Internet Thugs Enforce Copyright Law

According to the latest PC Pitstop figures, 15% of us have some sort of file sharing or torrent client on our computers. That’s down 4% from a high of 19% two years ago.

File sharing is not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on since Bram Cohen wrote the first torrent protocol in April of 2001. The code allows users to connect using a torrent client to locate and share software. Download a client like Vuze or BearShare, search for a file and give the other client users permission to access and download files from your computer and vice versa. Because the software breaks the files in to little pieces, “chunks“, you can download from a user that does not have a completed file. The same holds true for them. Others can download your file, as “chunks” without waiting for the whole file to complete. This speeds up the process tremendously.

There is also nothing new about song writers and publishers crying about copyright infringement. That’s been going on since the beginning of broadcast music, AM//FM radios and reel to reel recorders. I still remember being told in the early 60’s that I couldn’t record music from the radio and then play it at a dance. I could only record the music from a purchased record. Whether or not that was fact I don’t know. I didn’t have much legal backing at 14.

Legal or Illegal

To be sure we’re on the same page let’s be perfectly clear: the file sharing protocol is legal but the sharing of copyrighted material is illegal.

The whole argument for and against the legality of file sharing is getting a little stale. The truth is that user needs define reality and what is taking place. As long as there are files available there will be someone wanting them for free.

It’s no surprise that what people consider legal and safe depends on their needs. If they need free software then it’s probably OK to grab some free software. if they like music, then it’s probably safe to download music. Strange how the legal and safe components seem to run hand in hand and are categorized as OK according to user need or whether they will get caught, or infected .

The arguments I hear for it being OK to download and share copyrighted files are: it’s safe if you know what your doing, everyone else is doing it, it’s the wave of the future, the artists and studios are making too much money, no way I’m paying a buck a song for 10,000 songs, they made enough money already on that movie, enough other people pay for it.

It’s really quite simple as long as you don’t let your wants over ride your conscience. If the song, software, or whatever is copyrighted, then it is illegal to acquire it by peer to peer sharing without paying for it. It doesn’t matter who you know that does it, it doesn’t matter if you can do it without getting infected, it’s illegal.

What’s The Hold Up

I’ve heard more than one person say that peer to peer file sharing is the future. It will be the predominate way we obtain data. While that may be true, you certainly have to wonder why the percentage of people using peer to peer hasn’t changed since it’s introduction. Compared to 5 years ago, there are many more users, many more clients, and probably many more songs and movies, yet, 15% seems to be the steady number of users for the past 5 years. The number of UK users is lower at about 10%. I would imagine that the percentage of users changes as you go from country to country depending on the resources and attitude of the authorities in that country. If you’re in a country that is a little more rough and tumble then I would expect a more cavalier attitude towards peer to peer sharing of music and movies.

Is it the laws and enforcement stopping people from using file sharing?

THE LAW

The prosecution of Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundstrรถm of Pirate Bay fame in 2009, may have been a victory for publishers and writers at the time, but as predicted, replacements for Pirate Bay have sprung up by the 100’s. The sheer numbers of violators makes effective enforcement at the user level impossible. That is the reason that past efforts have targeted the torrent clients and not the users. A recent article from the American Bar Association ABAJOURNAL gives us a good example of this. This is similar to arresting store owners for selling pipes which could be used to smoke marijuana, even though what’s put in the pipe is up to the user.

So up until now the law has focused basically on clients because enforcement as far as users were concerned, was nonexistent. Is this attitude changing? It certainly is in Europe where laws are changing to require ISP’s to cut service to users who have received a certain number of warnings. It is unclear whether this will have the desired effect but it points out that the entertainment industry is not backing down.

THUG PATROL

If enforcement is nonexistent and the number of clients growing, then why is the use of torrent protocol and clients not rising? The popularity of music and portable players is certainly rising. Movies are bigger than ever before. Now there is even a market for TV shows. If everyone and his brother has an ipod, computer, or DVD player, why is the use of files sharing protocol flat or on the decline?

The answer is simple, infection, infection, infection. If you use torrents and file sharing your system will become infected. Notice I don’t say might, may, or could. It will become infected. The simple act of using the torrent is allowing another, compete access to your system. You are giving permission for others to access your computer. Maybe they are unaware that their system is infected. Maybe they are there only to infect your system. The intent doesn’t matter when you’re paying to have Windows reinstalled. None of us like being out of touch or unable to work because of an infected, non-functioning computer.

