Join the Copyfight!

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:35 pm

file sharing doesn't hurt sales, it improves them, music companies enjoy complaining about lost sales when the real cause is DRM and copyright companies pushing customers away

the average station only has like 40-50 different songs. while there millions artist there.

if they don't make it on the radio, then how do people find about them

and with DRM, it pushes people away from buying a product due to it's 100% bad reputation

DRM always hurts the paying customer. with msn music store, their DRM servers go down and paying customers loose their music

yahoo kills DRM servers, and paying customers loose their music

some music cd's automatically install rootkit malware which are designed to prevent you from copying the cd, has a side effect of making your cd burner useless for legit stuff and makes your pc really slow and cause lag spikes due to the kernel level access of the rootkit DRM

and you then have other DRM music which only works in the companies music software or their mp3 players, so when a unknowing user buys a new mp3 player with out thinking about drm gets a different brand, (example, a ipod user with $500 worth of music buys a zune)
well that user will find out that his music wont be working

well what does the user do, the last thing on their mind is buying another $500 worth of music

so you can guess what they do, p2p

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:05 pm

For a book author's perspective, a most interesting response and discussion regarding my post on the Copyfight.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:01 am

I am going to enter into a rather lengthy response here, largely about the natural inclination that people have to share things. However, let me preface this by saying that I firmly believe 1. that our copyright system in the US and Canada is severely broken, but 2. that producers of intellectual property do have a certain right over their creation.

Let's consider the issue of sharing things in an historical context. Flash back to the time of the Beatles. Let's say you've just purchased Sgt. Pepper's on record. You like it. Your natural inclination to share means that you listen to it with friends. If they like it enough, they'll purchase it. Even if they don't buy it, only one of you can have it at a time, so it is highly inconvenient for you to keep swapping it around.
So sharing, at this time, will only lead to increased sales.
Move forward to the era of the tape (I will disregard 8 track for this discussion). Now when you purchase a new album, you listen to it with friends. Generally, if they like it enough, they'll go out and buy it. Sometimes, though, they'll make a copy of yours. Still, the copies do not progress for more than a few generations, because weeks or months will go by before your friend has another friend who wants to make a copy, and then weeks or months before the next level, and generally by that time everyone who wants the album will have purchased one or already made a copy.
Also, people can now record songs from the radio. But since only singles are released, this is not a big deal.
Therefore, in this era, sharing is once again only going to result in increased sales.
The era of the CD sans widespread internet sharing will of course be similar to the tape era, except its harder (at this time) to copy CDs than it was to copy tapes.

But now consider the p2p sharing. Suddenly, you are sharing not just with your friends but with thousands of people whom you do not know (I am willing to bet that when you seed a torrent, the majority of those downloading it do not know you. Some might be personal friends, of course, and some might know you through chat groups and discussion sites, but most will be strangers - indeed you will not even find out who they were after the fact). Also when you share with them, they are automatically copying it, in a format that is easy to use.

Now, it is arguable that internet sharing still leads to increased sales (I for one believe it does, based upon reasons which will be discussed). However, I think from the above discussion that it is understandable that people might fear that it would have the opposite effect and decrease the total revenue to the makers of these products. I'm not defending everything they do, but let's face it, sharing over the internet is a completely different thing than sharing used to be. Of course, that's where copyright has an issue, and that's where some adjustments need to be made to have a reasonable set of regulations respecting the rights of both users and producers.

Now, I think sharing results in higher revenue for the makers. In music this is especially true. A band's fanbase is going to increase through people who download their music, and then they're going to go see the shows and possibly buy some of the albums (I myself will not purchase an album from a band that I have not heard before). David Draiman, the frontman for Disturbed, has even stated that he doesn't make any money off record sales at all, but that he knows fans who have told him (at concerts) that they first heard his band on the internet. Even in terms of album sales, I know at least one person who, according to him, would not buy any popular music except for the fact that he can pre-try it via the internet.
For movies, this does not apply, of course. However, it is my understanding that movie rentals do not generate much revenue. Now most people will just rent a movie, and then possibly purchase it. However, I don't see that it makes much difference if a person rents it or sees it via the internet. I for one do not like going to the theatre, but I also refuse to buy a movie without seeing it first. Now, I also tend not to want to rent movies unless I think the movie will be worth it, and I would never rent more than a few movies per months. However, if I hypothetically use the internet to see movies, then I would see more movies and I would therefore find more movies that I actually want to purchase.

