“Actually I see it as the complete opposite. Copying and sharing has been in society since its very cradle. History is full of examples of copied ideas which succeeded thanks to somebody, but were in fact from somebody else.”

Yes, copying and sharing that which is yours to copy or to share. Not the property of someone else. At no time in history has the fundamental covenant of barter or exchange ever been broken like this until now. There is no precedent in business history, not in food, clothing, shelter or any other product or commodity, where the public simply stole it because there was a technical way to achieve possession without paying, then justifying it because “it’s all crap” or “artists don’t deserve to be paid” or “this is a freedom of speech issue” (which is a howler.). The most fundamental agreement of all in an organized culture is always “one party works and creates things we need, another person pays for the things they wish to take from the first party.”
The simple notion of a fair business exchange.

This is not going to change anytime soon. Government and industry will do whatever they need to do to maintain this one-to-one correspondence. Piracy is a momentary online lunacy that will fade with the privacy priviliges that it needs to survive.

And anyone who cannot or chooses not to make the obvious distinction between things you can and should copy and distribute and things that belong to someone else and you may not, is kidding themselves and harming the image of “sharing” and doing irreversible damage to privacy on the internet in the process. Piracy as an attempt to chance the general order of civilization and the quid pro quo of business will inevitably fail, and is remarkably stupid.

Cool does that mean its ok to hack the bank accounts of Logistep to keep our privacy.

The quickest and easiest way to make money is real estate.

An example of something that succeeded only because it was pirated – Windows.

Stealing means taking something that belong to someone else :) Do 0 and 1 belong to Hollywood? So just because some people call this “piracy” and “theft” doesn’t mean it’s just that.

Ohh yeah Hollywood people work hard for the content they release. Ofc someone who really works in a factory to produce things others need to live make 1% or less of what a so called star actor makes for a few weeks of making a movie. Yes it’s indeed hard work, harder than the fuckers that work to fields so ignorants like can read the internet and get sucked up by propaganda.

You buy something you own it. Ok I understand we don’t sell copies of it (that i can understand) but let’s face it you pay for it you can give it to anyone. Or they should only rent things, but let’s see who’ll pay k’s of dollars for something they’ll never have actually.

Music and movie making isn’t even an art these days. It’s all for money, it’s only normal that free sharing of real art work take place, even if in this process this crap hollywood is shared worldwide. If there would really be quality control for movies and music then things would be different. But seen many movies with a great trailer but nothing really to see at the actual movie or so called artists releasing one decent song in one album and rest make your ear drums blow up :(

This isn’t about what they talk at all. They just scared that with the file sharing now documentaries and real art can be easily downloaded by almost anyone. That what scares them, not so called losses than no independent study ever quantified.

F*cked up world we live in. Same people who invade others so they defend freedom and justice now tells the world we all criminals and our freedom is less important then their profits. Way to go forward … to the dark ages :)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

you. are. an. idiot.

Actually I see it as the complete opposite. Copying and sharing has been in society since its very cradle. History is full of examples of copied ideas which succeeded thanks to somebody, but were in fact from somebody else.

…Which is probably why ideas aren’t copyrighted, but the way they can be presented can and almost always is.

In order to make this look like an example where copying was beneficial, you might want to give more information about this alleged time when it was..

Just stop paying for music and movies, don’t go to the theather, buy a ball and go play in the park and wait those thiefs from the industry die of starvation.
Piracy never ceases to amuse, that’s for sure. It has this incredibly ironic tendency to reverse roles.

You call hollywood thieves when YOU are the one taking what’s theirs without paying. Just because you are expected to give something back to them (ever heard of paying for things? Probabaly not), you act all incensed, like they are trying to wrong you. Pirates are the ones who anxiously grab everything in site and yet they call hollywood greedy. Pirates are the ones who think that they are the only thing that matters are thus robbing hollywood of billions of dollars every year, yet THEY call hollywood evil.

Oh my gawsh! We steal their things and they aren’t letting it slide??! They R soooo evvilll :(

“You break moral and ethical covenants in place through civilization LONG before the concept of corporation ever came into view.”

Actually I see it as the complete opposite. Copying and sharing has been in society since its very cradle. History is full of examples of copied ideas which succeeded thanks to somebody, but were in fact from somebody else.

It has always happened, and never before has the mess been so big. Of course, if means of communication grow and prosper, it is only logical to think that these things will increase. And personally I don’t see a problem there. Both things come hand in hand. If there was no Internet, but there was a way to connect and communicate from people around the world fast, effectively and cheaply, the same thing would happen.

Either you accept both of them, or accept neither of them.

Remember every time you buy something from them you are selling your freedoms.

Using privacy privilege to mask digital piracy you now possess and enjoy a perfect copy of the work illegally, while the creator is deprived of the compensation he (or she) depends upon, and is morally, ethically and legally entitled to. You break moral and ethical covenants in place through civilization LONG before the concept of corporation ever came into view. And you know and understand this and just don’t care so you dissemble and contort this to be about “freedom of speech” lol or “corporate domination” as long as you can keep finding ways to get their stuff for free.

