The Filesharing Conspiracy

Hey don't worry everyone, Obama will make sure we don't have to hassle messing around with torrent clients and other clunky processes we use to share 'content':

Obama's 'Identity Ecosystem' will tie our names to EVERY device we use, replace all passwords

Besides they're trying to shut down torrent sharing for good anyways:

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says:

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM) blacklistednews.com...

Which is an old agenda of Joe Biden:

Biden sponsored a bill in 2002 that would make it a felony to hack some devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs, according to CNET's Declan McCullagh. The legislation had the backing of media companies including News Corp., but died when Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Yahoo lobbied against it.
...
A few months later, Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks." Critics of this approach said that the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and not taxpayers, should pay for their own lawsuits.

Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans' ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services. (The RIAA sued XM Satellite Radio over precisely this point.)

All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance.
www.informationweek.com...

reply to post by lizzyhock

I make close (just over) minimum wage as a USELESS dishwasher

the people at these useless professions, would
still like the opportunity to make a living.

Imagine a rat in a laboratory. The rat isn't fed much, but every day he is placed in a maze with a bit of cheese at the end.

Do you think he might come to be "grateful" for the opportunity to run that maze?

You are the rat.

--------

Our society does not need these tasks performed, any more that rat society needs mazes to be run.

Your rent is so high because landlords seek to profit, and raise the rent as high as the market will bear.

Food costs so much because food producers, transporters and grocers all seek to profit, and raise their costs as high as the market will bear.

In a society where everyone seeks to profit at the expense of those around them, yes...it makes sense that you might be "grateful" for your own little opportunity to run your own little maze for your own little piece of cheese.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

one killer question :

what is the income source for a creator of open source content ?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Great thread.

Although i do not think that Filesharing is a bad thing "per say"
I do feel that alot of people tent to download a bit too mutch and take this for granted, i can see that the pornographic industry is taking a big hit. (damnit and i wanted more pornos with huge storylines and endless scenery and with expencive costumes).

But the avarage viewer does this in moderation and there are those who just do not have the money to be paying for overpriced material.

I for exsample would never read a book over the internet, kinda defiece the meaning of the phrase "i just read a book".

When good movies come out i want the big screen experiance and i would think most people agree with me on this one, but when other sertain movies come out that you do not have the interest in seing, i do not find it "immoral" to download those movies and watch them when im in the mood for alternative movies, as those movies are most likely going to be on television within 6 months anyway.

Music, well i like golden oldies songs with meaning and really good melodies and most of the musicians are dead, so the money would just go to record companies and the musicians families. In wich they get the "golden ticket"
and i do not like supporting rich spoiled people. Do we really need more people like paris hilton?

Programs, Well ok there i do not feel so good about myself, but buying a program in wich you want and then 4 months later it becomes old and this is a cycle that keeps repeating itself non stop. If you have to buy the newest program and also keep updating your pc and other software non stop to keep up. You would be a poor man unless you could do some work with that program you bought and sell what u make for overpriced money aswell (chain reaction of overpricing)

Video games. Multi million dollar industries that rip off the common man with there overpriced games and gaming consoles. Now there i feel good about myself. For exsample here in iceland, ps3 the small version 60g costs about 500 dollars, i mean sure ok , bit overpriced but sure i would buy it , if the new video games would not cost 100dollars a game.

I own a television but i have not plugged it in , in 2 years and the last time i used it , i was using it to stream movies and shows from my media portal.
If the industry would not support the idea of piracy it wouldn´t have media portals u can buy at low prices with 500g or 1tb of data ready for storage.
And then advertise them to customers "here u can store your movies picture and music" without mentioning anything about piracy.

Of course it is terrible that people can not support themselfs as indipendant musicians/artists. But that is the age we live in now, the "information and technology"age, my generation is the last of the people who grew up having to use there imagination to entertain themselfs but as we grew up technology replaced it with video games and later on the internet. And therefore replaced the urning to play games and create, with videogames and materialsim.

