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

So anyway. I’m off to download some new albums.

This organization, along with the MPAA are desperately trying to do what they can to survive, but as a parasite, its simply killing its host (the buying public) as it feeds.

Even the artists are coming out against them and their tactics. Support the artists, but boycott anyone that is associated with the RIAA and MPAA.

And the argument that artists shouldn’t complain because they gain the exposure – is weak. Most artists don’t tour. So if an artist makes their living strictly off of album or song sales, they have gained nothing from your copying.

Call a spade a spade – it’s not sharing, it’s illegal copying.

I predict Malarkey will be the first one put up against the wall. :P

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.

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 :)

Will do hiro81,

I’ve backdated your subscription to my first issue in 1901. :-)

And Malarkey, you are right that the world isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. With comments such as ‘the world isn’t fair’ and ‘you children need to stop living in the world that should be, and focus on the world that is’, you are basically saying that we should just accept what we perceive as wrong, instead of fighting it. That’s a horrible attitude. I say NO WAY, when you see something wrong, you should fight it.

In this case we do seem do have a real chance of getting rid of the major labels, or at least reduce them to an insignificant level. They have been reporting awful sales for several years now. And the boycott is really easy to uphold (I don’t listen to much music released by the major labels, and I download these few releases illegally), so why on earth shouldn’t I boycott the major labels (and urge others to do the same)?

Additionally, what makes you think we aren’t engaged in the politics? OF COURSE we are! I don’t live in the US, so it isn’t my place to write the congress, but I’m actively engaged here in my own country.

From http://www.dictionary.net/theft

“(Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner’s consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.”

I think “taking and removing of personal property” and “every part of the property stolen must be removed from its former position” should clearify…

Actually, anyone know how to go about getting intellectual property rights?

I want in on this money spinner too.

I’ll just shoot some pics. make some crappy music, dump it on the internet and sue.

And my country (NL) is just following it footsteps.
Sick, sick, sick.

Stop calling this stealing. Nothing was stolen here. There was no loss of property or anything of value.[/quote]

Very true.

It’s not stealing, and i agree anyone who calls it that deserves to be flamed.

Nothing of value has been taken away so it can’t be stealing .

I prefer to call it,

- Proactive redistribution of wealth –

LOL

Seriously though, to call it stealing is pretty pathetic.

Stop calling this stealing. Nothing was stolen here. There was no loss of property or anything of value.

Greed doesn’t just ruin communism, it ruins everything. Think democracy is good? ask the Russians right this moment if they prefer being rich with restricted liberties or starving.

Democracy is crap now that laws are decided by lobbyist and corporations flush with cash. A true democracy would have pirates dictating the law. We outnumber the corporations on the per-person count, but they outnumber us on a per-dollar count. Let’s all do our part in cutting down their cash reserves to make sharing and distribution of information truly free.

I’m never going to buy a music CD ever again, or DVD for that matter. That goes for my family and many friends also.

The power is in the consumer.

The recording industry should take this into consideration also before blaming it squarely on p2p.

I would recommend everyone not only rant here, but tell everyone you know. Don’t buy any DVD’s or CD’s until these morons are on their knees.

It’s also strange how the communism argument tends to pop up in these arguments. Communism in theory is actually a great system. It just takes afew greedy pricks to ruin it .

Finally, I don’t think Ron Paul will make it as president for you guys, if he becomes too much of a threat, the powers that be will sort something out. It’s the American way.

I agree with you Networking in general was created to share files from one location to another. Also to communicate to other people. In America if you your not making money off of something it’s easy to put a blame on something else. What these industries need to understand is why was the internet created in the first dam place. The reason why they hate it is because they aren’t making money off a great concept to address thousands of people at onces

Why has that changed?

What has happened to the moral fabric of our country?

WHY CAN’T I FUCKING SHARE WITH PEOPLE ANYMORE WITHOUT SOMEONE CALLING IT STEALING?

RIAA: THEY HATE SHARING. THEY HATE AMERICA. AND THEY ESPECIALLY HATE ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT SHARING IS CARING. SO THEY HATE CHILDREN. AND CHILDREN’S TV. AND GOOD PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.

As for Malarkey, I think you need to do much more research into why RIAA and other industries like them are hurting the consumers and the artists. The RIAA does hurt the artist more when suing the fans that enjoy the music. IF the music industry as a whole would actually put something out there that people would enjoy instead of blaming p2p as the root cause of everything. Then I think they wouldn’t have so much of a problem.

Ok Malarkey I have a question for you. If you were a song writer and the RIAA started suing your fans because they shared your music and you get free publicity by the consumer for sharing a song with another. How would you feel that your fan that enjoyed your music or a person who found your song by having it shared is being sued? The image alone for being sued by the very artist that you liked will no longer have the value it once did.

Also for talking to our lobbyist’s, I think you need to understand a little economics. Right now our society is running off of laws created by businesses that have monopoly. Look at the RIAA, MPAA, and even ongoing cable giants like Comcast and others. They are the ones that want to change the laws for their own bidding. To give them free range to do anything. Mr malarkey I think you are fighting a losing battle though I am always up for a good debate.