P2P downhill in UK

[Androme]

Apologies for 'yet-another' of these threads but it's in light of the recent decisions in the UK. Many might be aware that 2 filesharers have been fined a hefty sum recently and this trend looks like it's taking off to include software as well now - clicky here.

Not good when Tiscali warned me of using P2P too much and are now actually capping my usage. I plan to change providers but I doubt it'll do me much good.

My question is, how many UK users here are likely to cease filesharing? (or unofficially encode your answer ) How long 'in your opinions' before DC++ networks and newsgroups are targetted?

Btw, say you are taken to court, is it recommended to completely format and wipe your hard-drive clean of download material or will that bear no help in your case?

[pablissimo]

I'd have thought if you were being taken to court your equipment would be seized before you'd get the chance.

[wu_trax]

for once its good to live in Germany. Some court decided that it's illegal for ISPs to save the data about who used which IP-adress at a certain time, because of privacy laws and because they dont need that data to provide their sevice.
As I see it, that makes it pretty much impossible for companies to figure out who to sue, espcially if your ISP disconnects you every 24 hours and give you a new ip-adress. \o/

[Radical Edward]

wohoo. plus Deutsche Telekom just gave me a deal doubling my bandwidth, and dropping my bill by 5 Euros per month......

yeah baby yeah.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

wohoo. plus Deutsche Telekom just gave me a deal doubling my bandwidth, and dropping my bill by 5 Euros per month......

yeah baby yeah.

Arcor seems to be pretty good now. 49.95€ per month for 2Mbit-DSL + ISDN with unlimited free phone calls across Germany.
Unfortunatly I can'T get it here in the middle of nowhere

[Ramihyn]

wu_trax + Radical Edward

In less then a year you will seriously regret for being in germany about this topic. Germany is strongly on its way to make "informationelle Selbstbestimmung" the same joke as "legal private copies".

[wu_trax]

Do you have any links about that? i really didnt pay that much attention to the whole topic yet. I only heared about the ip-adresses on the news.

PS sorry for changing the topic

[MasterAir]

Hate to say this, but I think its great people are cracking down on piracy. It seems odd that this type of theft is socially acceptable. Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

The only thing is that some software like MS Office is so expensive...

What is the defence for software like DC++, does it have useful, legal applications?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I am not downloading files from "most" musicians. Also, FAST deal with software "theft", not MP3s.

Anyway, I'll continue to share software of course. Drugs have been illegal for a lot longer with much harsher penalties and still hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people defty those laws all the time. Patterns of sharing will change (i.e. people will swap CDs again more often) but I doubt you can seriously have an impact on people's behaviour in this area.

What is the defence for software like DC++, does it have useful, legal applications?

Why does software need a defence?

And there is plenty of use for P2P in sharing copyright free materials.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

wu_trax + Radical Edward

In less then a year you will seriously regret for being in germany about this topic. Germany is strongly on its way to make "informationelle Selbstbestimmung" the same joke as "legal private copies".

oh I'm moving soon anyway and will have a job where I can actually afford stuff.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Hate to say this, but I think its great people are cracking down on piracy. It seems odd that this type of theft is socially acceptable. Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

The only thing is that some software like MS Office is so expensive...

What is the defence for software like DC++, does it have useful, legal applications?

If you want to distribute large files to lots of people filesharing is what you use. you need less bandwidth for it and because of that save money. Yesterday, for example i downloaded some finnish star trek parody (called 'Star Wreck'), which was perfectly legal, because the people who produced it put it online. without p2p-software far less people would be able to watch it.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

Yes, Eminem is really starving right now, Kylie's losing her butt and needs a butt job and U2 are now working in a pub. What's unreasonable is the cost of CD's and how overly priced it all is... [/yahwe].

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Hate to say this, but I think its great people are cracking down on piracy. It seems odd that this type of theft is socially acceptable.

It's not theft.

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

CD sales, relative to other forms of entertainment sales, went up when the amount of filesharing exploded with Napster and the like. This is consistent with anecdotal evidence that I could put forward. In addition to this, obscure artists disproportionately benefit from a system that distributes music based on individual evaluations of merit, not some popularist basis.