Those are times we will never get back as the industry just keeps ignoring the needs of the people for there corperate greed will never change as they have us hooked on there technology and materials.

Man i wish i was a kid again, playing , going camping, reading books, enjoying nature, watching the stars.........


[edit on 28-6-2010 by Spacedman13]

Originally posted by Spacedman13
I own a television but i have not plugged it in ,

Ah yes, TV. (This isn't directed towards you, I'm just saying...)

So if I were to record a movie with a VCR from my TV, and then let someone borrow or have the tape after I'm finished with it, should I face a lawsuit?

What about if I rented a video tape, and then recorded that tape. What then?

A tangled web we humans all weave.

Good times

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by np6888

 

LordBucket's views

What's scary is so many agreed with him.

I think, actually, that very few people agree with me. I think that most people think that "it's wrong" but do it anyway.

Which seems strange to me.

----------

Ultimately, I see "theft" as causing somebody else not have something that they have, rather than causing yourself to have something that somebody else has.

Scenario 1:
They have a bicycle. You take the bicycle. They now no longer have a bicycle. This is theft.

Scenario 2:
They wear a red top with blue jeans and furry hat. You like the look, so the following day you also dress in a red top with blue jeans and a furry hat. You now have the look, but they also have the look. You have not taken it from them. You have copied it for youself. This is not theft.

I think most people would agree that scenario 1 is theft and scenario 2 is not theft.

I see copying music and movies as being more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. When you copy these things, you are not causing someone else to not have them. It is therefore not theft.



[edit on 27-6-2010 by LordBucket]

Jesus, you're just hopeless. Copying an outfit by purchasing all the same items and playing dress up is the same as scanning a 300 page book and putting it up on the internet? Go take your medication. One is playing with Barbie's and the other is theft, no matter what you say.

They disagree because they know it's wrong. Our world is struggling to get by and your answer, with help from a few others, is to take away from people who are struggling just like you are because they made the stupid decision to be creative with their careers? That has to be the most asinine argument I've ever heard in my life.

So where are those answers I (and another poster) asked for?

reply to post by MR BOB


Who are you to deside how much a distributor/artist ask for his creations? Who are you to decide if a band can make a living from their music or not? It's their work and they decide it.
They don't owe you anything.

[edit on 28/6/2010 by DGFenrir]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


brilliant point,

So if I were to record a movie with a VCR from my TV, and then let someone borrow or have the tape after I'm finished with it, should I face a lawsuit?

1. Recording it = legal
2. Lending it to a friend = legal
3. Lending it to a friend over the internet = illegal
So basicly the law says, Single person sharing is fine, but mass person sharing is illegal. As they say in the warning , This video is not allowed in mass viewing. But if the persons who download it watch it alone , this contridicts the law .

What about if I rented a video tape, and then recorded that tape. What then?

That is not legal , as stated in the fbi warning. That would be copyright infringment. "BUT" if u wait for it to be shown on television and Support the corperation by buying a Vcr , then that is just fine.

I know this was not pointed at me , but i just could not resists hehe

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Spacedman13]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Hey don't worry everyone, Obama will make sure we don't have to hassle messing around with torrent clients and other clunky processes we use to share 'content':

Obama's 'Identity Ecosystem' will tie our names to EVERY device we use, replace all passwords

Besides they're trying to shut down torrent sharing for good anyways:

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says:

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM) blacklistednews.com...

Which is an old agenda of Joe Biden:

Biden sponsored a bill in 2002 that would make it a felony to hack some devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs, according to CNET's Declan McCullagh. The legislation had the backing of media companies including News Corp., but died when Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Yahoo lobbied against it.
...
A few months later, Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks." Critics of this approach said that the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and not taxpayers, should pay for their own lawsuits.

Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans' ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services. (The RIAA sued XM Satellite Radio over precisely this point.)

