Firstly, we have the Baker. Let’s assume that the Baker is the sole creator of the bread. All tools, ingredience, staff, etc.. Used in the process of creating and selling this bread represent some level of industry input. They all need financial support to maintain sustainability.

Secondly, we have corner-man and his replication device. This replication device has numerous functions, and also costs to maintain. Corner-man buys the Baker’s bread, and copies its condition quite accurately, even the label remains intact.

The third factor, is comprised mainly of social networking, for lack of a better definition.

‘Yummy’, he thinks, and begins to give it out to people who are perhaps curious as to what this ‘yummy’ bread tastes like. He even recommends it to his friends.

‘Oh, you going to get some bread?’

‘Yup. Want any?’

‘Nah, but check out The Baker, he makes some tasty bread. In fact, here have some of this. Tastes nice, right?’

‘That is pretty nice. I will check The Baker out. Laters.’

Others, just out to get some free bread – never planned to buy any such bread of any such baker in the first place.

However, more and more people are becoming aware of this ‘yummy’ bread. And more people begin to try it. And more people visit The Baker’s store… As well as more freeloaders.

For some, it was merely free bread, to others, it opened up a doorway and they now visit the Baker’s store every so often to try some new types of bread.

‘What’s that corner-man giving out?’

Curiosity, hype, common interest… They all play a part.

Over time, The Baker grew in popularity, and as a direct result, so did the amount of replications; Suppy and Demand.

The Baker wondered if he was losing customers, but most of all, money… No, he ASSUMED that he WAS losing money.

Rather than adjusting to this ‘replication revolution’, The Baker gets rid of the corner-man, and instead of using the replication device himself, The Baker destroys it, and continues to work in the same way that he always did, or that’s what he thought…

The corner-man played a vital part in the growth of The Baker, unknowlingly to The Baker.

The Baker’s consumer base drops, and he blames everybody with a replication device.

The Baker, angry, confused, and fed up with having the least financial stability of The Store, despite working the hardest, looks to other Bakers for help.

Him and the other Bakers form a group, and attack the establishment behind the replication devices.

These replication devices are central to the daily function of countless individuals and corporations.

‘Punish them for eating copies of our bread!’

‘How do you suggest we do that, without discriminating against those who don’t do it intentionally, or at all?’

‘We’re protecting our rights!’

‘Ok… And how are we to distinguish your bread from other items?

‘By size.’

‘And what if somebody copied something the same size as bread, and we punish them for it?’

‘I like strawberry cake.’

Basically, my point is that fundamental design, and social networking are being completely ignored.

What the FAC are proposing is plain damn idiotic, and extremely costly.
And unless they’re planning on paying the ISPs to regulate this bullshit, it’d be completely counterproductive to everyone who used/maintained the service.

I mean, honestly… What the fuck?!

It’s all well and good arguing for or against filesharing, but the FAC’s actual proposition is just fucking retarded. :/

I said before, and i’ll say again. It’d require an enormous amount of manpower to regulate such a system based on numerous factors to consider. It isn’t, and will never be, as simple as most people believe it to be.

I respect a group who are (seemingly) ‘fighting’ for their ‘rights’. But at least do some basic research before you propose something that would throw the internet into a state of absolute… God, i can’t even think of a word. It’s just beyond retarded.

I’m embarrassed for you, you seem terribly ill, like the industry, which is making everyone sick.

After reading most of the comments on this article, I felt the need to add my two cents. Addressing Lily Allen’s behavior, I have no idea why TF even bothered to write about it. She is obviously attempting to attract attention for her cause, and failed to consider all of the possibilities. That is no reason to brutally insult here or pay her any mind whatsoever for that matter.

I find it refreshing to see people involved in music attempting to find creative solutions to file-sharing, but slowing Internet traffic is not a viable enforcement tactic. Many of the more security-conscious file-sharers already work behind certain types of protection, rendering it nearly impossible to identify them. As these are highly likely to be primary distributors, I do not see how your methods would stop them. We are already on the brink of mainstream underground file-sharing as it is. Aside from that, the exclusive focus on music seems inappropriate. In all honesty, other media is pirated as well.

Aside from the obvious lure of illegal downloading, many young people feel that harming “the industry” is a good thing. The Industry has done much to foster this idea with ridiculous lawsuits, threats, and use of lobbies to attempt the passage of draconian laws. An unbiased observer would probably have to admit that this industry doesn’t look any more reasonable than the radical parts of the file-sharing community which they condemn. Of course, none of that honestly matters to me.

As for file-sharing itself, it would certainly be ethically questionable at best. To many of us, however, that is a moot point. Personally, I take what I know that I can get away with, as the same is done to me by society as a whole. Make it more difficult, and we will simply adapt. Not to sound unreasonable, but we can do it. You can’t stop us. This is the way that it has been and will be.

To sum it up, we do not all lie to ourselves. We know very well what we are, and we do not care. Much like you, we look out for ourselves. Lets all just be honest: We are similar to thieves, although not completely. You are a victim of a sort. Despite all of the other injustices perpetrated by business and government, these are the simple facts. The only difference here is that there are a lot of us, and the common man does not care about your agenda because of his failed perception.

Like, I said, the analogy wasn’t perfect. I’m not really sure how to fit the artists in…

I’ll just make a separate point about the artists.

I honestly don’t know that much about how the artists usually get paid – maybe they get a cut – I don’t know.

But I’m pretty sure the amount of money artists get for their work from their recording companies is small, and that they have to do live tours and sell shirts for money. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that piracy makes much of a difference in an artist’s salary.

But you see- that doesn’t matter anyway – how much the artist WOULD make if not for piracy. The point is that lots of people do lots of things that make record companies lose money. They give bad reviews of albums, they hear them on the radio, so they know not to waste money on albums, and so on. Record companies should NOT have the power to limit how we use our own property in order to get more money. Capitalism should have no affects on people’s inherent rights.
Wouldn’t it sound insane if they tried to ban keyboards because they could potentially be used for giving albums or movies bad reviews? Same thing goes for people’s internets. Their internets is theirs, the 1′s and 0′s that are the music or movie are theirs. So why should COMPANIES be allowed to punish people for making them allegedly lose money?

Why I am not surprised she’s become the RIAA’s little whore as well.

Hopefully this will prevent her from taking a dump on any more Clash songs …

Why I am not surprised she’s become the RIAA’s little whore as well.

Hopefully this will prevent her from taking a dump on any more Clash songs …

the now is engagement free from material restrictions and contracts

carpe diem