If you take a DVD, rip it, encode it with DivX, then place it on a public FTP server, you've infringed on that copyright, obviously, and you've commited theft of copyright. *ROTFLMAO* What the hell is theft of copyright?! I'm going to be laughing at this for a long long time, in fact i should make it my sig just to make that guy who posted that msg see how stupid he actually is.
Code does belong to the public after released, the information is free for all to see under GNU. However I do not mind if the creator of the code wants exclusive rights to SELL the software package, I just have a problem with them trying to sell the code itself.
Sell the binary, but the code must be free. The code is an expression, its art. Anyone can compile a binary, but not anyone can write good code, this is why we must share good code so more people can write better code.
Well if you'd execute a murderer you become what you hate.
Hate cannot be used to fight hate, the best way to handle a murderer is lock them away from society in a prison or place where other crazy people of their kind can live.
Well the best way to justify it, is the fact that is part of our freedom to have the ability to share.
YOU KNOW what freedom of speech is, the DMCA destroys freedom of speech, intellectual property restricts it.
Computers and ping packets, are 1s and 0s, extentions of our speech, the computer is no diffrent than the telephone.
Freedom of speech is actually freedom of expression. Why should we lose this freedom in exchange for profit? Its selling your freedom to choose what you want to buy, to share what you buy etc, if they dont want us to share it they should make it copy proof, i wont get mad if i cant copy something because thats fair, but to tell me I cant have the freedom to copy something thats copyable, and then tell me that If I copy it I cant share it.
This begins to take away my freedom, what do they have to justify this?
Jet technology is not our cutting edge technology. Our cutting edge technology is too expensive to make in mass quantities, This is why we still use jets.
While we can create unmannned flying triangle shaped blimps for spy missions, we cannot make enough of them due to their price to use them in great numbers.
While we do have aircrafts which are saucershaped and not jets, these aircrafts cost a fortune to make and they arent very stable due to how they fly, they craft alot so they are unmanned, they were used to spy on the russians during the cold war. They fly at high speed, usually high up in the air and take pictures at the land down below.
Theres also a few of these saucer shaped craft that have weapons which are manned currently in development.
This information is of course classified, you will not see pictures of these crafts until we actually need to use them or until they are obsolete.
Jets are obsolete, so its okay to show our enemies our jets, our newest experimental aircrafts, the best you'll find on them is patents, designs, and scientists talking about its development on newsgroups.
IF people can build gnutella they can build this, its only a matter of time. Currently the Gnutella builders are too busy fighting the RIAA and MPAA to build something like this. I think Mp3.com was a nice effort.
1. Stealing content does, theoretically, hurt people. Now, usually that "hurt" involves a giant nameless, faceless corporation, but it is, technically, still financial harm. And sometimes the owner of content is a little guy. Let's look at it this way: suppose you had a small band, and you made 2,000 cds of your work. Now, imagine that somebody from Warner Brothers sees you at a club and likes your stuff, wants to sell copies of your record. Would it be ok by you if he took one of those 2,000 cds, made 1,000,000 copies of it, slapped a Warner Bros. label on it and sold them all without giving you a dime? Obviously not. That's stealing from you (we'll ignore for a moment the issue of whether or not many of the record labels give the artists so little compensation that they might as well be stealing, since that's not quite but almost stealing). You'd be harmed. Your only recourse is to sue, under the copyright law.
First, if you have a small band, stop selling CDs, put some mp3 vending machines at your concert, play new music live at the concert so your fans have to go to your concert to see what new stuff you've released. After the concert, people can download the mp3s from the vending machines then go online and share it. Musicians just need to stop expecting people to just buy their CD without hearing it first.
Also what you are saying is something totally diffrent from sharing, because Time Warner is profiting. Its wrong to "PROFIT" off of something which someone else has exclusive rights to "PROFIT" on, however when you share something for free, no one is losing "PROFIT" you are giving music away to people who normally dont buy music to begin with, if they did buy music they would buy it directly from you.
2. The establishment cause doesn't cover the situation you describe. If your religious practice includes a behavior that is not necessarily part of your religious practice (i.e., that could be engaged in by others for other reasons) and is illegal under a US law which was passed to cover the behavior as such, rather than in the context of religious observance, the law is not in violation of the establishment clause. That's what stops you from just saying "hey, killing people is part of my religion, so it must be ok for me to kill people.
