Downloads aren’t illegal: update
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- A little while back we I posted an item slugged Downloads aren’t illegal: UK music stars
Said the intro »»»
Downloads aren’t illegal, says a new and powerful lobby group of famous UK artists and performers including Blur drummer Dave Rowntree, Soul II Soul’s Jazzie B, Billy Bragg, Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien, Kate Nash, Marillion’s Mark Kelly and rapper Master Shortie.
Quoting Billboard, it went on »»»
“The inaugural meeting of the U.K.’s Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC) in London resulted in a unanimous vote among its members against any measures that criminalize file-sharing.”
However, I’ve just learned from a fly-on-the-wall in the UK things aren’t as cut and dried as Billboard, and other, reports suggest.
At the meeting, not open to the public, there was a “show of hands”, not a formal vote, and it was by no means unanimous, I’m told.
Stay tuned.
JN
March, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
i’ll show my hand to it being illegal anyone want to second that?
March 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
” iâll show my hand to it being illegal anyone want to second that? ”
I don’t care about your hand.
Cite the relevant law that supports that OPINION.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
(Yeah, there’s nothing “legit” about promoting laws that don’t exist!)
March 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“iâll show my hand to it being illegal anyone want to second that?”
Ok, I see your hand… do you see my finger?
March 13th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
pwnd ahahahaha… I can http://www.eZee.se see my two thumbs up for that witty comment?
March 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Thank you, I try… (takes a bow)
March 13th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Damn, Ezee — you beat me too it!
(I was gonna say that!) 
Damnit!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Copyright law is (17 U.S.C. §106)
See also Home Music Recording
filesharing per se is not illegal: you can share files that you have rights to, — generally anything that has not been protected by another party’s copyright, — such as books, articles, music, computer games, moves, and the like
to argue the because some filesharing is legal means any file sharing is legal is the Fallacy of Composition
March 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Likwise, to infer or argue that all filesharing is illegal because some file sharing is illegal, is the same fallacy.
The RIAA lawyers and the media push this fallacy just as hard, do you think that is right ?
March 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am
mike, we don’t want to know who you are fallating.
TMI
March 14th, 2009 at 11:01 am
here is the section mike licker refers to in his shill post in it’s entirety …
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity39
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. â Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art â
(1) shall have the right â
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right â
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. â Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions. â (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of âwork of visual artâ in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
(d) Duration of Rights. â (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.
(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.
(3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.
(4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
(e) Transfer and Waiver. â (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
I see nothing about Downloading, at all.
I see mention of distributing, which the RIAA lawsuits say is equal to having the files show up on
a LIST , regardless of whether or not some one downloads them, but I see nothing regarding
downloading. There is no definition of downloading as illegal, or mention of downloading as illegal
in the section of law you refer to … interestingly enough, this section is follwed immediately by
Sec 107
What is sec 107 ,
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include â
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Wow, the often ignored Fair use provision.
Lets look at these two sections as these are the biggest bone in your ‘fallating’ mike
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
No one is sharing for profit, looks like this fits the statute.
( 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Well, what do you know. It has been proven that sharing has no effect on sales
( the label do a wonderful job of driving away paying customers on their own ),
AND a judge agrees that a download DOES NOT equal a lost sale, so there is
NO PROVEN EFFECT ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARED SONG.
The labels still sell it for a dollar, people will still ‘Buy THAT for a dollar !’
No .. Market .. Effect.
No law against downloading.
Sorry, wrong again.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
” “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowlege among the people, who have a right … and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of their rulers”
March 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Hi all:
Iâve spoken with Mike via email and he isnât a shill.
And he has the courage to sign his name.
Cheers!
March 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Poor Mike, bitch slapped by Dreddsnik…
March 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
oops, thought he was a shill, feel free to delete my above comment…
March 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
^^ No worries. 99.9% of them ARE either trolls or shills.
Cheers!
March 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
My apologies then, since he sure sounded like one.