The plain and simple fact is that while many people have tried file sharing, they usually give it up because of the consequences of that action.

FREE MARKET

Not only is the practice of file sharing a huge risk, it’s not even worth the risk any more. The market is adjusting so that music and movies are more accessable. You can find music and movies cheaper than ever before. There’s just no reason to use peer to peer and share infections.

Will peer to peer file sharing continue? Absolutely it will. There is a never ending supply of young, uninformed, nonworking teens, ready to risk their parent’s computer in order to have free music, porn, and whatever else their little spoiled hearts desire.

Feel free to jump on me with both feet for that comment, but it’s true. I speak from experience repairing systems brought to a stand still because of peer to peer programs like Napster of 2001 fame, Grokster of 2001 fame, PirateBay, and BearShare. I know it’s not only teens using peer to peer files sharing but teens are the majority.

I also know that there is plenty of legal material to be shared and the amount of legal music, television, and movies is increasing But don’t be confused. For the moment, illegal is what drives peer to peer file sharing. Will that change in the future? I certainly believe it will, but only after the copyright laws and the money behind the entertainment industry allow it. Until then thugs will control file sharing. As long as it’s illegal, the risks remain high.

Maybe the real question should be, are you smart enough to use torrents to download files. Do you feel lucky? Do you?

________________________________________

BitTorrent = a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used for distributing large amounts of data. BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files, and it has been estimated that it accounted for roughly 27% to 55% of all Internet traffic.

BitTorrent client = any program that implements the BitTorrent protocol. Each client is capable of preparing, requesting, and transmitting any type of computer file over a network, using the protocol. A peer is any computer running an instance of a client.

Pirate Bay Prosecution

American Bar Association

LimeWire To Close

Fear to Peer
TheInquirer

Torrent Reactor

Journal of Internet Law
Top 40
TorrentFreak

UK File Sharing

Swarm

Torrent Risks

Corrupt dataTracking Users

(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)

38 thoughts on “Internet Thugs Enforce Copyright Law

  1. Yep well you are about ten years behind on lindvd and powerdvd lol.

    Of course I wouldn’t expect you to know that. However now that you have mentioned them as legal avenues, go ahead and try and get a copy from them. Even better, why don’t you go ahead and contact them ๐Ÿ˜›

    You are also a few years behind on your court case postings, that you are probably aware of though.

    But just in case, you can have a read here.

    [b]โ€œBecause RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action,โ€ Patel wrote (.pdf) in a lawsuit brought by Hollywood.[/b]

    Illegal to distribute the software, but isn’t illegal to use it.

    The same ruling was made with xdvdcopy. In fact the judge in that case said all people who had purchased a copy before the company was shutdown, could continue to use the software “legally”

    All that said, you seem to confuse the issue of people stealing things online and distributing them online and someone who simply wishes to watch a DVD they purchased, or make a “legal” backup.

    For a “legal” backup I don’t even have to use anything other than a byte by byte copy.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/judge-copying-dvds-is-illegal/

  2. Bruce:

    “You happen to be wrong rekrul. I suggest you look into DCMA laws and how they efect the end user as determined and precedent setting cases that determined it is unlawful to distribute tools that decrypt media, however it is not unlawful for an individual to use such a tool for their own personal copy/backup.”

    You’re wrong.

    “So while it may be illegal to make such software and distribute it, the says I can copy my own DVD’s”

    You can copy your own DVDs as long as you don’t have to circumvent any form of protection to do it.

    Read the actual text of the act here, and take note of the very first paragraph;

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201—-000-.html

    Or how about this article;

    http://www.slyck.com/story1420_Fair_Use_Amendment_Introduced_to_the_DMCA

    Especially this part;

    “For example, if a consumer wishes to make a backup copy of a legally purchased DVD, such a venture would not be possible (well, legally) because the DMCA prohibits individuals from circumventing copyright protection devices.”

    There’s also this;

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/12/feds-considerin/

    Especially this paragraph discussing exemptions to the anti-circumvention;

    “The Electronic Frontier Foundationโ€™s Fred von Lohmann points out that the government “has repeatedly dismissed any consumer-oriented fair uses, such as making backup copies of DVDs or video games, as well as requests for exemptions to enable copying DVDs to laptops and portable devices.””

