3 Responses for "Not that stealing isn’t wrong because it totally is…"

1. D M June 1st, 2006 at 2:38 pm 1

   Hell, the MPAA has no juristiction anywhere, as far as I’m concerned. They are not a law enforcement agency, so they can suck it.

   But all that’s going to happen is: the site will move, or be started elsewhere. The crooks will get smarter, and smarter, and smarter until these idiots in their towers figure out how to iTunes the whole thing.

   However. I suggest Sweden get used to big businesses telling them what to do. Because that’s where the power is these days, and, as much as I hate to say it, the influence there is huge. Of course, you can see the wonders that’s been done in America!

   [Note: I'm not opposed to business, I just understand that businesses exist to do one thing: Make money. That's OK, but there is zero morality to that existance, and unless reigned in by good people, you have a form of facism-as I understand facism]

2. Tracey June 2nd, 2006 at 11:17 am 2

   Yeah. The Swedes realize that the MPAA has no legal jurisdiction. This whole situation just gets more and more complicated…the police apparently illegally seized evidence and violated “free press” rights because one of the computers seized was a news server. So now the police themselves are facing charges. One of the owners of the seized computers was denied legal counsel and another was forced to submit a DNA sample…

   There’s going to be a protest march on Stockholm and Göteborg tomorrow. A new poltical party “Pirat Partiet” has exploded on the scene with a singular agenda: to properly enforce copyright laws and make it legal to download / share files. They state that downloading of music/movies is not illegal if no one makes a profit.

   They make the analogy of a library…why is it not illegal to borrow books from the library? You read the book once…don’t buy it…still get the pleasure and enjoyment and knowledge from the reading…and no one makes a theft claim…How is it really any different from downloading a movie and watching it?

   Before anyone flames me personally, this is the party’s argument, not mine. But there is some logic to it.

   The industry CLAIMS they’re losing money because of downloading, but are they really? If one really enjoys a movie or certain music, they generally end up buying it anyway. And in that way, doesn’t downloading–testing before you buy–actually encourage better quality films and music? Rewarding those artists for job well done rather than pay in advance, if you didn’t like it too bad…?

   There’s no “satisfaction guaranteed” with films and music…can’t return a CD you didn’t enjoy. If you opened it, it can’t be returned. What other industry screws the customer so blatantly?

   Seems to me a strong argument can be made that the industry (“the man”) wants to make a profit and take credit for work they didn’t actually do…

   The fact that MPAA sufficiently freaked out the Swedish police is just a weird sidestory in the development of new media.

3. A.Ho June 2nd, 2006 at 4:08 pm 3

   Not too long ago the Canadian Supreme Court, or some high authority in Canada, denied lawsuits for music piracy. The argument was similar. What’s the difference of downloading a piece of music vs. making a photo copy of a book.

   Of course copying a book would cost you some change, more than it would cost to just by the book most likely. So that argument is possibly flawed. And it’s not like people just download the section of the song they really like/need.

   But, you know, whatever.

   I personally have spent more money on music in the last few years than ever before. Not entirely because of file sharing or CD-R swapping, but certainly in part.

   The lack of a satisfaction guarantee is certainly a factor. It’s the primary reason I used to only buy music if I knew I was going to like it, or had a very strong recommendation. Now if I don’t love something it’s not a big deal, as I certainly have something that I dig that I didn’t pay for. At least there’s a balance there.