Boycotting: RIAA and MPAA.

[nemafakei]

Yes they can. Only play live.

[HasimirFenring]

Yes they can. Only play live.

And what if a band is doing a tour, I attend the first concernt, record the music, and put it on the internet?  Everyone can now enjoy the benefits of the music without compensating the artist.

[DukeLeto]

Perhaps.  But the people who settle for a low-quality sound recording most likely were not going to go see the band in the first place.

[Dude_Doc]

I don't argue that copyright law SHOULDN'T be changed for the benefit of humanity, only that law should be enforced as it stands.

Sometimes it's necessary to change laws for the mankind to benefit from. How else can we change them by expressing ourselves against them?

Lobby for a change in legislation; you wouldn't steal medicine to protest a privatized healthcare system (bad analogy, but I'm not feeling well).

Indeed, bad analogy. Copying medicine infinite of times would benefit society hugely...  ::)

For example, I might want to make a living composing music to be played by others, or creating it on computer.

Well, for a start, creating something on a computer might take time and planning, but surely it isn't something you can get billions on?

Ironically, I know several people that dpwnloaded HL2 - Legally.  (You can get it at a discount by buying it online and DLing it through Steam.)  Something similar should be set up for music.

Doesn't iTunes do that?

I was talking about doing it illegally, I wouldn't trust Steam for that sort of thing...  Bloody steam.

Yeah, Steam was a really pain in the ass the first time I tried to install HL2. Do people really like Steam that much?

This will always be a no-win situation for both  music and movie industries, that is unless they can somehow control and police the entire net.

Exactly. The internet is essentially free information. The whole point is that one can't change these laws in what system we have today - to make money in a capitalist society there must always be restrictions and secrets.

With the difference that nobody worked to create that air, and it belongs to nobody.

Thus, public property.

Though actually it could be justified if the money is spent on cleaning the air: consumers indirectly cause pollution, so why not an environmental tax on goods?

The point of the argument was that information is also a public good. It belongs to everyone, just like air and water etc.

The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building.

But what if the tree is also a public good, as well as the decorations on that tree?

People are paying to see something they have a full right to see.

And that's supposed to justify theft?

Copying.

Regardless of your political convictions, you're living in a capitalist country and you have no mandate to decide who earns more then he should.

So, in essence, you're saying that the people don't have a say in the established system? We don't have the right to question it?

And suppose I'm a voyeur, and look from my window to spy on attractive naked women, I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm not depriving anybody of anything? The fact that it's not theft doesn't mean it's right.

That's another matter since you're not copying that woman.

The day my ISP informs me that I am dloading media illegally, is the day I stop paying dearly for thier service.

And it will probably be the day when we ordinary people are building our own computers and our own networks, really. Let us hope it won't come to that.

Musicians of course want people to listen to their music, but usually want to make a living of it too (and more then just that).

Which is why we need another system. Is it justifiable that a musician can make billions only by sitting in front of his computer, while another person who do physical work 23/7 gets almost nothing?

[DukeLeto]

Ironically, I know several people that dpwnloaded HL2 - Legally.  (You can get it at a discount by buying it online and DLing it through Steam.)  Something similar should be set up for music.

Doesn't iTunes do that?

I realize something exsts like this...but at a dollar a song, it's often more than twice as much as buying the CDs!  The key part was being able to get it "at a discount".  I'd certainly do it...for about a quarter a song.

[HasimirFenring]

Sometimes it's necessary to change laws for the mankind to benefit from. How else can we change them by expressing ourselves against them?

We have a political process... You elect legislators...

Well, for a start, creating something on a computer might take time and planning, but surely it isn't something you can get billions on?

So the legailty of this sort of thing is derived from its scale?

Yeah, Steam was a really pain in the ass the first time I tried to install HL2. Do people really like Steam that much?

I don't think anyone except Valve likes Steam.  HL2 has taken a lot of bashing becuase of Steam.

The whole point is that one can't change these laws in what system we have today - to make money in a capitalist society there must always be restrictions and secrets.

Neither statement above is true.

The point of the argument was that information is also a public good. It belongs to everyone, just like air and water etc.

