FBI take action over illegal file-swaps

[VorLonUK]

BBC Story Here

Story Quote:-

Quote
US agents have raided five homes across America as part of the first federal criminal copyright action taken against file-sharing networks.

US Attorney General John Ashcroft  Quote:-

Quote
We do not believe it is appropriate for the Department of Justice to stand by while such theft is taking place

I know this may not sit well with many, but I believe it's about time something was done in this area.  I've noted on other Forums, whilst talking about "Warez" is a big  no-no (understandably) that "File Sharing" has been sort of accepted. However in my book they are basically the same thing.

I do believe that, Films, Software and Music are far too expensive, but obtaining them illegally doesn't make things right.

In fact we signed up to the New Legal Napster here in the UK and after the initial "wow, this is fantastic" period wore off, we noted that we could buy Music CD's from the big Online companies for a fraction of the Napster price. Napster = Convenience, but it's interesting to see some of the Online companies really slashing prices right down now. If the market itself forces prices down then hopefully those who rely on File Sharing might look somewhere else for legal media.

[VorLonUK]

FBI take action over illegal file-swaps

[Arrow]

Quote
However in my book they are basically the same thing.

Errr, no. While warez is undoubtly distributed by file sharing, I also happen to use file sharing to download patches, demos, mods and trailers, which are perfectly legitimate uses. The DoJ better becareful about what they are going after, otherwise a judge is going to bite them in the ass (and that will be followed by a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the government).

[VorLonUK]

Sorry Arrow I wasn't clear.

I'm sure File Sharing programs are used for legitimate reasons, but there is no doubt that they are an ideal platform for distributing copyrighted material.

(Sweeping Statement Alert) Personally I can't see any point in File Sharing programs for the masses, because unless you have some Freeware/Shareware etc or some Game Patches that are no longer available from any of the websites that normally host such and/or maybe you're an artist etc or Musician and want to be able to distribute your creations,  what's it good for?

Most Companies and especially Microsoft have said that they prefer their software (XP SP2 for instance) to be distributed by themselves, regardless on Server capacity (Limited initial distribution etc).

Personally I've Never Heard (on the rare occasion) File Sharing People talk about sharing anything legitimate (ie Not Copyrighted)

I'd love to meet a person who uses FileSharing software 100% legitimately.  But surely using such software opens you up to a possible barage of Viruses as nothing is coming from reputable Websites who take file security seriously??

[Arrow]

Well, you just met him. How are the kids?

I prefer the file sharing downloads because its free and I don't have to wait for servers or bandwidth (and I don't want to pay for it, like Fileplanet wants you to, for instance).

This is actually very analogus to the gun debate. The technology is already out there, you're always going to have people abusing it, but you also have a population that uses it legally.

And from a pure IT cost-of-doing-business standpoint, I'd prefer to using file sharing to distribute any software I wrote (yes, I am a software engineer). If I don't need an ungodly amount of bandwidth to get demos or trial versions of my most popular apps out into the market, I'll be saving a whole lot of cash.

[Zut50]

I dont approve of illegally downloading copyrighted material, but nor do I approve of big business's practices and policies on distribution and control over consumers. You'd think the companies would see file sharing for the mature and startlingly effective distribution medium that it is.

Companies these days dont give a flying f&$k about the service they give to consumers, but rather on how they can squeeze evry last drop of money out of us. We aren't customers to be pleased anymore, were just cattle waiting to be milked, and if we die in the process then never mind!

Im sure I read an article somewhere about companies considering DVDs that wear out after so many reads so you have to buy a new one. I loathe Microsofts policy on product activation. The DMCA in America totally (legally) cripples the ordinary man at home who just wants to do something fancy with his TV or DVDs etc... iTunes give you a license on how you are allowed to play the tracks you download. FOR GODS SAKE!!!

Im sick of being treated like scum, and then having to pay them for the privilege And whilever these vermin companies a buddy-buddy with the corrupt law makers we will continue to lose our rights in favor of profits for these leeching companies.

GAAAAAA!! If file sharers want to keep stealing stuff, then I say good luck to 'em!  

[Lord Raiden]

Quote
Companies these days dont give a flying f&$k about the service they give to consumers, but rather on how they can squeeze evry last drop of money out of us. We aren't customers to be pleased anymore, were just cattle waiting to be milked, and if we die in the process then never mind!

