Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule
Ah. So what you're saying is that laws that punish bad behavior have the result of preventing all such future behavio by all people, always. Why aren't you arguing that by having a criminal justice system in the first place, and using it for just a little while longer, we'll reach a point where we don't need any more trials, ever, anyway? Because that's your logic at work, here.
Judges are looking out for the integrity of the trial. Jurors aren't allowed to testify, and they are screened for what they know about the subject matter, going into the trial. If a juror, during selection, says that they're sure that all crime is committed by people possessed by aliens, the counsel for one or both parties is going to give them the heave-ho. If a juror, during the trial forms a new opinion on something about which they're otherwise uninformed, and they do that on their own without that new information being vetted by both sides involved, then the trial is justifiably called into question. As in this case.
As if the truth could be prejudicial.
The context in which a juror is exposed to new information during a trial is a central aspect of the entire system, and for good reason.
I love how when I counter and opinion suddenly proof is demanded when none was provided:)
I didn't offer proof, I offered my personal observations. YOU are the one that said that it has been proven that there are more lies broadcast on one network than on all of the others combined. Since you're clearly referring to some proof (other than a Jon Steward bit), it seemed likely that you'd recall where you came up with the numbers that include all those other networks and everything they say. Or perhaps you don't actually have any basis for that claim whatsoever? Thought so.
No, what you're doing is saying that this is what happens, without offering any evidence that it's true. In other words, you're doing exactly what you think the network hate (and obviously don't watch) does. The irony is pretty great, though! Keep it up.
I recall him being suspended for making a personal donation, but not for soliciting donations from his audience
You're failing to recall that the people he was giving money to were also people that, the same day, he brought on the air to showcase during his broadcast. He was using his show to, along with his cash, support specific candidates. Not very subtle.
As for Fox, are you confusing guests with hosts? No, they do not reprimand guests who ask viewers to support campaigns, just like CBS, ABC, NPR, and all the rest don't scold on-air guests who ask for campaign support.
Olbermann spefically called for support for campaigns to which he was also personally donating money. Which is why even the incredibly craven NBC had to go through the motions of temporarily suspending him, if you'll recall.
Fox has been proven to lie far more than any of the above combined
Well, you've convinced me. The statistics you've provided, which run completely counter to my decades of keen interest in broadcast media and even-handed consumption of content from all of the above and many more news/opinion sources, must surely be correct. Just so I can refer to them later, it would really help if you could jot down a link to that whole proof thing. Thanks!
So far, I've never seen a single Fox host or personality ever say anything other than that Obama is a US citizen. They say this directly to interviewees/guests who say otherwise, and say it directly to their audience. I do not hear MSNBC directly talk down people like Rosie O'Donnell as they display their spectacular ignorance of metal fatique and the laws of physics (secret demolition men took down the WTC! OMG!). Perhaps I've missed shows where Maddow or Olbermann called such people wrong to their faces, as talkers like O'Reily and Beck do to loons that get airtime anywhere near them.
And I can't think of a single other network that has had as many people on questioning Obama's citizenship - a fact that was already settled *during his run* back in 2008.
Are you talking about guests on shows? Have you ever counted how often Fox's pundit-style shows have on everyone from Al Sharpton to Michael Moore in order to let them have a say? You're describing their broadcasts exactly like everyone else who never actually watches any of it. But you ARE describing, more accurately, the way that MSNBC does things... though they're more aggressive in their inaccuracies and breezily absurd assertions (say, about the consistently violent and racist nature of Tea Party types, or similarly - demonstrably false - bits of nonsense). You doth protest too much, I think.
The damnedest thing is that pedophiles are about as peaceful a group of people as can be found
Ask that kid, when he's grown up, whether or not he considers himself to have been every bit as violated as the victim of a non-"peaceful" assault in the parking lot of a convenience store, or worse. You're an idiot.