I must end this with a somewhat unrelated rant about two advertisements that were in the movie theatres in the past few years. The first was on two years ago or so, and involved a movie stuntman complaining about how he would risk his life and then someone could see the movie for free. Now my understanding was that stuntmen, actors, the director, and so on, get paid a fixed amount for the movie (or an hourly wage), and do NOT get paid based upon the sales. Even if they paid based on box office sales, they're certainly not going to get paid based upon rentals 6-12 months later. So this guy's logic is totally screwed up. He personally loses virtually nothing. The only ones who arguably could lose money in any appreciable amount is the studio.
The second ad is the 'You wouldn't steal a car... don't steal a movie.' One cannot overemphasize that internet sharing, even in its most blatant breaches of copyright, does not meet the definition of theft. Stealing requires that something be taken from party A, by party B, and end in the possession of party B or party C, where C is distinct from A. Copying does not do this. I do not believe violating copyright is usually ethically correct (since it is broken, one could argue that many times it is so), but it is not stealing.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:21 am

WOOOHOO suckers u wont get rid of pirated software go spend billions on stopping it....cuz u will always fail

ISOHUNT FTW!!!

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:54 am

I think that there are two things everyone agrees with:

1) Man is distinct from animals because he has the ability to think;

2) Thinkers and people who promote that ability should be rewarded in a prosperous human society.

Now for this reason it seems abundantly clear that scientists, artists and researchers of every sort should be well rewarded in today's society, especially those who go further, who discover something new, something that works. In the case of artists: those that create "quality" art. The kind of art that leads us to new places, that makes us evolve and see life in a new way.

Now, with scientists and other thinkers we have no problems today, after the second world war governments and enterprises all over the world get their services and pay them accordingly.

But artists are not getting the same feedback from their creativity. For two different reasons:

- the problem of paying more to the "fast-food" artists: most artists are sold through advertising, the ones that get more money are usually not the best, but the ones that are more promoted, those who get more publicity. Some of them sound awful and we would not take notice of their art if we didn't know it was made by them. Truly good works of art should be appealing and rewarding even if they had no "brand"" on them. they should speak for themselves.

- the problem of "where did the money go?": most money goes into the pockets of people who just copy and distribute what the artist made (the companies and labels). This is reinforced by the fact that current copyright laws do not make the artist the owner of what he has made. The company is the legal owner in spite of generally not having had any creative part in its birth.

These two aspects end up by economically strangling the "good" artists, those that just don't follow a formula, but are creating something new (I am speaking particularly about independent and alternative artists).

Now the net released the grip of the companies over the artistic production. It has more or less implicitly provided an alternative source of incoming for all artists which is direct donation. A band or person puts his works of art on display on the net for billions of users to see and enjoy. Some of them will want to contribute back through economic donations, showing the approval of the work and the want to have more.

This new model of financing the artists is much more efficient: it almost completely eliminates the "middle man", it provides access to much more artists, it provides a much better way of assessing who "deserves" the more money: those that have really "touched" us.

Now this does not apply to big hollywood productions, but then, with the development of cheaper technology, it will be gradually easier to produce stunning motion pictures without much money. Music studios can be generally replaced by a cheap pc, perhaps something like that will happen with movies in two or three decades.

Now, to me it seems clear, that the well-to-do people who made millions or billions in the music, tv and movie industry, are the ones that have something to loose. What they are seeing is a completely new model of refinancing the artist in which they are completely excluded. There is no need for a music industry anymore, or for book publishers. As musicians or writers can simply put their works on the web for the general consumption.

Now, to societies, it is of the utmost interest that many, good-quality, artistic creations be available to the widest audience. Art is what helps to guide the values of society. There is nothing more important to the evolution of a human society than to be clear about what is valuable and worth pursuing. Art makes us go deep into our hearts, to discover new ways of feeling and seeing the world. It helps us to heal our sores, to become more tolerant and wise, to see more and with more detail the inner recesses of the human soul. Art is no less important than technology or science. It should be well protected and developed.

Today's corporations are interested in profits, they put a sail on the winds of artistic creation, and try to get some profit from it. The best for their profit is to create a culture of scarcity so that we will be "hungry" for what they got to give, and we will be ready to pay them big time. But the scarcity is very damaging to our societies, especially when we now have an alternative which can reward the artist directly. we should not forget that it is the ability to think that distinguishes us from other species, we should take the greatest care that we maintain this ability as clear, sharp and wide as possible.

