legally and morally inexcusable- need I point to recent articles here on TF, such as those detailing the industries’ claims that torrent sites should simply admit their guilt instead of taking advantage of the due process they are legally entitled to? Let’s also recall for a moment their use of other questionable anti-piracy tactics, like Sony’s rootkit, pollution of p2p networks, spamigation lawsuits, acting on behalf of artists they do not actually support as they claim to, pushing their views onto the governments of other countries, and DRM in general. This is just a fraction of the things the industries have done. Here’s the kicker: They do this to protect their profits. They are not interested in the defense of intellectual property beyond the limits at which IP serves their paychecks. If they were doing this for a truly honorable cause, I may not feel nearly as much resentment towards them. As things stand, I cannot support an industry that makes use of these tactics in the name of profiting.

Anyway, back to you and what you say. Have you considered the possibility that people can actually benefit from p2p networks? An oft-cited example is Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor, who made over a million dollars in his first week after severing ties with the record labels. Other bands have started to follow suit, and discovered how smart it was to do so. I already pointed out to you that piracy is not theft, but I’m going to go ahead and let you get away with that one for a moment. If piracy were theft, who would we be stealing from: The record labels, who take most of the profit for themselves, or the artists themselves, who generally get ten percent, or less, of the proceeds from music sales? As such, the question can be amended to this: Who would we be stealing from, giant multinational corporations or individual artists and bands? Yes, now you understand a bit better why people do it; if you don’t get it by now, you may as well just close the page now and go back to following the industries’ propaganda instead of thinking for yourself.

Oh, I also feel obligated to refute your claim of: “Anyone that complains about this, think about it for a second: You create a movie, or a song, or publish a book, whatever. You would not like it if someone took your work, and distribute it for FREE. You would be pissed off. If you say otherwise, then fine, go work for free and see how long that will last you.” Why wouldn’t I like it? If I did something like that, I would certainly release it on p2p sites. P2p is the best possible distribution method you can get: it requires no effort on your part, doesn’t cost anyone anything, and the quality of your work can be easily determined by looking at share rates and such. I would gladly give up a handful of sales if it meant that whatever I made could easily reach people WORLDWIDE with an absolute minimum of time and effort, and no cost whatsoever, on my part. I bet you that a lot of people feel the way I do about this; after all, it’s rather simple common sense. You just have to be not greedy and driven by making every cent you possibly can to see it.

In conclusion, I highly suggest that you do some reading on sites that are not sponsored by the entertainment industries. Spend some time befriending the TorrentFreak archives, for example. You’ll find some great information there. I think the things you said are based off of ignorance, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call you a moron, or any such flame. You seem rather smart, just misguided. Do a bit of research about the p2p situation from a neutral standpoint, and then add up what you come across and see which things make the most sense then. :)

If AFACT had proof they’d go to the cops, not the courts.

No sane person would disagree with someone getting paid but there is limits to what people can ask from others.

I don’t disagree with people getting paid or making millions of something that it’s not and issue for me.

What I do disagree it is the point that people are stealing something when they are sharing it with others for free even though it hurts sales.

People share, it’s natural, people pool resources together and that is what makes the world turn, take that away and we would live in a really different world but there is a bright spot on this whole thing people will buy stuff from artists and even donate it’s just not going to happen the way it was before, people are being called thiefs and criminals but their are not the landscape changed but the behavior of the people is the same as before they still view TV shows and listen to radio and they don’t have to pay for it try and make them and people will create their own universe like it happened with software. The “owner” can ask whatever he wants too but should he or can he?

What is happening it’s a wake up call, people won’t start paying anyone to have the privilege to sing in karaokes, play music at parties or share with other people.

But they will pay for t-shirts, a nice box, maybe a gossip blog to know the behind the scenes and a lot of other superficial stuff. If you think that the internet is like a CD or DVD them you are right but if you think of the internet like radio and TV why should people pay or feel like stealing something?

If the owner of the product states you cannot copy his/her/their product in any way shape or form, they should have the right to claim as such, either being USA or other countries.

Now if that holds water in a court room is a different point all-together, but thats the creator right, to choose their own ownership agreements.
About the car ownership, perhaps I used the WRONG words to make my statement, but needless to say, again its just the way things work with different products.
A car, you own the car, not the design.
A movie you own, not the rights to distribute it.

You own the car, but if you choose to go and copy that design and sell it or give it away, you cannot. That was my point. I guess I did choose the wrong words before, lol…
Im sure you would not care to give away your music for free, BUT, after some time that you spend on these music projects, im sure you will eventually change that idea/mind and start to charge. Just how things work.

About the copyright thing, there is a lot of laws and in some countries it’s perfectly legal to listen to music download from the internets so I don’t see your argument holding water.

And answering your question if it was my music I wouldn’t care I would find ways to capitalize before it hit the fan not after. Data is like water you cannot claim ownership when it is in the ocean only when it is in a bottle, the ocean being the internet and the data in question is digital music.

I bet there are people who would love to bottle oxygen and sale it, but it’s just not gonna happen.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31855.html

Yes, Linux is free. no doubt. The creator does not share my point because he wanted to the OS to be free. That was HIS choice…

Again you miss the point. Its up to the creator of the product in question that decides that, not you.

If that creator wants to give away his product for free, GOOD, FANTASTIC. Thats his choice. Im sure he believes that later on, he will profit from it some way or another.
But these movies are not being given away for free. Its your choice (hence freedom) to choose if you want to pay to see it or not.

Nobody gives you the right to go and copy it and watch it for free.
If everyone would share the free idea (Linux OS), then heck, we would not have businesses and jobs and what-not.

Sorry, but your comparison has no point towards reality.
There will always be thieves out there, just some companies choose to go after some.