Gauds, ain't that the truth!  And in a very sad way.  I very much agree with Zut that the regular customer service our parents had would make the stuff we have look downright insulting.  It's an absolute joke.  They only will suck up to you until you fork over the bucks, then it sucks being you.

Quote
Im sure I read an article somewhere about companies considering DVDs that wear out after so many reads so you have to buy a new one. I loathe Microsofts policy on product activation. The DMCA in America totally (legally) cripples the ordinary man at home who just wants to do something fancy with his TV or DVDs etc... iTunes give you a license on how you are allowed to play the tracks you download. FOR GODS SAKE!!!

Im sick of being treated like scum, and then having to pay them for the privilege And whilever these vermin companies a buddy-buddy with the corrupt law makers we will continue to lose our rights in favor of profits for these leeching companies.

hehe.  Again, right on the money.

Quote
GAAAAAA!!   If file sharers want to keep stealing stuff, then I say good luck to 'em!

Now this I have to disagree with you on.  File sharing is good in and of itself IF it's used properly and NOT for illegal things.  Sure, the abuse of copyright law is pretty ugly these days, especially since so much of it is favored towards making corporate profits explode to rediculous levels.  However, I don't agree with stealing to solve that.  The robin hood aproach just doesn't work these days.  All that does is make things worse these days.  You want a way to get these idiots in congress to listen and change things in favor of the common man?  Then get involved in government!  If that loser scumbag congressman won't get a clue and is passing laws that allow gigantic greedy corporate america to bend you over and rob you blind, then by golly, let that sucker know.  Threaten to vote him out, threaten to recall him, or just start a troup of thousands of voices stampeeding against their stupidity.  If they see one corporate backer on their right and 10,000 seriously p***ed off voters on the left, who are they going to listen to the most?  Probubly the people considering that votes count before money does because if they risk loosing their job as a congressman, then they loose all their money from sponsors, their job, their income, kickbacks, etc.

If greed drives their decisions, then by golly, threaten to remove their source of income and they'll either snap to and listen, or they'll find their butts parked on the street and someone else will take their place.

[Zut50]

Your right ofcourse LR!

Whats you opinion of the EFF; digital tips and what have you.. I think its a really good idea, and the place where these companies should be focussing their money. Im sure they'd use it to gouge us, but using file sharing as an official distribution method sounds good to me. Was it you that posted about the TiVO file shring thing?, where people can share programmes they recorded with their family etc... Theres alot of potential in this technology, but they cant seem to see that!

[Lord Raiden]

I just read the artile at Reuters on the raid by the FBI and as usual the article stinks of RIAA/MPAA propoganda.  Why do I say that?  One line in the article sums it up best.

"Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said."

40 Petabytes of data?  Either that's a world class screwup on the part of the writer, or someone from the media giants assumes that the general reading public is dumb and the bigger numbers will make the crime sound even more evil.  40 Petabytes is 40,960 Terabytes, which is 41,943,040 gigabytes.  Even IF they had their own mini-noc that ran file servers with raided drive arrays of five 400gb drives each, that's still over 104,858 drives or 20,972 file servers!!  Even if they were 10 or 20 gig super drive arrays, you're still looking at an impossible number of file servers.  IF they were all 20 drive super arrays, that's still over 5000 file servers per location!!  Then taking into account the cost of each drive array, that's nearly $5 million in just HD's for each location!!  Dude, IBM doesn't even sport those numbers!!

This raid and the followup news reports have to be propoganda.  There's no possible physical way this could be real at this point.  I can believe 40 gigabytes at each location, maybe 1 terabyte between all 5, but 40 petabytes at EACH location?  Good gauds, how pathetically weak of a claim is that.  I think that this was setup intentionally just for this purpose of mass media propoganda in favor of the media companies.  Why wouldn't it be?  With such obviously HUGELY overinflated loss values for the music and whatnot being reported both here and in a variety of other places by the media giants, it's interesting that this article would go this far in reporting it, yet call themselves unbiased and equal.  Yeah, right.  Forgive me if I fail to believe the validity of this "post action" report by the FBI.

The only other viable answer to this monumental screwup is that either the agent didn't know what he was talking about, or misquoted the numbers.  While possible, it's also very unlikely.

[VorLonUK]

LOL Arrow, Yes I'm a FilePlanet subscriber too...