    “To be honest I would do it for my own personal use even if it were not. I would not however distribute them to others, and I won’t download content. I rip them to my hard drive for my personal use, as I do my CD collection.”

    Still illegal, regardless of your intent.

    “AS for the use of DECSS, well I use it alos to watch DVD’s. I have to because the companies who make the DVD’s won’t relase software for my operating system.”

    LinDVD and PowerDVD for Linux are both fully legal and authorized DVD players for Linux.

    If you’re playing DVDs on any other OS, then you’re probably breaking the law. At the very least, you’re going against the wishes of the movie industry.

    I hope you’re not using software to get around region codes…

  3. You happen to be wrong rekrul. I suggest you look into DCMA laws and how they efect the end user as determined and precedent setting cases that determined it is unlawful to distribute tools that decrypt media, however it is not unlawful for an individual to use such a tool for their own personal copy/backup.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/real-realdvd

    Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said that the complex meant that it was not illegal for consumers to copy their own DVDs โ€“ just illegal to produce a program that allowed them to do so.

    [b]”While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”[/b]

    So while it may be illegal to make such software and distribute it, the says I can copy my own DVD’s

    To be honest I would do it for my own personal use even if it were not. I would not however distribute them to others, and I won’t download content. I rip them to my hard drive for my personal use, as I do my CD collection.

    You can’t download a copy of the net because you would be getting it from a person who does not have the legal right to distribute that software.

    AS for the use of DECSS, well I use it alos to watch DVD’s. I have to because the companies who make the DVD’s won’t relase software for my operating system.

    The courts have also ruled that is fair use.

  4. Bruce:

    “Tell tivo, microsoft Media Center, all the cable companies and on and on that it is illegal to watch a recording more than once. The now ancient VHS tape copying laws covered that.”

    Back when VCRs were new, the courts were asked to rule on the legality of “archiving” (keeping recordings forever) and they avoided the question. So while keeping your recorded copies was never ruled illegal, it was never declared legal either. It’s a gray area. However, if you wish to abide by the wishes of the TV networks, you’d erase every copy right after you watch it. Also, you’d watch each and every commercial. Several network executives have stated that watching a TV show and skipping the commercials is stealing in their eyes.

    “As for DMCA, well it conflicts with fair use laws, and in fact the law states that I can indeed make copies for backup use and personal use. Or educational use.”

    Yes, it does conflict with fair use laws, which is why so many people have a problem with the anti-circumvention sections. Unfortunately for you, the fact that you have a legal right to make backup copies of your media still doesn’t make it legal to circumvent the DRM on DVDs. It’s still a crime under the DMCA. If it wasn’t, consumer groups wouldn’t have to lobby Congress to pass exemptions to the DMCA for things like jailbreaking smart phones.

    You’re perfectly free to backup your DVDs as long as they don’t contain any protection. If they do, then the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass it, no matter what your intentions are.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of modern copyright law where the rights of the corporations trump the rights of the individual.

    “All that said. Whatever copies I my use. I don’t use p2p to steal, and I don’t peddle my copies via p2p.”

    What you’re doing still violates the wishes of the copyright owners and in some cases, the law.

    I do have a question for you though;

    You say that I can legally record and keep copies of TV shows. You also say that I could legally copy them to my hard drive. I assume that you would also consider it ok to edit out the commercials. So my question is;

    If I can record an episode of CSI, copy it to my hard drive, edit out the commercials and end up with an AVI file of the show, why can’t I just download a copy off the net?

    Note: Don’t bother responding with “That’s the way the law is.” I want an actual explanation of why the former method is perfectly ok in your eyes, but the latter method isn’t, even though the end result is the same. Explain to me how the second method causes harm to the industry, but the first method doesn’t.

  5. Tell tivo, microsoft Media Center, all the cable companies and on and on that it is illegal to watch a recording more than once. The now ancient VHS tape copying laws covered that.

    As for DMCA, well it conflicts with fair use laws, and in fact the law states that I can indeed make copies for backup use and personal use. Or educational use.

    All that said. Whatever copies I my use. I don’t use p2p to steal, and I don’t peddle my copies via p2p.

    Funniest of all are the people who justify their stealing because the RIAA and movie industry hurt artists. But their stealing doesn’t ๐Ÿ˜›

    Well not all artists tour, not all artists put on shows. Some try to live off the royalties from their CD sales.