The point of the rebuttal was that there are obvious and fundamental differences in the natures of information and air.

But what if the tree is also a public good, as well as the decorations on that tree?

They are not public goods necessarily, just like music.

People are paying to see something they have a full right to see.

People have the natural right to see my christmas tree?  I have every right to charge admission, but no one would pay it ::)

Copying.

When we play semantic games, everyone loses.

So, in essence, you're saying that the people don't have a say in the established system? We don't have the right to question it?

You have every right to question it; we have a system for changing laws.  It's called a democracy (democratic republic).

That's another matter since you're not copying that woman.

If I took a picture of the woman I'm spying on (not really) and posted it on the internet, everyone who sees it is enjoying the benefit from a "public good" which the woman should be able to control (or whoever owns the copyright, admittedly no one in this example).

Which is why we need another system. Is it justifiable that a musician can make billions only by sitting in front of his computer, while another person who do physical work 23/7 gets almost nothing?

Justifiable, yes.  Just, no.  But why do you elect politicians?  Why do companies have CEOs?  The same could be said in both cases (and both will be necessary until we reach pure communism).

Perhaps. But the people who settle for a low-quality sound recording most likely were not going to go see the band in the first place.

"most likely" = flimsy rationalization at best.

[HasimirFenring]

Doesn't iTunes do that?

I realize something exsts like this...but at a dollar a song, it's often more than twice as much as buying the CDs!  The key part was being able to get it "at a discount".  I'd certainly do it...for about a quarter a song.

I realize something exsts like this...but at a dollar a song, it's often more than twice as much as buying the CDs!  The key part was being able to get it "at a discount".  I'd certainly do it...for about a quarter a song.

But when can the industry say, "alright, our online products are cheap enough so that people now prefer them to free?"

[Caid Ivik]

If the creator doesn't want anyone to see his tree without paying, he wouldn't pick a public square to put it. Musicians of course want people to listen to their music, but usually want to make a living of it too (and more then just that). Music is by definition art, regardless of the quality. And adultry is not only victimless, it's not a crime either ;)

Why then musicians give us an opportunity to hear reproductions of their songs? I can turn off the downloaded music I hear now and start an official stream radio of, we can say, G-Unit, which my brother has still configured in WinAmp and shares the link freely with friends. How could this be? It plays the same, and for a same price! They are going against themselves, there are even easier ways to push record on tape recorder when hearing some radio. I'm not talking whether it is moral or immoral to do so - I ask what part of whole music machinery is to be for trade and which for culture. Where are needed finances naturally, and where they are going counter-productivelly.

On adultery, try to have a one night with, let's say, 14-year old girl, and then you have it illegal even on the liberal west...

[Dude_Doc]

We have a political process... You elect legislators...

Yeah, well, that seems to be working...

So the legailty of this sort of thing is derived from its scale?

I don't think anyone except Valve likes Steam.  HL2 has taken a lot of bashing becuase of Steam.

Very democratic indeed.

Neither statement above is true.

Proove it.

They are not public goods necessarily, just like music.

Information is not a public good?

You have every right to question it; we have a system for changing laws.  It's called a democracy (democratic republic).

Of course I do. I just think it's sad when some people think that we are living in some kind of totalitarian dictatorship where no one has a say in anything.

If I took a picture of the woman I'm spying on (not really) and posted it on the internet, everyone who sees it is enjoying the benefit from a "public good" which the woman should be able to control (or whoever owns the copyright, admittedly no one in this example).

Then you are talking about demos. No matter how good picture you take, it still is not the woman herself. Thus, comparing this to information files, it would be bits and bytes and while "good enough", is not the complete "file".

Anyways, a human itself is not a public good, because that human is the public. Of course it would be wrong to take a photo, without her knowing, and post it on the internet for everyone to see. So yes, she should be in control of what pictures of her is made and for what.

But that is a human being. The picture you've taken can "spiritually" damage her, even drive her to insanity and suicide.

A music file can not. It isn't damaging a person physically or spiritually.