Don't get me wrong though, I do think we pay a ridiculous amount of money for copyrighted material and I think there should be a much fairer deal for consumers.

Problem is (as I see it) that some people have done their level best to escape paying Anything Whatsoever and in doing so have given the Record Companies "Ammunition" in that they are citing this as losing out on revenue.

I'm all for a better deal, but "we" are just going the wrong way around it and those who will never pay are riding on the backs of those who do!  

[Wrawrat]

Heh, I love being labelled as a thief.

First of all, it's not stealing but copyright infringement. There is a difference between both. Second, copyright laws are tolerated just because they are not strictly enforced. I feel the MPAA and the RIAA are going to their own demise unless they are corrupting the government even more. Unfortunately, the next government would probably be democrat, something that is not helping [y]our cause...

Personally, I have no shame to say that I use file sharing to download copyrighted stuff. I usually use them to download music but I occasionally download movies, TV series and software. However, I have a very limited budget... but I still have over 150 CDs and 30 DVDs. That is probably the difference between me and a leecher: I do break the law (except for music, it's legal in Canada) but I buy what I like whenever I can. Hey, I have student loans but I still have found some spare money to buy 4 CDs this month! I also bought a show of my favourite group last month. I do encourage those I like, I just don't have an infinite budget. And file-sharing is making me a bigger customer because I want to buy more things. Before last June, I didn't gave a duck of TV series. I downloaded the whole Futurama and Family Guy series and I now want them for Christmas on DVD even if I have good quality XviD rips. So yeah, I do something illegal, but it pushes me to do something legal... So label me a thief if you want, I  don't care.

BTW, I do pirate Microsoft software but what can you do when you don't have the choice to use software from a monopolist to communicate with the rest of the world? Fortunately, I am getting more used to Linux, OpenOffice is getting mature and I am getting a PowerBook soon!
And I prefer to admit that I pirate than being a fool parted from his college money.

[VorLonUK]

Sorry Wrawrat, but in my book it's stealing! Period..

Because of software theft, I'm having to pay more and why should I?  If I can't afford it, I don't have it - simple.

Also the Record Companies have now retaliated in a draconian way and if I choose to play a CD on one of our PC's here at home - I can't. The  CD "Red Book" has now been mullered and some Music Cd's are not really Compact Discs. There are other instances where some music CD's load a silly little Music Player on your PC and you hear an inferior quality offering of your tracks.

People who can't afford copyrighted music or software should wait until they can.

I don't expect my neighbour or someone down my street to use my car when they feel like it! They could say they were just borrowing it and use all the argument that the Music Thieves use.

No, Sorry guys, theft is theft and dressing it up in an alternative way (ie citing "just" copyright) is just plain BS and a feeble attempt to make you feel better or justified in your actions!

If you can't afford it - Don't have it! Or let the RIAA (those in the US) use ANY of your possesions when they feel like it!

[Lord Raiden]

Quote
If you can't afford it - Don't have it! Or let the RIAA (those in the US) use ANY of your possesions when they feel like it!

Are you kidding?  They already feel they have that right!  Look at how they're treating people these days.  "Why haven't you bought our latest super pop boy band cd? Huh?  Huh?  Oh, you must be one of those thieving file swappers.  Well, we'll get our money out of you one way or another, so you just sit still and wait.  We WILL get our money."  Uh, hmm.  Maybe the reason I didn't buy your boy band super hit cd is because the music is total garbage?  Huh?  Didn't you ever think of that?  NO?  Too bad.  Stop being blinded by greed and get a clue.  Your sales are going down because you're producing garbage and trying to rob people blind just so you can afford another half ton of caviar for your next party.  Jerks.

I sure as heck don't steal music off the internet, but at the same time I think the major media companies have actually brought this on themselves by indirectly making it socially acceptible to actually steal rather than pay the god aweful prices that they want for music that sounds like 30 year old blender mix mish mash garbage.  As far as supporting the artists I listen to, yes, I've done that, time and again, and usually by either buying directly from them, or through a store.  Of course my rant against the MPAA is even more interesting, but I'll leave that for another time.

[VorLonUK]

Quote
They already feel they have that right! Look at how they're treating people these days.

Good God Man - you sound paranoid

No one is forcing me to buy anything! period.

I would like a different car and the TV channels are full of car ads. However that doesn't force me to go up the road, steal a car off of a garages forecourt and "borrow" it for a few days.

