Isn't the majority right? - Legalize sharing!!

[555]

Hello! :shy

I would gladly pay a small raise on my internet-connection and have legal access to programs such as Kazaa lite...
The companies would also earn more money that way. They just have to face the facts and make sharing legal, or turning millions of millions of people into criminals!

How can such a small group (like RIAA) still consider that they're right when about 200 million people have an opposite opinion?
We even proof and claim our rights by taking risks in using those "illegal" programs - Isn't only that worth a notice?!

Is this democracy? - NO!

They're just hiding behind some primitive law(s) to make their "legal" money!

Change those primitive laws now!

/John.

[Wolfie]

As great of a sentiment that is, lets consider this: who makes the laws and passes them?

The answer is another small group who mostly either come from money (personal wealth) or are supported by big money coporations). I think democracy is great ideal, but in real politics the voice of the influential few out-weights the regeular people.


PS. sorry, bit pessiemistic tonight....

[555]

Originally posted by Wolfie
As great of a sentiment that is, lets consider this: who makes the laws and passes them?

The answer is another small group who mostly either come from money (personal wealth) or are supported by big money coporations). I think democracy is great ideal, but in real politics the voice of the influential few out-weights the regeular people.


PS. sorry, bit pessiemistic tonight....

Well, it's not a small subject, but we ARE the majority, and at least theoretically we have the power of modifing laws.
What We need to do is to take political actions, or live as criminals...

-> "Do it today, tomorrow it may be illegal!" <-

[BlueLieu]

Sorry, but it is a common fact that the more money you command the more your voice counts. So it takes around 100,000 poor average slobs like you and I to equal one recording association exec. Lets not even get into how much more important celebrities are!

[TrailerTrash999]

The law is the masses work their behinds off so a few can live out their lives in unimmaginable comfort and excess. The law taxes you, forcing you into a cycle of economic slavery. The law creates an illusion of freedom, least you wise up and take off afew heads! I wish I could steal from over-paid fat cats that force us into 30 year morgages, rip us off on utilities, tax us, fine us and bill us and insure us until we can't afford anything. Fact is once the major players are done sweezing the life out of us, we can't afford entertainment and fun. Hell, taking away what little joy we can get our grubby little hands on via sharing might make a few heads roll, now who really wants that anyway? Yeah, I might pay monthy fee for good downloads. But fact is, I don't have much to spend. If P2P did not exist, I still could not spend money I don't have on over priced stuff. I taped off the radio, I taped off tv. How is P2P the devil? I guess they just had noway to know about how much of that people were doing. Yeah, I spent a hell of a lot more then too, when tapes were under $10 and you could get classics for $4.99. Guess what, the collection I built wore out. Tapes got ate, stopped working. But the complainers have priced themselves out of range of my limited funds. Let them Yell for me to be paid more, get into a house cheaper, have cheaper utilities, few taxes, cheaper living cost, better jobs...... Ending P2P won't make me richer and able to buy more!!! Infact, I am so ticked off at the record industry I won't buy anything anyway for awhile. They went around copy writing folk songs and they stold the lyrics, ripped off many an artist and proped up whatever posers they wanted to make rich. Well, what goes around, comes around!!! lol

[TrailerTrash999]

Strength in numbers only counts if the numbers are visible. I think if file sharers turned out in mass at the courthouse to support Kazaa, then the numbers would count. Heck, they would post pone and drag around hoping to be able to do them wrong without fear of a riot. Hoping file sharers would get tired of making the trip and lining the streets, run out of sick days....lol As long as file sharers who are just regular people hide in fear and watch wide-eyed and trembling everytime a person is excessively unfairly and unjustly punished, P2P is loosing. Share not only the files, share in the trials. They can't lock everyone up, they'd run out of jails. But if we wait around, they'll build more jails... The scarest part of this is the opportunity it provides to stock private jails with good slave labor. Much higher quality than your rapests and crack whores I'd wager. If all P2P sharers would come out and say, NO! and refuse to tolerate it, it would stop. The purpose is to instill fear. And they have won in that respect. Organize visible, massive support networks, have actual people turnout in numbers together, and we'd get a legal version of Kazaa atleast where for a monthly fee we could download and the downloaded files would generate royalties.

