Bit Torrent SHUT DOWN !?!?!?!?!

[LennonCook]

Rataxes, it is hardly a philosophical question.
Physical: You pick up a CD with copyrighted material, and don't pay for it.
IT: You download a CD with copyrighted material, and don't pay for it.

It isn't philosophical. It is logical. These are exactly the same thing.

[Animal]

Originally posted by LennonCook: quote: Originally posted by Animal: Can't say as a saw that, Rataxes. If the recording artist decides not to copyright their music, then by all means...download away. But downloading copyrighted music (or movies/software) is no better than walking into your local music store, shoving a CD into your pocket and walking out without paying for it. It's called stealing, not sharing. If the music industry heads towards free and unrestricted music sharing, then that's great. I'll still buy the music, that's just how I feel. However, at this time, I don't believe that's the case, so all of you who partake in such activities should be ashamed of yourselves.

This is true, but you forget one thing: Bittorrent can be controlled more easily than Kazaa or iMesh. The packages available on it rely on different servers... if, like the recording labels are doing here, you shut down only the ones with illegal files, what happens? The illegal sharing on BitTorrent is stopped, and BitTorrent servers operating on legitimate files only can stay. Win-Win, except for the thieves - but we don't care for them anyway. Shutting down all filesharing on Bittorrent would have adverse effects on, for example, the open-source software communities.
With iMesh and Kazaa, yes, the only way to stop the illegal is to stop the legal aswell, and shut down the entire kit and caboodle. And this is going to start happening very soon: record labels are suing Sharman networks in every country they can, for everything they can.
BitTorrent's design will not be its downfall. Kazaa's will not be its lifeline. Kazaa will die. But, as someone on Mozillazine said, so long as there are Linux distributions with limited bandwidth on their servers, Bittorrent will survive. [/QUOTE]I'll the be the first to admit I don't know much about Bittorrent other than the obvious illegal uses of such a program. If they can find a way to continue file sharing, but shut down the illegal content, then I'm all for it.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Rataxes: quote: Originally posted by Animal: But downloading copyrighted music (or movies/software) is no better than walking into your local music store, shoving a CD into your pocket and walking out without paying for it. It's called stealing, not sharing.

If you want to morally equate illegal music sharing with the theft of physical property then be my guest. I'm not overly concerned with philosophical questions such as that. I know I've contributed more of my money to the music society ever since I began sharing music on the net, so no, I will not be ashamed of the fact that I do not pay for every piece of music I download. [/QUOTE]Theft is theft. How would you feel about a group of thugs breaking into your house and "sharing" your electronics, furniture and personal possesions?

[Stormymystic]

I hate to say I agree with Animal, so I wont actually say it.......
but yeah, "sharing" music is wrong, if it is your own that you made, then it is ok. how would you feel if your boss made you come in to work for free everyday? it is kinda like that, you play their music, share it with everyone you know, but they do not get compensated for it. it is just not right.

[Winter Wolf]

I don't bother with downloading music, since the only bands I really like I typically own all of their music that I really like. As for what Animal said about "trial periods" I'll be honest, I've been burned once too often by a program that had minimum requirements less then my computer's ability, but that would not run because my computer's ability was *too powerful*.

Honestly, if something says "800x600 resolution and 16 MB video card" then fails to run because i've got 1024x768 and a 32 MB video card (true story) and the retailers are so anal they won't give me a refund, then I'll do what I have to so I won't WASTE my money.

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by LennonCook: Rataxes, it is hardly a philosophical question. Physical: You pick up a CD with copyrighted material, and don't pay for it. IT: You download a CD with copyrighted material, and don't pay for it. It isn't philosophical. It is logical. These are exactly the same thing.

Worldwide there are what, tens of millions of illegal song downloads per day? What do you think would happen if all those millions of downloads were replaced by millions of daily CD thefts from music stores. You don't think that would strike a *slightly* more serious blow to the music industry than what illegal music piracy has done, if indeed that has even harmed the music industry?

Why is that, if illegally downloading a single or an album from the Internet is as bad as stealing one from a store?

[ 12-22-2004, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Rataxes]

Animal, if you honestly cannot see a difference between making a copy of intellectual property and stealing personal possessions then I'm not going to bother to try and make you see one. Suffice to say that if a group of thugs broke into my house and stole everything of value that I owned then that would've dealt a serious blow to my life and the lives of everyone who lived there. Can you give me even one example of how music sharing has evidently dealt a serious blow to someones life?

[Jorath Calar]

I have nothing to say about bitorrent , only used it once to get the Anaarchy Online demo (and hate it)...

But recently the Association of music distubutors in Iceland announced 30% increase in albumsale this year since last year... well, interesting to note that this year Filesharing has never been more popular in my small country...

I'm not saying musicsharing is a good practice but I think in lot of cases people download albums first, like it and then go and buy it...

I know I do... and I'm not ashamed... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[andrewas]

Originally posted by LennonCook: Rataxes, it is hardly a philosophical question. Physical: You pick up a CD with copyrighted material, and don't pay for it. IT: You download a CD with copyrighted material, and don't pay for it. It isn't philosophical. It is logical. These are exactly the same thing.

Not quite. If you pick up a CD, and walk out of the store with it, you are directly taking revenue and product from the store. They how have one less copy to sell. They now have a discrepancy in their stock records to explain.

If I download the same music, nobody else has been deprived of anything. Except some bandwidth, and I generaly make a point of seeding anything I download to about 120% at least.

So, while music sharing is a bad thing, its not the same thing as stealing the CD.

(In case your wondering, all the music I have downloaded has been to replace a pair of broken CDs. Some people think that the music industry has a right to more of my money in that instance, but I dont see it.)

[Intrepid]

This might only be up temporarily, but here's a Supernova.org mirror:
http://torrents.us.to/