It’s a pleasure watching the governments and the industries of the world methodically dismantle any real vestige of entitlement to privacy online, and history will lay this extraordinary loss at the feet of those who would trade their freedom and their privacy for a harddrive full of pilfered entertainment. Piracy, at the end of the day, is sophomoric and remarkably stupid. And the consequences serve you right.

Taking away privacy privilege was never an action. It’s a REaction. And the internet loses in the process.

Nicely done.
Idiots.
:-)

It has always been like this. Unlike in america, you cannot win agenst a big company in Switzerland. The company is always right :/

In america you see cases where people sue McDonalds or Publix but that is just not possible here :(

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

You have selectively ignored 90% of my previous post, which leads me to the conclussion that you have no arguments whatsoever against it, ergo you agree with it, thanks :). So, since you agree with the rest of my post, please avoid using the term piracy, or we’ll just have to start calling anti-piracy people “biased pigs”.
So, let’s talk about what you seem to disagree with.

Intellectual property is not an actual term, nor even is it considered by law. Law, correctly, takes into account copyright, trademarks and patents separately, and each has its own law. It doesn’t matter how many organizations exist which have that term in their name, it is completely subjective and intended to be imposed on the public to change the way they think.

But since you probably don’t understand this, I’ll just explain it to you:

The correct term to use would be, in this case, copyright. This term identifies more or less quite accurately the subject in question (although this is arguable in many cases, but for the sake of conversation I will ignore them). The idea it gives to people is, more or less, the idea at stake here.
By using the term intellectual property, you are trying to impose on the public two (three) things:

1. The fact that EVERYTHING related to it (including musical works) comes from the intellect, aka the mind, brain, whatever. This is simply not true, as most works of arts come originally/mainly from “the heart” (if you would understand such a thing). A musician is an artists, and artists compose a song or write a poem based on what they feel.

2. The fact that such things can be owned Hmmm, interesting. US Constitution doesn’t consider this fact, but instead (as I marked earlier and suppose that you agree with) considers copyright as a temporal artifficial concession (which will someday end), put in place only to generate more works so that the public benefits. It never states that ownership is natural to these things (actually, that was proposed when the constutition was first enacted, but that idea was thrown away).

3. The fact that you can steal them (since they are “property”. If you steal, you deprive an owner of something he has. But if you copy a song or album (something you have admitted to do, at least in the past), you are not actually depriving the “original owner” of that which he had. The original owner still has its work. So, where’s the deprivation?

I have personally looked at the ways in which copyright organizations do statistics, and as somebody who has studied statistics, can say that the ways they do it is biased, which leaves them with no effect. And since you are so intent on reaffirming the “losses” the industry has had, I urge you to point us in the right direction by providing us with serious, unbiased statistical studies which show this trend. Thank you :)

Oh, and by the way, who do you think experiences those losses? The artist? The “industry”? The industry is a compendium of companies dedicated to the distribution of music, something quite obsolete today with the availability of digital technology to the regular person (such distribution was needed back in the days where we didn’t have the digital technology level we have today). If you are a businessman, and your business becomes obsolete, the ethical thing to do is to accept it and move on, and not to try to bring everybody down with you.

Oh right, you meant that the artist is the one who experiences the losses. Well, I assure you, for less than 5% their share in record sales in most cases (which, if you had read Courtney Love’s article that I posted earlier, you would know that most times that revenue goes to cover other costs), artists rather prefer that you go to their concerts (which is a completely different experience that I personally enjoy much more than listening to a record).

Thanx!!!

P2P creates connections, it broadens local limitations. It is not inherent only in the US and UK but worldwide.

Piracy pursues International Recognition.

Entertainment industry gains supporters through P2P.

Piracy segregates the excellent from the average productions. (A little bit harsh but that’s how you it technically works.)

Piracy creates awareness. Movie and Music Ideas are improved through many comments and suggestions, how is that possible? Because Piracy reaches millions of people whose majority decides what is popular and what is not. What Qualities decide what is the best music. Sort of Like an MTV Top 10 but with more participants.

The Entertainment Industry has obviously benefited from Piracy.

Guess not through Money but Quality.

It is therefore their chance to innovate.

I will dictate to the entertaiment industry how much their work will cost and I will do so in an honest way too.

I hereby never will buy a CD, DVD or Blu ray in my life nor will I sign a contract to receive their products in any form, from this day on I will search and acquire only music that is in the public domain, opensourced or with a license that says it will never deter me from broadcasting it in public or in private, sharing it, copying it or using it in my personal projects, the same I will do with any other media. You see I don’t need to “buy” which is a misnomer because you don’t buy property apparently when you talk about imaginary property.

Stop me if you can now LoL

The fact is thing’s come and go, music and art have been around long before copyright and will continue after. These snake oil lies spread about by the extremist church of imaginary property. There are now much better meathead for distributing content on a scale which is relativity cost free.

Copyright no longer stands for what its meant for, rather a despicable act used to protected the extremist who would rather see no progress at all, all in the name of the business model.

And for that reason (abuse) it dose not deserve our respect. Humans copy each other it’s a basic right and a key part to life. Copyrighting free culture is wrong ifpi bpi riaa did not invent free culture neither music they have no right to it.

The death bell has been stuck for distribution business. What these guys are doing is violating humanrights and must be punished for it.