What do you think about thepiratebay's cartoon?

[MikeTheC]

Could have sworn I replied in this thread. Can't find it. Maybe it was deleted. Maybe I didn't hit submit. Anyhow...

I agree completely with the cartoon. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by the reactions to it amongst F/OSS users.

In any event, I vote with my wallet, and what that means is I'm doing an awful lot of "no" voting with respect to the entertainment industry.

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't disagree that these copyright laws and treaties coming along are ridiculous and damaging. And I totally respect someone who neither purchases OR "shares" copyrighted material in protest. I have no respect for someone who won't buy copyrighted material, but finds value in it and takes it without respecting the license. Same goes for software.

The more I think about it, what really irritates me about this cartoon is that "the industry" is pictured as a fat, balding, ugly little troll of a man in a suit -- the complete antithesis of the sleek, sexy young rock/pop stars we all love and worship. It pushes forward the ridiculous idea that "the industry" is just a bunch of greedy old execs, while the "artists" everyone loves are really against copyright and want you to "share" their music. Bull.

I was a recording artist. I have friends who are recording artists, engineers, producers, studio musicians, songwriters, and yes even record company employees. Let me tell you right now that $FAVORITE_ARTIST is as much a participant in this stuff as the grubby little man in the suit. $FAVORITE_ARTIST is cashing those ASCAP/BMI/CESAC checks. $FAVORITE_ARTIST signed the contract willingly and knew what he/she was doing.

By all means the recording industry needs an overhaul. They need a business model that reflects reality, they need to stop fighting technology. But if you're going to declare them "the enemy", then be man or woman enough to get an accurate picture of who you're fighting.

[Dr. C]

The Pirate Bay cartoon is actually a reference to the dancing toddler case.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...p-eff-sues.ars. Where the issue is no longer "piracy" but rather big content using "anti-piracy" as an excuse to censor, free speech, fair use, parody, exposure of corruption, exposure of human rights abuses, exposure of abuse by corporations or governments etc.

The reality is that big content sees the Internet as a serious competitive threat that turns passive consumers into active competitors, and are in reality fighting to turn the clock back to the 1980's where they were in control.

A good example of the media that big content would just love to suppress is Steal this Film which by the way one can download legally, without infringing on anyone's copyright by obtaining a torrent form The Pirate Bay.

[init1]

It's not as though someone is downloading your video just for the music first off...

Actually, I've done that many times.

[Bannor]

This is an interesting subject without going off on human right etc,

both sides are wrong

the music industry is trying to use an analog model to distribute music in the digital age. what really gets me mad is that they are using the threat of expensive lawsuits to extort isp's, colleges, and users to do what they say or else. A clear case of Might makes right.


In truth if you down load music (and don't upload it) legally (us law) you haven't done anything wrong. the internet is public domain so anything you take off of it is fair game. Adding copyrighted content to the internet is illegal but it is difficult to track. If you use TPB than you are doing both. But the Pirate bay doesn't do either.

[Bannor]

the heart of my beaf with the music industry is this.

The law is supposed to be fair and equal regardless of money. It is not. The cost just to defend yourself against the Riaa is too much for most people to bear (not to mentions work and have a life). The RIAA knows this and is using this fact to bully.

I think the abuse the RIAA has done to the legal system if far more of a consern than where you got your Radiohead CD.

Most of us don't care that they sue a bunch of hackers, but what happens when they make a mistake and go after someone who just left their wireless internet open. Is that a crime?

[NeferalCrossfireX]

stealing is stealing, downloading something that has no physical form to me is not stealing. you cannot own sound. the riaa and the labels their representing have buisness models that seem to live in the 1980s or something, i hope thepiratebay wins and the riaa and co go away and think VERY hard about the future of their buisness'

[Chame_Wizard]

I love the Cartoons

[MikeTheC]

It tends to be for me (or at least, this used to really be the case more than at present) if I hear a song or obtain it and really like it, I'll try to check out that artist and see if they have other stuff I like. If they're more than a one-hit wonder and the rest of their stuff is really good, I'll make a concerted effort to buy from them.

In principle, this is what I do even now. The "where the rubber meets the road" is that there's a lot more politics going on now, and so I have to take cognizance of the fact that, when I show support for an artist, I'm also showing support for the label, etc., and there are some organizations out there (for example, Sony) which I refuse to support in any way, shape or form. Consequentially, I avoid those artists because of whom they associate with.

I would prefer to support indie artists who are either self-published or at labels which are known for respecting the artists who hang their hats with them. There are several I know personally (having seen them several times at small, local venues) and you will never see me pirate their music. I want them to have my money, and giving them my money is, as mentioned above, the way I show support for them and what they do.

Frankly, I don't maintain a massive library of music. I have a number of CDs (though it's dwarfed by even a number of friends' libraries), and I have a small-to-moderate amount of music "otherwise acquired". However, most of that stuff is just one or two songs from a given artist, or even in the case of multiple songs from artists, usually it's 1-2 songs per album max, then spread across multiple albums. I'm sorry, but I refuse to pay for junk.

I've also acquired any number of songs over the years which proved useful in determining that X or Y or Z group didn't make stuff I liked (at all). Why should I have to pay to discover I don't like a band?

I think, in all of this, the thing which disturbs me the most is the extent to which the entertainment injusticetry has lobbied to get laws passed which are nothing more than legislative codifications of company policies -- or even industry ones -- so they can use the U.S. Government as their private pit bull to attack citizens with not just impunity but "justification". It's offensive and disgusting.

For these and other reasons, as I already mentioned up-thread, I agree with the cartoon.