Killing people removes a life forever, What does sharing remove? I proved it does not remove profits. Sharing has nothing to do with copying and then selling at someone elses expense because nothing is being sold when you share. To assume every peice of musle is automatically a sale is to treat all music as if its stock or something, as if every single song or CD would have sold to every single person who wants to listen to it. Cds only sell to the fans, its the fans who buy cds, the majority of people just listen to music for free. Just like only fans will go to the concerts.
To compare sharing, with killing, is to say sharing removes something from someone else. So what exactly would be removed from Michael Jackon, if I share his invincible CD with you?
Does this mean that suddenly Michael Jackon has lost a sale? No it doesnt, because you wouldnt buy anything from Michael Jackon if you just walked into a store and saw a weird looking guy named Michael Jackson, never heard any of his music before, and hes expecting you to just buy his CD?
Fans buy CDs, people who use p2p to share music, its the fans who own the CDs, people who arent fans just want to listen to some nice music and Michael Jackson is just another song to them, they werent going to buy the CD, they just want to hear some music.
For you to assume everyone whos sharing is removing a sale, is just like me to assume everyone who looks at my painting on display, wont buy it because by looking at it, its removing the possible sales, so what do I do? Hide my painting, then no one will buy it and again I can complain that my sales are bad. But I'd think more people would buy it, if they actually were exposed to it, than if it was under a cover and I'm just trying to tell people to buy my painting and they dont know what my abilities are.
This is about freedom vs control, not profit. If I'm going to buy a CD, every song on their CD must be good. In order for me to know this I have to have heard every song. This is why I own so few CDs, before p2p, I didnt have a clue who made good music and who didnt, now I know who makes good music and I buy more music now than I ever did.
What? The Musician loses control of distribution which they never had in the first place?
Yeah ok.
so the real people who lose are the RIAA and MPAA.
Look, If someone makes good music I'll go to their concerts and I'll pay them not because I have to but because I think they deserve it, because they EARNED it.
If a good movie is made, I will go to theaters to see it, I will still pay for cable or satelite to access it, these guys DO NOT need to sell movies or CDs. They make money off of live events, concerts, theaters, and by charging for distribution.
Musicians dont have any control so I'm not taking anything from them, they dont even make alot of money, the middleman does, what I'd do is help them make more money, by directly sellinng to me.
Imagine Musicians releasing new songs by playing them at concerts for their fans, then selling the music through MP3 vending machines at the concerts for 25 cents a song, money goes DIRECTLY to the musician in cash form.
The listener gets to listen to the music on their way home and upload it into their computers, then share it with all their friends causing more people to go to concerts.
You see? This would help Musicians as much as it would help me.
IF i like a band, I'll want to go see them live, I'll pay 25 cents for every song I like, its not like being forced to pay 15 bucks for a few good songs.
We should be able to choose what we want to buy, when you walk into a store, you can look at a toy, and decide if you want to buy it. With music or information they dont even want you to LOOK at it, this harms me, taking away my freedom to choose. I'm forced to buy something i dont even know what it is, because the dont allow people to share?!
This isnt about money, its about control. Sharing isnt harming them financially, its removing the RIAAs control of our access to music.
We should be able to do what we want with our music, even share it, because music truely has no owners, you can try to own it but its not physical, its impossible to own in the real world, the musicians dont even own their music record companies do, so dont even try to use them saying they are harmed.
Record companies might be harmed but they dont help either side.
We the public who artists release music to should control distribution.
This is all about control, not making money, Artists can make money with or without p2p, but p2p gives the control to us, and not the record companies or the artists.
Now the fans are in control, we decide what to pay for, artists now will need actual talent to sell their music and they bitch and moan because they know they sell their music on their image.
I dont want to hear manson, or metallica saying they hate peer to peer, people who cant make good music hate peer to peer, peopel who make good music will sell better due to better distribution.
IF I like what you have to say in your songs, or how your music sounds, I will buy it in diffrent formats, i'll buy your DVD, your CD, your vinyl, even your special unreleased tracks that you sell directly to me.
Look, I'm not going to argue in favor of DRM, it takes away my right to choose what I want to buy.
: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Music is not personal property, its public property. When you release Music, it now belongs to the public. The Musician only has the exclusive rights to profit from his creation, this means a person cant claim they created it, and they cant sell it illegally. This doesnt mean when a person buys your music that they dont own it and that you actually own it, if thats the case what the hell ARE they buying, and why are you allowed to fool them into thinking they are buying music when in reality they are just paying rent fees to have the right to listen to music.