[freefighter]

i'm predicting that if and when they ever do bring the verizon user to court, it will result in massive riots all over the riaa's front lawn. Attacking an individual consumer like that is just wrong and the people won't tolerate it.

[ThePillarOfAutumn]

:shy YOU GOD DAM STRAIGHT PEOPLE WONT STAND FOR IT AND NIETHER WILL HACKERS .....:shy

[bobhss]

Isn't the majority right?

Not always.

However in this case it's not the majority that's right, it's the RIAA/Music companies who are wrong. They haven't figured out how to keep making money in a changing world. Until then I guess they'll keep alienating the people they want to purchase their crap and keep them in business.

Now, this thread is not cool. It admits that sharing is illegal which is not the case. Sharing is completely legal as long as it's not copyrighted by someone else. Copyright reform anyone?

[Theinfamousone]

That's a good point, all we need to do is change the copyright laws and P2P would get a lot less legal flack. Frankly, I don't care if I couldn't download new music, I hate it all, if they could make copyrights only last for 5 years or something (the rate today's artists stay popular I'd say that is more then plenty) then everything would be peachy.

[Aaron73153]

Two words come to mind when it comes to anything surrounding Congress: Money Talks!

[dr. damn]

Isn't the majority right? - Legalize sharing!!

No, and no.

Modern political scientists don't believe that the majority is always right. Also, the United States is a republic, not a democracy -- do not confuse the two!

Secondly, file sharing is already legal. It's the content being shared that isn't legal, and that's very unlikely to change anytime soon.

[metale]

WE'LL NEVER STOP FIGHTING!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jona100]

Just because the majority supports something, does not mean it is right and should be legalised.

The majority of people would want to pay less tax. Unfortunately it is not financially feasible and cause no ends of misery to the most vulnerable in society, thus it is not right.

The majority of people would want capital punishment legalised if they or their loved ones were the victims of murder, it doesn’t mean capital punishment is the best choice for our society.

Our leaders are given positions of power, to make decisions on our behalf without having to consult on every issue except the major ones.

Laws should not be passed just because at one time a “majority” of people are of the same opinion, most people whose opinions make up this majority are not receipt of the full facts, and are subject to changing their mind constantly on any given issue.

The general public is generally not the smartest bunch of people to trust an issues outcome on,

[Jared592]

Originally posted by jona100
Just because the majority supports something, does not mean it is right and should be legalised.

The majority of people would want to pay less tax. Unfortunately it is not financially feasible and cause no ends of misery to the most vulnerable in society, thus it is not right.

The majority of people would want capital punishment legalised if they or their loved ones were the victims of murder, it doesn’t mean capital punishment is the best choice for our society.

Our leaders are given positions of power, to make decisions on our behalf without having to consult on every issue except the major ones.

Laws should not be passed just because at one time a “majority” of people are of the same opinion, most people whose opinions make up this majority are not receipt of the full facts, and are subject to changing their mind constantly on any given issue.

The general public is generally not the smartest bunch of people to trust an issues outcome on,
Exactly.

[johnboy5501]

I see what you're saying... but if whatever the majority did would be legalized, what would happen if the majority decided to commit murders? Would that be legalized?

[trinio]

Originally posted by jona100
Just because the majority supports something, does not mean it is right and should be legalised.

The majority of people would want to pay less tax. Unfortunately it is not financially feasible and cause no ends of misery to the most vulnerable in society, thus it is not right.

The majority of people would want capital punishment legalised if they or their loved ones were the victims of murder, it doesn’t mean capital punishment is the best choice for our society.

Our leaders are given positions of power, to make decisions on our behalf without having to consult on every issue except the major ones.

Laws should not be passed just because at one time a “majority” of people are of the same opinion, most people whose opinions make up this majority are not receipt of the full facts, and are subject to changing their mind constantly on any given issue.

The general public is generally not the smartest bunch of people to trust an issues outcome on,

1) How is P2P wrong, and what basis would you have for NOT legalizing it?