BTW, I agree that over the years (prior to the NET) there has been some sort of acceptability on copying music, namely onto tape. But usually that was more of a one to one trade, ie you would record an album for your mate and he'd do the same.

The NET though has opened up a whole new music audience who want everything for free. The "blind eye" 1 to 1 trade has now gone and I'm sure the number of illegal music recipients outnumbers available current music by a huge ratio.

Also it's building an 21st century ethos of "Why should I pay" when it's on the Net for free?  It's teaching kids that they don't have to pay for music and it's also teaching them that they can have something even when they can't afford it.

I want to see more affordable music and I have a feeling that the RIAA's actions will eventually lead (even through bizarre circumstances) to cheaper music.

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
Sorry Wrawrat, but in my book it's stealing! Period..

Then your book is obsolete. Dude, the RIAA are suing people for copyright infridgement. They would sue for theft if it was theft.

Quote
Because of software theft, I'm having to pay more and why should I?  If I can't afford it, I don't have it - simple.

Paying more? Haha... You're a funny guy. Keep drinking their kool-aid! They love it.

That argument is pure horse manure. It's simply an excuse to keep their prices high. It is very true for smaller developers but for those making billions of dollars? Whatever!

Quote
Also the Record Companies have now retaliated in a draconian way and if I choose to play a CD on one of our PC's here at home - I can't. The  CD "Red Book" has now been mullered and some Music Cd's are not really Compact Discs. There are other instances where some music CD's load a silly little Music Player on your PC and you hear an inferior quality offering of your tracks.

Sorry but that's not my problem. Protest by boycotting them. Send them letters stating that copyright protection on CDs are completely ineffective and are only hurting those who buy their CDs legitimately. That is what I am doing. I don't buy copy-protected CDs (except two singles that I have bought just to defeat the protection and I did with two fingers up my nose) but I still buy unprotected CDs because I care of the artists. Believe it or not but I don't think the world owes me something.

Quote
People who can't afford copyrighted music or software should wait until they can.

I think you misunderstand what I am doing. I don't download music because I cannot afford CDs. I sample music. Instead of listening the radio, I go to AMG, enter a known band or genre, check out some related bands, download some songs from them then buy some albums if I like them. But I guess I should just listen to the radio just like the autorities want me to do? Yeah, I should become a good leftist sheep!

Quote
I don't expect my neighbour or someone down my street to use my car when they feel like it! They could say they were just borrowing it and use all the argument that the Music Thieves use. No, Sorry guys, theft is theft and dressing it up in an alternative way (ie citing "just" copyright) is just plain BS and a feeble attempt to make you feel better or justified in your actions!

When I get a song from the Internet, what do they lose? Nothing. I don't steal the physical CD from a retailer. Hey, I don't even get an exact copy as the compressed songs are quite different from the original ones, thanks to lossy compression. Money? Not really: the duplication cost is ridiculously low and they are often giving songs (promo CDs) for free. Furthermore, in Canada, we pay levies on blank medias. I give money to the CRIA every time I use a blank CD, even if it's for backupping my school projects. Thus, this is not theft. But hey, think whatever you want, I know you don't change your mind once it's set...

As for software, I try to use open-source software whenever I can. I also try to buy what I like when we have the budget... Hey, we are not that cheap: we even bought our screensaver! However, I have absolutely no shame of pirating Microsoft. It's not like I feel guilty at all for pirating a company that is crushing thousands of others but still managed to survive by bribing governments (another perfect example for not trusting autorities blindly like you seem to preach). Two wrongs doesn't make a right but I don't really care of karma. At least I am very eager to get my perfectly legit copy of OS X Panther...

Quote
If you can't afford it - Don't have it! Or let the RIAA (those in the US) use ANY of your possesions when they feel like it!

Just like they are doing with the artists they are exploiting?

The difference between you and me is that I see music as an art while you seem to see it as a goodie like a computer, a box of shoes, a bag of rice or toilet paper.

Quote
BTW, I agree that over the years (prior to the NET) there has been some sort of acceptability on copying music, namely onto tape. But usually that was more of a one to one trade, ie you would record an album for your mate and he'd do the same.

Some sort of acceptability? Dude, it's not acceptability. It is a law called FAIR USE!

Quote
The NET though has opened up a whole new music audience who want everything for free. The "blind eye" 1 to 1 trade has now gone and I'm sure the number of illegal music recipients outnumbers available current music by a huge ratio.

