All these people ranting "It's illegal! It's illegal!" are either stupid or working for an **AA.Before the internet, there was this thing called fair use. I don't remember anyone saying that copying a tape for your friend was illegal or that taping something off the radio or the TV was illegal. In fact the courts said it was LEGAL. The courts made it clear that the target was always COMMERCIAL PIRATES - People that do it for a business.Now - just because the technology is better, all of a sudden even if it's still only for personal use, all of a sudden everyone is a criminal.All of you people yelling PIRATE! PIRATE! CRIMINAL! CRIMINAL! JUST SHUT THE f**k UP.
"Why is it that the rights of corporations are more valuable than the rights of people? Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that profit is a protected right?"you're kidding, right? piracy takes money out of the pockets of hardworking people like you and me (not everyone in hollywood is a star, you know). piracy=stealing. stealing is not protected by the constitution. profit is not protected either, but if they stop making profits, they will stop making films BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO MONEY LEFT TO DO IT!
Well, Google always claimed that the ads (as well as the search ranking, e.g. miserable failure) are generated by an algorithm rather than by hand. But somehow, a little part of me suspects... Good on Google ;-)
Could you stop writing that nonsense about it being illegal or theft, please?First of all:Even if the MPAA/RIAA (or any of those extremely rich groups of people) would hold a gun to my head I would NOT buy more DVD's or CD's than I do now, simply because, DIGG THIS: I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!The only thing I see happening here is that bittorrent creates a HUGE free advertising market for the entertainment industry. About 90% of the official (big corporate backed) music and movie releases that I bought on CD and DVD would never have reached me if it wasn't for bittorrent and p2p. About 75% of all movies I went to see in the theatres were movies I wanted to see because I knew about them, or already saw them in lower quality, thanks to p2p.Shutting down P2P sites is NOT, I repeat N O T helping the MPAA/RIAA make more money, it will COST them more money and people like me will LOSE interest in their product offerings. If I don't know about movies, TV-shows (I'd never watch without the word of mouth about them on the net), or music, I will NOT buy anything at all!So explain to me how this behavior is "illegal" or "immoral", because truly, I can't seem to get a decent answer on that from any of those types (like you) who have their heads in very old sand. Sue me for buying more because I learned about it thanks to the net? What's the idea here? Sue me for wanting to buy music that is no longer being pressed and distributed in stores because it's no longer considered worthwhile, and therefore turning to the only functioning archive: P2P!Furthermore, proof that P2P and bittorrent are actually HARMING the entertainment industry is *barely* substantiated by anything (if at all). The MPAA sells more DVD's each year, and here in The Netherlands more money was made than ever before by movie-theatres. Explain how this is a 'bad' thing for the hard-working people in 'the entertainment industry', because again: I don't see it in the actual results.Sure, if you release a thousand more movies than you did last year, people will not buy/see a thousand more movies than the year before. If you're lucky they'll buy 1 more, if it's good enough. The MPAA corporates have a real funny way of translating those numbers so that it looks as if they're doing worse each year, while they're actually making more money.Don't believe the lies they tell you. Indeed, the immoral illegal thieves are the ones pushing up prizes based on lies about guilt-trips on the innocent consumer, the big-shots taking their millions without sharing them, not the people helping other people to be entertained the way they prefer to be entertained.
@dnder:Could you please stop calling it "immoral" or "illegal" when it clearly is NOT? You just don't seem to get the fact that even if I would HAVE the money, I wouldn't go out and see more movies than I do now, or buy more DVDs/CDs than I do now.And again, it looks like you're too lazy to read: I buy MORE because of file-sharing. This is not "immoral", this is healthy and supportive of the artists and people working in the entertainment industry. By the way, I work in this business too, and I even own some copyrights, but NEVER have I been able to see a downside to bittorrent relating to my work or how much money I make from it. If people like it, if it's good enough, they will buy it.Also: I used to see and share VHS movies with friends back in the eightees. Sometimes this involved recording the movie from TV beforehand. Now explain to me how that is so different from what we're doing now? I never called it "pirating" then, and I sure as hell ain't gonna call it "pirating" now. What we did was logical and morally sane.For the rest of your louzy arguments I refer to my previous post here.
You won't use that $100 to pay copyright holders for material you're pirating?LOL $100 wont get him very far that way.he could see two movies at the cinemaor purchase one game (as long as it had no subscription fees)It wont even get him a legitimate copy of th OS he needs to run his computerNo, he would be a fool, to waste his money
swagrJun 1, 2006
The MPAA currently needs an anit-piracy intern.<a class="user" href="http://mpaa.org/AboutUsIntership.asp">http://mpaa.org/AboutUsIntership.asp</a>
jmarescaJun 1, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stelthvue/digitalpirat.jpg">http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stelthvue/digitalpirat.jpg</a>my tribute to the pirate bay
mookiexlJun 1, 2006
Enjoy. And don't forget to seed.