Its bullshit, music is a right thats not exclusive, you should not be able to control what a person listens to and cannot, and you cant enforce it if you tried so why bother?
You cannot control distribution, you can only profit from it.
Theres no law saying intellectual property is a right.
The constitution says free speech is a right.
What should we follow?
So basically its saying, if you listen to the music without buying the CD you are "stealing" the music.
Stealing it from who? The music has no owners, its just a sound wave. 1s and 0s have no owners.
So unless you believe ideas have owners this cant work.
I do agree a person should have exclusive rights to profit off of an idea they discover first, however, people who download mp3s just to listen to it, arent selling it, so its not taking anythinng away from the creator.
What if sharing is a central part of my religious beliefs? Lets look at what the constitution says
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all.
Oh so I have the right to practice my religious beliefs, which say I should share whenever it doesnt remove anything from me or anyone else. So why the hell shouldnt I share my files? Its not taking anything away from me or anyone else, its giving to someone who didnt have before
Our country's founders -- who were of different religious backgrounds themselves -- knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment -- to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
This should mean, that the government has no right to create laws which restrict our freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to share or not. We should NOT have a SSSCA or any kinda law like this preventing us from sharing, it should be our choice, and the constitution says so.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.
This means the government CANNOT claim file sharing is wrong, and that I am stealing, because its promoting the beliefs of big media companies, who is the government supposed to be representing here? Them or Me? Instead the government should allow the people to decide, and tell the media companies to stop complaining and spend their money to fix their problem instead of trying to use our tax dollars without us even agreeing to it.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
This says that I cannot be locked up in jail for sharing information, because if my religion beliefs that the whole purpose of life is to share information, it kinda goes against my whole belief system to be forced to not share.
Look I understand some information cannot be shared, information which directly harms other people should not be shared, such as some top secret government information where millions of lives might be in danger.
However, sharing music isnt harming anyone, in fact its helping many people, music makes people happy, why am I not allowed to share happiness with others?
Its a nice try for them to call it stealing, but stealing is only wrong when it harms other people, if stealing helps everyone and harms no one, calling me a theif is just like calling me a hero.
What if my religion or my spirtual beliefs say that we should share all information?
There is a law, which specifically says that your religious beliefs come first.
Even if it werent an openGNU religious kinda thing as it might be for me, Its still very difficult to prove to anyone who has any morals, that sharing is bad.
People who want to buy a CD to support a musician, thats just fine, they will do that even if they own the Mp3s, to support the musician, The musician could sell mp3s and or CDs at their concerts and everyone would buy them.
The RIAA and MPAA however want to continue to be th e middleman. I'm not going to pay the middleman, I want to pay directly to a musician, Musicians should sell their own Mp3s directly to their fans via the web, peer to peer, and at concerts.
I agree peer to peer should allow us to pay if we CHOOSE to pay, If i listen to a song I like i should be able to push a button, and 25 cents should go DIRECTLY to the musician who made that song, no RIAA, no middleman, DIRECT payment via paypal or some other system not built yet.
We should choose what Music should be paid for, and what shouldnt. If Musicians dont want us listening to their music, they shouldnt release it to the public. If they release it to the public, its not their RIGHT as a musician to get us to buy every single thing they release, we should buy only what we want.
Thats how alot of other industries work, you try it, and then you buy it, or you pay the creator for the service and then they release their songs.
They are government crafts. Just because they dont make a sound and can move fast doesnt change the fact that its just an spycraft.
Ive seen the flying black triangles before too, I havent seen a flying saucer, that would be diffrent. But a flying triangle? Thats likely one of our crafts. How does it work or fly? I dont know, but we have the technology.
Re:Incorrect definitions build incorrect outlooks
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 2
no in socialism democracy must be in place meaning everyone would decide by vote.
You cannot have a republic with socialism or you end up with something like Chinas version of communism
We arent flirting with it anymore, havent you saw the enron situation? what about sen hollings?
Democracy isnt working anymore due to capitalism itself.
And to say you cannot have democracy without capitalism is stupid, Socialism = Democracy without capitalism, I admit it might not work as long as we still have to do physical labor, but in the future, when we have good robotics socialism will start to look very good.
A society based on democracy and sharing. Because you choose what you share and what you dont share, this makes it SOCIALISM.
Socialism = a society where everyone shares to create a utopia, and thats what Linux is, because everything in linux is open source.
