Funny how you mistake pointing out facts for twisting and turning, when your misconceptions about thing are challenged.

> “..there are so many holes in your arguments it’d take more lines than I have patience for to set you straight. I’ll precis a few of the bigger ones though”

95% of your comment talked about other things than what i actually wrote. You need to work on your patience, because responding to other things that what was actually written also makes you a troll, according to actual definitions of the word.

> “Wrong.”

Actually, it’s fact. The combined revenues in the music industry currently are higher than ever before, and a larger percentage of those goes straight into the pockets of the artists than before.

http://torrentfreak.com/artists-make-more-money-in-file-sharing-age-than-before-100914/

> “You and your ilk make sure of that.”

After 15 years of on-line sharing of culture, not one single independent scientific peer-reviewed study has been able to come up with even a shred of evidence that supports the thesis that such sharing constitutes any kind of threat to neither the culture industry’s current record revenues, the artists current record earnings, culture, the society’s economy or the goal with copyright. You claiming otherwise doesn’t all of a sudden make it a fact.

However, pirates are indeed the reason for why the culture industry current have higher revenues than ever before and why artists currently make more money than ever before, because as several independent studies has corroborated, pirates are the best customers, who pay the most.

> “You plunder and distribute even though you contribute nothing..”

Distributing is contributing. And you really should stop calling the human rights protected act of sharing culture for plunder.

> “..and then some of you even have the audacity to say “it’s free advertising” and quote some spurious survey that’s been bought by the TF lobbyists.”

Well, you can discuss your straw-men with someone else, but you really should read up on what lobbyists refer to first.

> “Behaving like an armchair expert in R&D and ROI ‘s doesn’t make you correct on this front either. The more successful companies look way further than 5 years”

What you believe about existing successful companies is completely irrelevant for what i actually wrote, but if you believe that, then it’s a good thing that the political pirates suggest a 20 year monopoly, so your initial false claim still fails.

> “..because you’ve removed all the middle ground.”

And still, that sharing of culture is a problem is still something that not one single independent study has been able to corroborate.

> “You don’t get that your ‘work’ just fucks over the smaller independent developers and artists. The middle class of developers are dying thanks to your actions and only the elite and the impoverished will be left standing.”

There are more money than ever before in the culture industry, it seems you have a problem that a large chunk of it ends up with the big companies?

> “Sound familiar?”

Your constant use of straw-men, failed arguments and myths do indeed sound familiar.

> “Then came “Don’t call it stealing, it’s just copying..”

Well, that is a fact according to both law, language, physics, economics and logic.

> “..and copyright is wrong because Rick told us it’s a monopoly..”

You wont be able to dig up one single comment on-line posted before yesterday that claims something so ridiculous. No one has ever claimed that the simple fact that the copyright monopoly is a monopoly is what makes it wrong.

> “That’s what it distills down to.”

You having nothing else to show than straw-men, failed arguments and myths? True that.

> “No matter how much you may claim to have a noble cause..”

Are you confusing me with someone else?

> “..you are little more than thieves of all the energy, risk taking, blood, sweat, tears and education that goes into the creation of digital media.”

Artistic works aren’t differentiated between analogue and digital. You seem confused.

An no, no self-chosen entrepreneur have any right to any sale or any money, just because he chose to invest whatever he invested, so no thievery is possible.

> “Your self-inflated ego believes somethings value is solely based on your opinion and because you are cheap and devoid of any creativity you value it according to your own standards. Yet, conversely, behind the facade it’s good enough for you to profit from via cyberlockers and ad-affiliated P2P sites.”

You seem confused. Art holds no economical value. it holds arbitrary and subjective value. Products can hold economical value, but items that anyone can manufacture themselves for free, such as copies, hold no economical value.

> “So, just like in your world ‘stealing’ is too harsh a word and that ‘copying’ is more suited to your PR offensive.”