For example, Bad Religion are fairly obscure, as bands go (outside a certain demographic). The chance of you hearing anything of theirs on the radio is pretty much nil. If I know you like their kind of music, I may well send you something of theirs, which increase their name recognition - and who buys an album of a band they've never heard of?

Originally Posted by MasterAir

The only thing is that some software like MS Office is so expensive...

True story, Adobe purposefully don't crack down on things like the pirating of photoshop, because 1. they're intellectually honest enough to be clear that some 13 year old downloading £300 worth of software does not lose them £300 and 2. if everyone knows how to use photoshop, photoshop will be the industry standard and they'll make more money in the long run.

There's a fairly analogous situation with the Intel C compiler. Free to those who don't get money whilst using it, sells for large amounts to people who do.

Originally Posted by MasterAir

What is the defence for software like DC++, does it have useful, legal applications?

Ignoring the fact that it doesn't need legal applications for it to be legal, filesharing applications and paradigms have changed some, and potentially a lot more, of the way files are distributed round the internet. See: World of Warcraft patching, which uses, effectively, BitTorrent.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

True story, Adobe purposefully don't crack down on things like the pirating of photoshop, because 1. they're intellectually honest enough to be clear that some 13 year old downloading £300 worth of software does not lose them £300 and 2. if everyone knows how to use photoshop, photoshop will be the industry standard and they'll make more money in the long run.

And might I just add, if it wasnt for piracy, Mircrosoft wouldnt be the company they are today. And Lotus Notes may still have been used...
Besides, its hardly theft if you would never have paid for it, if you had too.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

For example, Bad Religion are fairly obscure, as bands go (outside a certain demographic). The chance of you hearing anything of theirs on the radio is pretty much nil. If I know you like their kind of music, I may well send you something of theirs, which increase their name recognition - and who buys an album of a band they've never heard of?

Just to back you up - see the recent success of the Arctic Monkeys.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ste

Just to back you up - see the recent success of the Arctic Monkeys.

The success of the Arctic Monkeys is really annoying me at the moment, because everywhere is touting it with headlines "Bigger than the Beatles".

Yes, they sold more copies of their debut album than the Beatles did in an environment that's pretty much geared to increase album sales, especially early ones. That doesn't make them a world-bestriding super-band thing, STOP SAYING IT DOES.

[Ste]

oh yeh - to be honest I'm not that keen on them.
I hate NME and for some reason their debut album has gone into the "best albums of all time" list at number 5.
This makes me dislike them (NME) even more.

But they can base a lot of their current fame on the internet sharing of their songs.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ste

oh yeh - to be honest I'm not that keen on them.
I hate NME and for some reason their debut album has gone into the "best albums of all time" list at number 5.
This makes me dislike them (NME) even more.

The NME has always been retarded beyond measure though. As an example, at one point their reviews section could roughly be broken into two halves, based on the text: music they marked down because it wasn't enough like Radiohead, and music they marked down because it was too much like Radiohead.

The Arctic Monkeys are fairly jolly, but they'll fit into a "Franz Ferdinand" shaped bit of my hard drive.

[Nodrog]

I've never bought NME but from browsing it in WH Smiths, it looks horribly shit. Their top 100 albumns list was particularly amusing.

[ceres]

I really dont get this artic monkeys craze either, i can name atleast five other bands who have come out in 05/06 and produced music of a far greater quality.

Why on earth are they so popular?
________
Silvanna cam

[Phang]

the arctic monkeys are absolutely worth your time. however, they aren't worth more of it than, say, the Arcade Fire, or Bloc Party, or Ladytron, or Sufjan Stevens or a thousand other bands catering to the same audience. They're popular because they have witty lyrics and fill the Britpop criteria.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

the arctic monkeys are absolutely worth your time. however, they aren't worth more of it than, say, the Arcade Fire, or Bloc Party, or Ladytron, or Sufjan Stevens or a thousand other bands catering to the same audience. They're popular because they have witty lyrics and fill the Britpop criteria.

There's also a touch of "down with the plebs".

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's not theft.

Why isn't it theft? You're taking something without paying for it. Just because it isn't merchandise in a store doesn't mean it's not theft.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

Why isn't it theft? You're taking something without paying for it. Just because it isn't merchandise in a store doesn't mean it's not theft.