brickbatJun 1, 2006
All these people ranting "It's illegal! It's illegal!" are either stupid or working for an **AA.Before the internet, there was this thing called fair use. I don't remember anyone saying that copying a tape for your friend was illegal or that taping something off the radio or the TV was illegal. In fact the courts said it was LEGAL. The courts made it clear that the target was always COMMERCIAL PIRATES - People that do it for a business.Now - just because the technology is better, all of a sudden even if it's still only for personal use, all of a sudden everyone is a criminal.All of you people yelling PIRATE! PIRATE! CRIMINAL! CRIMINAL! JUST SHUT THE f**k UP.
birch25Jun 1, 2006
"Why is it that the rights of corporations are more valuable than the rights of people? Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that profit is a protected right?"you're kidding, right? piracy takes money out of the pockets of hardworking people like you and me (not everyone in hollywood is a star, you know). piracy=stealing. stealing is not protected by the constitution. profit is not protected either, but if they stop making profits, they will stop making films BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO MONEY LEFT TO DO IT!
vladsharpJun 1, 2006
Well, Google always claimed that the ads (as well as the search ranking, e.g. miserable failure) are generated by an algorithm rather than by hand. But somehow, a little part of me suspects... Good on Google ;-)
jultJun 2, 2006
Could you stop writing that nonsense about it being illegal or theft, please?First of all:Even if the MPAA/RIAA (or any of those extremely rich groups of people) would hold a gun to my head I would NOT buy more DVD's or CD's than I do now, simply because, DIGG THIS: I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!The only thing I see happening here is that bittorrent creates a HUGE free advertising market for the entertainment industry. About 90% of the official (big corporate backed) music and movie releases that I bought on CD and DVD would never have reached me if it wasn't for bittorrent and p2p. About 75% of all movies I went to see in the theatres were movies I wanted to see because I knew about them, or already saw them in lower quality, thanks to p2p.Shutting down P2P sites is NOT, I repeat N O T helping the MPAA/RIAA make more money, it will COST them more money and people like me will LOSE interest in their product offerings. If I don't know about movies, TV-shows (I'd never watch without the word of mouth about them on the net), or music, I will NOT buy anything at all!So explain to me how this behavior is "illegal" or "immoral", because truly, I can't seem to get a decent answer on that from any of those types (like you) who have their heads in very old sand. Sue me for buying more because I learned about it thanks to the net? What's the idea here? Sue me for wanting to buy music that is no longer being pressed and distributed in stores because it's no longer considered worthwhile, and therefore turning to the only functioning archive: P2P!Furthermore, proof that P2P and bittorrent are actually HARMING the entertainment industry is *barely* substantiated by anything (if at all). The MPAA sells more DVD's each year, and here in The Netherlands more money was made than ever before by movie-theatres. Explain how this is a 'bad' thing for the hard-working people in 'the entertainment industry', because again: I don't see it in the actual results.Sure, if you release a thousand more movies than you did last year, people will not buy/see a thousand more movies than the year before. If you're lucky they'll buy 1 more, if it's good enough. The MPAA corporates have a real funny way of translating those numbers so that it looks as if they're doing worse each year, while they're actually making more money.Don't believe the lies they tell you. Indeed, the immoral illegal thieves are the ones pushing up prizes based on lies about guilt-trips on the innocent consumer, the big-shots taking their millions without sharing them, not the people helping other people to be entertained the way they prefer to be entertained.
jultJun 2, 2006
@dnder:Could you please stop calling it "immoral" or "illegal" when it clearly is NOT? You just don't seem to get the fact that even if I would HAVE the money, I wouldn't go out and see more movies than I do now, or buy more DVDs/CDs than I do now.And again, it looks like you're too lazy to read: I buy MORE because of file-sharing. This is not "immoral", this is healthy and supportive of the artists and people working in the entertainment industry. By the way, I work in this business too, and I even own some copyrights, but NEVER have I been able to see a downside to bittorrent relating to my work or how much money I make from it. If people like it, if it's good enough, they will buy it.Also: I used to see and share VHS movies with friends back in the eightees. Sometimes this involved recording the movie from TV beforehand. Now explain to me how that is so different from what we're doing now? I never called it "pirating" then, and I sure as hell ain't gonna call it "pirating" now. What we did was logical and morally sane.For the rest of your louzy arguments I refer to my previous post here.
georgegadJun 3, 2006
You won't use that $100 to pay copyright holders for material you're pirating?LOL $100 wont get him very far that way.he could see two movies at the cinemaor purchase one game (as long as it had no subscription fees)It wont even get him a legitimate copy of th OS he needs to run his computerNo, he would be a fool, to waste his money
darkipJun 5, 2006
Ssh, they'll get onto us :)
tortfeasorgJan 12, 2007
dude, props on your prediction!
marcus4132Mar 31, 2007
And you will lose.
marcus4132Mar 31, 2007
Well, learn to enjoy prison. You''ll be seeing a lot of it in the "pirate" life.