If you replace everything you said about Fox and the Republicans with MSNBC, CBS, NBC ABC, NPR, and others and their continual push for the Democrats you'd be almost right... except they claim that Fox (who has a much smaller share of media attention than all of those guys) is not allowed to have an editorial position, while all of them are. The hypocrisy is quite amazing, actually. The only thing that bothers them is that there's such a thing as a media outlet that isn't actively pushing the same political agenda that they are, and that a lot of people have deliberately embraced that outlet for the counterweight that it provides, compared to the large majority of other outlets.
It would be interesting if you could point to a single Fox host/newscaster/pundit who says that Obama isn't a citizen.
And, out of curiosity, are you holding broadcasters like MSNBC to the same standards, when they have on guests that throw around really over-the-top slurs, pronouncements about Bush orchestrating 9/11, and the rest?
They don't profess Obama was born elsewhere - they just leave it as a "question".
What, you mean like the Fox opion/entertainment segment guy the left loves most to hate, Beck? He routinely mentions that there is no question about Obama's citizenship, and that he's every bit eligible to hold the office he's in. Is that the guy you're referring to?
What they know is that, regardless of what it means regarding his citizenship, you're not allowed to see his birth certificate. That's what they know. Doesn't mean he isn't a citizen, just that that's one document that will never be availalble for review. Which is funny, considering how many on the left applaud the whole Wikileaks sensibility, but support Obama's no-you-may-not-see-it position on that one detail.
Their sponsors are a who's who of liberal politics.
Shhhh! People get uncomfortable when you pull back the curtain and it's George Soros standing there. Not because they don't like him, but because they know he's creepy, but they don't want to disagree with him because then they'll be indireclty disagreeing with people to whom he writes huge checks, and that will make them re-evaluate why they like those groups, which will make them question their mixed premises and thus their world view. And who wants to do that.
I can't think of any examples where MSNBC hosts openly shilled, on the air, for political candidates
Really? Were you paying any attention during the last presedential campaign season? Now, I can understand why you might be so unable to watch Keith Olbermann that you've never actually seen him in action, but if you had watched him (say, for any of several randomly picked broadcasts during the election), you'd see that you're simply wrong on the facts. Or are you thinking that when one of their employees, like Rachel Maddow, spends a lot of her on-air energy to try to ridicule one of the candidates in an election, that the candidate's opponent isn't getting the benefit of her very partisan handiwork?
There is no risk. People in the $250k+ bracket have their investments protected by the gov't and get bailed out when they screw up.
Tell that to the GM investors who had their investment trashed so that Obama could instead give equity to unions as payback for political action. Tell that to anyone who's seen their stock portfolio roller-coaster all over the place. Equities are not the same as a bank account. Of course you actually know that, and you're BS-ing.
$250k/yr puts him in the top 10%, that's rich in my book. He's got virtually no worries
Do you have any idea what malpractice insurance costs? Have you ever actually seen what it costs to run such a practice, in terms of payroll and unemployment taxes, regulatory fees, and the rest? And the whole thing is one lawsuit from ruin, even if it's dismissed. Of course, you know all that, and you're BS-ing.
It's a fact that 5% of the population of the United States is sitting on 2 TRILLION dollars in capital and doing nothing with it
Of course they are. Because they have absolutely no way of knowing of they're going to have their investment handed over to the UAW, or have congress tax them in ways that they cannot possibly predict (since Pelosi and Reid have been deliberately dragging their feet for a year, specifically to create this exact sort of uncertainty). Investors have absolutely no way of knowing how the burdensome new health care costs are going to derail some busineses. They have no idea how new EPA regulatory authority is going to be actually applied. They have no way of knowing how their own returns on those investments are going to be taxed.
You want to see capital put to work? Tell the Democrats running both houses of congress and executive branch to quit screwing around. Businesses need stability, not the kind of nonsense that's being served up by Reid right now.
1000 years of stagnation to keep the rich rich
No, 1000 years of stagnation because of, mostly, religion.
