It's really pretty obtuse to use murder as a metaphor for copying songs.
I used to agree with you on most of this, but there are to very important reasons why I support copyright infringement for music specifically:
1. Copyrights have been extended again and again. You would think that if this was happening that it would be because artists were selling less, when in fact exactly the opposite has happened. So if anything copyrights should have been shortened. This is clearly a case in which the industy has bribed the lawmakers to further their interests. Since the copyright extensions were not made in the interests of the people, it is invalid and should be ingnored. Feel free to share anything that has been copyrighted for ten or more years. (In fact the mere fact that copyright is temporary illustrates an important fact. That copyrighted material is not OWNED and therefore cannot be stolen, the temporary right to distribution is all that is given to the copyright holder)
2. Clearly the penalty for copyright infringement is far to severe. In fact, considering that no damage is done and nobody or property is even put in danger (as with a traffic ticket) the fines should logically be trivial. So small that it would not even be worth wasting money on to pay lawyers and judges. When the RIAA took action against the university students I began my boycott of purchasing their products (or anyone affiliated with them). Those students were not even sharing files, they created search engines for the networks of their respective universitys and the RIAA used them as an example, basically pressuring the poor students into turning over their life savings. I may not know a lot about law, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil. If somebody wants to damage the RIAA, whether legally or illegally, I for one support it. The people behind these lawsuits are the scum of the earth and don't deserve to live. If we truly lived in a just world, people like this would be hunted down and killed just like the US has done (or at least is trying to do) with Bin Laden and Hussein
I actually have an open source solution that is totally transparent and bug proof! It cannot be cracked. I am going to patent it and cash in on this.
Are you ready to hear it?
It's called PUNCH a f****** hole in a f****** card.
Sure it takes an extra day to count all the votes, but who really cares. The new president won't take office until months after the election anyhow.
It is not Verisign's right to change how DNS works. It is only their job to make sure it keeps working the way they want it to. If there are changes made to the way it works it should be made by ICANN.
Verisign has no more right to have internet traffic diverted to their website (which will obviously be used for financial gain) than I or any other member of the public have.
See, I am not saying that it is wrong for them to offer the sitefinder service, but If ICANN is ever to allow this change in DNS to occur, It should be on another seperate contract and other companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any private person should have the right to compete for that contract. Heck, from just using Site-finder a few times I learned that I prefer Google's engine. I would much rather be forwarded to their search engine.
Consider on top of this, whether a change in DNS is good for internet stability, then you have even more reasons to hate Verisign.
With all the complaining we do here on slashdot about what companies do to OUR internet, we seem to do very little to protect our claim to this digital property.
ICANN apparently encourages public involvement and I suggest that we all try to get involved in this and other internet organizations.
ICANN also allows the public to participate in their meetings, supposedly via video conference.
http://www.icann.org/participate/
Slashdot Mirror
I used to agree with you on most of this, but there are to very important reasons why I support copyright infringement for music specifically:
1. Copyrights have been extended again and again. You would think that if this was happening that it would be because artists were selling less, when in fact exactly the opposite has happened. So if anything copyrights should have been shortened. This is clearly a case in which the industy has bribed the lawmakers to further their interests. Since the copyright extensions were not made in the interests of the people, it is invalid and should be ingnored. Feel free to share anything that has been copyrighted for ten or more years. (In fact the mere fact that copyright is temporary illustrates an important fact. That copyrighted material is not OWNED and therefore cannot be stolen, the temporary right to distribution is all that is given to the copyright holder)
2. Clearly the penalty for copyright infringement is far to severe. In fact, considering that no damage is done and nobody or property is even put in danger (as with a traffic ticket) the fines should logically be trivial. So small that it would not even be worth wasting money on to pay lawyers and judges. When the RIAA took action against the university students I began my boycott of purchasing their products (or anyone affiliated with them). Those students were not even sharing files, they created search engines for the networks of their respective universitys and the RIAA used them as an example, basically pressuring the poor students into turning over their life savings. I may not know a lot about law, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil. If somebody wants to damage the RIAA, whether legally or illegally, I for one support it. The people behind these lawsuits are the scum of the earth and don't deserve to live. If we truly lived in a just world, people like this would be hunted down and killed just like the US has done (or at least is trying to do) with Bin Laden and Hussein
I actually have an open source solution that is totally transparent and bug proof! It cannot be cracked. I am going to patent it and cash in on this. Are you ready to hear it? It's called PUNCH a f****** hole in a f****** card. Sure it takes an extra day to count all the votes, but who really cares. The new president won't take office until months after the election anyhow.
It is not Verisign's right to change how DNS works. It is only their job to make sure it keeps working the way they want it to. If there are changes made to the way it works it should be made by ICANN. Verisign has no more right to have internet traffic diverted to their website (which will obviously be used for financial gain) than I or any other member of the public have. See, I am not saying that it is wrong for them to offer the sitefinder service, but If ICANN is ever to allow this change in DNS to occur, It should be on another seperate contract and other companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any private person should have the right to compete for that contract. Heck, from just using Site-finder a few times I learned that I prefer Google's engine. I would much rather be forwarded to their search engine. Consider on top of this, whether a change in DNS is good for internet stability, then you have even more reasons to hate Verisign.
With all the complaining we do here on slashdot about what companies do to OUR internet, we seem to do very little to protect our claim to this digital property. ICANN apparently encourages public involvement and I suggest that we all try to get involved in this and other internet organizations. ICANN also allows the public to participate in their meetings, supposedly via video conference. http://www.icann.org/participate/