2) Yes, actually it WOULD be financially feasible to pay less in taxes. When the US colonies fought the revolutionary war against the British's oppressive taxation, taxes consumed about 5% of ppl's income. For every 1996 US dollar our government spent around the turn of the century, it is now spending $4000--for EVERY dollar. And yes, that DOES adjust for ALL population growth AND inflation. Since the late 1960 the US government has spent $6 TRILLION on the "War on Poverty" and tell me how many ppl have actually been helped OUT of poverty. How did the "less fortunate" get taken care of before?? Answer: churches. And we had a lot less poverty then. So tell me how you think government is so great...

3) The general public *as it is today* (after we've been through several generations of ever-declining public education) is not the smartest bunch to trust with decision-making powers, but an *enlightened, educated* population IS. Thomas Jefferson said that the key to a truly functional representative republic with a government by the people depends on having an INTELLIGENT and AWARE population. A hundred years ago, the general public could be trusted just fine to represent themselves.

As one who studies this kind of thing regularly, I felt the need to set the record straight.

[jona100]

Originally posted by trinio
1) How is P2P wrong, and what basis would you have for NOT legalizing it?

2) Yes, actually it WOULD be financially feasible to pay less in taxes. When the US colonies fought the revolutionary war against the British's oppressive taxation, taxes consumed about 5% of ppl's income. For every 1996 US dollar our government spent around the turn of the century, it is now spending $4000--for EVERY dollar. And yes, that DOES adjust for ALL population growth AND inflation. Since the late 1960 the US government has spent $6 TRILLION on the "War on Poverty" and tell me how many ppl have actually been helped OUT of poverty. How did the "less fortunate" get taken care of before?? Answer: churches. And we had a lot less poverty then. So tell me how you think government is so great...

3) The general public *as it is today* (after we've been through several generations of ever-declining public education) is not the smartest bunch to trust with decision-making powers, but an *enlightened, educated* population IS. Thomas Jefferson said that the key to a truly functional representative republic with a government by the people depends on having an INTELLIGENT and AWARE population. A hundred years ago, the general public could be trusted just fine to represent themselves.

As one who studies this kind of thing regularly, I felt the need to set the record straight.

"How is P2P wrong, and what basis would you have for NOT legalizing it?"

P2P is already legalised!!, P2P is simply a infrastructure of transferering data. You could never make a technical archtecture illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

If reducing taxation and letting the most vulnerable in society to beg at the churches door is your answer, society would be in trouble. Poverty was no picnic when the churches were the "welfare state", its a hundred times worse now. By reducing taxes and leaving the poor to go to the church, this would put an enorous burden on the church, where would they get the money from to pay to help this massive imcrease in demand? (the church contributions bowl can barely cover their current expenditure), what about atheists, should they be forced to seek refuge in a religion they have the absolute right not to beileve in. "Go seek charity" is not the answer by a long shot.

One main role of taxation is to help the most vulnerable people in society, it is NOT a contributions scheme, simply to pay for your own needs and safety net and no one elses.

"the key to a truly functional representative republic with a government by the people depends on having an INTELLIGENT and AWARE population"

This simply Jefferson's theory (he knew it couldn't be acheived), everything works in theory!, it fails because it cannot be put into practice.

Majority rule is doomed to failure, people views are based on their own needs not the needs of others. This is not a bad thing, simply matures design of the species. Natures rule number one (and darwin theory of evolution) is that only the strong survive, hence why we gain strenth and survive by taking care of ourselves and loves ones first, thus our views and priorities and opionins of what is right and what should apply to all others is based on our own needs not the needs of others.

A point of fact in todays society is that the vast maojoity of the polulation do not work in vocational roles, despite us being an empathetic species.

"So tell me how you think government is so great..."

I don't think governement is great, I simply think we are better of with governement than without. A simple point of fact to illustrate this, the police force is an extention of governement, if you disbanded the police force and left society to self rule, society would break down in weeks (if not sooner), as there are no punshable consequences to your actions. It gives absolute power to the people, and as the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would result in anarchy.

[Monyak]

Any and all governments in the world are of 3 basic elements.

a) Flag (a symbol to solute to!)

b) Borders: Territory that defines jurisdiction of control

c) Taxes: Tax all traffic and goods coming in and out of said borders.

d) Prison: If you fuck with the flag, the borders or the taxes you go to prison!

In return the US promises 2 Givens in life: Pay taxes and die. That is what you are promised! So much for human rights!

