Pirate Bay To Launch VPN Service > Nice..

Nice..

The fight to better the burglary tools? The fight to make stealing video's and music easier? Wow we have really advanced as a civilization, next we need to find a way to keep shop lifters more stealthy while in stores to prevent the authorities from arresting them, how dare someone think stealing should be banned.

I don't see how we disagree

The double a's haven't got a clue (see we agree) but if they want to stay relevant to their industries they better wake up and smell the coffee. If they don't (come up with a real solution) then some one else will and reap the benefits.

reply to stevephl
ITS NOT STEALING, GET IT RIGHT!!

When you download something its being COPIED! Big Difference! You are not actually removing the song/movie/book from the server/host. Therefore P2P cannot be defined as stealing! RIAA/MPAA lawyers and marketers and whoever else is involved in propagating the wrong definition of P2P do a very good job of blurring the line for which you have obviously bought up and digested.

I say go for Piratebay! Fight the status quo! You have my fill support!
Its about time we set music/films free for everyone to enjoy, after all this is our culture and currently we are forced to pay ransom to enjoy it.

I know i will not stop going to the movie theaters nor to attend concerts (where artists actually make most of their money) so i am doing my part in supporting everyone involved in the creative process of creating culture. The corporations have to learn to adapt to the dynamic landscape of technological advancement 11 years on and they still havent learned..

This is where I partially disagree with your statements.

You are in fact stealing since the person who made that content you enjoy didn't get paid for it. Now I'm not one of those **AA-lovers, I hate them as much as you do but I also believe that the people who created it should be paid for their work. If I made something and didn't get paid for it, where is the incentive to make more of the same?

Music bands have to be paid. How else are they to buy their instruments, food, etc? Movie makers have to be paid. How else are they do get the money needed for the cameras, pay the actors, distribute the movie? I know, the Internet can distribute the movie to the masses for cheap but still there is the cost of bandwidth involved, bandwidth isn't cheap, especially when you start talking about gigabytes of it.
--
Tom

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. There's a difference.

Also, you never "buy" music or movies. You just buy a license to use it. You can't steal a license that was never issued to you, and if you use the music or movies (or software) without a license you are simply using it without a license, which is NOT stealing, since you aren't taking anything away.

You are taking the money out of the pockets of the people who deserve it, so yes... I call that stealing.
--
Tom

reply to fifty nine
You are not stealing the music or movie, true, but you are stealing the license and by association are depriving the rights owner of compensation. It is akin to "stealing" cable. If you hook yourself up illegally that does not directly reduce the supply of content for paying customers like stealing a CD or DVD from a store would, but the cable company is not getting the revenue they should from your use. Some might argue that the cable company is in the same bed with the AA's but that is another discussion.

By your definition I shouldn't have to pay for satellite TV since my unauthorized use does not cost Dish anything.

reply to trparky
They should get a 9-5 job like the majority of Americans do.

reply to trparky

reply to 75153785
No, an illegal cable or sat connection is theft of service.
Copying a file is Copyright Infringement.
While illegal, no theft occurs.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply to trparky

reply to denden2002
Please explain to me how you're "forced to pay ransom" to enjoy movies or music or books or whatever entertainment media you're talking about. You're not forced to do shit.

reply to trparky
I agree with you that bands/actors and everyone behind the scenes that contribute have to be paid, otherwise where is the incentive.

Because i agree to support the artists (my brother is an actor so i know first hand), I support them in a more direct manner by attending their concerts and going to the cinema to watch the movies. I go very often actually (im quite surprised myself) If the movie was so good and is worth watching over and over i will certainly buy the Blu-Ray, i have done so and will continue to do it.

Your notion that bandwidth is expensive is false. It can be if youre distributing 1000 feeds all from a server farm with several huge pipes (thats so 1990's/early 2000's). If you take on that logistical burden then it can be slow, cumbersome and expensive. ifyoure looking at it from an innovative point of view bandwidth is actually very cheap, if you are creative about it. Instead of feeding tousands of people from one link, distribute the cost of bandwidth to the end users, i.e. Bittorrent! Its simple.. doesnt the new BBC IPTV work on that principle? This is where higher upload speeds of individual users can really be an asset and not a liability to aid in propagating cultural media. IPTV will take off and people will make money off it. The only dependancy to my and many others' idea is creativity.

reply to dadkins
Interesting but flawed defense. The only difference is the wording of a law. Practically, there is zero difference. That performance you are "not" stealing is indeed a service.

reply to trparky
Sorry I have to disagree. The RIAA and MPAA deserve NOTHING. The ARTIST deserves it all. The only power the RIAA and MPAA have is a big coffer of money to offer to an artist to basically write his rights away just to receive that money UP FRONT instead of collecting it little by little like an independent artist does.

Middle men is all the RIAA is. Without the artist, they are nothing.

reply to fifty nine
It stealing you can not sugar coat that not stealing. If I copy some of the pictures that photographer on dslr sell now is that stealing or not
--
Caddy

reply to bassjunky
Being forced to pay ~$18 for a CD where only a handful of songs at best that are actually good, on top of that many artists only release 10-15 songs per CD..

When you look at the cost breakdown of how much an artist gets paid for their work in relation to how much you pay.. that is paying a ransom for the liscence to enjoy their content.

The middle man is essentially telling you you will pay this much for this content while i give only so much to the artist (unreasonably low amount) and I as a middle man keep the rest... That my e-friend is paying a ransom to release the liscence to cultural media for your own enjoyment.