Your world? In reality manufacturing copies and sharing culture isn’t stealing according to neither language, law, physics, economics nor logics. That’s an easily verifiable indisputable fact.

> “In my world..”

So you admit to not living in reality. Ok then.

> “..’leeches’ is too kind a word and ‘fletchers’ is much more apt.”

You trying to justify your personal attacks doesn’t change the facts that they are such, and that your use of them says more about you than anything else.

> “Because in my world you steal livelihoods and suck the life out of opportunities created by those who actually make things.”

And as you have admitted, you do not live in reality, and you deny the facts that artists make more money than ever before, that the revenues in the culture industry are higher than ever before, that pirates are the best customers, and that piracy isn’t a problem in the first place.

Who cares about your fantasy world?

> “Every artist or digital content creator I’ve spoken to wants is to be able to (1) experiment (2) create and (3) decide how their work is distributed. They don’t want Google advertising or McDonalds affiliate deals dictating how much their work is worth and, likewise, they don’t want you passing it off as just another piece of content.”

You oppose the human rights protected act of sharing culture. Duly noted. You want a legal monopoly, despite that you can’t prove that you need it. You are obviously leeches and freetards.

> “To decide how their work is distributed is their fundamental right..”

Not fundamental according to any constitution on this planet. The copyright monopoly, whatever it regulates, is a privilege, not a right, and the reasoning behind it is clearly stated in present day, and it is not to out of principle give self-chosen entrepreneurs a legal monopoly that obstructs the human rights protected act of sharing culture. Please stop making things up.

> “..not yours.”

According to the human rights and a year old ruling by the Human Rights court in the biggest economy on this planet, it clearly is everyones human right to distribute culture.

> “Because of your fervent fanaticism and one-size-fits-all freeloader mentality..”

Coming from the freetard who just demanded a monopoly to obstruct human rights, without being able to prov any need for it.

> “..out of frustration I’ve seen you drive independent developers into the arms of corporates because at least their modus-operandi is based on something static.”

No, their ignorance and incompetence drove them there.

> “..and the entire world is a poorer place for it.”

More culture than ever before is currently being produced, more money than ever before is being spent on culture, artist make more money than ever before. Poorer how? But you have already admitted to not living in reality.

> “..the absurd, and occasionally obscene views of your buddy Rick; a man whose entire raison d’être appears to be divide and conquer..”

Yet you can never argue against one single word of what he actually writes or claims. Only straw-men and your misconceptions of what he wrote.

> “If that happens you’ll holler “troll” because you think someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same pack-mentality that Rick incites should be ashamed, ridiculed..”

What makes a troll a troll is clearly defined. When you act as such, you will correctly be called out as a troll.

> “..and your ‘right’ to share Hollywood ‘culture’ with impunity.”

That would be the human right.

“….artists, who currently makes more money than ever before….” Wrong. You and your ilk make sure of that. You plunder and distribute even though you contribute nothing and then some of you even have the audacity to say “it’s free advertising” and quote some spurious survey that’s been bought by the TF lobbyists.

“No self chosen entrepreneur ever calculates on a longer ROI than 5 years” Behaving like an armchair expert in R&D and ROI ‘s doesn’t make you correct on this front either. The more successful companies look way further than 5 years

As for calling it ‘sharing culture’ jeez, that’s funny. You’re calling Hollywood ‘culture’? It’s the lowest common denominator that is designed for big hits because you’ve removed all the middle ground. No one will take a risk in Hollywood on a ‘maybe’ because once you lot cam it, rip it and and distribute it any ‘maybe’ investment will have vanished, whereas a big hit still draws fat white Americans into the multiplex.

You don’t get that your ‘work’ just fucks over the smaller independent developers and artists. The middle class of developers are dying thanks to your actions and only the elite and the impoverished will be left standing.

Sound familiar?

The irony is that I’ve been speaking to ‘pirates’ and ‘hackers’ for years and pirates are the same as the lawyers they claim to despise (until they’re caught, of course) in that no matter how much you give, they’ll always take more.

