http://freejammie.com

No point writing to congressmen, they’re all bought and sold already.

*************************************

It’s the new white slave trade… POLITICS!!!

You simply cannot justify criminalizing and punishing a single person THAT MUCH for facsimiles of 24 songs. You are so out of touch as to be rendered a danger to everyone else. Lock YOU up and throw away the key.

2. the KEY problem with IP is that there is no such thing as owning IP despite paying for it. YOU ARE PAYING FOR ACCESS. HISTORICALLY it has ALWAYS been like that. its just that no one ever realized until alternative distribution methods and forms started happening. you paid to go see a movie, of which the cost was computed upon various different factors (equipment, distributors, production, etc.); in other words, you paid for the experience and what it took for the experience to happen. now that the internet is a major way of distributing information, alot of that is both simultaneously turned visible (in the cutting out of middle men) and cut out of distribution. THAT is the KEY reason why IPs must go down in cost. because production can and has become significantly, relatively CHEAPER than in the past. things still haven’t changed you know, we NEVER really ever owned what we purchased. what we owed was right to access. it has ALWAYS been like this and it is what people still don’t get.

3. THAT IS WHY THE CONCEPT OF IP MUST CHANGE RIGHT NOW. because in that case then proprietary business models will continue to flourish in that RESOURCES to control distribution, ownership, definition of IP, etc. are STILL in their hands. in this world where things must hit big in order to hit the gold — only made possible because everything is formed through a “franchise” mentality….IP is a money tree idea in itself!! see: spiderman -> movie -> game -> memorabilia —- this array of goods for consumption, creative content for consumption, is only made possible and can only be orchestrated from a top down level. and for as far as THIS SOCIETY embraces THAT WAY OF CONSUMPTION then this fight via piracy will remain fundamentally enslaved to the wrong, self-defeating values. its not about sharing really. its about escaping the clutches of this “rinse-and-repeat”ness of our media consumption.

4. what we really need to do is DISMANTLE TOP DOWN POWER and return artistic OWNERSHIP back to the TRUE CONTENT CREATOR. that means the guy who writes the music, the guy who writes the script, the guy who writes the book — the guy who truly created. that is what this whole fucking thing should be about. getting rid of the middlemen, the agencies, the managers………..SHOWING THAT THE RIAA AND MPAA HAVE NO. RIGHT. TO. SUE.

because *they* don’t owe any of the genius that we consume. what they do is contort it into a franchise which they can distribute, of which they can make coin of endlessly. their representation means nothing. there is no glory in showing up as the master of slaves… and thats what they are.

What, does it make you feel guilty now that you’re downloading? Are we supposed to live in fear now because we’re “Stealing”? Why do you insist on the stealing so much? If the companies embrace the new way of customer demand, I am willing to pay for their shit. Mind you, not $30-$50 on something virtual. Since you cannot touch it, it should be cheap. And they would get a lot more buyers. It’s impossible to win against an already existing system that’s better than the old one.[/quote]
[quote comment="254192"][quote comment="253734"]Paying for the movie in one medium doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it in every other medium. That’s like buying a burger at one McDonald’s and thinking you’re entitled to one at every other McDonald’s. I don’t lend things to people; I make a copy and give it to them. And whether the RIAA represents every company in the industry or just the important ones isn’t relevant. The RIAA constitutes enough companies to represent a majority of the industry. The RIAA may not directly represent that artists or songwriters, but the suits and middlemen represent the artists and songwriters. So either way the RIAA serves their interests. I realize p2p helps little known or unknown artists get their name out there, but that doesn’t mean it helps sales for known artists. It’s easy to say “I would pay for it if it were cheaper”, or whatever the fuck, but its not. So just steal it, admit its stealing, and continue on your merry way. I don’t understand why you people need to justify stealing someone’s property by claiming is sharing or they can afford it or its wrong or waaa it’s not fair. Why can’t the concept of stealing just be embraced?! You pseudo-revolutionaries need to get off your high horse stop thinking you’re some kinda new age Thomas Paine.[/quote]

The McDonald’s shit is not the same thing as with movies. You see, somebody makes each burger, somebody works manually for that burger, and once u eat it, it’s gone, you cannot share what you ate already with your friend.
“I don’t lend things to people; I make a copy and give it to them.” Mind you … that right there is “piracy”. You SHARE. Don’t tell me you make your friend pay for the movie because “oh..i paid for it, now u should also pay for it”.
And I dont think 50 Cent or Nelly Furtado go crying around for their songs that have been downloaded online, cuz ppl go to their concerts.

“I don’t understand why you people need to justify stealing someone’s property by claiming is sharing or they can afford it or its wrong or waaa it’s not fair.” – is it something tangible? Do money from someone’s bank account go missin everytime a file is downloaded? No. And tell me, would you be willing to spend half of your 1-month salary on a movie bought from a licensed store? Yes that’s how much they cost in comparison to salaries in not so developed countries such as US and Canada. I dont no where ur from, but dont assume everybody affords whatever u take for granted. would u rather send those ppl back in the stone age? As long as I’m not puttin my name for author of the file and i’m not sellin the shit i download, i dont see the problem. It’s called sharing and you can’t stop it. We will merrily keep doing it :)[/quote]
[quote comment="253635"][quote]Life isn’r fair children. [/quote]

Why just dismiss something that is wrong so easily?

Maybe I’ll use the government to steal 200,000$ from you – you’ll protest, so will others – I’ll dismiss that with “life’s not fair”.

[quote]Sharing is “stealing” and if you don’t like it, write a letter to your congressman. [/quote]

Sharing is not stealing – sharing as a definition, no government can change it.

You have no concept of freedom, child.