Everything on the computer is an illusion. It looks real, seems real, but is nothing more than a digital illusion. NOW THEY WANT CONTROL OF THAT TO!

Call it Government or Mafia. Its all the same if you remember the basic elements that comprise your community.

I say fuck 'em!

One Nation under God, One program for ALL!

P2P FoReVeR!

PeAcE

[freefighter]

In america the people are supposed to have the power, not the select few in charge. During the years of prohibition, the people wanted liquer, despite the fact that the government said it was wrong. Guess what happened... Prohibition was repealed and the people got what they wanted. As to the idea that people are getting to stupid to govern themselves, I would like to say that the majority of the smartest of our next generation uses p2p programs, because to put it simply, nerds like computers. According to a recent poll 50% of americans aged 12 to20 have used p2p applications. It is only a matter of time before the p2p generation get's elected to power, once that happens the people will get what they want and should have the freedom to do.

[Power Penguin]

No it just means the majority of people like free music and can't play shite on a harp.

[Ken17625]

No it just means the majority of people like free music and can't play shite on a harp.

I've played the harp with shit before. Kinda messy.

[GoobCow]

Thankfully, America does not have mob rule. If that was so, we would have one f*cked up government where eventually all of the power would condense into one person or group. Think before you speak. If everyone got every service or item for free, we would have no economy, and those services and items would vanish in minutes. Also, the opinion of the masses does not matter AT ALL if it goes against the constitution, and the constitution supports the right to life, liberty, and property.

The music industry, no matter how unfair you think it is, should have the right to charge $1,000,000 for a single if they feel like it. And if you can't afford it, then you don't listen to it. Who is anyone to say what a private company must charge for what they are offering. Do I go into an over-expensive restaurant and demand they lower their prices to be more suitable to "so-called" standards? Of course not. The same goes for the music industry. No matter how gay, stupid, or lame you think it is, they own the rights to the music and can sell it for whatever price they want to. This does not justify anyone taking their music from them without their permission and without paying them.

I'm not going to say that I'm not hypocrit. I download music from the internet ALL THE TIME and do not plan on stopping anytime soon. But, if some how a method was figured out to stop file sharing permanently, I would not fight against it, and neither should any of you.

[Siskabush]

Goobcow, the main point here is that the customer has found something better then spending 16 - 20 bucks for a CD with 1 good song on it. And were using it to our advantage.

And the RIAA is sitll trying to charge 20 bucks for a CD.
Not to mention in canada, i cant find much of the trance music l like. (To get one, it would cost 30 bucks, cuz its imported)

They are trying to use a marketing standard that the customer (And the artists) are sick of. So were going against it. And in this corporate world, if you have no consumers, you will go bankrupt, simple as that.

When a pay proggie comes out that is better then kazaa, i will gladly subscribe to it.

As for your 1000000 dollar single concept, that would bankrupt the RIAA.

Im suprised they are smarter then that.

[GoobCow]

Originally posted by Siskabush
And the RIAA is sitll trying to charge 20 bucks for a CD.
Not to mention in canada, i cant find much of the trance music l like. (To get one, it would cost 30 bucks, cuz its imported)

And they have their right to do so.

They are trying to use a marketing standard that the customer (And the artists) are sick of. So were going against it. And in this corporate world, if you have no consumers, you will go bankrupt, simple as that.

Once again, if they own the rights to the music, they can use any marketing standard they want to. If the artists were sick of it, they would leave the Industry and go on without it. Unfortunately they don't. Money, maybe?

As for your 1000000 dollar single concept, that would bankrupt the RIAA.

It was more of a matter of principles I was talking about. It wasn't meant to be taking literally. People seem to believe that the RIAA must sell their CDs and stuff for what they feel is a right price, when the reality is they should be able to sell it for whatever they want. It is a basic principle. If you owned a seven eleven and charged two bucks for a coke, I'm sure you would find it unfair if people fought for YOUR prices to be lowered. If they don't want to pay two dollars for coke, THEY CAN GET THEIR COKE ELSEWHERE. If people don't want to pay for a CD, listen to OTHER MUSIC. Listen to free artists or whatever. Make your own damn music! Don't tell the people who own the music that you want it for less and require that they do it.