In the old days the mantra was for a fairer society and the cry was “If it’s expensive we’ll take it anyway”

So in many prices got reduced as the more thoughtful producers and artists wanted to do something more imaginative than the usual business model and said “Ok, let’s sell direct and cut margins”

Yet piracy increased and the next demand was “if there’s any DRM, we’ll steal it”

So independent software companies thought “Okay, let’s get rid of intrusive copy protection and see”

But piracy increased and the next demand was “hey, it’s free advertising. You should be thankful”

Then came “Don’t call it stealing, it’s just copying and copyright is wrong because Rick told us it’s a monopoly, so leave us alone to hand your work around as worthless”

So at this point most developers who’d been receptive to new ideas suddenly realised “Ahhh, nothing can be done to satisfy these people. In fact, if you factor in the advertising, and the affiliate deals, all the rhetoric behind ‘sharing’ and ‘copyright’ is just a smokescreen to mask the fundamental reason behind piracy – give the people something that appears to be free in order to garner more power and money for the otherwise powerless piracy brigade. Oh and what spoils can be had, which is precisely why all those Russian mobs are involved now and every lazy-ass upload monkey wants to be the next Kim Dotcom.”

That’s what it distills down to. No matter how much you may claim to have a noble cause, without getting your own house in order first you are little more than thieves of all the energy, risk taking, blood, sweat, tears and education that goes into the creation of digital media. Your self-inflated ego believes somethings value is solely based on your opinion and because you are cheap and devoid of any creativity you value it according to your own standards. Yet, conversely, behind the facade it’s good enough for you to profit from via cyberlockers and ad-affiliated P2P sites.

So, just like in your world ‘stealing’ is too harsh a word and that ‘copying’ is more suited to your PR offensive. In my world ‘leeches’ is too kind a word and ‘fletchers’ is much more apt.

Because in my world you steal livelihoods and suck the life out of opportunities created by those who actually make things. Things that don’t consume natural resources and things could have made a difference in both the online and offline world by being left to flourish and nurture a more altruistic system. A system where consumers end up with something of substance, artists are genuinely rewarded for their labours and they use that change to influence the world of business. Because a different model and motivation would have forced the corporates to look on in envy as their shareholder-lead paradigms were discarded in favour of something more honest and sustainable. A system that could afford to be motivated by more than just money.

You see, no artists I know are motivated purely by money and their agendas are different that of ‘business wins over everything’. Every artist or digital content creator I’ve spoken to wants is to be able to (1) experiment (2) create and (3) decide how their work is distributed. They don’t want Google advertising or McDonalds affiliate deals dictating how much their work is worth and, likewise, they don’t want you passing it off as just another piece of content. To decide how their work is distributed is their fundamental right, not yours. Similarly, it’s their right to want to build a different method of doing business away from the multi-nationals.

But that’s not going to happen and do you know the worst thing about it all?

Because of your fervent fanaticism and one-size-fits-all freeloader mentality, out of frustration I’ve seen you drive independent developers into the arms of corporates because at least their modus-operandi is based on something static. It doesn’t twist and turn and squirm like yours. It isn’t full of double standards like yours. It’s simple and and consistent. Reward for services and/or products and growth.

And that all adds up to a tragedy because ultimately these entrenched battle-lines and the mentalities behind each fuel hate and as each side garners support riding roughshod over the people in the middle, they drive an even bigger wedge between the have’s and the have-nots and the entire world is a poorer place for it.

But you’ll never see that people like you compound the problem in this all-or-nothing world. You’ll never understand that because of the absurd, and occasionally obscene views of your buddy Rick; a man whose entire raison d’être appears to be divide and conquer; you’ll remain part of the problem, not the solution. And woe betide anyone dares to call your messiah or you out. If that happens you’ll holler “troll” because you think someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same pack-mentality that Rick incites should be ashamed, ridiculed and, as regularly happens here, threatened.