Justifiable, yes.  Just, no.  But why do you elect politicians?  Why do companies have CEOs?  The same could be said in both cases (and both will be necessary until we reach pure communism).

Well, firstly we would have to reach Socialism, a much easier transision to Communism. The thing is, everybody must stand up for the people, for what is right and what is wrong logically.

What is happening now is that they can get rules on how to regulate the internet, make life for the billions who use internet daily a real hell. When you want change you sometimes have to go against the rules. You have to push the limits to show them that you are not satisfied with the current laws. It is only through this that we have progressed through history.

I realize something exsts like this...but at a dollar a song, it's often more than twice as much as buying the CDs!  The key part was being able to get it "at a discount".  I'd certainly do it...for about a quarter a song.

Isn't that as much as a CD itself? $1 per song, around 10-12 songs per CD = $10-12?

But when can the industry say, "alright, our online products are cheap enough so that people now prefer them to free?"

Exactly! I want this regulation too. The only problem, many would say, would be that the renting of videos and DVDs would go down. But why not? After the release of the movie, let it pass about 10 years, then release the movie legally over the internet. Who would loose money if the product became free after 10 years? Everybody have made their fortunes out of the movie, haven't they?

[Anathema]

Thank you, Hasimir.

I ask what part of whole music machinery is to be for trade and which for culture. Where are needed finances naturally, and where they are going counter-productivelly.

But artists have been making a living of their work for thousends of years. Most of the great artists like Da Vinci and Rembrandt van Rijn made their paintings for pay.

On adultery, try to have a one night with, let's say, 14-year old girl, and then you have it illegal even on the liberal west...

Liberal west? Since your country has entered the EU adultry is not a crime in Slovakia either (didn't even know it was before that)

Your example is different from what we're discussing. My example of voyeurism was still about certain incoporeal goods (the images of the woman naked), but having sex with a 14 year old has nothing to do with the value of information or music.

"With the difference that nobody worked to create that air, and it belongs to nobody."

Thus, public property.

And because neither can be said of music, it's not necessarily public property.

So, in essence, you're saying that the people don't have a say in the established system? We don't have the right to question it?

I am saying that we're both living in capitalist countries, and though you may disagree with the way things are done, you shouldn't circumvent it by illegal means.

That's another matter since you're not copying that woman.

Hehe, but you're not copying artists either are you? :D

Information is not a public good?

No, not by definition at least. It depends on the creator's intention.

Anyways, a human itself is not a public good, because that human is the public. Of course it would be wrong to take a photo, without her knowing, and post it on the internet for everyone to see. So yes, she should be in control of what pictures of her is made and for what.

The people who make music are humans as well and not goods, nor public goods. Music and naked pictures is merely what comes from them. So why does the woman get control over what happens to her pictures?

But that is a human being. The picture you've taken can "spiritually" damage her, even drive her to insanity and suicide.

A music file can not. It isn't damaging a person physically or spiritually.

And if the artist never wanted to spread his music, for example when he only wrote a song for a loved one? Just like with the woman being spyed upon, spreading of the material happens without their consent. They should have control over who receives the material, wether that is nobody or only those who pay for it.

You have to push the limits to show them that you are not satisfied with the current laws.

Not by breaking them.

[Dude_Doc]

But artists have been making a living of their work for thousends of years. Most of the great artists like Da Vinci and Rembrandt van Rijn made their paintings for pay.

But the point in choosing to become an artist is because you love to paint or make music, right? Not because you expect to be paid in millions?

And because neither can be said of music, it's not necessarily public property.

Another point.

I am saying that we're both living in capitalist countries, and though you may disagree with the way things are done, you shouldn't circumvent it by illegal means.

Many things were considered illegal back then when, for example, black people were not permitted to live as human beings.

Hehe, but you're not copying artists either are you?

No, but would you consider music a physical part of a human?

So why does the woman get control over what happens to her pictures?

Because, as I said, it can damage her personally, physically. She maybe have some kind of scar or misformation on her body, and having everybody knowing and seeing it, is not very human.

Music, on the other hand, is the "intended picture", that is, you don't make music you don't want anybody else to listen to (on a general scale).