0.99999... = 1, for all you SA Goons out there.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

You're taking something without paying for it.

Obviously we shall always disagree but I'll reply anyway while I'm waiting for my bath to run. You're not "taking" anything. Taking something implies something is being removed somehow. Which is not the case. Once again, I'll quote the known Communist, Thomas Jefferson.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Obviously we shall always disagree but I'll reply anyway while I'm waiting for my bath to run. You're not "taking" anything. Taking something implies something is being removed somehow. Which is not the case. Once again, I'll quote the known Communist, Thomas Jefferson.

Not that I am implicitly agreeing with the slave owner's controvertible comment (his own children slaves) by not refuting it, but the connection you've made is incorrect. A piece of software or a recorded song isn't just an 'idea.' It involved utilizing expensive equipment such as powerful computers or a recording studio and sound editing equipment. It involved hiring expensive, highly skilled workers to produce. It involved capital. It is a product, and the producers have a right to be compensated for their work and investment. DRM is a shady piece of work, and I don't exonerate content producers from their responsibility to not violate the privacy and property of their customers and clients, but the illegal filesharing community is as much to blame for DRM as the former.

Filesharing isn't activism, it's simply gratifying your need for escapism. You're not saving exploited 8 year olds from dangerous factory work, you're downloading cartoons for personal enjoyment.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

0.99999... = 1, for all you SA Goons out there.

This is a non-answer.

[Phil^]

its not theft because its not a physical item which needs to be replaced at cost.
with digital media, its copyright infringement because it doesnt exist in the physical world.
with digital media you can take one file, and extremely rapidly you can create and distribute million other copies without cost. You cant do that with physical items

content providers can cry till they are blue in the face, and it still wont make it theft
the only reason they are doing so is because theft/piracy sounds more sinister then copyright infringement.
telling the truth - as always in corporate america / the rest of world comes second place to making a profit

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Phil^

its not theft because its not a physical item which needs to be replaced at cost.
with digital media, its copyright infringement because it doesnt exist in the physical world.
with digital copies you can take one, and extremely fast you can create a million copies without cost. You cant do that with physical items

What if, assuming I had the skills for a second, I hacked your bank account and electronically transfered all your money, assuming you have some, into my account. I guess it wouldn't be theft since I didn't take anything 'physical.' GG.

[Phil^]

( yes i have money )
and in this case it would be theft ( not to mention another raft of other laws broken in the process ) since the money isnt something that can be replaced simply out of thin air. its not infinitely reproducable by definition because every pound is tied to a real life physical item ( pound coin / notes )
Music, to use as an example - is infinitely reproducable since once you have the original you can make as many copies as you want and it wont affect the original in any way,shape or form. transferring money removes it from one place and puts it in another in the same way removing a cd from a store and putting it in your pocket does

if you are trying to use analogy - at least use one which stands up to scruitiny.

[Phang]

i would define theft as being the loss of capital or potential earnings. i never download anything i would otherwise buy excepting circumstances when i already have bought it, or already plan to buy it. i heard some songs by Owen Pallett thanks to the internet, and downloaded the album. Later I am going to book tickets to see him for the third and fourth times in the UK since downloading that album, which i bought at one of his concerts. i am awaiting a copy of his new EP to worm its way over from canada. Without the internet, I would not have heard his music. I would not have bought the EP, or the LP, or have gone to see him four times. The internet has made me give about 40 quid more than I otherwise would have to this artist

I also have a video bootleg, taken by someone else, of a concert I was at. Is that theft?
There's no loss of earnings, since it wasnt going to be released anyway, but nonetheless I'm listening to his art without paying for it. Again, anyway.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

This is a non-answer.

[19:09] <Jakiri> s|k, don't bring the "it's theft/not theft" thing into it again. It's not theft because it doesn't involve the loss of anything tangiable by the person supposedly the victim of it

is the IRC addition.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Phang

i would define theft as being the loss of capital or potential earnings. i never download anything i would otherwise buy excepting circumstances when i already have bought it, or already plan to buy it. i heard some songs by Owen Pallett thanks to the internet, and downloaded the album. Later I am going to book tickets to see him for the third and fourth times in the UK since downloading that album, which i bought at one of his concerts. i am awaiting a copy of his new EP to worm its way over from canada. Without the internet, I would not have heard his music. I would not have bought the EP, or the LP, or have gone to see him four times. The internet has made me give about 40 quid more than I otherwise would have to this artist

I also have a video bootleg, taken by someone else, of a concert I was at. Is that theft?
There's no loss of earnings, since it wasnt going to be released anyway, but nonetheless I'm listening to his art without paying for it. Again, anyway.

the definition of theft that you or I use isnt whats important - its what the judiciary / law defines it as which matters

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

i would define theft as being the loss of capital or potential earnings.

