2. “Libberwhack Red-herring?”
What in the HELL does that even mean, genius?
I mean, the companies comprising the RIAA and their sister organizations ARE “multinational” in scope, and they ARE corporations.
And as far as your disingenuous little “I suppose they blew up the WTC”/accusation of “Freetardism”: pull your head out of Bainwol’s ass, M’kay?

I stopped reading your idiotic “response” after the WTC thing, primarily because it just smacks of the type of strawman bullshit that IP apologists do. Here’s a tip: questioning Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians does NOT equal “anti-semitism”, although that’s the common strawman used to trump critics.

The fact is, Mr. “Guerilla Network” associate (Gee whiz golly gee, the local Wal-Mart has a lot of “associates” too!):

Read up on some history: copy”right” was (mistakenly) created as a TEMPORARY monopoly (14 years) which — like patents — was INTENDED to expire, NOT intended for corporate megaliths to keep buying themselves extentions every twenty years.

So pull your head out of Bainwol’s ass (like I said). P2p IS a “wonderful thing”, that’s basically the ONLY thing you had right in your response.

But hey, what does a “freetard” like myself know, eh?

I just want to inject some reality into this article. P2p is a good thing. It makes the seemingly impossible happen in real time. Just like I don’t blame GM when someone gets run over by an idiot driving a camaro thru a red light, P2P itself is not to blame, but somehow tying P2P with freetardism is messed up.

“The topic of IP (Intellectual Property) is extremely contentious; those defending the status quo”

The status quo huh? Ignoring that the pro-IP rights side is happy to use new technology, embraces it and in fact creates it quite often right?

Or did you mean someone else?

“(and the multinational corporations benefitting from it)”

Libberwhack red-herring, I suppose the record companies blew up the WTC on 911 too right? Lets throw a few more in like big pharma and MMR causes autism while we’re throwing out the canards

“consistently misunderstand/misrepresent the concerns of their opponents.”

Evidence?

“They brand p2p users as “theives” who “just don’t want to pay for stuff”.”

They who? I haven’t seen any anti p2p behaviour from the pro- IP rights side. Oh do you mean calling someone who uses p2p to steal a thief? Yeah, those are thieves. Do you have another word for taking someone’s stuff without their permission?

“They usually find the “Public Domain” to be irrelevant,”

evidence?

“and sometimes explicitly regard the end of copyright terms to be “taking something” from them/their descendents.”

You mean they expect those who they contracted with to live up to their end as well as they did? Hmm, terrible that

“They expend a tremendous amount of effort to convince everyone that IP is ultimately about their “sacred right to property.””

Not quite as much as the time expended to convince everyone that IP is free for the taking…still working out who “they ” is

“Thus, advocates of p2p technology or “file-sharing” are placed at a tremendous disadvantage from the beginning.”

hmmm, seems all the p2p sites are still up….evidence?

“After all, almost nobody is willing to “call their bluff” and explicitly defend “piracy” or “lawbreaking””

Noone but Washington post, New york times, technorati, ars technica, hardware manufacturers, bandwidth providers, wired, etc etc etc etc

“Also, until and unless a given law becomes problematic, people aren’t very likely to question it’s existence or neccesity. It’s not so much apathy as ignorance — most people simply don’t care about stuff until it becomes impossible not to take a stand.”

No, they’ll just go on ignoring the law, stealing and violating the wills of the content creator

“Opponents of p2p technology (the RIAA, MPAA, etc.) have quite a problem on their hands.”

Any evidence of this opposition. Lets see ONE SINGLE example of anti p2p behaviour by these groups when it wasn’t directly in response to theft

“By their own (possibly inflated) statements, p2p traffic accounts for a significant chunk of all Internet traffic”

The sky is blue, imagine that

A good article, with lots of nice links.

Oh, here’s a good article to read if you’re interested the origin of that quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_and_Newton_calculus_controversy
Enjoy!

I have no problems reading or understanding it.

Is there some specific point in the article you take issue with ?

Not everyone is a ‘writer’.
Some just do the best they can, and Henry seems to have gotten his point across
just fine.

Again, is there something in the article you wish to discuss further or take issue with ?