All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance.
www.informationweek.com...

You can all thank yourselves for this. This is what happens when they give the monkeys a high speed modem and the keys to the zoo.

If you can't afford the expensive music, movies or video games then find an alternative. We live in a free world and they can ask any price they want for their creations. It's not up to you to decide whether they can make a living from writing music, making movies or video games. If they produce crap then they fail. Crap doesn't sell and crap doesn't get pirated.

reply to post by TylerKing

Copying an outfit
is the same as scanning a 300 page book and putting it up on the internet?

Why is it different?

I explained what theft is. It is taking something from someone such that they no longer have it. If you disagree, explain yourself. Why is copying something from someone only not ok when you personally benefit from having enforcement actions taken to stop them from doing so?

So where are those answers I (and another poster) asked for?

I see no reason to give out personal information.

you're just hopeless.

Go take your medication.

You've been hurling insults every time you respond to me.

I'm tired of it.

Stop.

NM

[edit on 28-6-2010 by TylerKing]

reply to post by LordBucket


Theft is obtaining something for free that someone is asking something in return for.

Wikipedia's definition of theft:
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

Do you have the artist's consent to download that mp3? Paying for it gives you the right.
Also paying for something doesn't give you the right to copy it and share it with others for free. When you buy an album you get the right to listen to it . Buying an mp3 from iTunes store doesn't give you the right to copy it and share it on torrent sites.

[edit on 28/6/2010 by DGFenrir]

reply to post by TylerKing




I don't really care for you stance, but that was funny.

I do hope you'll respond to some of my other offerings in this thread.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by Danbones


the " piracy" laws being passed are the "conspiracy"
they are all about totalitarian control of a mediam that is exposing the corporate globalist fraud at a totally incredible rate.

using starving rich people as an excuse to take away civil rights

Exactly

This thread is not about musicians but the Elite Musicians and their elite corporate masters.
99.9 percent of musicians never produce any copyrighted original songs. A few may session on somebody elses original work. The Elite always want total control of the money and power,thus their position should be viewed with suspicion. They are not entitled to have it their way just because they
want it so. Are people worshiping these Elite Artists? The people have an inalienable right to music and art.


New Technology. There is no cost to replicating music via the internet.
Nobody ever paid for a meal from the Star Trek replicator. It is now possible for everyone with a computer to have access to every book, every photo, and every song every recorded. USING THE OLD LP/CD PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY EVEN AN AFFLUENT PERSON COULD NOT AFFORD TO HAVE A LIBRARY OF TEN THOUSAND RECORDS ,WHICH AT 15 DOLLARS EACH WOULD COST 150,000. The PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY IS THUS DEAD. LONG LIVE THE FREE INTERNET.

Libraries: These have been around for thousands of years. A library obtains a copy of work,book,music,video and then loans it out thousands of times. Are they stealing from the creator of the work?Video stores do the same thing,why should they be legal?DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY?


The question then arises, what is the greater good? Should an artist sell only 1,000 copies of his work to 1,000 rich people for 1,000 dollars each, thus making One Million dollars or
should the artist sell 100,000 million copies of his song and get 1 cent per song thus making One Million dollars.

This seems to be a no brainer. Most artists would rather be seen by 100 million people than 1,000 rich people. And most people would agree with this distribution of the wealth, dont you think so?

Artists are entitled to make a living but should we expect every artist to become a near billionaire like Paul McCartney? The Richer the rich get the poorer you will be.

Socialized Music doesnt sound so bad. Why not pay an artist for the number of times his music is downloaded? The artist gets 25 cents per song for the first ten thousand downloads, then a decreasing amount. If a song gets downloaded a ten million times the artist might end up with a huge amount of money. This would have its challenges,bots,etc.

The RIAA does not care about the Artist,The Art , or the Consumer. All they care about is the money. The artist is lucky if they get 5 cents on the dollar, the rest goes to the middlemen and the recording companies.