I wouldn't. Sega lost an enormous amount of potential earnings when Sony entered the console market, but that's hardly theft.

[Ste]

s|k - have you ever recorded anything of the tv/radio/copied someones cd onto a tape?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Phil^

( yes i have money )
and in this case it would be theft ( not to mention another raft of other laws broken in the process ) since the money isnt something that can be replaced simply out of thin air. its not infinitely reproducable by definition

That's not what you said before.

its not theft because its not a physical item which needs to be replaced at cost.

Okay since now, in lieu of my counter-argument you've added a new qualification in posterior allow me to say a few things. Assuming you never added the silly 'out of thin air' bit, is it then that you're saying: Copying is not theft? You believe copying isn't theft because there is no removal of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Okay, fair enough, but here is where I disagree. You've not stolen a physical item, I'll agree also that you've not deprived the rightful owner of any property, but you have deprived the owner of something: control and value. The latter is more signficant for the purposes of this discussion.

I will now explain value to you.

Imagine you own a house and you have a job you don't like. You've borrowed $200,000 to pay for the house and you'll repay the loan over 30 years. You're working hard every day to pay off the amount and pay the interest. You get a new neighbor a year after living there, and this neighbor is a work-from-home mechanic. He clutters up his front yard with broken cars, rusty engines, and a just a ton of greese and tools and buckets and trash. You rightly think it is a mess. Another year passes and you've applied for your dream job and you've been accepted only you'll have to move to a new location. So you decide to sell your house and have it re-appraised. You're shocked to find out your house has declined in value by %25 because of your neighbor's mess. You've only owned the house 2 years and all you've paid off so far is interest. You have a $200,000 loan on a house now worth $150,000 and you don't have $50,000 and you have a shit job you can't leave. You've been robbed of $50,000 plus interest over thirty years plus job satisfaction plus the added income the new job would have gotten you. I once hacked your bank account for $5,000 and I was rightly prosecuted and sent to jail, but this neighbor of yours took so much more. He took value.

I hope I have demonstrated value sufficiently.

Filesharing reduces the value of content. You're robbing the content producers of the value of their work. It is theft.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

The latter is more signficant for the purposes of this discussion.

No it isn't.

Copyright violation is copyright violation, not theft. The house analogy doesn't apply, and this concept of "value" is etherial and ill-defined at best.

Argue all you like about the morality of copyright violation, but to call it theft is inaccurate, and introduces an emotive term.

[edit]

Hey, we've got one of these situations where I've replied to something before it was even posted, as your arguments are generally responded to by this post

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Hate to say this, but I think its great people are cracking down on piracy. It seems odd that this type of theft is socially acceptable.

It's not theft.

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

CD sales, relative to other forms of entertainment sales, went up when the amount of filesharing exploded with Napster and the like. This is consistent with anecdotal evidence that I could put forward. In addition to this, obscure artists disproportionately benefit from a system that distributes music based on individual evaluations of merit, not some popularist basis.

For example, Bad Religion are fairly obscure, as bands go (outside a certain demographic). The chance of you hearing anything of theirs on the radio is pretty much nil. If I know you like their kind of music, I may well send you something of theirs, which increase their name recognition - and who buys an album of a band they've never heard of?

Originally Posted by MasterAir

The only thing is that some software like MS Office is so expensive...

True story, Adobe purposefully don't crack down on things like the pirating of photoshop, because 1. they're intellectually honest enough to be clear that some 13 year old downloading £300 worth of software does not lose them £300 and 2. if everyone knows how to use photoshop, photoshop will be the industry standard and they'll make more money in the long run.

There's a fairly analogous situation with the Intel C compiler. Free to those who don't get money whilst using it, sells for large amounts to people who do.