And if the artist never wanted to spread his music, for example when he only wrote a song for a loved one?

And I suppose he don't have any other options than going to a record company and distribute his song on CDs, or upload it on a homepage for everybody else to download from? Please.

Just like with the woman being spyed upon, spreading of the material happens without their consent.

But since they are aware that this happens everyday, it would be strange if they at least didn't know about it.

They should have control over who receives the material, wether that is nobody or only those who pay for it.

But should they also dictate everything else just because of one risk they take distributing it?

[HasimirFenring]

The whole point is that one can't change these laws in what system we have today - to make money in a capitalist society there must always be restrictions and secrets.

I said neither of those statements is true.  The first is false because we have governments and legislatures.  Sufficient public support for your position would induce lawmakers to change the laws, something which is not happening.  The second is nonsense because capitalist societies (much as I dislike them) can earn money without secrets.  I don't want to build my own car, so I pay someone to do so by buying a car from a factory.  Seems obvious enough to me.

Yeah, well, that seems to be working...

It isn't becuase there is insufficient public support for your position (if most voters agreed, things would change; that's the point of a "democratic" system).

So the legailty of this sort of thing is derived from its scale?

Huh?  That's been my point.

Of course I do. I just think it's sad when some people think that we are living in some kind of totalitarian dictatorship where no one has a say in anything.

That is sad.  They have to resort to illegal actions to question law.  Living in a democracy, we don't...

What is happening now is that they can get rules on how to regulate the internet, make life for the billions who use internet daily a real hell. When you want change you sometimes have to go against the rules. You have to push the limits to show them that you are not satisfied with the current laws. It is only through this that we have progressed through history.

Do that many people use the internet every day?  I would have thought we hadn't reached multi-billion numbers yet, but I could be wrong.  An example of when you have to go against the rules would be women's sufferage or the civil rights movements.  Don't insult those movements by comparing P2P networks to them; these problems can be resolved by law.

Exactly! I want this regulation too. The only problem, many would say, would be that the renting of videos and DVDs would go down. But why not? After the release of the movie, let it pass about 10 years, then release the movie legally over the internet. Who would loose money if the product became free after 10 years? Everybody have made their fortunes out of the movie, haven't they?

That wasn't by point.  I meant to say it is very difficult for any service, no matter how cheap, to compete against a free alternative.

But the point in choosing to become an artist is because you love to paint or make music, right? Not because you expect to be paid in millions?

Not necessarily; what do their motivations have to do with anything?

Many things were considered illegal back then when, for example, black people were not permitted to live as human beings.

As I said earlier, don't insult those movements by comparing them to copyright issues.

No, but would you consider music a physical part of a human?

If I create an intellectual work, be it a book, music, software or a painting, I have the right to control the product of my labor, whether it can be converted into a digital format or not.

Because, as I said, it can damage her personally, physically. She maybe have some kind of scar or misformation on her body, and having everybody knowing and seeing it, is not very human.

What if I photograph only her hair?  She arranges it in a certain way with shampoo, combing, hair cuts, etc.  If I then sell to photograph of her hair, the product of her labor, without her permission, one can't say she is "emotionally damaged," but does that make it alright?

But since they are aware that this happens everyday, it would be strange if they at least didn't know about it.

All women know they are being spied upon daily?

But should they also dictate everything else just because of one risk they take distributing it?

No, and they don't need to.  If people respected copyright law, this wouldn't be a problem.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it would mean something (quite a lot, actually) to me (and any other communist) if artists and laborers were deprived of revenue and livelihood.

Sorry if I sounded dismissive, Edric.  I just meant that my argument is based on ideas of profit and private property which don't particularly resonate with communists.

[Megashrap]

Do that many people use the internet every day?  I would have thought we hadn't reached multi-billion numbers yet, but I could be wrong.

"More Americans are using file sharing software than voted for President Bush in 2000,"."Throwing the book at music swappers makes great political theater, but jailing 60 million music fans is not good business, nor does it put a single penny into the pockets of artists." 

  And yes I realize that isn't multi-billion numbers.

Suing fans doesn't pay artists. Neither does threatening every Internet user's civil liberties.