Also it's building an 21st century ethos of "Why should I pay" when it's on the Net for free?  It's teaching kids that they don't have to pay for music and it's also teaching them that they can have something even when they can't afford it.

The key is education, not prosecution.  But I guess that's what happens when you let the state educate your kids instead of doing it yourself...

Yes, I am harsh with state-worshipping lefties. But I still like you Vorlon.

[VorLonUK]

Thanks Wrawrat!

An excellent defensive post on what is essentially stealing.  

It's almost the same as you dressing yourself up in womens clothes and trying to pass as one - oh and calling yourself Patricia .  I have to laugh at some of the debates on here as logic is thrown out of the window. This RIAA thing is more like a Crusade by those who defy the law.

Anyway call it what you like the FBI sees it as law breaking, in which it is!

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
Thanks Wrawrat!

An excellent defensive post on what is essentially stealing.  

It's almost the same as you dressing yourself up in womens clothes and trying to pass as one - oh and calling yourself Patricia .  I have to laugh at some of the debates on here as logic is thrown out of the window. This RIAA thing is more like a Crusade by those who defy the law.

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing and counter-argument NOTHING like you did in the gun debate. Once again, it's a complete waste of time to debate with you. Stop starting debates if you are not willing to participate in them. I'd rather debate with LR on Microsoft than debating with you on another subject.

Quote
Anyway call it what you like the FBI sees it as law breaking, in which it is!

Martin Luther King was breaking the law... and did he made the right thing? Or we should always bow down to the autorities like sheeps?

[VorLonUK]

Quote
Thanks for adding absolutely nothing and counter-argument NOTHING like you did in the gun debate.

Come On WrawRat, that is Pathetic and you know it...

I have a problem with your comment because it implies there should be something added (by me) to the debate? Why? This is a typical thing that happens on these forums when people like yourself know you are talking BS and not being logical, especially with the gun debate. All the facts were shown on these forums about the Gun Debate and what I was saying was right. You can't argue about nothing, now can you - but you seem to want too. Same goes with this copyright thing too, it's stealing, period. You are denying someone (the music company) of their revenue and why I Can understand the moral argument here in favour of the consumer, you can't expect me to add something when the bottom line IS Theft!

Why do peeps have a problem calling a spade a spade?

So Wrawrat, I'll add something to the topic when you acknowledge (as per the FBI) exactly what it is. Until you can call a spade a spade, we have my friend, nothing to discuss

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK

Quote
I have a problem with your comment because it implies there should be something added (by me) to the debate? Why? This is a typical thing that happens on these forums when people like yourself know you are talking BS and not being logical, especially with the gun debate. All the facts were shown on these forums about the Gun Debate and what I was saying was right. You can't argue about nothing, now can you - but you seem to want too.

Who do you think you are? God? Do you think the universe revolves around your damn ass? Do you think you are the only one that is right? I am seriously offended by your attitude. I thought Rugged was a bit pretentious sometimes but he seems to be nothing next to you. I am really disappointed by you.

Quote
Same goes with this copyright thing too, it's stealing, period. You are denying someone (the music company) of their revenue and why I Can understand the moral argument here in favour of the consumer, you can't expect me to add something when the bottom line IS Theft!

Then why they're not suing for theft, Mr. Knowitall? Perhaps because it isn't?

Are they similar? Yes, they are. But we're talking of intellectual property, not physical property. There is a world of difference between getting a stream of bytes that produces a song similar to the original when they are parsed by a codec and hijacking a car. I am sorry for you if you cannot realise that. And like I said previously, the current copyright laws are only tolerated because they are not enforced in a naziesque way.

You definitely seem to consider music as goodies while I consider music as an art. Am I stealing the Monna Lisa if I take a picture of it? After all, I could deprive the owner from some revenue as they can sell me overpriced pictures of it.

As you are wiser than Yoda, can you tell me how I am supposed to sample music if I don't like what they're selling right now? I'm a big fan of prog-rock and album-rock. Unfortunately, they are both pratically dead... Some radios are broadcasting some songs of these groups but what is the point in hearing a song from an album-oriented band? What should I do? Buy every album I could like? Didn't you ever heard of "try before you buy"? It is your right to believe that I am a swashbucking pirate (yarr!) because I download albums before buying them... but they will eventually get my money, either by buying their albums or by the levies on the blank medias I purchase. I am pretty sure these artists prefer to get a late sale than no sales at all (in the eventuality that I stop downloading).