Originally Posted by MasterAir

What is the defence for software like DC++, does it have useful, legal applications?

Ignoring the fact that it doesn't need legal applications for it to be legal, filesharing applications and paradigms have changed some, and potentially a lot more, of the way files are distributed round the internet. See: World of Warcraft patching, which uses, effectively, BitTorrent.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Argue all you like about the morality of copyright violation, but to call it theft is inaccurate, and introduces an emotive term.

Yes indeed I am using it emotively. I'm appealing to emotions. I would say that murder is a theft of someone's life, imprisonment is the theft of someones freedom, humiliation (such as at Ahu Graib) is a theft of someones dignity, file sharing is a theft of value. I'm not equating murder and file sharing, I'm explaining my use of the word 'theft.'

I do care that so many of you file share, but what bothers me most about it is your convenient (and false) apology so readily provided in the face of someone, acurately, pointing out your moral blunder. Just admit what you're doing is wrong. You're taking something you ought to pay for in order to enjoy it for free. I imagine if there were no one guarding a store and no security equipment the lot of you would walk in and take whatever it is you want. You take because there are no consequences for taking. I don't take because I'm guided by moral principles. I believe those of you who fileshare are not only morally inferior, but also either self-delusioned or outright deceitful because of your unwillingness to admit the wrongness of your actions.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by s|k

Yes indeed I am using it emotively. I'm appealing to emotions. I would say that murder is a theft of someone's life, imprisonment is the theft of someones freedom, humiliation (such as at Ahu Graib) is a theft of someones dignity, file sharing is a theft of value. I'm not equating murder and file sharing, I'm explaining my use of the word 'theft.'

I do care that so many of you file share, but what bothers me most about it is your convenient (and false) apology so readily provided in the face of someone, acurately, pointing out your moral blunder. Just admit what you're doing is wrong. You're taking something you ought to pay for in order to enjoy it for free. I imagine if there were no one guarding a store and no security equipment the lot of you would walk in and take whatever it is you want. You take because there are no consequences for taking. I don't take because I'm guided by moral principles. I believe those of you who fileshare are not only morally inferior, but also either self-delusioned or outright deceitful because of your unwillingness to admit the wrongness of your actions.

yes, and some of us understand words. happily, most people aren't such extraordinary cretins as you.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes, and some of us understand words. happily, most people aren't such extraordinary cretins as you.

Yes, I'm such a terrible monster because I expect people to live by a higher code of conduct.

[wu_trax]

I have to say s|k has a point. By dowloading illegal copies you damage to property rights of the owner. that can be called theft. I don't care much though.
What would you call it if you sneak into cinema without a ticket to watch a movie or get a haircut and then run out without paying?

[Phang]

YOU KNOW WHO ELSE DECIDED TO DICTATE MORALITY AND ENFORCE IT ON OTHERS? THATS RIGHT!

since s|k's turned on the pop psychology option, it's my turn. s|k, my working theory is that you dislike people who fileshare, because you don't trust yourself to be honest if you yourself started filesharing. i've spent more on music since i got heavily into torrenting it, and i've gone to more gigs. are you worried that you couldn't be that reasonable?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

Yes indeed I am using it emotively. I'm appealing to emotions.

Protip, that generally means you don't have a strong logical argument. But I see you've figured that out.

Originally Posted by s|k

I would say that murder is a theft of someone's life, imprisonment is the theft of someones freedom, humiliation (such as at Ahu Graib) is a theft of someones dignity, file sharing is a theft of value. I'm not equating murder and file sharing, I'm explaining my use of the word 'theft.'

You know how sometimes people quote someone and use a variation on "English mother****er, do you speak it?" to imply that what they're quoting is nonsensical?

I don't need to use a variation!

Originally Posted by s|k

I do care that so many of you file share, but what bothers me most about it is your convenient (and false) apology so readily provided in the face of someone, acurately, pointing out your moral blunder.

Apology? What? English mo wait I've done this bit.

Originally Posted by s|k

Just admit what you're doing is wrong.

Why? The first thing I'll do when I actually finish the damn film I'm working on is to put it up on some file sharing networks (not literally the first thing, mind you).

Originally Posted by s|k

You're taking something you ought to pay for in order to enjoy it for free.