    So many justifications, none that hold water, stealing is stealing. If that is what you choose to do, then do it. It’s your choice.

    Jails and prisons are full of people who try to justify their crimes lol

  6. John Says:
    March 26th, 2011 at 9:07 am
    Good article Steve. However, I would like to point out that while torrent piracy has been going on since April 2001, as you said in the second paragraph of your article, it has been going on much longer than that. I know of people who were sharing files was back in the 80’s and 90’s that were using dial up modems to call into pirate BBSes to steal programs. They were much smaller files in those days of course but just as illegal.

    Thanks for the information John, I appreciate.

    In answer to those that think I am being paid by “The Industry”, I can only say that of course I am not and I am basing my opinion on personal experience. I don’t have a care about what others download. I was always happy to see customers with teens in the house because of the money that would be made repairing infected computers. That’s not opinion, it’s fact. It also has nothing to do with morality, the download is either legal or illegal. I would be paid for the repair regardless.

    Whether I think current copyright laws are good laws or a bad laws has nothing to do with it either. There a hundreds of laws that I think are bad… so what? I’m not personally condoning or condemning illegal peer to peer file sharing but if you are downloading illegal files, then there is a risk and the risk is higher than downloading legal files. The article is really about peer to peer file sharing and not illegal file sharing.

    What I was trying to say was that the risk that comes from downloading illegal files has slowed the growth of file sharing, both legal and illegal.

    If you have downloaded illegal files and have never had an infection I am happy for you, but there are just as many others that have been infected… probably more.

    Thanks a lot for all the comments. I really appreciate your opinions and I’m glad to hear what you have to say.

  7. First of all, we have all been had by the copyright law to start with. I purchased a cd of music, what I do with it should be my own personal business. What may protect Sony who makes billions in profits oppresses my own rights with purchased materials.

  8. From the article:

    “If you use torrents and file sharing your system will become infected. Notice I don’t say might, may, or could. It will become infected. The simple act of using the torrent is allowing another, compete access to your system. You are giving permission for others to access your computer.”

    What a load of propaganda! Torrents in no way allow “complete access” to your system. The torrent program opens a port for the express purpose of exchanging data with other torrent clients. Other file sharing programs work in a similar manner. Not to mention that if you are downloading music and movies, those are DATA files that can’t contain viruses. They are processed by the appropriate media player, which opens them and reads the data, it doesn’t execute code.

    The only two ways to get a virus from file sharing are if you install a file sharing program from a shady source that comes with a virus, or you use P2P programs to download software which contains a virus.

    Did the entertainment industry pay you to write that?

    Bruce:

    “I do however copy all my CD’s to my hard drive, all my DVD’s to my Hard Drive, Record shows from all kinds of television channels in high definition, and even record a few radio stations occasionally. I don’t distribute, or give copies to others. I do not have the legal right to do that.”

    Then you are breaking the law and violating the wishes of the copyright holders.

    The recording industry made it very clear during the Jammie Thomas trials that they consider “ripping” the music from a CD to be stealing. Also, perhaps you missed the various actions taken by the record labels to try and prevent music ripping, such as the infamous Sony Rootkit scandal, that installed DRM software on people’s computers to prevent ripping music. In the industry’s view, if you want a digital copy of music that you have on CD, you must pay for it.

    As for ripping DVDs to your hard drive, to do so, you have to bypass the CSS (Content Scrambling System) which is an illegal act under the US’s DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and in some other countries as well. It’s also a violation of the DVD EULA.

    Recording shows from television is only technically legal provided that you only watch each recording once and erase it afterward. Watching it multiple times and/or keeping it is considered by the television industry to be a violation of their copyrights.

    Steve Hogan:

    “It would be illegal to play the records at the dance because there was a admission fee. If I were just playing a recording of records I had purchased and not charged admission then that would not be illegal.”

    Wrong. Regardless of whether you charge admission or not, playing music or movies to more than a small group of friends counts as a public performance is is subject to a license fee. Or did you miss where the music industry tried to get a law passed declaring phone ringtones a public performance that needed a separate payment?

    Nuke ’em all:

    “Software should only be usable if it is registered with the copyright owner/publisher. If you lend it to someone else, then that copy will not run until they register it, and then your copy will cease to function.”