The future:
We should create a society in which we are taught to donate, to give back to those that have given us. Without this, if we are all "greedy", big corporations will continue to flourish. Ultimately, they rely on our own selfishness. Our economy relies on balancing selfish actions and desires, we must create a niche of gratitude and donation. If we are able to do this, then the corporations will crumble for the artists themselves will prefer the free web. It is the gratitude of consumers who will make a difference (or fail to do so).

This change of attitude can be done by giving the example, by talking about it, etc, but it is also necessary to create a practical way of materially rewarding the artists. To give just one example, I love Regina Spektor, her music has changed my life. Yet I have no way of donating to her, I can buy some of her musics on her "MySpace" page, but half of the money will go to other people, and if I buy one of her CDs, then even less will go to her. But I don't feel indebted to any of those distributors, I don't even remember how I got in touch with her music in the first place. I would like to pay her, only! So... as long as the artists don't provide ways for us to make direct donations, someone should build a page with a bank account into which we can make deposits or paypal payments addressed to a particular artist. And then that someone would take like 0,1% or something and give the rest to the artist in question. Everything should be very transparent and public. One could make a living just by redistributing money to the artist in this fashion. I think that there are a lot of people like me, who feel grateful and would like to retribute in some way what was given to them.

On a final, personal note:
I don't feel like I have taken any money from any big corporation, I don't see tv and I don't listen to "mtv-music". I am a student with very limited financial resources at this time. I like reading and if every contemporary work of art was forbidden, as these rich guys would want to, I would simply read Plato and Plotino from the library, and would be even more distanced from all this consumerist society than what I already am. The free net is what connects me to this century.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:42 pm

In brief, copyright is important to those who spend money to manifest their ideas as something material that the public can share. To record a song in a major studio is no free, nor is shooting a movie. If thousands to millions of dollars are spent to produce something for entertainment, someone who wishes to be entertained by it should of course pay for it, not based on scarcity but based on the fact that it's no different than buying a toothbrush. There are costs involved in manufacturing the product, even if it's far easier to replicate a movie than it is to cast a new tooth brush.

Some people want to give away their craft for exposure, that's where sharing is so important. But let's not forget that if sharing increases in popularity and ease to the point where the majority of end-user entertainment is not paid for, it chokes the income stream for the people who produce the things we love to share, endangering its ability to sustain.

I'll admit to downloading television shows, BUT I am a cable subscriber. I do pay for the ability to watch the shows I download, I just cannot catch them when they air everytime. Granted I am now stealing from the station by not watching their advertisements, but if I were to watch in real time, would I not just switch the channel during the commercials anyway?

The lines are blurry, and the fight will never end, but I think it's important to point out that while sharing to an extent is human nature, it does not justify the act of stealing a product which has fixed costs in producing, however simple it may be to make a digital copy and ship off around the world via bittorrent. A justifiable excuse may be that downloading a movie or an album falls under the category of try-before-you-buy, but in an unregulated commonplace, the honor system has to really keep the dollar turning in order to ensure there are people being compenstated for their time, creative efforts, and business costs.

The electricity bill at the recording studio isn't gonna pay itself.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:50 pm

Seems to me there's a fair bit of woolly thinking going on here. Making things complicated when they aren't really. And a lot of it prompted by guilt, people downloading copies and really thinking of themselves as thieves but trying to find a way to justify it because they also know they are not 'bad' people and don't really want to steal anything.

So here's an attempt at clarity. An attempt.

1. Copyright was intended in the beginning to give a fair return to book authors who were suffering at the hands of unscrupulous, unfair, monopolistic, thieving, publishers.

2. So we can see the whole thrust of it, the whole reason for it, was in regard of the author.

3. Now it applies to as much 'intellectual property' as big companies can make it extend to. Books, movies, music etc...

4. Now the companies that make and disseminate the product are claiming money in the name of 'copyright'.

5. So we can see the whole thrust of it has moved from the creative individual to companies.

6. Now 'fair' defies nailing down. It is very, very subjective. Depends on the time and place and circumstances.

7. But some things are noticeably not 'fair'. It is not 'fair' for a rock group to make millions of dollars from a piece of music that happens to become popular. That is 'unfair' reward. It is too much. It is like the CEO's million dollar salary. It is unreal, it is unfair, it is unnecessary.