To say I enjoy many of the things I download is going a bit too far. I don't think ANYONE enjoyed Alone in the Dark.

Originally Posted by s|k

I imagine if there were no one guarding a store and no security equipment the lot of you would walk in and take whatever it is you want.

That IS theft, well done!

And no, I wouldn't. Because that would be depriving someone of something.

Originally Posted by s|k

You take because there are no consequences for taking.

I download things because I might like what I'm downloading, or because it's easier than getting it from another source (eg: new TV episodes, as I generally don't have the flexibility to schedule my time around something so inflexible). Sometimes I download things because they're not available in this country.

If you actually believe this tripe you're writing, I implore you to stop.

Originally Posted by s|k

I don't take because I'm guided by moral principles.

I find this insulting, and quite, quite nonsensical.

Originally Posted by s|k

I believe those of you who fileshare are not only morally inferior, but also either self-delusioned or outright deceitful because of your unwillingness to admit the wrongness of your actions.

So, ignoring the fact that I almost certainly have paid for more media than you, am perfectly willing to share my output with society, and in any case have commented that file sharing improves the lot of obscure bands who, it is claimed, are the one to suffer most, I'm an evil pirate.

Yarrrrrr.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

I have to say s|k has a point. By dowloading illegal copies you damage to property rights of the owner. that can be called theft.

It can be called Deuterostomic too, doesn't mean it's accurate.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

What would you call it if you sneak into cinema without a ticket to watch a movie or get a haircut and then run out without paying?

Trespass, and... god knows. You've actually deprived the person doing it of something, though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

Not that I am implicitly agreeing with the slave owner's controvertible comment (his own children slaves) by not refuting it, but the connection you've made is incorrect. A piece of software or a recorded song isn't just an 'idea.'

It shares traits with the idea in that, like the candle, you can share the light without losing the original flame, which was Jefferson's point.

And besides, the original cost is not relevant. Are you saying that copyright should be upheld more on an album which was expensively produced compared to say, a novel written in someone's spare time on a creaky type writer? The capital costs involved are not relevant, unless you are making such a distinction.

Filesharing isn't activism, it's simply gratifying your need for escapism. You're not saving exploited 8 year olds from dangerous factory work, you're downloading cartoons for personal enjoyment.

Who said that they were? Try to reply what has actually been said, not escaping on bizarre flights of fancy. And I disagree up to a point anyway - breaking a bad law is a form of activism, but that's certainly not my primary reason for doing so.*

And try not to imagine you're the only one with strong moral principles. Some people just happen to disagree. Similarly, if I scream and shout about how immoral miscegnation is, that does not mean you lack moral fibre or whatnot. It just means you happen not to share my (hypothetical) view. That is the part of your argument I hold most objection to, the belief you are the only one with morals.

edit : * = There's also the issue of IP generally. Despite the attempt by Stallman and others, people tend to have a unified view of patents & copyright. Strenghtening one is strenghtening the other. Patents are responsible, in my opinion, for many thousands of deaths due to the way drugs are distributed (or not distributed) to developing countries. If you support IP laws then I hold you partially responsible for these deaths and I hope you burn in hell for your crimes. See, we can all over-react, isn't it fun?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Protip, that generally means you don't have a strong logical argument. But I see you've figured that out.

No that's not what it means, it means I'm appealing to your emotions. English mother****er, do you speak it?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You know how sometimes people quote someone and use a variation on "English mother****er, do you speak it?" to imply that what they're quoting is nonsensical?
I don't need to use a variation!

This is an unjustified dismissal of something that is entirely comprehensible. I blame your mother.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Apology? What? English mo wait I've done this bit.

Words can have several meanings! This one I'm using is 'something that serves as an excuse....'

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

And no, I wouldn't. Because that would be depriving someone of something.

You're just either ignorant on this point or just splenetic. Yes you're contributing to the loss of value of content. You're depriving someone of value.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I download things because I might like what I'm downloading, or because it's easier than getting it from another source (eg: new TV episodes, as I generally don't have the flexibility to schedule my time around something so inflexible). Sometimes I download things because they're not available in this country.

So what.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you actually believe this tripe you're writing, I implore you to stop.