Theres no government in socialism, and theres no government in linux, you still have the freedom to keep your code closed source it just wont be a part of GNU Linux.
However, as far as things go, while you cannot make up for the past, you can make it fair, so that a person who didnt luck out and start out with money and so on, can have the same chances of a person who does.
This means we need a great public education system, we need to provide free food, water and shelter for all, this allows people who are in poverty to actually focus on improvement and not just on survival.
Distributing doesnt have to be free, but water and food should be free for anyone who goes to the warehouse or to the water plant to get it.
If you go to the plant where the water is treated, you should be able to walk out with as much water as you want. IF you go to the warehouse where food is just sitting there, you should be able to take what you need.
Now, if you're talking about food and water to sustain life, you're right that anyone should be able to get it. And they can, in our society. But beyond having food, water, and shelter enough to survive, I think that people should be responsible to work and earn the money if they want any luxuries.
Thats bullshit, people are starving everyday, and theres homeless people all over the country and you are telling me people are getting free food and water? Theres places to get free water but its easy to get, you have to beg for it.
You might be able to get free food if you beg for that, why should homeless people have to beg for food and water when theres places which have water just sitting there that the average person cant want into, and warehouses the government has just sitting around with all this surplus food in it that homeless people cant just walk in and get, so they beg you for money to buy food.
Why ? I'm not talking about luxury, I'm saying everyone should have free air, food, water, and education, and really everyone SHOULD have shelter.
Slashdot Mirror
If you take a DVD, rip it, encode it with DivX, then place it on a public FTP server, you've infringed on that copyright, obviously, and you've commited theft of copyright.
*ROTFLMAO* What the hell is theft of copyright?! I'm going to be laughing at this for a long long time, in fact i should make it my sig just to make that guy who posted that msg see how stupid he actually is.
Code does belong to the public after released, the information is free for all to see under GNU. However I do not mind if the creator of the code wants exclusive rights to SELL the software package, I just have a problem with them trying to sell the code itself.
Sell the binary, but the code must be free. The code is an expression, its art. Anyone can compile a binary, but not anyone can write good code, this is why we must share good code so more people can write better code.
Well if you'd execute a murderer you become what you hate.
Hate cannot be used to fight hate, the best way to handle a murderer is lock them away from society in a prison or place where other crazy people of their kind can live.
Well the best way to justify it, is the fact that is part of our freedom to have the ability to share.
YOU KNOW what freedom of speech is, the DMCA destroys freedom of speech, intellectual property restricts it.
Computers and ping packets, are 1s and 0s, extentions of our speech, the computer is no diffrent than the telephone.
Freedom of speech is actually freedom of expression. Why should we lose this freedom in exchange for profit? Its selling your freedom to choose what you want to buy, to share what you buy etc, if they dont want us to share it they should make it copy proof, i wont get mad if i cant copy something because thats fair, but to tell me I cant have the freedom to copy something thats copyable, and then tell me that If I copy it I cant share it.
This begins to take away my freedom, what do they have to justify this?
Jet technology is not our cutting edge technology. Our cutting edge technology is too expensive to make in mass quantities, This is why we still use jets.
While we can create unmannned flying triangle shaped blimps for spy missions, we cannot make enough of them due to their price to use them in great numbers.
While we do have aircrafts which are saucershaped and not jets, these aircrafts cost a fortune to make and they arent very stable due to how they fly, they craft alot so they are unmanned, they were used to spy on the russians during the cold war. They fly at high speed, usually high up in the air and take pictures at the land down below.
Theres also a few of these saucer shaped craft that have weapons which are manned currently in development.
This information is of course classified, you will not see pictures of these crafts until we actually need to use them or until they are obsolete.
Jets are obsolete, so its okay to show our enemies our jets, our newest experimental aircrafts, the best you'll find on them is patents, designs, and scientists talking about its development on newsgroups.
Theres no right in the constitution saying a Musician has control of distribution of their work!
It only says they have the right to exclusive profit.
So how do artists get paid?
How do concerts end up sold out?
IF people can build gnutella they can build this, its only a matter of time. Currently the Gnutella builders are too busy fighting the RIAA and MPAA to build something like this. I think Mp3.com was a nice effort.
