Comments on: What Would God Say About File-Sharing?

By: patrickmerre

patrickmerre — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:06:02 +0000

Easily share your files !!!
100% free
10 GB filesize accepted
60 days of retention
upload by FTP, HTTP, remote FTP/HTTP
use of non-standard port in option
SSL subscription begin at 5 euros per month
http://www.1fichier.com

By: Existence of God? WTH

Existence of God? WTH — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:00:23 +0000

Why are the comments on this article about the existence of God and not about file sharing?

By: "God" HAS said something

"God" HAS said something — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:55:25 +0000

Lastly, the fourth commandment most likely refers to “honor your father and your mother” rather than “keep holy the sabbath day,” as the former might suggest honoring valid authority.

The RIAA is not valid authority.

Damn Obama for supporting ACTA.

By: "God" HAS said something

"God" HAS said something — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:51:17 +0000

“According to Romans 13:1-7, Christians must obey the laws of the government they live under” – I would like to refer back to William Burns on this. Illegality does not necessarily imply immorality and vice-versa. Also, legality does not necessarily imply morality and vice-versa.

“The purpose of a law is to serve and protect the interest of a society as a whole, and not a select group of individuals.” – The best example would be Jesus Himself. He did a lot of moral yet illegal things, at least based on the then-current law, which was really a misinterpretation of the pre-existing laws.

In the same way, current copyright law is the product of the forces of production lagging behind the means of production. It is a far cry from the intended purpose of copyright law. This is not the first time that this has happened.

Remember VCRs? Sony is a conglomerate so obviously it stood its ground against Universal. Grokster/Napster, on the other hand, was a small software company that stood no chance against MGM.

Justice is not only for the rich. Therefore, the law is invalid. Therefore, I am not on the left hand of God when I download a movie or song or ebook, etc.

By: "God" HAS said something

"God" HAS said something — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:40:25 +0000

Dan on February 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Asked of any RIAA witness:
1) May I, without attracting the wrath of your organization, hand the copy I have bought of my favorite CD to my friend sitting next to me at the defense table for him to enjoy for the weekend? (Yes.)
2) May I, without incurring multi-million dollar fines, make a backup copy of the CD I just bought, in case my friend loses the copy I’m about to give him? (Yes.)
3) May I, safe from subpoena and threats of litigation, hand that backup copy to another friend if my first friend loses the one I loaned him? (Yes.)
4) Must I not, then, take on good faith my first friend’s assertion that he lost the CD? (Perhaps/I suppose/What are you getting at?)
5) If my friend in fact did not lose the CD, am I acting in bad faith when I listen to my backup copy and/or loan it to a second friend? (No.)
5a) Is my second friend, playing that CD, acting in bad faith? (No.)
6) What is the fundamental difference between loaning the original CD and loaning the backup CD? (None, except that the first and the second must not be “active” simultaneously.)
7) Define “active”.
Regardless of the reply to question #7 there’s always a perfectly-legal corner case. Effectively, the shared MP3 is a backup copy of the song, the original copy on CD having been long since forgotten in someone’s dusty attic. A significant portion of the filesharing community owns a CD of the song. The only reasonable answer to question #7 is that no more than one person can play the CD at the same time. Can MediaSentry prove that more copies were being *played* simultaneously than the number of legitimate licenses owned by the filesharing community? If not, the P2P network is effectively a very fast, free-to-use version of NetFlix, distributing well-liked CD’s amongst friends for their listening enjoyment.
Slightly-alternate argument: There is no difference between loaning someone an MP3 and loaning someone a physical CD because there’s no such thing as “moving” a file in the computer world–only copy and delete. Thus, everyone’s taking it on good faith that the file they’re receiving is being deleted, or at least never again accessed, after being sent.
Last suggested argument: Can the prosecution prove, based on the preponderance of evidence, that the accused never held a license to the songs, the sharing of which he is being accused? Can the prosecution prove that the accused accessed the file for his personal use after having shared it with others; i.e., that’s he’s not just offering a convenient backup service?
Let me know what you think; IANAL.