It's not tripe, it's an honest appraisal of what you're doing whether you'll admit it or not.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I find this insulting, and quite, quite nonsensical.

I'm glad you find it insulting, it is not nonsensical despite your assertion.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

So, ignoring the fact that I almost certainly have paid for more media than you, am perfectly willing to share my output with society, and in any case have commented that file sharing improves the lot of obscure bands who, it is claimed, are the one to suffer most, I'm an evil pirate.

This is another 'apology.' I understand you're having difficulty with this word, I recommend you look it up. What you're doing is wrong, it's not even in any gray area, it's just simply wrong.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Phang

YOU KNOW WHO ELSE DECIDED TO DICTATE MORALITY AND ENFORCE IT ON OTHERS? THATS RIGHT!

I'm not enforcing. I'm exhorting. I don't believe in forcing people to obey my ideas of what is right and wrong. I believe that morality can't be enforced. I believe that people should have the druthers to chose between right and wrong. It's about individual responsibility.

Originally Posted by Phang

since s|k's turned on the pop psychology option, it's my turn. s|k, my working theory is that you dislike people who fileshare, because you don't trust yourself to be honest if you yourself started filesharing. i've spent more on music since i got heavily into torrenting it, and i've gone to more gigs. are you worried that you couldn't be that reasonable?

I know that if I were to fileshare it would be for dishonest reasons. There's no doubt in my mind about it. It doesn't make a bit off difference that you've spent more, it's still wrong.

[roadrunner_0]

no matter how you look at it, theft =! copyright infringment

i, along with seemingly everyone else on this forum (who has replied) has spent more on CDs/DVDs because of what i have downloaded, i now own.... most of what i have on my HDD, and i imagine i will buy more of it if/when i have the money, because i only get hold of stuff that i like if i dont like it - its gone, simple as that. For me its much easier than trying to listen to the radio, or watch top of the pops, or the travesty that is MTV.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

No that's not what it means, it means I'm appealing to your emotions.

"Appeal to emotion" happens to be a logical fallacy

Originally Posted by s|k

This is an unjustified dismissal of something that is entirely comprehensible.

It's a fairly obtuse twisting of meanings.

Originally Posted by s|k

Words can have several meanings! This one I'm using is 'something that serves as an excuse....'

Very well! In that case, refer the "English..." bit to the rest of the bit quoted.

Originally Posted by s|k

You're just either ignorant on this point or just splenetic. Yes you're contributing to the loss of value of content. You're depriving someone of value.

You're depriving me of sensible argument, you thief.

Value is an abstract concept at best.

Originally Posted by s|k

So what.

Ah, sorry, I didn't know demonstrating your ideas to be either baseless rhetoric or just incorrectly formed was not allowed.

Originally Posted by s|k

It's not tripe, it's an honest appraisal of what you're doing whether you'll admit it or not.

If you seriously had an argument, you'd direct it against the points I have made about people "supporting" (either passively or actively) the breach of copyright of their product in this regard, and not just hammer on about how your morality is right and how everyone else, despite having evidence on their side, is wrong.

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm glad you find it insulting, it is not nonsensical despite your assertion.

See: dante's post.

Originally Posted by s|k

This is another 'apology.' I understand you're having difficulty with this word, I recommend you look it up. What you're doing is wrong, it's not even in any gray area, it's just simply wrong.

Fascism of the mind.

See: dante's post.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And try not to imagine you're the only one with strong moral principles. Some people just happen to disagree. Similarly, if I scream and shout about how immoral miscegnation is, that does not mean you lack moral fibre or whatnot. It just means you happen not to share my (hypothetical) view. That is the part of your argument I hold most objection to, the belief you are the only one with morals.

My comment on activism was a relevant aside. You're not an activist, you're just a common filesharing plebian.

Do you have strong morals? I'm not sure you do. Do you have moral courage? Have you done nothing other than satiate your appetite for entertainment?

It's when you've made personal sacrifices for the sake of a principle that you can claim that you have strong morals. I have no money, and I cannot even afford to rent a movie. I'm not willing to fileshare despite my high bandwidth connection (paid for by my wife) and hours of boredom. I forego gratification because I will not act against something I know to be wrong. That's moral courage. That's the right answer, it's not the easy answer. Are you making easy choices? It isn't abulia is it?