[aqlo]

It isn't really possible to own information because it isn't tangible. The bit in the constitution revolves around the idea that it is in the best interest of the state to require royalties for a creator because otherwise they have no incentive to work and the union of fewer and fewer soviet socialist republic is a classic example of where that goes wrong, it destroys the fabric of the economy and that is detrimental to the common good. It is difficult to see what this has to do with the RIAA.

I would like to encourage each of you to send one dollar to a p2p-friendly performer to help with their incentive for working. If you cannot think of one I recommend They Might Be Giants, who supported themself through the early years with a cheap dial-a-song function and know what royalty is.

[Siskabush]

Goobcow, They cant leave because they signed a contract. if they break that contract, they get arrested.

Incubus is in the process of trying to get out of thier record deal, because its unfair.

And there is a chart somewhere that shows the profits made by the RIAA off of a new artist. If someone can find that and show goobcow here, that would be great.

Anyway, that chart shows the artist, overall, is in debt for signing that contract, while the label has made 10 million off of them.

As for prices...
They may have the right to do so, but the points are.
-The customer wont stand for it, and will find another way.
-Harsh known fact, The artists are basically working for the customer, if they want our money (Which they dont get, damn RIAA), they have to release good music at a good price. I for one cannot afford a 30 dollar Trance CD from europe.

Think about it, McDonalds makes food for the customer, they got to price it right if they want the customer's money.

And about the "Get your coke elsewhere" thing.

Look at department stores, they lower thier prices to attract consumers from different stores. And really, that lowering the coke argument isnt really valid seeing as the RIAA is a monopoly.

My point is, you gotta be fair with the consumer and your employees if you want to succeed in the corporate world. You have to think about them more then profit, because after all, they are the people who are going to give you your profit.

And without us, you gain nothing.

[aqlo]

That's right the artist is in debt for the money they get for signing (the famous up-front money) and they don't get anymore til their tiny residuals cover that amount. But if they don't sign with a label they will have a hella lot of trouble getting tours, which is where the steady money is, endorsements which are huge, and movie residuals which make a retirement fund eventually.

[LewisTherinTelamon]

q: why don't we just Boycott the evil RIAA, etc, until they see how we like being pushed around with copyright laws? hehehe....:shy

[Undermind]

the world's all gone to poop if you ask me, I don't care if this seems pessimistic, I'm just a realist, but it doesn't mean I won't try to make it better or hope for such things, I simply can't afford all the shit I want so it's that simple, if I don't have money to give, then there is no money to lose, and I'm not rationalizing it either, I'm just one broke-ass mofo, every once in a while I will make an effort to pull together some funds and buy a hard to get album, so I'm not a complete mooch

[jona100]

you gotta be fair with the consumer and your employees if you want to succeed in the corporate world. You have to think about them more then profit, because after all, they are the people who are going to give you your profit.

You gotta be kidding, no one but a lottery winner gets rich by playing by the rules!. All companies exploit their workers as far as they can without getting prosecuted. Your statement is "the dream" rather than the reality, Profit always comes first in the buiness world.

The bigger the company, the more illegal practices they have engaged in.

Companies do not charge a fair price for their products and play fair with the consumer , they charge the most they can get away with. The mcdonalds argument, is where the most mcdonalds can get away with charging just happens to be a fair price.

Don't delude yourself, that the fairer you are the more you will succeed, thats absolute garbage, thats not how the world works.

[endersgame21]

You gotta be kidding, no one but a lottery winner gets rich by playing by the rules!. All companies exploit their workers as far as they can without getting prosecuted. Your statement is "the dream" rather than the reality, Profit always comes first in the buiness world.

The bigger the company, the more illegal practices they have engaged in.

Companies do not charge a fair price for their products and play fair with the consumer , they charge the most they can get away with. The mcdonalds argument, is where the most mcdonalds can get away with charging just happens to be a fair price.

Don't delude yourself, that the fairer you are the more you will succeed, thats absolute garbage, thats not how the world works.
I agree that is usaually the case but it is definitely not working for the Music Industry. If they actually did treat us fair and not rip us off then they would not be in the position that they are in. Or at least it wouldn't be as serious as it is now. The only way they can gain back the customers they lost is to lower prices and come up with a digital subscription service but it maybe too late. If they would have done that a few years ago things would have been different. Now we have all been exposed to free music and there is no reason to pay for something that we can get for free and since the Music Industry never treated us fairly we have no sympathy for them.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by johnboy5501
I see what you're saying... but if whatever the majority did would be legalized, what would happen if the majority decided to commit murders? Would that be legalized?