Our current copyright regime makes criminals out of music lovers. Worse, it makes suspected criminals out of ALL Internet users.

As a U.S. citizen, I voice my opinion on this wherever I can and do.  There is a much larger picture here than dloading songs or movies.

Sorry but the financial situation of a few corp. giants should never justify shredding every Internet user's civil liberties,invading ones privacy and right to anonymity.

[HasimirFenring]

Suing fans doesn't pay artists.

No, but it does help to enforce existing law.

Neither does threatening every Internet user's civil liberties.

That is being done much more seriously by the PATRIOT Act, focus your priorities.

Sorry but the financial situation of a few corp. giants should never justify shredding every Internet user's civil liberties,invading ones privacy and right to anonymity.

Disapproving of an industry's business model does not justify violating the law.  There were no such lawsuits before P2P networks became so popular becuase they weren't necessary.

[Megashrap]

That is being done much more seriously by the PATRIOT Act, focus your priorities.

The PATRIOT, civil liberties, especially privacy rights, has taken a severe blow. I'm aware of that, however an anti-terrorism legislation and an anti-piracy one strikes a sour note  when the two by contrast are very similar in terms of invasion of privacy.

Terrorism I can agree warrants it. Industry sales good or bad does not.

[HasimirFenring]

The PATRIOT, civil liberties, especially privacy rights, has taken a severe blow. I'm aware of that, however an anti-terrorism legislation and an anti-piracy one strikes a sour note  when the two by contrast are very similar in terms of invasion of privacy.

Terrorism I can agree warrants it. Industry sales good or bad does not.

I agree with everything you said except that terrorism warrants it.  The way to defeat terrorism is not to build a Fortress America, but this is a subject for another thread.

[Caid Ivik]

But artists have been making a living of their work for thousends of years. Most of the great artists like Da Vinci and Rembrandt van Rijn made their paintings for pay.

Liberal west? Since your country has entered the EU adultry is not a crime in Slovakia either (didn't even know it was before that) Your example is different from what we're discussing. My example of voyeurism was still about certain incoporeal goods (the images of the woman naked), but having sex with a 14 year old has nothing to do with the value of information or music.

Da Vinci and Rembrandt were paid for making the art itself, same as any musician is paid nowadays for his work in studio as well. "Seeing" the "product" (an image) is gratis then, altough some people buy the art and use it for trade. In fact, it's well known that artist himself has only minor income from distribued music. There is only large structure living on his work, tough you can say provisions for MTV, CD-distribution in age of informatics, hi-tech mixing equipment (remember Fatboy Slim and his Atari...) are things, without which the music industry would instantly fade and our civilization would fall into the age of silence...

I think we have a misunderstanding, I simply don't consider every...subjectively valuable thing as a "commodity". As not every sin or crime is based on property damage, you know.

[Anathema]

Da Vinci and Rembrandt were paid for making the art itself, same as any musician is paid nowadays for his work in studio as well.

However, if his music is not listened to by anyone willing to pay for it, nobody's earning anything of it. And if nobody's earning anything from it, who'd be willing to pay him for future records?

"Seeing" the "product" (an image) is gratis then, altough some people buy the art and use it for trade.

Anybody could see a painting over the internet for free, but anyone who truly values this kind of art would want to see the real thing, making it valuable still. The same can't be said of music.

I think we have a misunderstanding, I simply don't consider every...subjectively valuable thing as a "commodity".

In most legal systems, copyrights are considered goods you know. Besides, as you said:

not every sin or crime is based on property damage, you know.

Traditional theft actually damages the rightful owner's position. Downloading music  doesn't in all cases, because not all people guilty of it would have bought the record if they could not download it. However theft is unjust for two reasons:

A) the owner loses something, while he shouldn't be

B) the thief is gaining something, while he shouldn't be

A doesn't apply, but B still does. Listening to music should be limited to those who are willing to support the creation of it.

[Caid Ivik]

Who is paying to see work of da Vinci and Rembrandt now? Is this illegal?