By the way Yoda, can you explain me why back catalogue sales went about 10% up since P2P came around? Maybe because some people are doing the same thing as me, e.g. download some old stuff and buy what they like? But I guess you simply don't care as we should all worship the oh-so-absolute law that is always right...

Sure, the sales for new albums sucks because many kids think that the world owes them everything and that they shouldn't pay for stuff. Of course, it's not the fault of their parents that are not doing their jobs and are giving them everything when they want, eh? Like I said previously, the key to this plague is education. The Pandora's box is already open: file-sharing won't die. We have to live with this.

Am I wrong when I use an illegal copy of a Microsoft software? Yes. Am I infrindging their rights? Yes. To speak in your poor language, am I stealing? Yes. And guess what: I couldn't care less. This is the only case where I don't feel guilty at all because I am forced to use their software for communcating with 90% of the world. Illogical? Yes but the human being is illogical.

Quote
So Wrawrat, I'll add something to the topic when you acknowledge (as per the FBI) exactly what it is. Until you can call a spade a spade, we have my friend, nothing to discuss

And until you realise that you are not always right, I won't waste more time with you. Don't hesitate to PM me once you do. Until then, I won't give any reply as it's completely pointless to argue with a stubborn geezer that is thick as a brick.

[VorLonUK]

Quote
Am I wrong when I use an illegal copy of a Microsoft software? Yes. Am I infrindging their rights? Yes. To speak in your poor language, am I stealing? Yes. And guess what: I couldn't care less. This is the only case where I don't feel guilty at all because I am forced to use their software for communcating with 90% of the world. Illogical? Yes but the human being is illogical.

You are not forced to do anything, just don't use Microsoft Software.

I find this all odd though... here you are preaching to me as it's your god given right to do something illegal at the cost of others. I pay for my Music, Video and software and if I can't afford it, guess what? I don't have it!

So what makes you so special? and why are you "attacking" me when I'm using my software/media legally? It just doesn't make sense.

So why don't you purchase your software, media or whatever?  Do you ever intend to purchase the same or do you think that software developers and musicians should work for the benefit of you and expect nothing in return?

Quote
Who do you think you are? God? Do you think the universe revolves around your damn ass?

Pathetic, Simply Pathetic - all because I act within the law!  Crazy..

I'll assume then, that when the elections come around in Canada, you''ll be standing for the "Give it Away Free" party - Good Luck!

[Arrow]

Wrawrat does have a very good point. The laws are outdated and more than likely hurting consumption. Its hard to argue with the fact that file sharing is related to an increase in music sales. Instead of trying to shut down a technology this is everywhere and anywhere at once, these companies and governments should embrace it and use it to there benefit. I've even heard of file sharing and other internet related technologies being the catalyst to redefine our enter economy. This would not be the first time the law was wrong; that's been thorough demostrated in issues ranging from tariffs to prohibition to slavery and civil rights.

[VorLonUK]

Arrow.

Quote
This would not be the first time the law was wrong; that's been thorough demostrated in issues ranging from tariffs to prohibition to slavery and civil rights.

I don't think you can say the "law is wrong here" or even attempt to couple this topic with slavery or civil rights as they are totally different things. Media as per what we are discussing is purely a lifesyle luxury product.

The law is simple on this as it has been something driven by anyone who looks to protect their creation and I cannot see why or how (in this debate context) why it should be changed.

The Principle is quite fair imo, as you purchase the license and the associated media and of you go, simple as that. If you can't afford it, then you don't have it, but as with all media it Lets itself down by default! by Easy Duplication. Now if you are a bright new software designer or musician, the worse thing for you could be the Net. Whilst in some ways the NET is great, duplication for all sorts of media is rife.

As I said earlier, I do believe ALL media should be far cheaper, especially Big Company Software, Films and Music. But to say "it's far to expensive" so I'll not buy it, but steal it, is completely wrong.  The record companies for instance might not be playing a fair game, bu two wrongs don't make a right.