If that's what the majority wanted, it would be that way.

[Monyak]

I read somewhere that GOVERNMENT = PEOPLE????

[-glitch-]

Well this many people probablly want pot legalized, but will that happen?

[MusikBeatz23]

I think that File-Sharing will never stop... The only thing the anti-piracy groups are doing is "ADVERTISING" P2P because you see stuff on tv saying that people are stealing music, movies, software.... etc online... so for example we see something on the news about people downloadin stuff online for free and that how people are tryin 2 stop it and some lady that watched the news is saying... free music??? she goes online downloads a file sharing app and says this will save me some money.... :fire and imagine how many people see that... over thousands of people so file sharing increases in thousands daily... so all those news there posting about how file sharing is a bad thing just makes it STRONGER...!!!

[NDGAARONDI]

Siskabush you said: Goobcow, They cant leave because they signed a contract. if they break that contract, they get arrested.

Is it a criminal offence to be in breach of contract in your country???

[Sephiroth]

I hate these stoner "leagalize" arguements trying to be used on file sharing..

We dont have a mob rule so no the majority doesnt rule.. and even if it does it doesnt mean its right all the time.

[Rickio]

I actually thought this thread had a few good points.

Like what trailortrash said. music copying has been around forever. with tape copying and recording of radio or tv.

in fact I remember when the same arguments were made about vcr's and that all went away.

and undermind's statement about how they are not losing a sale from the people who don't have the money.

I don't think any government or business will apreciate or agree with file traders and the p2p community.

but guess what...

its not gonna stop.
hell they might cramp some peoples trading. but copying and sharing music is like way before the internet and computers and that is a little indication that if even if the internet dissappeard. copying and sharing music won't.

just the massive amount of current file trading might be slowed down but never stopped.

actually it's all aol's fault lol

they are the ones who brought the internet to the masses and I mean the masses of non tech oriented people who just press buttons and get what they want and never know how or why it works. lol

but it's also true if we left everything up to the masses, we would be in deep shit.

still I believe in sharing of all information, knowledge and music as well.

just remember if you really love music. support your musical artists so they can continue to make music.

peace

[rumored]

Originally posted by jona100
Just because the majority supports something, does not mean it is right and should be legalised.

The majority of people would want to pay less tax. Unfortunately it is not financially feasible and cause no ends of misery to the most vulnerable in society, thus it is not right.

The majority of people would want capital punishment legalised if they or their loved ones were the victims of murder, it doesn’t mean capital punishment is the best choice for our society.

Our leaders are given positions of power, to make decisions on our behalf without having to consult on every issue except the major ones.

Laws should not be passed just because at one time a “majority” of people are of the same opinion, most people whose opinions make up this majority are not receipt of the full facts, and are subject to changing their mind constantly on any given issue.

The general public is generally not the smartest bunch of people to trust an issues outcome on,


Question,... why do people who think they are superior, act in the most inferior ways? your basis on this comment stems on "you" being "better,smarter" than "them".
So according to your logic. Since all the "Smart leaders" have the power, then it's ok for these "superior" people to wipe their butts with the "dumb,weak,majority"... Congratulations, you would make a great evil dictator one day. So the real question is,our we happy struggling to survive everyday for scraps? Have you ever heard of disinformation? Who put these people in these places to represent and serve us in the first place, the majority. Who isn't happy about this? Or in other words, how many violent movies do we watch a year? I don't think anyone is bad or stupid, I just think they didn't get enough hugs from they're mommies. If we do what we love we will naturally share it with others. There is enough for everyone to live a humane life. which is alot different than how it is now. http://rumoredhighspeedrailhub.com

when the laws are wrong, everyone's a criminal.

[CTC Command]

Bottom line is this. When file-sharers organize and form political action committees with full-time highpowered beltway lobbyists, and are able to demonstably prove that they vote, then there won't be too much to worry about. Until then, don't forget that today is April 15...bend over and say "Cheese!"