1. Stealing content does, theoretically, hurt people. Now, usually that "hurt" involves a giant nameless, faceless corporation, but it is, technically, still financial harm. And sometimes the owner of content is a little guy. Let's look at it this way: suppose you had a small band, and you made 2,000 cds of your work. Now, imagine that somebody from Warner Brothers sees you at a club and likes your stuff, wants to sell copies of your record. Would it be ok by you if he took one of those 2,000 cds, made 1,000,000 copies of it, slapped a Warner Bros. label on it and sold them all without giving you a dime? Obviously not. That's stealing from you (we'll ignore for a moment the issue of whether or not many of the record labels give the artists so little compensation that they might as well be stealing, since that's not quite but almost stealing). You'd be harmed. Your only recourse is to sue, under the copyright law.
First, if you have a small band, stop selling CDs, put some mp3 vending machines at your concert, play new music live at the concert so your fans have to go to your concert to see what new stuff you've released. After the concert, people can download the mp3s from the vending machines then go online and share it. Musicians just need to stop expecting people to just buy their CD without hearing it first.
Also what you are saying is something totally diffrent from sharing, because Time Warner is profiting. Its wrong to "PROFIT" off of something which someone else has exclusive rights to "PROFIT" on, however when you share something for free, no one is losing "PROFIT" you are giving music away to people who normally dont buy music to begin with, if they did buy music they would buy it directly from you.
2. The establishment cause doesn't cover the situation you describe. If your religious practice includes a behavior that is not necessarily part of your religious practice (i.e., that could be engaged in by others for other reasons) and is illegal under a US law which was passed to cover the behavior as such, rather than in the context of religious observance, the law is not in violation of the establishment clause. That's what stops you from just saying "hey, killing people is part of my religion, so it must be ok for me to kill people.
Killing people removes a life forever, What does sharing remove? I proved it does not remove profits. Sharing has nothing to do with copying and then selling at someone elses expense because nothing is being sold when you share. To assume every peice of musle is automatically a sale is to treat all music as if its stock or something, as if every single song or CD would have sold to every single person who wants to listen to it. Cds only sell to the fans, its the fans who buy cds, the majority of people just listen to music for free. Just like only fans will go to the concerts.
To compare sharing, with killing, is to say sharing removes something from someone else. So what exactly would be removed from Michael Jackon, if I share his invincible CD with you?
Does this mean that suddenly Michael Jackon has lost a sale? No it doesnt, because you wouldnt buy anything from Michael Jackon if you just walked into a store and saw a weird looking guy named Michael Jackson, never heard any of his music before, and hes expecting you to just buy his CD?
Fans buy CDs, people who use p2p to share music, its the fans who own the CDs, people who arent fans just want to listen to some nice music and Michael Jackson is just another song to them, they werent going to buy the CD, they just want to hear some music.
For you to assume everyone whos sharing is removing a sale, is just like me to assume everyone who looks at my painting on display, wont buy it because by looking at it, its removing the possible sales, so what do I do? Hide my painting, then no one will buy it and again I can complain that my sales are bad. But I'd think more people would buy it, if they actually were exposed to it, than if it was under a cover and I'm just trying to tell people to buy my painting and they dont know what my abilities are.
This is about freedom vs control, not profit. If I'm going to buy a CD, every song on their CD must be good. In order for me to know this I have to have heard every song. This is why I own so few CDs, before p2p, I didnt have a clue who made good music and who didnt, now I know who makes good music and I buy more music now than I ever did.
I'm not harming anyone by sharing.
What? The Musician loses control of distribution which they never had in the first place?
Yeah ok.
so the real people who lose are the RIAA and MPAA.
Look, If someone makes good music I'll go to their concerts and I'll pay them not because I have to but because I think they deserve it, because they EARNED it.
If a good movie is made, I will go to theaters to see it, I will still pay for cable or satelite to access it, these guys DO NOT need to sell movies or CDs. They make money off of live events, concerts, theaters, and by charging for distribution.
Musicians dont have any control so I'm not taking anything from them, they dont even make alot of money, the middleman does, what I'd do is help them make more money, by directly sellinng to me.
Imagine Musicians releasing new songs by playing them at concerts for their fans, then selling the music through MP3 vending machines at the concerts for 25 cents a song, money goes DIRECTLY to the musician in cash form.
The listener gets to listen to the music on their way home and upload it into their computers, then share it with all their friends causing more people to go to concerts.
You see? This would help Musicians as much as it would help me.
IF i like a band, I'll want to go see them live, I'll pay 25 cents for every song I like, its not like being forced to pay 15 bucks for a few good songs.