By: "God" HAS said something

"God" HAS said something — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:34:57 +0000

William Burns on July 29th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Just because something is deemed against a law does not, in fact, make it right. For instance, it is illegal to mispronounce Arkansas in the state of Arkansas. While it seemed like a good idea at the time of writing, and I am sure many have been prosecuted on that law, it does not make it correct. A more prominent example would be the case of Prohibition in the United States, whereby alcohol was made illegal for consumption. Again, a great many people were prosecuted under the law, and many more people were duped into believing that if it’s a law then they have no choice but to adhere to it.
It was only through mass civil disobedience that such a law was repealed.
The original intention of Copyright Law is to grant the holder of works (owner) a limited time frame by which to expect exclusivity and profit. Originally, this time frame was proposed as an ample fourteen years, after which such works were relegated to public domain in the interest of furthering innovation and competition.
It was concluded that to grant a holder of works an exclusivity into perpetuity would do more harm than good for future innovation and competition, virtually stunting said growth and expansion, and severely damaging the economy as time progressed as it became exponentially harder to create new works, thus removing the incentive to produce “new” works.
Within the United States, copyrights are common for 75 years after the death of the creator, with intermediary holders carrying exclusivity far into the future through the act of re-releases in many formats. The very idea of a “back catalogue” which spans nearly one hundred years is preposterous in light of the scope and intention of copyright as it was originally conceived.
Again, copyright is meant to foster a limited time frame by which the creator of said works may expect exclusivity and profit from their works. It is the threat of public domain which spurs said creator to continue their works in order to continue their revenue. Unfortunately, Copyright has been warped and twisted through lobbying factors in order to benefit both the creator but moreso themselves (being representing entities such as RIAA), in that the original scope and intention of Copyright no longer holds the value it was originally conceived to enforce. If copyright has the intention of limiting the exclusivity of the creator to a limited time frame by which they were granted sole distributorship, then what value does this have in an era whereby the death of a creator does not pass said works into public domain, and whereby such works are held in exclusivity by third parties for lengths of time which can feasibly be an entire generation?
I take into account the written works of George Orwell, specifically Nineteen Eighty-Four. This book was written in the year 1949, while the author passed away years later. The book, despite the death of the creator, is still held under copyright and will remain so under United States law until the year 2044, whereby such works will pass into public domain.
My date of birth is 1979, and as such, this work was created thirty years prior to my birth. For a written work that was created thirty years prior to my birth, I will not see such in public domain until I have reached the ripe old age of 65, or in a different light – this written work will have survived nearly the span of two lifetimes under current copyright. As originally intended, a span of fourteen years, this work will benefit from a span of exclusivity which is measured as nearly 600% longer than originally intended.
This is a far cry from the scope and intent of copyright law as it was put forth and conceived. If a work can be held in exclusivity for a span of time which makes the intention of the law which governs it negligible at best, then the law which governs it has been rendered without jurisdiction or justification and must be repealed in its current form.
The purpose of a law is to serve and protect the interest of a society as a whole, and not a select group of individuals. Within a democracy it is the will of the society which is to govern said laws which are created on behalf of the society, and to implement laws which directly contradict the will of the society which it governs has no place in any country which rules “For the people, by the people”.
For direct and incontrovertible proof that such laws are in direct contradiction to the will of the societies which they are established to govern, we need only look at the litigation firestorm that is the RIAA around the world, and to the population of this planet who continue to openly defy such laws on an escalating basis.
This is a worldwide civil disobedience against laws which have been abused and shaped in the benefit of the few while literally eroding the rights of the many.
No amount of propaganda or litigation will stop this civil disobedience, and it will only continue to get worse until such time as these laws are brought under control and returned to the state by which they were intended; Serving not only the creators of works, but doing so in the overall best interest of the societies by which they participate.

By: "God" HAS said something

"God" HAS said something — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:30:53 +0000

According to Steal This Film, when the printing press came out, it was considered heresy/black magic/the work of the devil. Sound familiar?

Of course I use “God” in quotes since whoever condemned the printing press was, as Karl Marx would say, the forces of production, at the time, probably the Catholic Church. But according to this, the Church isn’t against file sharing. http://jetl.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-pope-vs-intellectual-property-rights/ I am not Catholic, but I agree with Frank John MIller. This is indeed such an underrated topic among religious leaders.

By: pligg.com

pligg.com — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:29:39 +0000

What Would God Say About File-Sharing? | TorrentFreak…

While writing about any contentious issue has its pitfalls – and the file-sharing and copyright debate has many – bringing religion into the mix simply has to be a recipe for disaster. While the debate over copying music and movies has seen people …

By: Frank John Miller

Frank John Miller — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:40:51 +0000

I too am disappointed how the Catholic Church (yes, I’m Catholic) doesn’t discuss piracy/file sharing at all. It’s an important and very controversial topic. No wait, it isn’t. Actually I’m disappointed how the whole of Internet users don’t really mind file sharing.

Anyway, DAMN THE RIAA/MPAA/CRIA/IIPA FOR SUING JOEL TENENBAUM AND/OR JAMMIE THOMAS.

By: neb

neb — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:05:00 +0000

You will,believe……….