8. It is even more unfair for a company and it's rich CEO's and executives and myriad anonymous shareholders to make millions from this flash in the pan, this accident of teenage whim or whatever it may be.

9 It is unfair within our own world where artists by the thousand are getting nothing, where workers by the thousand are getting nothing or pittances, where social evils are multiplying in all directions. But it is incredibly unfair in the wider world where families by the thousand - or perhaps the million - are sitting slowly starving to death in deserts beneath the pitiful shade of a thornbush or in stinking rag hovel refugee camps. In is not only unfair in that context, it is obscene.

10. 'Rights'. There are no 'rights'. There is no 'right' to return from your intellectual property. God created no such right. The universe created no such right.

Man creates such 'rights' when it suits him. A 'right' created by man is very different to some God-given or natural right. It is always limited, more or less poorly defined, always abused, usually misunderstood and so on..

Such 'rights' as refer to 'copyright' are generally quoted as beginning with the Statute of Anne in 1790 - here's an extract from the Wikipedia article:

The British Statute of Anne (1710) further alluded to individual rights of the author, beginning: "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:..."[2] A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. An irrevocable right to be recognized as the work's creator appears in some countries' copyright laws.

11. Now if you stop and look at all that we can see there's no problem. Authors and creators are generally getting a 'fair' return for their 'intellectual property'.

Web sharing of copies is not damaging that.

Manufacturers of films, videos, CD's, DVD's, are generally doing very well, they certainly more than cover their costs and make more than a 'fair' return.

12. As I said before the bottom of the whole thing is greed.

The same simple mad greed that has destroyed the financial world currently.

A greed to make billions from one simple song or such.

A greed that ignores the suffering and poverty and injustice in the world.

A greed that slavers over the prospect of accessing a market measured in billions instead of millions.

13. In fact there is only one 'God-given' 'copyright' and that is your right to copy anything you've heard or seen.

God (if there is one, or our genes or something, the chemical accident of the creation of the animal world) gave us the ability to see and remember and recreate.

Hear a song once and play, sing it perfectly is an ability some talented musicians have.

Hear an idea and immediately grasp it and build upon it is a talent some scientific or engineering people have.

See a scene, a person, a painting and immediately be able to copy it so's it is indistinguishable from the original is an ability some talented artists have.

These are copy 'rights' that god, nature, the universe has granted to some people and they are 'rights' that all of us possess in some degree.

And we live together.

It is ludicrous for me to mix in the playground of my peers and sing a song and then claim 'no one else can sing that song', or draw a drawing, or dance a dance, or speak a poem, or tell a story, or express an idea, or build a thing, make a thing - and claim no one else is 'allowed' to do that.

'Allowed' ? Allowed by whom? It can only be by man's law. God 'allows' all the copying I've already mentioned. It is, in fact, how the human race develops, by copying. The free exchange of ideas is what propels science. On a more mundane level I proceed more swiftly with my computer programming if I use (copy) functions, algorithms, objects, created by others.

All grown up people acknowledge this as first principle.

So if I stand in that playground demanding that special entitlement: to be able to create and ban all copies (unless of course, levy is paid to me or somesuch) on pain of punishment then what am I doing?

I am being a little Hitler and I am denying the very essence of the whole human race. I am trying to put a stop to the very nature of the human race and it's method.

This is what you should keep in mind: The human race has a 'copyright', it has the right and the ability and the need to copy.

And if you don't like that, then get out of the race.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:13 pm

As a musician I want to share my music. I do sell it, but I dont care about people sharing it. If they share it thats some one else that knows who i am.
Another way i look at it is simply the mediocre quality of most media put out anymore.
Why should i spend a bunch of money for a movie I will most likely only watch once?
As for music, Ive spent hundreds on CD's. It only cost maybe 10cents to get a Cd to a store. Its almost pure profit, and the people that make the music hardly get any of the money. Beside I think musicians should earn their money by touring.
The movie industry puts out to much garbage.
So does the music industry.
I DL stuff because I feel like ive been ripped off most of my life, by rich Mo'Fo's that didnt create anything.
Then theres whiny B's like lars ulrich, any one that considers them self an artist shouldnt care about losing a little bit of money. Especially when they have talked about getting bootleg tapes when they were younger.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:26 pm

I'm a Canadian agreeing with your post. Please don't give up your fight against these selfish and ignorant organizations.