So, I'm signed up with the Legal napster and guess what I've realised? Not only am I paying more for music, but I'm so limited as to where I can play it. I can only use WMP to play it on my PC, unless I burn to a CD first , then play via another player. But my point is that as per this FBI story, the RIAA aren't going to give up and as a result Legitimate Users like Myself are finding that playing purchased music is like pulling teeth. Microsoft went all crazy with WPA and reactivation "call centres" that put another hurdle or inconvenience in the way of the genuine customer and this looks like a similar path for the record industry.

The facts are and they are facts, is that the law now seems that it will do more and I can see music moving onto another form of media (eventually) that will be encrypted.

I can believe that file sharing does push up the interest in some music albeit illegally. But why should I pay when others don't? and have to defend what's right and lawful?

If those who can't afford the music, films and software, left it like then the relative companies would more likely reduce prices to something more affordable. Stealing isn't going to force anyone to do anything and more likely give the media companies a much better excuse in making software and Music Media worse than it is now, by drenching it anti this and that protection where it causes problems with various hardware setups.

[Wrawrat]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
You are not forced to do anything, just don't use Microsoft Software.

And be incompatible with the rest of the world? Yeah, why not?

Man, do you read my whole messages or you just read the first sentance before flaming? I'd like to but I don't have the goddamn choice. My teachers and many employers expect CVs in Microsoft Word. As it's a closed format, OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with it. Same thing with many Win32-only programs that I have to use because of some sold-out teachers...

Nevertheless, I am playing with Linux (have one server and a dual-boot desktop machine) and I will get Mac OS X soon with the Powerbook I will buy. And I will buy OS X Tiger once it's out even if it's 200$. You want to support a ruthless monopoly? Be my guest. I just don't like to shove poles up my ass.

Quote
I find this all odd though... here you are preaching to me as it's your god given right to do something illegal at the cost of others. I pay for my Music, Video and software and if I can't afford it, guess what? I don't have it!

So what makes you so special? and why are you "attacking" me when I'm using my software/media legally? It just doesn't make sense.

Correction: I am not attacking you because you use your stuff legally. I attack you because you don't know how to read. Pretty please, with sugar on top... READ MY POSTS IN THEIR TOTALITY!

Quote
So why don't you purchase your software, media or whatever?  Do you ever intend to purchase the same or do you think that software developers and musicians should work for the benefit of you and expect nothing in return?

If you were reading my whole posts instead of nitpicking some parts of them and trolling, you would know that I do support them. But guess what: I have to survive. And between buying a sandwitch and giving 15 bucks to a fat pig that will give 5¢ to the artist... Well, I think it's understandable that Mr. Piggy is not my priority. I won't explain everything I do for them because I already gave examples (hint: RTFP, Read The Fine Posts) but there's something I forgot: I give money directly to some artists. And not only with levies. Do you?

Quote
Pathetic, Simply Pathetic - all because I act within the law!  Crazy..

No, all because you're arrogant. Just like in the gun debate.

Quote
I'll assume then, that when the elections come around in Canada, you''ll be standing for the "Give it Away Free" party - Good Luck!

Okay, now that is just plain trolling. Read the rule #4. This is a warning.

You are completely unable to hold a debate without trolling and "forgetting" some parts of the posts from your opponent to support your points. That is pathetic. If it was my forum, you would be banned. I don't care if you don't share the same opinion as me. It's a wide world so it is expected. However, it is clear that you are just trolling.

Wanna prove that you are not thick as a brick? Please re-read all my posts then give me a reply. If you don't realise that I don't believe in free-for-all then I am really sorry for you.

Sorry Volt but there is nothing more insulting to me than somebody that is putting words I didn't said in my mouth. I cannot stand this.

[Arrow]

Vorlon, you're forgetting that many, and I dare say most, people go out and buy the music that they download. Ever heard of "try before you buy"? If I can test drive a car, or record a TV show to a VCR or DVD-R, or grab music off the radio and edit out the commericals, without being bitched at by the authorities, why can't I do the same thing with the internet?

Additionally, you're forgetting that mechanisms for distributing pirated software and entertain existed long before file sharing. If by some change file sharing was shut down, those that wanted to steal the stuff will readily have other means to do it.

And as for you paying more, that's just outright RIAA/MPAA greed trying to force consumers away from file sharing, simply because they can't grasp the opportunity file sharing presents them. They fear a technology they should have embraced.

Finally, your earlier implication that all file-sharers are criminals is insulting. I was polite about it in my first response, but I don't appreciate the label.

[Tmagic650]

Well said Arrow