Substantial non-infringing uses? I hate to come off on the opposite side here because I know most people here support illegal file sharing, however, where do you come off saying that a substantial part of file sharing is non-infringing? I'd beg to differ with you that the over-whelming majority, and just a guess, but 90% of the file sharing is in fact copywritten materials.
What you see as substantial is certainly your opinion, but I'd bet it's not fact.
The copyright cartel has now been handed the power to destroy innovation. I can't believe that not one of those bastards had the backbone to dissent.
I think the P2P community destroyed innovation in the first place by abusing copywritten material. I don't know about the mass here, but when I buy a CD or movie, I don't run to digitize it and put it out on a P2P file sharing service... news flash - MANY DID!
You know, I agree that innovation is great, however, the fact still remains... these p2p services - starting with Napster - were in fact designed to transfer copywritten materials. If you think other wise, then you are simply looking the other way.
And I agree, those bastards are simply abiding by the rule of law in this country, how dare they.
p2p will survive, but now it will be forced offshore. if you are an American and you want to publish p2p software, you had better either be poor (aka judgment-proof) or prepared to leave the country once the RIAA/MPAA attack dogs come for you.
Ok, are you talking Software? Or music/movies? The RIAA/MPAA has nothing to do with "software" - if you want to trade software there certainly many p2p places that certainly do that legally and those sites do in fact take steps to insure that the materials are non-infringing.
Let me also ask this - how many here has used p2p ONLY to download non-copywritten materian; NEVER HAVING DOWNLOADED ONE *SINGLE* PIECE OF COMERCIAL MATERIAL? .... I thought so. (Yea, I expect one or two to stand up and type the words, but even the few that actually did, still is faint to the mass that diddn't - so don't bother replying to that one)
Ultiamtely, what I have a real problem with the tone of this thread is this...
Why do people here, that so strongly are against spyware, adware, malware, and virusus, support these p2p sites in the first place?
Who here doesn't know that when you install Kazaa, for example, that at least 25 pieces of spyware are installed with the client? (That's right, that's what lavasoft is for
)
So what is it the answer?
Are you all for putting up with spyware as long as you can get free music? or are you still against spyware?
How many people here that are using p2p are actually only downloading royalty free music/movies?
I thought we argued this case when Napster was shut down. People complained that they stole music because it was too expensive. No one wanted to pay $21.00 for an album just to get 1, 2. or 3 songs in the end. The compromise? online services would sell songs for .99 cents, some as low as .79 wich on a 14 song CD, that's just $11.00.
When does this nonsense end? I am not a huge fan over the MPAA/RIAA in the way they want to CONTROL the content you purchase, but I CERTAINLY support their desire to stop people from stealing it/using it without paying for it.
Here's an idea.... STOP SHARING COPYWRITTEN MUSIC and maybe the MPAA/RIAA would not be so strong about flagging digital content, protecting, and shutting down these services in the first place.
Final thought? Funny, every bloody post seems to end with "I'm leaving the country".. yet you don't see anyone doing it.