Exactly. Because it's wrong on principle, it's unworkable logistically, and it's financially ruinous. That's true whether you do it unconstitutionally as they did, or if they treated it like a typical tax/spend entitlement Nanny State arrangement. It's insane either way, does nothing to reduce the cost of delivering a doctor's services, and grotesquely increases government involvement in the private interaction between citizens and the people with whom they buy services.
If people don't eat, they'll die a lot more quickly than if they don't get the services of a dermatologist paid for by some other taxpayer. So, why aren't they mandating that each citizen buy a certain amount of groceries, facing government fines if they don't? What about clothing? Perhaps the government should dictate that you buy a certain number of clothing articles each year, with a Bureau of Your Bureau deciding how that should look depending on your latitude. I mean, if they don't make sure you're comfortably warm - but not too hot! - that could be bad for your health, and that could lead to expensive medical treatment, possibly while you're traveling across state lines. So, clearly the interstate commerce clause (which Pelosi says gives her the authority to make you buy health care) surely can be invoked to get you federal legal trouble if you don't adhere to the clothing mandate. Right?
No, of course. Food, water, clothing, a visit to the podiatrist... these aren't government things to make you do, or to make someone else do for you with part of their paycheck.
The same way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
So, why didn't they just raise taxes to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in new health care costs? The federal government does not threaten you with jail if you don't go out and buy services from a private road builder, a private security company, or a private library. If you're arguing that forcing people to go out and do a certain kind of private business between two parties, or pay the government a fine if you don't, or go to jail if you don't pay that fine... is the same as a tax, then you need to re-evaluate that. What you should be arguing for, then, is government-run health care, just like we have government-run roads and police departments. Of course, much of that is done at the state, county, and municipal level because life just isn't the same everywhere. So... which is it? Is it a tax that doesn't buy government services, or is a forced transaction between third parties?
sales lost for many people suddenly _hate_ Amazon is directly related to WikiLeaks debacle
You're not taking into account the customers they retain or attract as people learn more about the actual facts. Amazon is under no obligation to let oily weasles like Assange operate outside of their TOS, and they have a strong incentive to been seen actually enforcing their stated policies. Likewise, people who see that Amazon can easily weather a moderately aggressive DDoS like that juvenile tantrum thrown by Anonymous now have that much more of a reason to trust Amazon while buying goods or considering where to host cloud-ish stuff. This whole thing has been a fine demonstration of Amazon's infrastructure, and a good object lesson in why you should read the hosting company's TOS when operating the web site you use to take money and handle stolen government documents.
The difference is that when the US spends its own money the defence of its own people, it's a rational expenditure for the people who pay the bill. When other people, who do not pay for it, feel entitled to those services and materials, and cite the fact that they are poorer than the US and thus deserve it, we're talking about a socialist mindset. Simple as that.
There are plenty of self-motivated reasons for US citizens to spend defense money in a way that seems more directly aimed at others' use, because the US indirectly benefits from helping to - for example - keep North Korea from rolling troops into South Korea (a major trading partner, and neighbor to other friendlies that really, really don't want to see that happen).
It's the sense of entitlement vs. the understanding that it needs to be a two-way street - that's what makes the difference.
The US defence industry is plain and simple a form of welfare
It's true, but not in the way you sophomorically imply. And the people receiving the benefits of the US having to spend that money and do all of that work are the other countries around the world that opt out of having to do it themselves. There's the real irony: actually socialist-leaning countries in places like Europe get the benefit of cozying up to the US via NATO, while letting the US do the heavy lifting when it comes to paying for this stuff.
Not that any of them actually do ever rip off anyone's work or spread it around, of course.
This whole thread is full of comments tap-dancing (badly) around the fact that the real driver here is the ability to avoid getting busted for ripping off copyrighted works. Yes, the technology is compelling (if, as described, a huge magnet for malware and bot-net bullies running the show), and has legitimate uses. But this particular twist on the torrent landscape is driven hugely by the fact that central servers pointing the way to legit, legal distro torrents and freely released entertainment, etc., isn't what millions of people are actually trying to get their hands on.