We should be able to choose what we want to buy, when you walk into a store, you can look at a toy, and decide if you want to buy it. With music or information they dont even want you to LOOK at it, this harms me, taking away my freedom to choose.
I'm forced to buy something i dont even know what it is, because the dont allow people to share?!
This isnt about money, its about control. Sharing isnt harming them financially, its removing the RIAAs control of our access to music.
We should be able to do what we want with our music, even share it, because music truely has no owners, you can try to own it but its not physical, its impossible to own in the real world, the musicians dont even own their music record companies do, so dont even try to use them saying they are harmed.
Record companies might be harmed but they dont help either side.
Killing removes a person from the earth forever.
Whats lost when I share?
We the public who artists release music to should control distribution.
This is all about control, not making money, Artists can make money with or without p2p, but p2p gives the control to us, and not the record companies or the artists.
Now the fans are in control, we decide what to pay for, artists now will need actual talent to sell their music and they bitch and moan because they know they sell their music on their image.
I dont want to hear manson, or metallica saying they hate peer to peer, people who cant make good music hate peer to peer, peopel who make good music will sell better due to better distribution.
IF I like what you have to say in your songs, or how your music sounds, I will buy it in diffrent formats, i'll buy your DVD, your CD, your vinyl, even your special unreleased tracks that you sell directly to me.
Look, I'm not going to argue in favor of DRM, it takes away my right to choose what I want to buy.
Lets take it directly from the dictionary.
: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Music is not personal property, its public property.
When you release Music, it now belongs to the public.
The Musician only has the exclusive rights to profit from his creation, this means a person cant claim they created it, and they cant sell it illegally. This doesnt mean when a person buys your music that they dont own it and that you actually own it, if thats the case what the hell ARE they buying, and why are you allowed to fool them into thinking they are buying music when in reality they are just paying rent fees to have the right to listen to music.
Its bullshit, music is a right thats not exclusive, you should not be able to control what a person listens to and cannot, and you cant enforce it if you tried so why bother?
You cannot control distribution, you can only profit from it.
Theres no law saying intellectual property is a right.
The constitution says free speech is a right.
What should we follow?
So basically its saying, if you listen to the music without buying the CD you are "stealing" the music.
Stealing it from who? The music has no owners, its just a sound wave. 1s and 0s have no owners.
So unless you believe ideas have owners this cant work.
I do agree a person should have exclusive rights to profit off of an idea they discover first, however, people who download mp3s just to listen to it, arent selling it, so its not taking anythinng away from the creator.
Every song that a person didnt buy, they werent planning on buying in the first place.
No band is hurt, if someone wants to buy their CD they will, if not they'll download it.
The band should not expect everyone to buy their music, they should only expect their fans to.
I never purchased CDs before napster existed, and I'm not going to start purchasing them because p2p is popular now.
Look, someone who didnt buy CDs then wont buy them now, and its that simple,
I cannot afford to waste money on a CD unless i know that every single song on it is good, If I dont, then I wont buy it.
Next you will say we all stole math from the egyptians because they invented forms of math.
Information cannot have owners. You should only have the right to exclusively profit from your information, not the right to "OWN" it.
Exclusive right to SELL.
Not right to control distribution.
What if sharing is a central part of my religious beliefs? Lets look at what the constitution says
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all.
Oh so I have the right to practice my religious beliefs, which say I should share whenever it doesnt remove anything from me or anyone else. So why the hell shouldnt I share my files? Its not taking anything away from me or anyone else, its giving to someone who didnt have before
Our country's founders -- who were of different religious backgrounds themselves -- knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment -- to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
This should mean, that the government has no right to create laws which restrict our freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to share or not. We should NOT have a SSSCA or any kinda law like this preventing us from sharing, it should be our choice, and the constitution says so.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.
This means the government CANNOT claim file sharing is wrong, and that I am stealing, because its promoting the beliefs of big media companies, who is the government supposed to be representing here? Them or Me? Instead the government should allow the people to decide, and tell the media companies to stop complaining and spend their money to fix their problem instead of trying to use our tax dollars without us even agreeing to it.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
This says that I cannot be locked up in jail for sharing information, because if my religion beliefs that the whole purpose of life is to share information, it kinda goes against my whole belief system to be forced to not share.
Look I understand some information cannot be shared, information which directly harms other people should not be shared, such as some top secret government information where millions of lives might be in danger.