He has an opinion, that’s fine, but it is NOT based in fact of
law as he tried so hard to claim.
Don’t try to sell an opinion as a LAW.
Put it forth as an opinion and back it up with
concrete evidence, if there IS any.
Claiming that (17 U.S.C. §106) supports the argument that downloading is illegal is
a frequent shill tactic, and has been shot down many times by those that bother
to READ it carefully. So hopefully I can be forgiving for thinking Mr. Acker is a
shill, regardless of his willingness to sign his name.
It looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, so I shot it.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“It looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, so I shot it.”
DUCK HATER !!!!
heh
Cheers!
March 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
ooops,
Duck Season is over until september.
Is that a knock at my door ?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Regardless of who he is, Mike came in with some feeble attempt to “debunk” the statement, “there are no illegal DOWNLOADS”, using a statement about “copyright” law that has no actual bearing on the act of downloading itself.
Since everyone’s pretty tired of having “copyright” inappropriately and automatically pushed in their faces to justify all other arguments (including one that links file sharing with “terrorism”!), those such as Mike are going to get flamed more and more for not making the distinction between “legal TOOLS” and “illegal ACTS”. Failure to do so only perpetuates the propaganda that’s hurting us all.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and has a big yellow thing in front of it’s face, it’s probably copyrighted by Walt Disney in perpetuity
Cheers!
March 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Don’t get me started on Disney!
: )
I don’t think Walt himself would have wanted things to turn out the way they have, would he still be alive today.
My uncle is a famous cartoonist, and knew Walt.
He made a remark when Walt was on his deathbed, “Watch the vultures swoop in when this is over!”
Boy, did he know what he was talking about!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Walt was a good man, a creative man and in most cases a fair man, I think he would be amazed at how huge the name and company has become but would be sickened to the pit of his stomach to see how ‘the vultures’ are running his company.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
^^ Do you mean Walt Disney or Walt Whitman?
Cheers!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Hmmm, someones into poetry.. bet that helps with the ladies
March 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Note to all: A lot of good people have been hurt in this war over the copyright law. That is un-fortunate, and I think much of this could have been saved if there were a better understanding of what is and what is not legal. It is OK to attempt to change the law by Civil Disobedience but those participating in such activity should know what they are doing. A lot of mis-information has been circulated in that respect.
As things stand now the Jamie Thomas trial is under review; the judge having stated that he committed a manifest error in the law when he instructed the jury that “making available” was a copy right violation.
He is correct in admitting this. The law respects the principle of stare decisis which says simply that when the material facts in one case are the same as those in a case decided by a higher court then the outcome must be the same.
the courts have consistently held that plaintiff must show that an actual transfer occurred in order to claim damages under copyright law. RIAA, MPA et. al. have found difficulty in doing this,– mainly because they don’t understand computers generally and p2p in particular. Too, internet service providers have not taken a great interest in tracking what their customers are doing. One cannot subpoena evidence that does not exist.
but change is in the wind. as Internet use increases, ISPs are becoming interested in metering customer activity, particularly with respect to activity that uses a lot of bandwidth. If I bill you for xxxxGB of activity you might dispute my bill, and if that happened I would have to list what your activity consisted of.
the copyright issue has become an international concern, and particularly of note in the Pirate Bay case. Again, I expect this case to fail, the reason being that TPB is charged with collaborative copyright infringement. Plaintiffs have not show that there was any original copyright infringement and without such evidence proving collaborative infringement is — most likely — not possible.
if there are changes in the law — and I suspect there will be — the changes will concern rules of evidence — not what is or is not legal.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Deaddsnik: you can quibble the fair use provisions if you like, and here on p2p would be a good sounding board for your arguments.
for your argument to go anyplace you need to establish a precedent in law however. You need to win a case showing that file sharing qualifies as fair use and then have that appealed to a higher court and then up-held.
right now I’m not aware of a case where this particular aspect is the issue. In the Jamie Thomas case the issue seems to be whether plaintiffs can prove any transfers occurred rather than whether “making available” constitutes “fair use”
fair use is generally regarded as private, non-commercial. storing your favorite music on an open share can hardly be considered private. See also Home Music Recording Act (HMRA).