[quote]You guys hate the RIAA because you don’t want to pay for music?[/quote]

I hate the RIAA because they persecute people for sharing and ruin lives.[/quote]
[quote comment="254617"]i dont read news
news = brainwash= mind control
or manipulation
don’t fall for this deception
news= full of lies, inconsistency.[/quote]
In response to Malarkey and you other idiots that call this stealing. If I go and pay $16.00 for a new CD and want to share it with others I’m going to. I payed the price for it and will damn well do what I want with it

What, does it make you feel guilty now that you’re downloading? Are we supposed to live in fear now because we’re “Stealing”? Why do you insist on the stealing so much? If the companies embrace the new way of customer demand, I am willing to pay for their shit. Mind you, not $30-$50 on something virtual. Since you cannot touch it, it should be cheap. And they would get a lot more buyers. It’s impossible to win against an already existing system that’s better than the old one.[/quote]
[quote comment="254192"][quote comment="253734"]Paying for the movie in one medium doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it in every other medium. That’s like buying a burger at one McDonald’s and thinking you’re entitled to one at every other McDonald’s. I don’t lend things to people; I make a copy and give it to them. And whether the RIAA represents every company in the industry or just the important ones isn’t relevant. The RIAA constitutes enough companies to represent a majority of the industry. The RIAA may not directly represent that artists or songwriters, but the suits and middlemen represent the artists and songwriters. So either way the RIAA serves their interests. I realize p2p helps little known or unknown artists get their name out there, but that doesn’t mean it helps sales for known artists. It’s easy to say “I would pay for it if it were cheaper”, or whatever the fuck, but its not. So just steal it, admit its stealing, and continue on your merry way. I don’t understand why you people need to justify stealing someone’s property by claiming is sharing or they can afford it or its wrong or waaa it’s not fair. Why can’t the concept of stealing just be embraced?! You pseudo-revolutionaries need to get off your high horse stop thinking you’re some kinda new age Thomas Paine.[/quote]

The McDonald’s shit is not the same thing as with movies. You see, somebody makes each burger, somebody works manually for that burger, and once u eat it, it’s gone, you cannot share what you ate already with your friend.
“I don’t lend things to people; I make a copy and give it to them.” Mind you … that right there is “piracy”. You SHARE. Don’t tell me you make your friend pay for the movie because “oh..i paid for it, now u should also pay for it”.
And I dont think 50 Cent or Nelly Furtado go crying around for their songs that have been downloaded online, cuz ppl go to their concerts.

“I don’t understand why you people need to justify stealing someone’s property by claiming is sharing or they can afford it or its wrong or waaa it’s not fair.” – is it something tangible? Do money from someone’s bank account go missin everytime a file is downloaded? No. And tell me, would you be willing to spend half of your 1-month salary on a movie bought from a licensed store? Yes that’s how much they cost in comparison to salaries in not so developed countries such as US and Canada. I dont no where ur from, but dont assume everybody affords whatever u take for granted. would u rather send those ppl back in the stone age? As long as I’m not puttin my name for author of the file and i’m not sellin the shit i download, i dont see the problem. It’s called sharing and you can’t stop it. We will merrily keep doing it :)[/quote]
[quote comment="253635"][quote]Life isn’r fair children. [/quote]

Why just dismiss something that is wrong so easily?

Maybe I’ll use the government to steal 200,000$ from you – you’ll protest, so will others – I’ll dismiss that with “life’s not fair”.

[quote]Sharing is “stealing” and if you don’t like it, write a letter to your congressman. [/quote]

Sharing is not stealing – sharing as a definition, no government can change it.

You have no concept of freedom, child.

[quote]You guys hate the RIAA because you don’t want to pay for music?[/quote]

I hate the RIAA because they persecute people for sharing and ruin lives.[/quote]
[quote comment="254617"]i dont read news
news = brainwash= mind control
or manipulation
don’t fall for this deception
news= full of lies, inconsistency.[/quote]

And while I truly believe that the RIAA settlement offers are tantamount to blackmail — you cannot tell me she did not spend more than $3000 on attorney’s fees anyway to fight this (if she didn’t – that was clue #1 that her assclown attorney was unqualified) — I’m all about fighting a case to prove a point, but the fact of the matter is, the RIAA was going to be awarded damages in a judgment in one of these cases – it was only a matter of time – and while it is too bad for this woman that she was the first “example” on any sort of giant scale — you have to consider the fact that you might lose, and lose big, before embarking on this kind of legal fight.

As far as I can tell, she doesn’t have the assetts to pay the fine anyway. File bankruptcy and get the damn thing over with. I mean, that’s the “real” American way to solve debt. At this point, looking over the case (and I haven’t had access to all documents, just little bits and pieces on West Law and Lexis Nexis), most of her appeal grounds aren’t that strong because her defense was non-existent and getting consideration for inadequate counsel (and this wasn’t – it was awful counsel, but not inadequate) in a civil matter is almost impossible anyway. The jury instructions don’t appear to be enough to warrant a full-out reversal of damages – because obtuse or not, they weren’t exactly wrong, and the whole thing was just like shooting fish in a barrel for the RIAA.

So again, I have to ask — assuming she spent at least as much on legal counsel as it would have cost to settle, and it being clear that she is not trying to make a greater “principle” argument in fighting the case (look at who she hired), why in the hell didn’t she just settle to begin with?

The EFF cannot help her now. The RIAA is awful – but much of this is her own fucking fault for choosing to go to court with counsel not specialized in this field, without doing the research, and most importantly, without even trying to mount a real case.

Did you actually THINK before you came up with this? Take 5 seconds next time to reason what you’re gonna rite