However, sharing music isnt harming anyone, in fact its helping many people, music makes people happy, why am I not allowed to share happiness with others?
Its a nice try for them to call it stealing, but stealing is only wrong when it harms other people, if stealing helps everyone and harms no one, calling me a theif is just like calling me a hero.
What if my religion or my spirtual beliefs say that we should share all information?
There is a law, which specifically says that your religious beliefs come first.
Even if it werent an openGNU religious kinda thing as it might be for me, Its still very difficult to prove to anyone who has any morals, that sharing is bad.
People who want to buy a CD to support a musician, thats just fine, they will do that even if they own the Mp3s, to support the musician, The musician could sell mp3s and or CDs at their concerts and everyone would buy them.
The RIAA and MPAA however want to continue to be th e middleman. I'm not going to pay the middleman, I want to pay directly to a musician, Musicians should sell their own Mp3s directly to their fans via the web, peer to peer, and at concerts.
I agree peer to peer should allow us to pay if we CHOOSE to pay, If i listen to a song I like i should be able to push a button, and 25 cents should go DIRECTLY to the musician who made that song, no RIAA, no middleman, DIRECT payment via paypal or some other system not built yet.
We should choose what Music should be paid for, and what shouldnt. If Musicians dont want us listening to their music, they shouldnt release it to the public. If they release it to the public, its not their RIGHT as a musician to get us to buy every single thing they release, we should buy only what we want.
Thats how alot of other industries work, you try it, and then you buy it, or you pay the creator for the service and then they release their songs.
They are government crafts. Just because they dont make a sound and can move fast doesnt change the fact that its just an spycraft.
Ive seen the flying black triangles before too, I havent seen a flying saucer, that would be diffrent. But a flying triangle? Thats likely one of our crafts. How does it work or fly? I dont know, but we have the technology.
no in socialism democracy must be in place meaning everyone would decide by vote.
You cannot have a republic with socialism or you end up with something like Chinas version of communism
We arent flirting with it anymore, havent you saw the enron situation? what about sen hollings?
Democracy isnt working anymore due to capitalism itself.
And to say you cannot have democracy without capitalism is stupid, Socialism = Democracy without capitalism, I admit it might not work as long as we still have to do physical labor, but in the future, when we have good robotics socialism will start to look very good.
Sharing and distributing the wealth is socialism.
A society based on democracy and sharing. Because you choose what you share and what you dont share, this makes it SOCIALISM.
Socialism = a society where everyone shares to create a utopia, and thats what Linux is, because everything in linux is open source.
Theres no government in socialism, and theres no government in linux, you still have the freedom to keep your code closed source it just wont be a part of GNU Linux.
Linux only works due to the fact that everyone shares everything, its the sharing of the code that creates linux. Its socialism. Accept it.
It also proves socialism (sharing the wealth) can actually work, at least for information.
While it wont work for labor, it DOES work for intellectual property.
So this means we dont really need ownership of ideas to innovate and create products.
Libertarianism? Most of the Linux software, is GNU, GNU is socialist. Libertarian is BSD. Why dont you go use FreeBSD.
Thats why blacks in the USA want a mule and land.
However, as far as things go, while you cannot make up for the past, you can make it fair, so that a person who didnt luck out and start out with money and so on, can have the same chances of a person who does.
This means we need a great public education system, we need to provide free food, water and shelter for all, this allows people who are in poverty to actually focus on improvement and not just on survival.
Distributing doesnt have to be free, but water and food should be free for anyone who goes to the warehouse or to the water plant to get it.
If you go to the plant where the water is treated, you should be able to walk out with as much water as you want. IF you go to the warehouse where food is just sitting there, you should be able to take what you need.
Now, if you're talking about food and water to sustain life, you're right that anyone should be able to get it. And they can, in our society. But beyond having food, water, and shelter enough to survive, I think that people should be responsible to work and earn the money if they want any luxuries.
Thats bullshit, people are starving everyday, and theres homeless people all over the country and you are telling me people are getting free food and water? Theres places to get free water but its easy to get, you have to beg for it.
You might be able to get free food if you beg for that, why should homeless people have to beg for food and water when theres places which have water just sitting there that the average person cant want into, and warehouses the government has just sitting around with all this surplus food in it that homeless people cant just walk in and get, so they beg you for money to buy food.
Why ?
I'm not talking about luxury, I'm saying everyone should have free air, food, water, and education, and really everyone SHOULD have shelter.