All in the pursuit of counterfeit viagra, free mp3s and your ‘right’ to share Hollywood ‘culture’ with impunity.

As usual, you didn’t get anything right.

> Rick the feltcher..”

Personal attacks, the mark of an dishonest failure of a man who can’t come up with one single sustainable argument. It’s always good when dishonest losers immediately identifies themselves as one, removing all doubt.

> “..a man who believes that artists should be ripped off by pirates and not be afforded any copyright protection..”

This is where you continued to not get things straight.

First of all, no, neither Rick nor political pirates believe that the artists, who currently makes more money than ever before in perfectly working symbiosis with on-line sharing of culture, should not be afforded any copyright protection.

They should indeed be privileged with a limited legislative monopoly over use of their artistic works, a monopoly over such use which can be proven to further the present day clearly stated goal with copyright.

That would be a commercial monopoly for a duration of maximum 20 years. No self chosen entrepreneur ever calculates on a longer ROI than 5 years, so 15 additional years is indeed more than enough according to all scientific studies that has been made on the topic.

However, when pirates engage in on-line sharing of culture through P2P, an act which is a human right protected act according to the human rights court in the worlds biggest economy, the ECHR, does in no way mean that any artist gets ripped of according to any definition of the phrase.

Public domain use and human rights protected sharing of culture is obviously not the equivalent ripping someone off, because no artist is owed anything as a compensation for it, nor should they have any right to interfere with it.

Self-evident facts as these are obvious for most sane intelligent people.

> “..whines that collection agencies might not be paying artists and that their practice is borderline criminal?”

Of course? The opinion that the copyright monopoly should be strictly limited and evidence based, and that it naturally shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with human rights protected sharing is not an opinion that in any way come in conflict with the opinion that a contracted entity should live up to what they have promised the artists?

> “Pot – kettle”

I highly recommend that you stop referencing that old saying, since you evidently don’t understand when it can be used.

When you have proven that you are an ignorant dishonest troll, that can’t get the facts straight, instead comparing apples with oranges, that’s not the right time for it.

Better luck next time. Although we all know luck really wasn’t your problem.

Pot – kettle

Instead, the copyright monopoly needs reform, specifically, the right to non-commercially share between individuals (tape copies, P2P, burning CDs for a friend, with no compensation for the sharing), while commercial use may still receive a highly restricted monopoly, say 10-20 years. (It’s debatable what it should be, some even argue that the entire monopoly be abolished, anything in that regard is acceptable but I think a commercial use monopoly is potentially beneficial provided it’s not too long.)

Patent law needs to not cover drugs, nor living things including but not limited to GMOs, or Software methods, it need be only restricted to commercial production of inventions only.

And with that said, the time is coming where the Patent monopoly is going to be as troublesome as the copyright monopoly has become with the dawn of the PC, Internet and P2P technology, in which many home owners will have their own 3D printers and will be able to print out spare parts for their broken coffee maker or vacuum cleaner, and in some cases, even be able to build similar machines themselves. When this time comes, patent law needs to also allow non-commercial use and sharing on patented items much the same as copyright needs it now, because what use to be an industrial regulation is now an oppressive restriction on the people, and it needs to be fixed.

I LOATHE those blood suckers. It is a fucking travesty that this shit is still around and going stronger than ever. They have caused SO MUCH damage to the private sector and smaller clubs while giving almost nothing to artists which most of them don’t even have a full membership. THATS RIGHT! The artists that apply for membership DO NOT HAVE the same rights as the big guys. So a change from within is impossible from the start. The only solution around could be alternative collecting societies which are comprised of artists and not gangsters. Glad we have one of those around and they are growing.

People do not forget one thing:
The GEMA is a NAZI INVENTION by Reichspropaganda Minister Goebbels!

FUCK THIS NAZI CUNT SHIT! BURN IN HELL GEMA AND ROYALTY COLLECTORS!