On the sites you can view hi-resolution photosmade by machines, which have thousand times better care for detail than your eyes. You can watch every detail, every move of brush, every substance, zoom it how much you want and have this orgy as long as you want. With live music it is much different. In february will come Rammstein to Bratislava, we'll have a good opportunity to compare teh differences here. Music is primarily a performance, same as drama or sport.

About "B" I can say, that product of downloading is based on high investments: internet connection, know-how of using all that equipment (Windows, net explorer, P2P client), of course searching time, rules on client (try to upload more than you download) and other things. It's same fruit of your work, CD distribuers have no part on "creating" the music an sich as well.

[Anathema]

Sheesh, forget about Da Vinci and Rembrandt already. It doesn't compare well.

The fact that you may have put effort in it justifies crimes? Some logic.

[Caid Ivik]

Why? It's an exact logic used by all music distribuers, they also made nothing for creation of the music itself, whole capitalism is based on it, and that's the best thing on it ;)  Surely, if the creator of music says to someone "YOU distribute it", then ok, but then I can't imagine how we could sing Stille Nacht at this Christmas. For here we have more things in this art than just "music" (in order of need for very existence of the song): 1.song itself (archetype, note motive, lyrics), 2.performed song (audial part), 3.medium (live, broadcast, net...), 4.distribution (that are we talking about) and 5.esthetical perception (one enjoys something more than the other one). I think you agree, that most important parts are "1","2" and "5". "5" is too subjective to be considered in trade, "1" may have a problem that the composer could be dead. So we should value mostly the performance, not the media and distribution, as you prefer.

I'm not trying to justify crimes. I simply want to know what is a crime. If the systematical destruction of art isn't crime either, that sort of things...

[Megashrap]

R.I.P

As of December 19th, 2004, at around 5PM (GMT+1:00 Slovenian time), a message was displayed on Suprnova's front page stating it has officially closed down. Some speculation states this is due to its poor server and constant downtime, whilst others speculate that Suprnova had been receiving legal warnings, which was the underlying reason of its shutdown.

Later, Sloncek, the lead administrator and owner, revealed on Suprnova's IRC channel that his site was shut down because neither he, or the other administrators will want to continue to fight against the legal warnings which they have received.

At the time of writing, Suprnova has been taken down, and the site is no longer reachable. Amazingly, this unexpected ordeal took place in the span of merely 12 hours.

Suprnova did not host any of the shared files, nor did it operate any BitTorrent trackers. All it offered were the ".torrent" meta files which would tell a BitTorrent client where it could find the BitTorrent tracker. The client could then go to the tracker to find peers to obtain the file from. Suprnova would connect to the tracker periodically to obtain statistics for display on its web pages, so visitors could determine how popular a file was, and how likely it was that they could obtain a complete copy of it. The two important statistics were "Seeds" and "DLs". "DLs" was the number of participants currently uploading and downloading the file. "Seeds" was the number of participants who had the complete file available for download. The number of seeds was important, as if there are no seeds left or the last seed leaves the network, all other participants would (probably) be have been unable to finish the file.

As well as the torrent files themselves, there was a set of forums for visitors, where people talked about various subjects, and requested different files that they'd like to see people upload. This resulted in a greater sense of community spirit than on the self-contained networks such as FastTrack and Gnutella.

Suprnova.org had a problem with two similarly named scam sites, Suprnova.com and Suprnova.net. These sites have the same layout as suprnova.org but require a usage fee (Suprnova.org did not).

Source..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprnova

There are 4 sides to everything, Good, Bad, Perfect and Imperfect. Whichever order they are in is decided by the person, and by that person alone.

Sad indeed for the site itself, but there are still tons of mirrors that will keep it going and are still available. Which btw i'm currently dloading a few old classic tv episodes.

This does not mean Bit Torrent itself is down in any way, but rather a Free Web site unhosted successfully bullied into submission and defeat from monitary threats. Nothing more.

[Dude_Doc]

The first is false because we have governments and legislatures.

And you don't think that governments and corporations can bypass those laws?

The second is nonsense because capitalist societies (much as I dislike them) can earn money without secrets.