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by jona100
Just because the majority supports something, does not mean it is right and should be legalised.

The majority of people would want to pay less tax. Unfortunately it is not financially feasible and cause no ends of misery to the most vulnerable in society, thus it is not right.

The majority of people would want capital punishment legalised if they or their loved ones were the victims of murder, it doesn’t mean capital punishment is the best choice for our society.

Our leaders are given positions of power, to make decisions on our behalf without having to consult on every issue except the major ones.

Laws should not be passed just because at one time a “majority” of people are of the same opinion, most people whose opinions make up this majority are not receipt of the full facts, and are subject to changing their mind constantly on any given issue.

The general public is generally not the smartest bunch of people to trust an issues outcome on,

Translation - People are stupid. The human race doesn't know what's right and what's wrong.That's why we need to elect an elite group of smart people to tell us what to do, take bribes from companies, sleep with whores (and 11 years old boys in Thailand), start wars, pervert justice, and rob us blind.

[Rickio]

one idea is if file sharing and information exchange are able to continue and grow. we will have a better world.
somehow , someway.

Because there are many kids here (on the internet in genreral) who know a lotta shit and where did they learn it?

from the internet and their ability to access information. from coming here and getting tips, help and more access to more information.

this can be a headstart for them in their educational pursuits.

this is with or without legal file sharing. as the internet is not going to be stopped.

peace out!

[Theinfamousone]

Legal or not, file sharing has helped the computer electronics industry, ISPs, Sony (for all the CD-Rs and burners they sell) and even companies like macrovision (who's whole objective in life is to stop us). It has brought internet to the masses for an actual reason other than checking email, and that has in turn helped create many small businesses that operate over the internet that wouldn't have otherwise been around. The RIAA may lose a small percent of CD sales (which is solely due to piracy if you ask them), but the economy is being saved from utter destruction over all.

That's what sickens me about this whole thing. That's why sharing should be legalized, not because the majority wants to do it, but because over all it's helping the good of mankind.

Not to mention the billions of files that are traded and bringing hope and joy to people like me that otherwise wouldn't have much to do with their boring life.

[samoscratch]

..sigh...

__________________________________________________
Hello!

I would gladly pay a small raise on my internet-connection and have legal access to programs such as Kazaa lite...
The companies would also earn more money that way. They just have to face the facts and make sharing legal, or turning millions of millions of people into criminals!

How can such a small group (like RIAA) still consider that they're right when about 200 million people have an opposite opinion?
We even proof and claim our rights by taking risks in using those "illegal" programs - Isn't only that worth a notice?!

Is this democracy? - NO!

They're just hiding behind some primitive law(s) to make their "legal" money!

Change those primitive laws now!

__________________________________________________

i really dont mean to be inflamatory regarding all this but, first of all, but you can;t possibly believe that you should be granted rights concerning file sharing. No matter what you tell yourself , you are distributing copyrighted material that someone worked to create, so dont delude yourself by stating that this is a democracy. people instantly believe living in one equates aproval as long as enough heads come together. you cant possibly believe you have rights regarding stealing software?

no matter what solution is nationally put in place to get rid of file sharing , another method will replace it. theres no posibility of making file sharing legal pro bono, in order for that to be legitimate you'd have to set up monthly fees or what have you, defeating the whole idea of p2p. no one is turning us into criminals we do it ourselves by stealing.

I am most defnitely not on the record companies side, they are greedy sh!ts, and I agree that their concern for the artists they promote is self serving, that is a whole nother topic. I just don't like it when people hear something and run with it. p2p without fees will never become legal!!! it makes no sense!

[chipperrox]

haha it so true man (samo)
Some people are just plain DELUSIONAL at this point

[Arby]

It's been a while since I've visited Zeropaid and P2P Zone, but I'm impressed with the level of discussion I'm seeing. A lot of what's been said here, I've also said and/or I agree with. Before the website (Alternet) where I usually hang out (and talk about movies and politics) went screwy on me, I was in Zeropaid and similar sites more often, where I used to try to encourage file sharers, who were being being attacked for file sharing, to get politicized. That doesn't mean become a political animal and start voting. That really only means 'know what's going on'. It doesn't mean become an expert in politics. It doesn't mean know everything and all the political goings on and all the players. But it does mean caring enough to look at what's going on and take a moment to think about it. Then you'll know more about those who are screwing you. And that equals power.