On that front: I'm not sure how this helps the guy who wants to be harder to find as he rips and distributes pirated content. If it's robust enough for him and his million best friends to spread around a feature film ISO ten minutes after it's been burned, then it's robust enough for the copyright holders to see it all happening and write down IP addresses, too.
And without capital being risked (and almost always completely lost) there would be no ability to start the production of much of anything. Most people who make stuff or provide services are terrible business people. Though I suppose you'd prefer that the government collect tax money from everyone, and the feds get involved in every business start-up?
Regardless, you really think that some guy who generates $250k running a dental practice is "rich?" What a laugh.
They point is, they horde everything and we get nothing.
Woops, never mind. You're trolling. Using the computer in front of you, despite the fact that you have nothing.
If something is played on the radio 20 times a day for free, what's the difference between that and it being on a torrent site?
The difference is that the artist has made arrangements specifically for their work to be available on the air, and is compensated for the fact that the business broadcasting it is doing so, in accordance to an agreement to which they've both agreed. The people who rip the work off without making such arrangements are doing just that: cutting the artist and the artist's wishes out of the loop, on purpose. Are you really saying that the artist should have no choice but to have someone grab a bit-prefect ISO of their recording and push it around in that way? That even artists who do not want to do that, must do so? I'm trying to get to the bottom of whose work you think it actually is, here.
I've already debunked this
Which explains why all of the stuff running around as torrent files is only stuff that the artists have decided to pass around for free, right? No pirated works, no sir-ee! That also explains the huge number of feature films that are passed around, in their entirety, right? Those millions of downloads are only the ones that the film maker wants to have people take for free on the same day they put their DVD up for sale, right? Or are you in agreement that those are unauthorized copies, but your position is that the artist should have no say, that they must surrender their work for free?
Slashdot Mirror
Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule
Ah. So what you're saying is that laws that punish bad behavior have the result of preventing all such future behavio by all people, always. Why aren't you arguing that by having a criminal justice system in the first place, and using it for just a little while longer, we'll reach a point where we don't need any more trials, ever, anyway? Because that's your logic at work, here.
Judges are looking out for the integrity of the trial. Jurors aren't allowed to testify, and they are screened for what they know about the subject matter, going into the trial. If a juror, during selection, says that they're sure that all crime is committed by people possessed by aliens, the counsel for one or both parties is going to give them the heave-ho. If a juror, during the trial forms a new opinion on something about which they're otherwise uninformed, and they do that on their own without that new information being vetted by both sides involved, then the trial is justifiably called into question. As in this case.
As if the truth could be prejudicial.
The context in which a juror is exposed to new information during a trial is a central aspect of the entire system, and for good reason.
I love how when I counter and opinion suddenly proof is demanded when none was provided :)
I didn't offer proof, I offered my personal observations. YOU are the one that said that it has been proven that there are more lies broadcast on one network than on all of the others combined. Since you're clearly referring to some proof (other than a Jon Steward bit), it seemed likely that you'd recall where you came up with the numbers that include all those other networks and everything they say. Or perhaps you don't actually have any basis for that claim whatsoever? Thought so.
No, what you're doing is saying that this is what happens, without offering any evidence that it's true. In other words, you're doing exactly what you think the network hate (and obviously don't watch) does. The irony is pretty great, though! Keep it up.
I recall him being suspended for making a personal donation, but not for soliciting donations from his audience
You're failing to recall that the people he was giving money to were also people that, the same day, he brought on the air to showcase during his broadcast. He was using his show to, along with his cash, support specific candidates. Not very subtle.
As for Fox, are you confusing guests with hosts? No, they do not reprimand guests who ask viewers to support campaigns, just like CBS, ABC, NPR, and all the rest don't scold on-air guests who ask for campaign support.
Olbermann spefically called for support for campaigns to which he was also personally donating money. Which is why even the incredibly craven NBC had to go through the motions of temporarily suspending him, if you'll recall.