So the issue that is raised regarding copying is one of class warfare. The new elite want to have monopoly control, for ever on a work of art, thus again making slaves of the rest of us.

If you dont like music loud you dont like music.-Jerry Lewis (of Martin &Lewis)
If you dont like music free you dont like music.-Roky

Property is Theft
en.wikipedia.org...!
MY SONG AND YOUR SONG THAT IS MINE TOO AND THE SONG OF ALL WHICH IS MY OWN SONG

Priceless!!!!!!!!




Thanks to life
Violeta Parra
Thanks to life, which has given me so much.
It gave me two beams of light, that when opened,
Can perfectly distinguish black from white
And in the sky above, her starry backdrop,
And from within the multitude
The one that I love.

Thanks to life, which has given me so much.
It gave me an ear that, in all of its width
Records— night and day—crickets and canaries,
Hammers and turbines and bricks and storms,
And the tender voice of my beloved.

Thanks to life, which has given me so much.
It gave me sound and the alphabet.
With them the words that I think and declare:
"Mother," "Friend," "Brother" and the light shining.
The route of the soul from which comes love.

Thanks to life, which has given me so much.
It gave me the ability to walk with my tired feet.
With them I have traversed cities and puddles
Valleys and deserts, mountains and plains.
And your house, your street and your patio.

Thanks to life, which has given me so much.
It gave me a heart, that causes my frame to shudder,
When I see the fruit of the human brain,
When I see good so far from bad,
When I see within the clarity of your eyes...

Thanks to life, which has given me so much.
It gave me laughter and it gave me longing.
With them I distinguish happiness and pain—
The two materials from which my songs are formed,
And your song, as well, which is the same song.
And everyone's song, which is my very song.

Thanks to life
Thanks to life
Thanks to life
Thanks to life




[edit on 28-6-2010 by RRokkyy]

Originally posted by LordBucket
Why is it different?

I explained what theft is. It is taking something from someone such that they no longer have it. If you disagree, explain yourself. Why is copying something from someone only not ok when you personally benefit from having enforcement actions taken to stop them from doing so?

It's different because I say it is, it's my work, not yours. I decide what I feel is okay, not you.

I see no reason to give out personal information.

We didn't ask for personal information, you can be as secretive as you want, but the question still remains. So please, enlighten me. That way I can see that someone like you has anything worth even having in this new utopia you keep telling us about.

You've been hurling insults every time you respond to me.

I'm tired of it.

Stop.

No. You've shown me and mine zero respect, you think you're above honor and class so you will get none in return. And on top of that you had the balls to call another poster a rat, and you think you deserve anything? Nope, but you can try and steal it.

If an artist creates something then he has the right to ask any price he wants for it. You like his music? Then pay for it or find an artist who shares his work for free. You still downloading his music illegaly? Why? Really like it so much? Is it really better than anything else? If you really love it so much then pay for it you stupid #!
Just because it's on the internet and copy-pastaing an mp3 costs nothing doesn't give you the right to share someone elses' work for free when they are charging money for it. They created it and they decide what you can do with it.

reply to post by TylerKing

I decide what I feel is okay, not you.

Ok. And that's perfectly reasonable. But it works both ways.

So I decide what I feel is ok, not you.

Originally posted by LordBucket
Ok. And that's perfectly reasonable. But it works both ways.

So I decide what I feel is ok, not you.

With your work? Sure.

With mine? No. My work is mine to share if I want, you aren't an authority on what happens to my work.

Get it now?

reply to post by TylerKing

Get it now?

Oh, certainly I understand.

So, you do what you feel is best, and I'm going to do what I feel is best.

Meanwhile, here are a couple torrent sites to tuck you into bed tonight:

The pirate bay
isohunt
Bittorrent am
Anytorrents
Btjunkie
Demonoid
OMG torrents
Bittorrent share

Have a nice day.