    Software companies are already starting to do this. What I want to know is when are software companies going to take responsibility for the bug-ridden programs that they produce? I have at least five store-bought games that I can’t run because of shoddy programming. According to the EULA, which you can’t see before you buy the software, it’s not the company’s fault if it doesn’t work, even if the reason it doesn’t work is due to bugs in the program. Also, once opened, it can’t be returned for a refund. Where are MY rights?

    “CDs and DVDs can quite easily be made copy proof in such a way as to be tamper proof as well. That’s hard luck on anyone wanting to make a genuine backup, but blame the pirates, looters and thieves.”

    They tried making a DVD that needed to be authorized to play, it was called DivX (no relation to the video format). It failed miserably.

    “I would like to see first, a clear and unambiguous law stating that sharing copyright material via file sharing, is against the law, and stiff penalties apply.”

    Yes, because the government doesn’t have anything more important to worry about, like drugs, terrorists, illegal immigration, or anything like that. After all, the US government is just a division of the RIAA/MPAA…

    They’re already locking people up for using a camcorder in a theater. You know, for the horrible crimes of recording 15 seconds of the movie to show to a friend, or catching some of the movie on video while filming your sister’s birthday party.

    Secondly, I would like to see the copyright owners/publishers become more actively involved. It’s probably a bit fanciful to suggest that they deliberately try and infect as many of these file sharing hosts libraries as possible, so as to cause the maximum amount of angst for these thieves. It would even the odds though, and if stiff penalties did apply, who in his right mind would complain to the authorities that they had been catastrophically infected while carrying out an illegal activity?”

    I’m sure that wouldn’t backfire in any way…

    “Trying to justify theft by saying it’s the sellers fault because the price is too high just doesn’t wash. Try going to the Ferrari dealership and helping yourself to a car using the same argument. Please your honour, the car was priced out of my range, so they brought it on themselves. Yeah, right.”

    But would it be illegal to go to the dealership, take detailed notes and photos and then go home and build your own?

    WOW:

    “next, congratulations to all of you who use peer to peer downloading, know what you’re doing, and haven’t gotten any virus. you are the group that the software was created for. but 90% or more of the population does not know how to use the stuff, don’t know how to keep their files safe, and aren’t even going to use the stuff that they download.”

    I agree with you that the average user doesn’t really know what they’re doing. However, when used with a little common sense, P2P downloading is safe (infection-wise).

    “and btw, i don’t have peer to peer software on my computer, simply because i have a lot of sensitive material on my computer that i don’t want stolen”

    Bittorrent only shares the files that you have a torrent for, nothing more. Most other programs let you designate a directory as shared and only the contents in there are shared. They don’t just allow access to any file on your system.

    Copyright law today has been twisted and perverted far beyond its original intent. Originally, copyrights lasted for 14 years and could be renewed for another 14 years. After a maximum of 28 years, the work passed into the public domain and coule be freely used by anyone. The idea was that an author had a limited amount of time to profit from a work before that monopoly ran out and they needed to create something new.

    Copyright now lasts for the life of the author plus 70-80 years. Not only can an author live their entire life off a single work (if they’re lucky), their kids and grandkids can live off it as well. There’s no great incentive to create more.

    Disney is happy to raid the public domain when they need an idea for a movie that they don’t have to pay for, but every time any of their works have been poised to enter the public domain, they’ve begged the government to extend copyright even further. Why is it ok for them to take from the public domain and not give anything back? That’s not how copyright was intended to work at all.

    And it’s not just the public domain that suffers. Copyright law is so tangled that companies are prevented from selling copyrighted works. Look at the show “WKRP in Cincinnati”. Because it would have been too expensive to license all the music used in the show, it all had to be replaced for the DVD release, which ruined the show in the eyes of most fans. The smart thing to do would have been to work out a blanket license with each studio to use the music, with a cut going to the artists. But no, each song would have had to have been negotiated seperately, making it much too expensive. So instead of fans getting a show that they love and artists getting more exposure and even a little money, the fans get crap and the artists get nothing.

    Is this how copyright law was intended to work?

  9. Yes, you missed everything, but then that’s nothing new for you. You only see things your way.

    I’m not ripping off artists at all. I’m ripping off the RIAA and record labels. The artists that I care to listen to will make much more from the concerts I pay to attend. P2P gives them free advertising, which is much more than they can get from a radio station. Its a win/win, for everyone who DESERVES to make money from the artists’ efforts.