Led Zeppelin got sued once for stealing work from blues writers, sometimes entire songs. Everyone is inspired by the world around them. Sure, they're seeing it with their own eyes but their eyes are made by their genes which were carried on through generation after generation...in other words, nobody does it all on their own. NOBODY. You wouldn't even be born if it wasn't for your parents; so right from the first second you're part of someone else.

Your quote by Newton was perfect. I actually just used it myself to argue the same point.

As Howlin' Wolf once said, "A lot of peoples wonder, 'what is the blues?' I hear a lot of people saying 'the blues, the blues,' but I’m gonna tell you what the blues is. When you ain’t got no money, you got the blues. When you ain’t got no money to pay your house rent, you still got the blues. A lot of peoples holler about 'I don’t like no blues,' but when you ain’t got no money, and can’t pay your house rent and can’t buy you no food, you damn sure got the blues. If you ain’t got no money you got the blues, because you’re thinking evil. That’s right. Any time you’re thinking evil, you’re thinking about the blues."

This is why there is so much crime by impoverished people. When you're starving its hard to think about anything but stealing food. And stealing IS wrong. What's also wrong is the fact that you had to steal in the first place. And this is where we are...we agree stealing is wrong, and we agree that banning sharing of information is wrong. Here we are at a crossroads...something has got to give.

Personally, I don't see why I should pay a company for something if I can copy it for free. If I want to pay out a thanks, or own a high quality dvd, or a nice bit of artwork, or if I want to enjoy watching something on the big screen, or see a live performance...that requires WORK.

Someone has to clean the floors, Someone has to set up the lights, someone has to build and install the movie projector, the stage. Stealing IN THAT CASE is the same as making someone your slave as they are working for you for NOTHING. And that is why stealing is wrong.

But here on the internet, I wouldn't have paid $20 for some cd in the first place. So by banning me from watching a music video on youtube is some kind of sick eliteist telling me I'm not allowed to think certain things. It's sick, its twisted, and its one of the big problems with the world today.

SELFISHNESS

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:56 am

All the money they spend on trying to catch people sharing material. Why don't they just put it to use catching people selling and making an actual profit they can sue?

I don't have a tivo or DVR. So I sometimes download tv shows I miss, watch, then delete. Then there are shows that I don't get in my country and love to watch.

I'd like to see downloads with commercials. I'd gladly watch them if that meant supporting the shows and stations I like. Honestly there are some foreign commercials I like better than tv shows.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:53 am

Torrents downloads are a Christmas in July for people like me living in remote areas..................

not even a single movie available within miles of radius...........

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:18 pm

It's the genie in the bottle scenario, the corporations are doing everything they can to keep the IP in the bottle, so they can prostitute it every second of everyday to reap the grossly undeserved rewards for talentless suits who can barely spell let alone count. Lawyers/Solicitors need to earn their disgusting hourly incomes, and the only way they can do that in an ever changing world of technology is attack the peasants. No one seems to want to sue the hardward technology companies inventing the gadgets that make piracy and file sharing so much easier for us. Even the mums and dads can easily wrap their brains around hardware technologies that allow them to TiVo their favourite TV shows. One usb cable and they can transfer their beloved show to an external source. It's not hard anymore. But then again Mr. Bissel's Top 40 chart on the FM stations was an easy target back in the cassette recorder days. Throw a 90 minute blank tape, Chrome or Metal for higher quality and press two buttons while the Radio was playing. Then take that tape put it in Deck A of your Ghetto Blaster and place your Friend's tape into Deck B and the Top 10 or 20 was their to behold, treasure forever. No one got sued over that form of music sharing.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:48 am

Anything which is being done can, earlier or later, be undone. It's just a matter of time until a "blinky" mind finds a solution, until a riot arises, until a first fire of a war is shot, etc. That's because we're humans. And as all good faith persons from this planet knows, nothing we make here is perfect. i.e. crippling movies and music, obstructing some of us from something we should have free, and other unwritten laws which are not ethically respected. We're not your slaves, you're not our gods, and never will be, keep that in mind. So you big companies and corporations stop complaining about making money, because this world isn't constituted only from your dirty money which spins in your front eyes every minute, every second of every day. There are persons which don't have anything to eat TODAY, in 21th century, let alone have a roof under their head or a shelter for a warmer winter. If what you're selling is quality AND we, as consumers / clients, can afford that at a respectable and deserved price, we will buy it, surely, no doubt. But if you add to this your extra taxes, selling all the craps in the world just for your big profit and for you to wallow in wealth, I think it's time for you to think twice (at least) before suing us because of loses and incompetence in being fair, and stop demanding that. May "the global crisis" eat all your unnecessary money, to see what I mean & to open your eyes! Long live ISOHunt and others which are standing by us, ingenious peoples, as always...

