ed2k://|file|BPI%20HQ%20London%20music.zip|11815841|c984ffd9fb159eca4e21b6912eec67e1|/

magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:DOJO4TJUHFW4RBQ6XPPNAHM4ALXAKGCK.JMPXJN2T7KYAIOMHOK3MLRDRJQMEZNDSN3FPBUI&dn=BPI%20HQ%20London%20music.zip

During the filesharing process, no physical property belonging to your group or anyone else is being ‘taken’. In order to be ‘taking’ music, someone would need to be sticking CDs down their pants and walking out of HMV without paying for them. Taking music in this manner does not require a computer. For this reason, filesharers are not ‘theives’, since nothing is removed from someone’s possession depriving them of it’s use and benefit. ‘The original definition of ‘piracy’ clearly states that it’s an activity that involves a sea-going vessel. However, your cartel, along with the film and software cartels have seen fit to pervert the English language and refer to such activities as filesharing as ‘piracy’. The proper term for this activity, when it runs afoul of the copyright laws, is ‘infringement.’

Please use the English language properly. It is not your place nor that of your trade association colleagues to redefine words in the Queen’s English. That duty falls upon the Fellows at Oxford University. They are very reluctant to permit such linguistic transpondence to be considered valid when there is a perfectly suited word that currently exists. And no, they will not be swayed even if a rumpled paper bag full of banknotes should magically appear in their office. That stunt only works with politicians.

–TG

It’s not very accurate, IMHO.

If we all block traffic from these thugs and the companies they use, then they will have no one to go after.

The cartels are far from the poor and harressed business they would claim to be. Much of their dealings can not stand the light of day, nor public scrunity. Buying off problems is the solution that they depend on heavily. What they can not buy off is the public. The public has a choice in where they spend their money. The cartels, for all their wishes can not force the customer to come buy. This idea of sueing the customer base into submission isn’t working on my end.

For one thing, they don’t offer any longer the type of stuff I am interested in. Their target audience is not me nor my peer group. I no longer see the generated interest in new releases as I did of older times. The artists being put on stage as the latest greatest don’t deserve the title of artist. They deserve the title of preformer.

Accusing the customer of the businesses own failings do nothing in my book to encourage me to buy. If I had a local business doing these same tactics I would refuse to buy from them too.

Dancing around the issue in the responce does nothing to settle in my mind anything other than I have already made the right choice. To further see obsene profits being made by the cartels while they poor mouth does nothing to change my mind either. This is pure and simple greed with the idea of doing as was done in the older days and controlling the entire market so that there is no choice.

Never do I see anything coming from the cartels corner that even acknowledges that independants exist. Much of what they do and attempt to do is an attempt to put those independants in the corner and keep them there. Surely neither the cartels nor the customers buy the idea that any national group just started there without earning the ability to do what it is they claim to be. Every group in existance starts at the bottom as an independant. It’s a deal with the devil to sign the contract. To this day no money that has been collected on the sale of blank recording media has actually gone to any artist, in spite the fact that several artists have sued in court for dispersal of those funds to the “rightful owners”. This shows just where the cartels interests are. It is certainly not for the benefit of the artists as the cartels claim. It is only for their own interests.

Mr. Jamieson no one has accused you of filing criminal charges. you’re being accused of unjustly LABELING these individuals (through you’re PR campaign) as criminals. don’t you know the difference?? No wonder you guys don’t get it.

In the Police States of America, the only national consumers association that really matters is called filesharers. When Billy Gates make the price of his software more reasonable (and better quality), I might use it willingly. Until that day comes, I will either use Linux, or will crack Windows if I am forced to run Windows in order to use government required software. I believe in true competition, not forced consumption.

If I am caught (or I should say, set up) and sued, the cartels won’t make a single dime from me. Any money or property that their police manages to forcefully remove remove from me will be dwarfed by the punishment I will mete out to the cartels. If they mug me and steall $10,000, I will steal $100,000 from them or will cause them $10,000,000 in damages. I base my fines against the cartels based on the amount of time it takes me to earn my money. If the cartels steal a years worth of my income, then i will steal a years’ worth of their income. It is amazingly easy to cause cartels damage and then slip away unscathed.

When we win, the cartels will not have the funds to continue to bribe politicians. This source of revenue for politicians will dry up causing the cartels to have less and less influence on the government. When we are able to destroy the cartels, we will no longer be forced to consume items that we do not really want. An example of this forced consumption occures when proprietary business software companies force their customers to “upgrade” their software and/or operating system. Before the upgrade, for example, the software would manage accounts and handle billing. After the upgrade, the software would manage accounts and handle billing. The software will do the same thing after the outlay of hundreds to thousands of dollars. Fileswapping and the cracking of programs or OS’es bypasses the forced outlay of cash. As far as I am concerned, cracking a program and sharing it is not immoral since in many cases, people and business are forced to use the program in order to be allowed to conduct business.