Comments on: Is downloading illegal? Or isn’t it?

By: Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:13:23 +0000

The question is whether a law that prohibits or regulates common sense actions such as

- being free (remember slavery?)
- voting (remember suffrage?)
- having a religion (please read history)
- speaking (get and read a few defamation lawsuits)
- reading (please read history)
- drinking (remember prohibition?)
- copying whatever for personal non commercial use

can really be enforced during any length of time and can be enforced without creating a judicial jurisprudence gridlock and having to arrest innocent children, descendants, friends of the very same lawmakers who made the law and the same politicians, officials and judges who were supposed to enforced them.

The answer is a resounding NO.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:36:54 +0000

Why should the taxpayers of the world fund this crap. Just TELL this industry (media)to go forth and multiply(fuckoff).

By: ravensky

ravensky — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:40:06 +0000

Personally I dont think it matters if downloading is illegal or not, consider this and one might question if your not infact being led to believe its ok. On the comercial for sony psp , which ran before the will smith movie hancock was released they showed the words download complete stenciled on a shirt then him watching the movie. To me that signifies that it is legal to download movies. In fact encouraged to download them. We are told we cant do that but wasnt the same said during the Cassette age, then the VHS age and now CD and DVD? So far no difference . We have the big 4 cartel telling us not to download the music but yet each owns stock in on of the above recording industry and markets a product for recording CD’s and DVD’s plus the objects to record them on. How can you market a product and then complain when people use it. Imagine General Motors saying Yes buy our cars and trucks, but dont drive them. Same difference. Cable companies constantly show their commercials with people downloading music or movies, but not once do they mention you have to pay for the service, come on we show people of all ages its ok. Infact encourage it but offering higher and higher bandwidth, but get in trouble when it is used. Hypocrates , the hell with music and tv. The hell with the current business model adapt and give people a product they want not the same old repeated generic vomit. How many times can we see starwars and be expected to pay to see it in a theatre.. Starwars , starwars the extended edition, the new format , edited, directors cut, producers version. All cause someone adds 5 minutes of film and or cleans up some graphics. Want to impress me remove those damned green screen squares off the tie fighters, with all the advancement they havent even been able to fix that. HA

By: IratePirate

IratePirate — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:20:00 +0000

“Otherwise, Mr. Fitch is perpetuating the myth the RIAA is selling.”

Oh I wouldn’t go that far. Your right about overlooking how shared folders work of course and should be added to the original blog post (someone feel like writing to him? I’m just a lazy pirate lol). Otherwise I think he nailed everything right on the head about as perfectly as one can, and in a clear and concise manner that even my mother would likely understand.

I encountered this guy in passing who works at a donut shop. He knows a guy, who knows this girl who has a boyfriend whose brother knows this guy that is creating perfect duplicates of dollar bills. I passed along a request down this chain of people asking if I could have one. The answer was yes and I am now the owner of one shiny new fake bill, all for nothing but the asking. I don’t plan on using it to buy anything of course. I was simply curious about their quality and wanted to see one for myself, perhaps put it up on a wall as art so others could see it. So, am I guilty of counterfeiting? Would anyone who saw it hanging on the wall also be guilty? Food for thought.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:40:47 +0000

” If the intellectual work is protected by copyright, and the supplier is not licensed by all copyright holders to the work to manufacture and distribute copies, then the supplier may infringe copyright in the process of manufacturing and supplying copies to downloaders. ”

Another article which fails to mention …

Actual distribution must tak place for infringement to occur, NOT simply having files in a shared folder.

Someone, not authorized by the RIAA memberm has to actually successfully download for any ‘distribution’ , to
have taken place.
That distribution must be proven.

So far the RIAA has no been forced to prove distribution, thats how dead people and people with no computer get sued.
The RIAA has no burden of proof.
The have the money to BREAK you.

Mr. Fitch should recognize that just having a visible list of files does not mean they are downloadable, ( some p2p users allow
viewing yet block downloading ). Otherwise, Mr. Fitch is perpetuating the myth the RIAA is selling.

By: DRM Koolaid

DRM Koolaid — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:14:57 +0000

Profits up a huge 23000% by *not* suing your customers and *giving* your content away.

Monty Python profits from sensible approach to tackling digital piracy

http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16999

By: DRM Koolaid

DRM Koolaid — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:12:08 +0000

Off-topic, but relevant to p2pnet:

“Mgeek added: “Journalists these days are frightened little rabbits told to print or pixellate press releases and taught not to challenge power and vested interests. We will prove that journalism is not dead and that readers want strong journalism and not wishy-washy pap dictated to them by multiple vested interests.”

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/625/1050625/tabloid-mageek-strikes

If this is anything like http://www.theinquirer.net which he founded, then this site will be telling it like it is and can only complement p2pnet.