Learn, not to know, but in order to know what to think. Be empowered, not glorious.

The bigger picture is: The attack on a 'free' p2p community is only natural within capitalism. You won't, despite setbacks that it's experiencing, defeat RIAA et al. RIAA et al 'is' the system. The government, as in any developed democracy, is by and of and for those who own capital. And I'm not talking about meaningless ownership. The touted democratization of the stock market (Now there's real good example of civilization and law and order!), in which regular folks have stocks hasn't done a thing for them.

As Richard Gwyn, writing for the Toronto Star ("Capitalism Will Survive, But Will The Stock Market?," July 21, 2002), notes, "One institution... may suffer an irreversible loss of faith. That's the stock market. It's actually a most curious institution. Created originally so that companies could raise capital, it hasn't performed that function for years, except marginally. Almost all investment capital comes from the banks or the retained earnings of the companies themselves. Rather, the stock market's purpose is to make money, almost out of nothing. It's a kind of money tree. That was fine when great numbers of people made money plucking its products, in their pension funds, in their small portfolios. Now the realization has taken hold that the stock market is a rigged game, no different from any casino. The insiders do extremely well. The real - unadmitted - purpose of getting all the other investors involved is to create a pool of money so the insiders can cream off the top; to be mugs, that is."

The free p2p community presents a model - giving and sharing that doesn't put profit ahead of all other considerations - that the capitalists (actual owners of capital) could never support. RIAA could even see something positive, in a business sense, about file sharing, and it would still oppose that. That 'positive', you see, would only be relative. - I would be happy to present my compilations of tracks that I've downloaded (and which I would never have been exposed to, since I don't have money to spend on what I 'know' I like, let alone what I don't know) to the music industry, along with a 'reasonable' sum of money, in order to get from it a top quality pressed CD of that compilation. And therein lies the solution to RIAA's problems. But they will never go for that, because their modus operandi is to dominate (job security, which little people lost a long time ago), dictate (also called democracy) and take (also called 'giving').

Which means that if you are for capitalism, then, ultimately, you won't be able to effectively counter assaults by politically powerful entities like RIAA. The reason is, You'll eventually get to the point where you can't counter-attack without attacking something you believe in.

Well, There's nothing wrong with thinking about what you believe in. It's a free universe. You can even change your mind if you want to.

"Corporate America not getting the message," is the title of Chris Sanders's May 4, 2003 Toronto Star article. "When it comes to showing remorse for past misdeeds, critics say corporate America just doesn't get it... After Wall Street brokerages reached a $1.4 billion (U.S.) settlement with regulators last week, the head of investment bank Morgan Stanley mae public comments denying the pact raised any concerns for retail investors about his firm's business. The remarks from Morgan Stanley CEO Philip Purcell drew a rebuke from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman William Donaldson, who warned Purcell that his words reflected a "troubling lack of contrition.""

Well, Perhaps Purcell simply got the message given when authorities only slapped these scammers on the wrist. The important thing for us little folks, is that we 'do' get the message. The problem here is the game, not whether we are winning or losing within it. With this game of 'riches for the strongest', there has to be losers. Let's have a different game, namely one in which everyone wins.

Again, It's a free universe. If one's values (Darwinian, for example) permit support for this way of life, this paradigm for civilization, Well, then, that's that. But in my own personal cosmology, mankind is an interdependent proposition. (And observation easily demonstrates that individuals do not build sewer systems, health systems, educational systems. Collectivities do so. A society sees the need and then a workforce tends to it. The fact is, Those who have bought our governments know this, and act accordingly - while they tell the working class that it shouldn't bother with collective problem solving etc.. That's like an invading army telling it's target country 'We suggest you dismantle your military defences'. Hmmm.

I don't believe in democracy myself. (I am more interested in the operational definition, anyway. I'm not interested in what folks - everyone - say democracy means, so much as I am interested in what it actually is. What do we see?) But I do believe in fairness. The majority is right, when it's right, just as the minority is right when it's right. The free p2p community would do better to argue in terms of fairness vs unfairness. That's your weapon. And you will find, upon looking around (getting politicized) that that weapon isn't piddly.