Fox has been proven to lie far more than any of the above combined
Well, you've convinced me. The statistics you've provided, which run completely counter to my decades of keen interest in broadcast media and even-handed consumption of content from all of the above and many more news/opinion sources, must surely be correct. Just so I can refer to them later, it would really help if you could jot down a link to that whole proof thing. Thanks!
So far, I've never seen a single Fox host or personality ever say anything other than that Obama is a US citizen. They say this directly to interviewees/guests who say otherwise, and say it directly to their audience. I do not hear MSNBC directly talk down people like Rosie O'Donnell as they display their spectacular ignorance of metal fatique and the laws of physics (secret demolition men took down the WTC! OMG!). Perhaps I've missed shows where Maddow or Olbermann called such people wrong to their faces, as talkers like O'Reily and Beck do to loons that get airtime anywhere near them.
And I can't think of a single other network that has had as many people on questioning Obama's citizenship - a fact that was already settled *during his run* back in 2008.
... though they're more aggressive in their inaccuracies and breezily absurd assertions (say, about the consistently violent and racist nature of Tea Party types, or similarly - demonstrably false - bits of nonsense). You doth protest too much, I think.
Are you talking about guests on shows? Have you ever counted how often Fox's pundit-style shows have on everyone from Al Sharpton to Michael Moore in order to let them have a say? You're describing their broadcasts exactly like everyone else who never actually watches any of it. But you ARE describing, more accurately, the way that MSNBC does things
The damnedest thing is that pedophiles are about as peaceful a group of people as can be found
Ask that kid, when he's grown up, whether or not he considers himself to have been every bit as violated as the victim of a non-"peaceful" assault in the parking lot of a convenience store, or worse. You're an idiot.
If you replace everything you said about Fox and the Republicans with MSNBC, CBS, NBC ABC, NPR, and others and their continual push for the Democrats you'd be almost right ... except they claim that Fox (who has a much smaller share of media attention than all of those guys) is not allowed to have an editorial position, while all of them are. The hypocrisy is quite amazing, actually. The only thing that bothers them is that there's such a thing as a media outlet that isn't actively pushing the same political agenda that they are, and that a lot of people have deliberately embraced that outlet for the counterweight that it provides, compared to the large majority of other outlets.
It would be interesting if you could point to a single Fox host/newscaster/pundit who says that Obama isn't a citizen.
And, out of curiosity, are you holding broadcasters like MSNBC to the same standards, when they have on guests that throw around really over-the-top slurs, pronouncements about Bush orchestrating 9/11, and the rest?
They don't profess Obama was born elsewhere - they just leave it as a "question".
What, you mean like the Fox opion/entertainment segment guy the left loves most to hate, Beck? He routinely mentions that there is no question about Obama's citizenship, and that he's every bit eligible to hold the office he's in. Is that the guy you're referring to?
I'd like to know what they know.
What they know is that, regardless of what it means regarding his citizenship, you're not allowed to see his birth certificate. That's what they know. Doesn't mean he isn't a citizen, just that that's one document that will never be availalble for review. Which is funny, considering how many on the left applaud the whole Wikileaks sensibility, but support Obama's no-you-may-not-see-it position on that one detail.
Their sponsors are a who's who of liberal politics.
Shhhh! People get uncomfortable when you pull back the curtain and it's George Soros standing there. Not because they don't like him, but because they know he's creepy, but they don't want to disagree with him because then they'll be indireclty disagreeing with people to whom he writes huge checks, and that will make them re-evaluate why they like those groups, which will make them question their mixed premises and thus their world view. And who wants to do that.
I can't think of any examples where MSNBC hosts openly shilled, on the air, for political candidates
Really? Were you paying any attention during the last presedential campaign season? Now, I can understand why you might be so unable to watch Keith Olbermann that you've never actually seen him in action, but if you had watched him (say, for any of several randomly picked broadcasts during the election), you'd see that you're simply wrong on the facts. Or are you thinking that when one of their employees, like Rachel Maddow, spends a lot of her on-air energy to try to ridicule one of the candidates in an election, that the candidate's opponent isn't getting the benefit of her very partisan handiwork?