March 15th, 2009 at 10:41 am
” Deaddsnik: you can quibble the fair use provisions if you like, and here on p2p would be a good sounding board for your arguments. ”
I’m not the quibbler. You brought it up.
I posted it in it’s entirety. Anyone who can read can see there is nothing in it
even remotely related to DOWNLOADING.
” for your argument to go anyplace you need to establish a precedent in law however. You need to win a case showing that file sharing qualifies as fair use and then have that appealed to a higher court and then up-held. ”
Absolutely.
That’s hard to do when the RIAA lawyers do everything they can to AVOID any decisive precedent, choosing to
bury possibly innocent defendents in costly motions until they can no longer afford to fight.
Why would someone who has a legitimate case use such tactics ?
” right now Iâm not aware of a case where this particular aspect is the issue. In the Jamie Thomas case the issue seems to be whether plaintiffs can prove any transfers occurred ”
” In the Jamie Thomas case the issue seems to be whether plaintiffs can prove any transfers occurred rather than whether âmaking availableâ constitutes âfair useâ
I think you are being deliberately obtuse .
The RIAA making available strategy has been going on ever since the got spanked in the Cecelia Gonzalez case, in which
the had to DROP nearly 1000 counts because Cecilia OWNED PURCHASED COPIES of the songs in question.
After that case they changed to a Making Available/Illegal distribution strategy.
Try to educate yourself before you comment on something you don’t know about.
If you REALLY want to know, then start here …
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
Ray Beckermans legal blog, which has been tracking nearly all the cases since they started.
” fair use is generally regarded as private, non-commercial. storing your favorite music on an open share can hardly be considered private. See also Home Music Recording Act (HMRA). ”
Really, so the open share available to all the machines in my home is illegal ?
I don’t think so.
Blanket statements do not apply, not matter how you try, no matter how you WANT them too.
Surprising that you support such Draconian crap considering the other things you DO support, Mr. Licker
March 15th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Real name or not, A Shill is a shill.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Deadnik:
go back and read Section 107 carefully. This acts as a guide which is why a precedent is needed — and which has not been established — at least in anything I’ve read on this. The topic was given legal consideration in HMRA, however, and this no doubt applied in the Cecelia Gonzalez case.
Having an open share on your computer is completely legal as is the use of p2p software. but, like many tools, it is not the tool that is question but what people do with it.
Please don’t get me wrong in this exchange. I’m no advocate for big corporations or their mercantilist system.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, my concern is that good people not get hurt by becoming involved in civil disobedience without knowing what they are doing, — and what the stakes are.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am
” As Iâve mentioned elsewhere, my concern is that good people not get hurt by becoming involved in civil disobedience without knowing what they are doing, â and what the stakes are. ”
Good people who have done nothing are being hauled into court and having to pay through the
nose, even when they have done nothing, and the RIAA team have never had to show proof of
any wrongdoing.
You are a concern troll
Your false concern has been noted.
I will have no further discussion with you.
Tend to your flock.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Deadnik:
I think you have abandon the field here.
You assertion that I have expressed a false concern is just that: an assertion on your part. File sharing as a copyright issue remains on the table and those who choose to be involved in that practice have a right to know. As I see this, right now the only thing preventing RIAA and MPA from successful prosecutions is the difficulty in collecting evidence. That is likely to change.
Another aspect of this derives from HMRA. There is no music tax on computers. Rights under HMRA are provided in consideration of the music tax applied to the devices and media manufactured and sold for the purpose of playing music. This does not cover your computer and so simply having copyright music on your computer might be considered a violation. But I have not read of any proceedings along this line.
I’m sorry if I am not a cheering advocate for your issue.