Yes, they can ideally, but most do not. If there are ways to come around, they'll do so. Capitalism is a kind of system where you have to do stuff, not because you want to, but because someone tells you to do it. You have no regard for anything except if you're paid for it. I'm not saying that everybody is like that, I'm saying that it's the way we're supposed to live.

It isn't becuase there is insufficient public support for your position (if most voters agreed, things would change; that's the point of a "democratic" system).

And I suppose that one day we'll vote wheter we want to legalize downloading or not?

That wasn't by point.  I meant to say it is very difficult for any service, no matter how cheap, to compete against a free alternative.

Yes, but I am talking about files after 10 years. You have 10 years to make money on your product, and after 10 long years, would you still make millions on it?

If I create an intellectual work, be it a book, music, software or a painting, I have the right to control the product of my labor, whether it can be converted into a digital format or not.

Then I think you would find it very hard to become a Socialist.

If I then sell to photograph of her hair, the product of her labor, without her permission, one can't say she is "emotionally damaged," but does that make it alright?

The quality of the product, in this case her hair, wouldn't be very much of a file people would really download. Please.

All women know they are being spied upon daily?

They are at least aware that there are those kinds of people, yes. Don't say they don't know that there are rapists and necrophiles... and paparazzi for that matter too.

No, and they don't need to.  If people respected copyright law, this wouldn't be a problem.

People will never like class and money society. That's why we have all this corruption and so called "piracy".

"More Americans are using file sharing software than voted for President Bush in 2000,"."Throwing the book at music swappers makes great political theater, but jailing 60 million music fans is not good business, nor does it put a single penny into the pockets of artists."

Like that one. 

Suing fans doesn't pay artists. Neither does threatening every Internet user's civil liberties.

Our current copyright regime makes criminals out of music lovers. Worse, it makes suspected criminals out of ALL Internet users.

Not to mention that al-Quaeda is out there somewhere.

That is being done much more seriously by the PATRIOT Act, focus your priorities.

The Patriot Act will expand to the internet sooner or later. Bush has four long years to go...

[Anathema]

Yes, they can ideally, but most do not. If there are ways to come around, they'll do so. Capitalism is a kind of system where you have to do stuff, not because you want to, but because someone tells you to do it.

Life is not just about the joys, it has it's hardships as well. You're starting to sound like a kid, "but daddy, I don't want to do my homework! *cries*"

The quality of the product, in this case her hair, wouldn't be very much of a file people would really download. Please.

The whole point of the woman analogy was that for something to be a crime, it's not necessary that you're "stealing" anything, as in depriving the other of something. Please.

And I suppose that one day we'll vote wheter we want to legalize downloading or not?

Downloading is very much legal. You can download freeware from legal sites, or you can download software if you pay for it with credit card, etc.

The day that they however scrap the notion that you can own copyrights, is the funeral day of the music industry as we know it.

People will never like class and money society. That's why we have all this corruption and so called "piracy".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!

Yeah Cyborg, every single one of those kiddies who download music are in fact communists, together united in a single objective: to eliminate class distinctions and poverty ;)

Let me elaborate:

People download music because they have no respect for law, because they're to cheap to spend their money in return for music, and because they're convinced it's "victimless". Not because they want to abolish capitalism ::)

[Megashrap]

Let me elaborate:

People download music because they have no respect for law, because they're to cheap to spend their money in return for music, and because they're convinced it's "victimless". Not because they want to abolish capitalism ::)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. The Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft and the Ninth District Court recently reminded the RIAA that it is not in their best interests to try to deflect an argument of the facts by shouting pirate and thief every other word.

The issue that judge presented to the RIAA was to explain what's different than BetaMax. They didn't do it.

When the Supreme Court hears the Grokster case, there is still that one unanswered question.

If you want to physically lay your index finger on a clearly valid criminal, then it would be wiser to point out and target the joe blows who are actually re-producing, packaging and reselling a copied piece, In major bulk I might add. Who DO make profits from artists and can justify being targeted and arrested.

That is clearly were the crime lies thusfar, not wether or not i'm guilty for sharing a song with a buddy of mine, or dloading a certain file type.