<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What if you got home from space &#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29437/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29437</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Crosbie Fitch</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29437/comment-page-1#comment-985851</link>
		<dc:creator>Crosbie Fitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=29437#comment-985851</guid>
		<description>Firstly, www.enterpajge.com&#039;s spam needs deleting, not least for the misattribution and plagiarism.

Secondly, catflap, my apologies for the unqualified use of the term &#039;file-sharing&#039; and the insinuation that it wasn&#039;t legal. I was referring to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/freefilesharing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;petition to legalise the not-for-profit sharing of copyrighted media&lt;/a&gt; - even they fail to clarify that they mean &#039;works subject to copyright irrespective of the copyright holder&#039;s license or permission&#039;. As we know, it&#039;s still legal to file-share many works subject to copyright.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firstly, <a href="http://www.enterpajge.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.enterpajge.com</a>&#8217;s spam needs deleting, not least for the misattribution and plagiarism.</p>
<p>Secondly, catflap, my apologies for the unqualified use of the term &#8216;file-sharing&#8217; and the insinuation that it wasn&#8217;t legal. I was referring to the <a href="http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/freefilesharing/" rel="nofollow">petition to legalise the not-for-profit sharing of copyrighted media</a> &#8211; even they fail to clarify that they mean &#8216;works subject to copyright irrespective of the copyright holder&#8217;s license or permission&#8217;. As we know, it&#8217;s still legal to file-share many works subject to copyright.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: catflap</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29437/comment-page-1#comment-985841</link>
		<dc:creator>catflap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=29437#comment-985841</guid>
		<description>&quot;You need to legalise file-sharing full-stop&quot;.

who says filesharing is illegal?

i don&#039;t know who you&#039;re talking to. filesharing IS legal.

and where i live, copying and sharing for personal use IS legal.
it&#039;s actually written into law.

i don&#039;t say online where i live. that&#039;s no one&#039;s business but mine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You need to legalise file-sharing full-stop&#8221;.</p>
<p>who says filesharing is illegal?</p>
<p>i don&#8217;t know who you&#8217;re talking to. filesharing IS legal.</p>
<p>and where i live, copying and sharing for personal use IS legal.<br />
it&#8217;s actually written into law.</p>
<p>i don&#8217;t say online where i live. that&#8217;s no one&#8217;s business but mine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Crosbie Fitch</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29437/comment-page-1#comment-985827</link>
		<dc:creator>Crosbie Fitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=29437#comment-985827</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been banging on about this for years - I have brick marks on my forehead to prove it.

Just because a manufacturer of copies can&#039;t sell copies, that doesn&#039;t mean a producer of movies can&#039;t sell a movie to the audience who want to see it. They may no longer be able to sell it to a producer of copies, but who cares about that given people can make their own copies for nothing?

It should also serve as a warning to those demanding &lt;em&gt;non-commercial&lt;/em&gt; file-sharing. It&#039;s pointless demanding the liberty to share files if you still deny the producers of movies and other intellectual works the liberty to sell their labour to you. You need to legalise file-sharing full-stop, whether commercial or not.

Not every musician and movie-maker out there can afford to give their work away. Some of them would appreciate being paid for their work.

Remember, that&#039;s &#039;paid for their &lt;strong&gt;work&lt;/strong&gt;&#039;, not &#039;paid for every &lt;strong&gt;copy&lt;/strong&gt; that anyone makes&#039;. As copies cost nothing to make, sure, everyone is free to make their own and give &#039;em away. But, work, now that takes time, skill and effort, so sometimes, those who produce it, might want to make its production contingent upon payment. It would be silly to legalise giving copies of work away for nothing, but for it to remain illegal to produce and distribute the work for money. Thankfully Pol astutely recognises this.

File-sharing is about the freedom to share, not about forcing forcing artists to work for free. Free as in speech, not as in beer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been banging on about this for years &#8211; I have brick marks on my forehead to prove it.</p>
<p>Just because a manufacturer of copies can&#8217;t sell copies, that doesn&#8217;t mean a producer of movies can&#8217;t sell a movie to the audience who want to see it. They may no longer be able to sell it to a producer of copies, but who cares about that given people can make their own copies for nothing?</p>
<p>It should also serve as a warning to those demanding <em>non-commercial</em> file-sharing. It&#8217;s pointless demanding the liberty to share files if you still deny the producers of movies and other intellectual works the liberty to sell their labour to you. You need to legalise file-sharing full-stop, whether commercial or not.</p>
<p>Not every musician and movie-maker out there can afford to give their work away. Some of them would appreciate being paid for their work.</p>
<p>Remember, that&#8217;s &#8216;paid for their <strong>work</strong>&#8216;, not &#8216;paid for every <strong>copy</strong> that anyone makes&#8217;. As copies cost nothing to make, sure, everyone is free to make their own and give &#8216;em away. But, work, now that takes time, skill and effort, so sometimes, those who produce it, might want to make its production contingent upon payment. It would be silly to legalise giving copies of work away for nothing, but for it to remain illegal to produce and distribute the work for money. Thankfully Pol astutely recognises this.</p>
<p>File-sharing is about the freedom to share, not about forcing forcing artists to work for free. Free as in speech, not as in beer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