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:04 am

IH wrote:

This is an age of rampant sharing and remixing

Remixing and sharing is good for culture

In Star Trek, currency becomes irrelevant with virtually unlimited "copying" of physical objects with the Replicator. The internet is the Replicator of information.

When the majority of society has no ethical conviction of wrongdoing when they violate copyright law, it's not society that's wrong, it's the law. Because no one can really own ideas. Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants." It's how the arts and sciences progresses. We share, we inspire and we remix.

Honestly if you look at the situation, it really is circular logic being used against us. The main problem with this are the current principals of money.

People are using the idea of systematic governments to regulate how things move around, and in turn place large taxes which most people can't afford. Yet we are the people who support this and gave the people their ability to continue doing so.

As has been said and proven in history, we share remix and make anew. Without sharing the idea of electricity, imagine where we would be today?

Yet of course people demand something in return for the work they put in. This is all fine and dandy if it worked mainly on these principals, but in reality the majority of the earnings make their way into pockets of people who do nothing other than advertise. (Eg. : A lot of games and movies were originally idealized by people who sold the idea to a larger company , for a set price, then the company sells the idea, while still holding rights to it, earning a piece of money out of our pockets every time we buy OR sell, leaving us paying many people who have minimal contribution any time it moves from one hand to another).

The idea of currency I believe was to motivate people in the means of contributing to society. But this has been taken way out of hand and people are extorting these principals by contributing next to nothing, and reaping all the benefits.

And shouldn't the original producers of such products be more happy with greater contributions to society, which they can in turn receive for themselves to re-build upon, as a result rather than just money? I mean, it would definitely inspire people to really consider where they want to put their constructive talent.

Think of it this way... If you got your friend a girlfriend/boyfriend... would that mean the rights to him/her in the sack should be yours?

This idea of Tax must stop in my opinion. Because it is being taken completely out of context by greedy people who don't want to contribute to society, they want to get as much as they can for as little as they can give. The life we or the original founders had idealized is not what we have today... We have manipulated ideas which we are being indoctrinated into accepting. And to top it off, these indoctrinated manipulations are being enforced by the people who lead our society.

The circular logic comes in where the rich become more wealthy while the poor have no choice but to give their earnings to the rich. I personally see the ideas of which the "system" sees as pirating, as people fighting to have things as they are meant to be. I mean, sure you can download a programming piece of software for free, but it is what you build with that piece of software that you are re-contributing with. If you get something that you can not re-contribute with, then maybe you shouldn't be paying (in terms of money which stand for contribution "points") for it in the 1st place. There is error in this logic that we live by, and nobody is doing a darn thing about it. All we do is try to avoid these scenarios until we as individuals get caught in one.

Who is the real pirate here? Classic case of Robin Hood.

To be honest, I don't know how the idea of battling copyrights on the basis of morality is going to work in a court system. You are best off looking for side routes as such things as the site being only a search engine and expanding on those. Fight fire with fire, because right now, that's all we can do as individuals fighting against organized groups.

Yes, it's a long rant... With many metaphors... And horrible grammar. But the information is there for those who choose to see it. Just as it is everywhere we look, albeit harder to see in while being spun in circles.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:24 am

Fact is, no matter hwo many people are doing, and no matter who it is that's doing it, "sharing" is copying, period. If you're using isohunt to download software that you haven't paid for, that is a crime, and isohunt is an accessory to commit crime because it's intended purpose is to enable exactly that.

All this whining about being accountable to the law falls on deaf ears with me. As a software developer, every copy of my software that is illegally copied and used takes food off of my kitchen table. Think about that for a second as you conduct your "harmless sharing" because software prices are too high because of - oh yeah, your "harmless sharing".

No, we will not see an end to piracy. And no, I won't bat an eye or shed a single tear for anyone that gets their freeloading asses busted for it, either.