    Anyone who doesn’t get that is ignorant as to how the music industry works. ๐Ÿ™‚

  10. So because the industry is corrupt, and the artists make diddly squat, you have come to the conclusion that stealing what little they do make is justified because the industry is already ripping them off.

    In other words if the industry is going to rip off the artists you may as well join in the fray and get your chunk of them too.

    Did I miss anything? ๐Ÿ˜›

  11. I’m only going to address music.

    The music industry and the RIAA are corrupt.

    Napster wasn’t P2P, it was server based. Any server based system is much prone to viruses, with Limewire/Frostwire being the biggest culprit. I’ve never gotten, nor seen anyone get a virus/malware from true P2P such as Bittorent.

    My own “theft” is principle based. The artists make diddly squat from CD sales. The RIAA, lawyers, and recording studios make huge profits from CD sales. What the artists do make money from is live shows, which I’ll gladly pay for.

    I may download several hundred different CDs that I don’t care for and they’re quickly deleted from my hard drive. I may also find 4 or 5 good bands that I care to listen to again, and watch for them to come to my town so that I can pay to see them live. The artists make more money from me if I’m allowed to sample their material first. (Many will come back with a site offering 192 bitrate samples, but that’s not a true comparison with lossless on a good sound system, which is what I have.)

    When the bulk of the profit from CD/DVD sales goes to the artists, I’ll gladly pay their asking price for good music. I’ll never be happy about paying the same amount to find out that I don’t care for an ablum, especially when the bulk of that money goes to people other than the artists themselves.

    I have no desire to justify my actions further. I’m simply standing up for a principle that the laws have overlooked through the years as they side with big business. Having had more than a few friends in the music industry over the years, I can also say that many artists (especially those trying to make a name for themselves without paying ridiculous fees to be heard on the radio) feel the same way. ๐Ÿ™‚

  12. WOW! this seems to be getting a little out of hand.

    FIRST of all, copyright laws are different depending on the country that you come from. that’s because of the touchy subject.

    second, it’s not a crime to play your music for people in your house to hear. it actually isn’t, just like it’s not a crime for you to record something onto tape and i do mean tape, if it’s being played on the radio. that’s because the radio station pays the artist,and so are you, whether you choose to believe it or not. a portion of your sales from the tape or the CD goes directly to the artists that make a decent market for themselves as they are replacing the cost of the music that they would have otherwise bought by some other site. the problem here is that with MP3 players and the like, there are no funds going towards those acts. or any other. even though the musician and film unions have tried.

    next, to nuke em all, 2 things, one i feel for your son. i’m also an artist, and i get it, i really do. but your solution isn’t going to help at all. the trouble is with the world. and to be honest, most artists don’t really make money off of their cd’s anyhow, like 5 cents per song(even big acts). your son’s act should never have stopped touring. that probably would have saved them. second, i think sony tried to do something similar to what you were suggesting. can’t remember the specifics, but their program deleted files that were not “legit” and they received a heavy fine. i think it violated privacy laws, and i get that, because i don’t want any corporation looking to see what i do and don’t have on my computer, and i have nothing to hide.

    next, congratulations to all of you who use peer to peer downloading, know what you’re doing, and haven’t gotten any virus. you are the group that the software was created for. but 90% or more of the population does not know how to use the stuff, don’t know how to keep their files safe, and aren’t even going to use the stuff that they download. that’s just a fact, and i think the other fact is that the author might simply have had too many issues with people who don’t really give a damn about what they are putting on their computer as long as it’s theirs. it’s a matter of greed… think of it this way, you’re going to a restaurant, and you see something on someone’s plate, and you want it, you order it, and eat it, then see something else, and order that. you keep ordering and regardless of what it is, you eat it, eventually you’re going to get sick. you never took the time to ask what was in it(like if you have food allergies(antivirus software)) you never took the time to temper your eating habit(filling up your hard drive), you just took until you got sick(hard drive failure). that’s what a lot of people are doing to their computers. not everyone of course, and i think the gripe here is that the people who are responding to this are not the people who would actually do this, and are now taking offense.