But if all you wanted was cheering advocates there would be little use of having a blog board.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Mike, _if_ you are a “concern troll” I feel its my duty to level the playing field for p2pnet readers:
1. Not everyone who uses p2p is from the MAFIAA’s playground (the US), so keep in mind sharing from other parts of the world (like me in Sweden) can be done with a LOT of impunity. All the crappy biased laws they make against p2p… mostly cant be enforced.
2. Even in the States, the chances of you getting accused of filesharing very very low, you do the math:
_Millions_ of sharers PER DAY, but 30,000 lawsuits in FIVE YEARS, of which a lot were innocents.
This is no sniper shooting but more like a blind man shooting in a crowded place getting both innocents and guilty ones by the sheer number.
3. Being smart and using peer guardian or relakks etc lowers your chances of being caught even more, you probably have a better chance of hitting the state lottery.
4. The RIAA/MPAA are pretty much clueless about p2p and are lost in the technology, they have all the money… but no brains, case and point: TPB trial… I think nearly everyone visiting here could have done a better job, even me without any legal training could have done a better job of making a case against TPB without getting ‘pwned’ every 3 minutes.
and finally…. Sharing is caring.
Cheers!
March 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
If Mike isn’t a shill, then he’s a shill wannabe, or just clue-resistant.
Either way, he has a vested interest in seeing filesharing pronounced “illegal”…
1) “It is OK to attempt to change the law by Civil Disobedience but those participating in such activity should know what they are doing.”
Civil Disobedience is one thing, and it’s actually considered a natural, and constructive way to affect change where it’s needed. The only thing participants need to “know” is that they object to a current situation. Any valid points causing change are simply reinforced by the strength of number.
It’s another thing to claim violation of law where no law exists, which is what the Content Industries are guilty of doing, and what you’re doing. Deliberately extorting this “lack of precedent” (as you call it), they abuse the legal system, using it as a tool to inflict hurt in the name of a law they want, but simply isn’t there. It is only wealth that enables them to even be heard on these ridiculous charges in the first place. (Yet, it really isn’t working, is it?!)
2) “A lot of mis-information(sic) has been circulated in that respect.”
Yes, but give me ONE example of misinformation by those that aren’t scrambling to keep their sinking business model afloat. What lies have been circulated by the filesharing community??
3) “As things stand now the Jamie Thomas trial is under review; the judge having stated that he committed a manifest error in the law when he instructed the jury that âmaking availableâ was a copy right violation…. He is correct in admitting this.”
If you think making available is not a copyright violation, then what’s your point concerning downloads, or even uploads, then?
4) “Too, internet service providers have not taken a great interest in tracking what their customers are doing. One cannot subpoena evidence that does not exist.”
There’s a good reason why providers need to stay away from customer tracking, or have you not noticed a whole page of history currently being made on this topic.
As it stands, without evidence, nobody’s supposed to be guilty of any charge, particularly when a law to charge them with breaking also doesn’t exist.
“…but change is in the wind. as Internet use increases, ISPs are becoming interested in metering customer activity, particularly with respect to activity that uses a lot of bandwidth.”
The change is in the desire of certain greedy providers hoping to not only increase their revenue (eg. introducing metered billing), but also to sell personal customer data to 3rd party marketers. This is an issue their customers are currently threatening to firebomb them over. In no way, does it actually relate to the topic at hand, nor does it stands a chance of becoming an accepted practice anyway.
As mentioned above, there’s a good reason why providers need to stay away from the issue of “copyright policing”. They would never allow themselves to assume the costs of such a responsibility, let alone the endless liability cases.
5) “and particularly of note in the Pirate Bay case. Again, I expect this case to fail, the reason being that TPB is charged with collaborative copyright infringement. Plaintiffs have not show that there was any original copyright infringement and without such evidence proving collaborative infringement is â most likely â not possible.”
You should probably get a hasty copyright on the term “collaborative copyright infringement”, before someone else decides to grab it.
If nothing else, the term is “inventive”. I have certainly never heard of the term, and it seems the lawbooks aren’t mentioning it either.