There is no risk. People in the $250k+ bracket have their investments protected by the gov't and get bailed out when they screw up.
Tell that to the GM investors who had their investment trashed so that Obama could instead give equity to unions as payback for political action. Tell that to anyone who's seen their stock portfolio roller-coaster all over the place. Equities are not the same as a bank account. Of course you actually know that, and you're BS-ing.
$250k/yr puts him in the top 10%, that's rich in my book. He's got virtually no worries
Do you have any idea what malpractice insurance costs? Have you ever actually seen what it costs to run such a practice, in terms of payroll and unemployment taxes, regulatory fees, and the rest? And the whole thing is one lawsuit from ruin, even if it's dismissed. Of course, you know all that, and you're BS-ing.
It's a fact that 5% of the population of the United States is sitting on 2 TRILLION dollars in capital and doing nothing with it
Of course they are. Because they have absolutely no way of knowing of they're going to have their investment handed over to the UAW, or have congress tax them in ways that they cannot possibly predict (since Pelosi and Reid have been deliberately dragging their feet for a year, specifically to create this exact sort of uncertainty). Investors have absolutely no way of knowing how the burdensome new health care costs are going to derail some busineses. They have no idea how new EPA regulatory authority is going to be actually applied. They have no way of knowing how their own returns on those investments are going to be taxed.
You want to see capital put to work? Tell the Democrats running both houses of congress and executive branch to quit screwing around. Businesses need stability, not the kind of nonsense that's being served up by Reid right now.
1000 years of stagnation to keep the rich rich
No, 1000 years of stagnation because of, mostly, religion.
but it wouldn't have passed
... these aren't government things to make you do, or to make someone else do for you with part of their paycheck.
Exactly. Because it's wrong on principle, it's unworkable logistically, and it's financially ruinous. That's true whether you do it unconstitutionally as they did, or if they treated it like a typical tax/spend entitlement Nanny State arrangement. It's insane either way, does nothing to reduce the cost of delivering a doctor's services, and grotesquely increases government involvement in the private interaction between citizens and the people with whom they buy services.
If people don't eat, they'll die a lot more quickly than if they don't get the services of a dermatologist paid for by some other taxpayer. So, why aren't they mandating that each citizen buy a certain amount of groceries, facing government fines if they don't? What about clothing? Perhaps the government should dictate that you buy a certain number of clothing articles each year, with a Bureau of Your Bureau deciding how that should look depending on your latitude. I mean, if they don't make sure you're comfortably warm - but not too hot! - that could be bad for your health, and that could lead to expensive medical treatment, possibly while you're traveling across state lines. So, clearly the interstate commerce clause (which Pelosi says gives her the authority to make you buy health care) surely can be invoked to get you federal legal trouble if you don't adhere to the clothing mandate. Right?
No, of course. Food, water, clothing, a visit to the podiatrist
The same way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
... is the same as a tax, then you need to re-evaluate that. What you should be arguing for, then, is government-run health care, just like we have government-run roads and police departments. Of course, much of that is done at the state, county, and municipal level because life just isn't the same everywhere. So ... which is it? Is it a tax that doesn't buy government services, or is a forced transaction between third parties?
So, why didn't they just raise taxes to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in new health care costs? The federal government does not threaten you with jail if you don't go out and buy services from a private road builder, a private security company, or a private library. If you're arguing that forcing people to go out and do a certain kind of private business between two parties, or pay the government a fine if you don't, or go to jail if you don't pay that fine
One man's TERRORIST is another mans Freedom Fighter.