Here’s a thought – perhaps that’s because there’s no such thing?!
6) “if there are changes in the law â and I suspect there will be â the changes will concern rules of evidence â not what is or is not legal.”
Now, you’re just demonstrating either idiocy, or lack of sleep.
Either there’s a law forbidding something, or there isn’t.
If so, that “something” is illegal. It’s obviously a core principle of law.
Even the MAFIAA lawyers wouldn’t try to twist that one.
7) “…for your argument to go anyplace you need to establish a precedent in law however. You need to win a case showing that file sharing qualifies as fair use…”
Again, you demonstrate the same “cart, then horse” philosophy.
It is the charge that “filesharing is illegal” that is missing the precedent.
Fair Use may or may not be a factor in DEFENSE of such a (unestablished) charge.
Unless there is a law against file sharing, the only argument needed is one to prove there should be one.
It appear you are one of those who chooses to support evidence-lacking prosecutions.
I, for one, don’t support the prospect of pronouncing people guilty of a charge that doesn’t exist, and being allowed to even file the charge without evidence. The fact that all such charges haven’t been automatically denied at the door only proves the court process itself is either ignorant, or corrupted to a certain degree.
Your arguments are baseless, to put it mildly.
But thanks for playing, eh!
March 16th, 2009 at 8:15 am
A file-sharer advertising the files they possess and their offer to consider requests to copy any of them is not a copyright infringement.
Downloading a copy of such a file is never a copyright infringement on the part of the downloader.
If the file-sharer manufactures a copy of a file without the copyright holder’s authorisation in the process of supplying it to a would be downloader, this may well constitute copyright infringement.
If a downloader manufactures and distributes copies as part of the process of downloading, then they may also be liable.
It is not appropriate to say whether file sharing is legal or illegal.
In any case, one should be more concerned with the ethics of the activity. Asserting one’s natural liberty to share and build upon published works, if done honestly, is a fundamentally ethical thing to do, irrespective of any copyright infringement (an inherently unethical privilege). On the other hand, IP theft and distributing stolen IP is not at all ethical.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am
=”The only thing participants need to âknowâ is that they object to a current situation.”
there is no way to justify this kind of thinking
March 16th, 2009 at 10:38 am
” there is no way to justify this kind of thinking ”
Nor yours.
I noticed you didn’t address any of his of his points, choosing instead to
directly attack him for his ‘kind of thinking’.
Address his points, or stop trolling.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Don’t get too riled up by this guy. I’ve been doing a lot of poking around since he did give
his real name and I understand why he is doing what hes doing.
He’s an IT professional and has a vested interest in the success of the lawsuit campaign.
Absolutely everyone who supports the RIAA suits has proven to have some vested financial
interest. he has no concern about civil disobedience other than the fact that eventually it might
succeed. In nearly every other way he leans to less government control and more personal
freedom except in the area he has a personal financial interest in. That would make him a hypocrite.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“It is not appropriate to say whether file sharing is legal or illegal.”
@Crosbie…
This, and what accompanied it, is exactly what I was getting at.
The propaganda being spread around takes advantage of this same confusion – “copyright infringement” vs. “the act of downloading”.
Since the Content Industry has no idea how to control the first, they move to criminalize the second by tacking it on to such statements as “illegal downloading is killing our children!” (I just expanded the principle by “reinforcing” it with an implied “public concern”. Many people take in the emotion without actually questioning things like this.)
March 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@ all…
I’ve decided to promote Mike to the position of “troll”.
But, unlike him, I’m not just going to make the empty statement and expect it to stand on its own.
I’m going to QUALIFY it:
- Trolls refuse to address the points presented
- Trolls refuse to give up on thoroughtly debunked points
- Trolls are often ambiguous as to what point, if any, they’re really trying to make
- Trolls exist to disrupt a conversation with BS
- Trolls are clue-resistant, and ultimately a waste of time
I’m finished with this one.
(see last point)