Sure, but only if you're an irrational moral relativist.
sales lost for many people suddenly _hate_ Amazon is directly related to WikiLeaks debacle
You're not taking into account the customers they retain or attract as people learn more about the actual facts. Amazon is under no obligation to let oily weasles like Assange operate outside of their TOS, and they have a strong incentive to been seen actually enforcing their stated policies. Likewise, people who see that Amazon can easily weather a moderately aggressive DDoS like that juvenile tantrum thrown by Anonymous now have that much more of a reason to trust Amazon while buying goods or considering where to host cloud-ish stuff. This whole thing has been a fine demonstration of Amazon's infrastructure, and a good object lesson in why you should read the hosting company's TOS when operating the web site you use to take money and handle stolen government documents.
The difference is that when the US spends its own money the defence of its own people, it's a rational expenditure for the people who pay the bill. When other people, who do not pay for it, feel entitled to those services and materials, and cite the fact that they are poorer than the US and thus deserve it, we're talking about a socialist mindset. Simple as that.
There are plenty of self-motivated reasons for US citizens to spend defense money in a way that seems more directly aimed at others' use, because the US indirectly benefits from helping to - for example - keep North Korea from rolling troops into South Korea (a major trading partner, and neighbor to other friendlies that really, really don't want to see that happen).
It's the sense of entitlement vs. the understanding that it needs to be a two-way street - that's what makes the difference.
The US defence industry is plain and simple a form of welfare
It's true, but not in the way you sophomorically imply. And the people receiving the benefits of the US having to spend that money and do all of that work are the other countries around the world that opt out of having to do it themselves. There's the real irony: actually socialist-leaning countries in places like Europe get the benefit of cozying up to the US via NATO, while letting the US do the heavy lifting when it comes to paying for this stuff.
people who have been accused of piracy
Not that any of them actually do ever rip off anyone's work or spread it around, of course.
This whole thread is full of comments tap-dancing (badly) around the fact that the real driver here is the ability to avoid getting busted for ripping off copyrighted works. Yes, the technology is compelling (if, as described, a huge magnet for malware and bot-net bullies running the show), and has legitimate uses. But this particular twist on the torrent landscape is driven hugely by the fact that central servers pointing the way to legit, legal distro torrents and freely released entertainment, etc., isn't what millions of people are actually trying to get their hands on.
On that front: I'm not sure how this helps the guy who wants to be harder to find as he rips and distributes pirated content. If it's robust enough for him and his million best friends to spread around a feature film ISO ten minutes after it's been burned, then it's robust enough for the copyright holders to see it all happening and write down IP addresses, too.
nowadays we call them 'venture capitalists'
And without capital being risked (and almost always completely lost) there would be no ability to start the production of much of anything. Most people who make stuff or provide services are terrible business people. Though I suppose you'd prefer that the government collect tax money from everyone, and the feds get involved in every business start-up?
Regardless, you really think that some guy who generates $250k running a dental practice is "rich?" What a laugh.
They point is, they horde everything and we get nothing.
Woops, never mind. You're trolling. Using the computer in front of you, despite the fact that you have nothing.
If something is played on the radio 20 times a day for free, what's the difference between that and it being on a torrent site?
The difference is that the artist has made arrangements specifically for their work to be available on the air, and is compensated for the fact that the business broadcasting it is doing so, in accordance to an agreement to which they've both agreed. The people who rip the work off without making such arrangements are doing just that: cutting the artist and the artist's wishes out of the loop, on purpose. Are you really saying that the artist should have no choice but to have someone grab a bit-prefect ISO of their recording and push it around in that way? That even artists who do not want to do that, must do so? I'm trying to get to the bottom of whose work you think it actually is, here.
I've already debunked this
Which explains why all of the stuff running around as torrent files is only stuff that the artists have decided to pass around for free, right? No pirated works, no sir-ee! That also explains the huge number of feature films that are passed around, in their entirety, right? Those millions of downloads are only the ones that the film maker wants to have people take for free on the same day they put their DVD up for sale, right? Or are you in agreement that those are unauthorized copies, but your position is that the artist should have no say, that they must surrender their work for free?