    and btw, i don’t have peer to peer software on my computer, simply because i have a lot of sensitive material on my computer that i don’t want stolen, but i do only use free programs, ie, i use open source software, and i don’t steal anything. i feel like that is just part of karma. if i want someone to buy my material later, then i put in the time now, and i don’t violate peoples rights to their own material.

    finally, i swear neil and Baz.. whatever the rest of your name is are simply here to play devil’s advocate. or to piss people off. look, you get what you pay for. this is a fact, and as long as you don’t support talent, you’ll be stuck with “pre-pubescent boy and girl bands that have no talent other than they are good looking and can danceโ€ฆa bit.” this is a fact. the reason that we even have things like reality television is because no one wants to support good television. people would rather watch people do disgusting and stupid things then support content. if you have a problem with that, then change the station. there are LOADS of channels that support quality music and television content. you can’t hate a person for following their dreams, even if they are a little misguided. and you also have to understand that most music artists and television artists have a small window before they get dropped by their labels(if they have them). the fact that they make material and tour for a year, and then make no visible income off of the products that they put forth for the universe to accept can bankrupt a band, or make them break up. and eventhough the scenario that you use(downloading, then supporting the band by buying their content) seems like good intention, it doesn’t help after a band has been dropped from their label, especially since they NOW have to payback their loans… the label if they’re scum, doesn’t have to pay the act because of breach of contract or simply because no one is going to go looking. also the label would own the material.

    i think the whole thing is about being informed about all of the situations… all of the options. and while i’m not going to frown on anyone for what they do, it’s up to them to figure out whether or not something is bad for them. no one here can be someone else’s conscience. calling someone a hypocrite isn’t going to help unless you know the full story, and wishing everyone else ill will only gets you caught in the end.

    personally i’m proud to say that i have been a starving artist for the last 9 years, and have a loyal fanbase. but i’m also not stupid enough to get caught in the traps that can be caused by file sharing or the like. and i’m also not going to complain about it either, because i probably opened someone to a sound that they otherwise would never have heard.

  13. To Nuke ’em all

    I’m sorry to hear about your son not cutting it in the music business. But really, this has nothing to do with filesharing and more to do with the reality of the music business itself; coupled with the reality that your son, didn’t cut-the-mustard. Only, that would be unbareable to think about for you…so instead you need something or someone to blame and as usual its the filesharers that get to take the rap (excuse the pun) for your son being crap!

    You need to aim your anger at the fake, made-up music industry because they are the ones to blame. The whole music industry has become so stage managed that music has become second place to a load of fresh-faced, pre-pubesent boy and girl bands that have no talent other than they are good looking and can dance…a bit. For me, this borders on paedophillia and child grooming. And you wonder why real musicians are finding hard to make it?

    Until the music industry gets back to what it once was and stop feeding a gullible public stage managed crap, whether via grooming shows like UK/USAs got talent or whatever other mindless, moronic talent/reality tv show they come up with. You get what you deserve and the music industry gets what it deserves. And good riddance to idle rubbish!

  14. No, you don’t seem to get it either Nuke em’ all. That analogy of the Ferrari is way off. I haven’t got a clue if the Ferrari is over-priced or not (probably is), but the detail put into that is what drives up the price. A Ferrari is a luxury and is widely accepted as something that only the rich can enjoy.

    For me, I do have a degree of sympathy for these industries. I only share non-copyrighted material and as soon as I download a file, I don’t share it, which is probably not the right thing to do by file-sharers, so maybe I do have some morals. I buy the DVD or CD if I like the material, but otherwise, I may get the file for free, but they would not have made money off me anyway and I don’t share it (maybe a few MB of a huge file) so what’s the problem.

    As far as the more extreme ‘illegal’ file sharers go, they provide an avenue for people to take to bypass some very greedy industries so power to them, and the anti ‘illegal’ file sharers are the tools of oppression that these industries love and would usually consist of the people who can easily afford to see any movie they want, when they want and get the latest albums as soon as they come out so they will never ‘get it’!

  15. To the idiot/s above

    The fact of the matter is that if anyone publicly broadcasts the contents of any CD, record, video etc, to a large group of people or what would constitue a public gathering; then those people are technically breaking the law…just as when we were kids and tape recorded our favourite songs on the radio we were breaking the law. If you don’t believe me then let me give it to you in black and white:

    “All rights of the producer of the work reproduced reserved. (Unathorised copying. Hiring. Lending. Public performance [including playing in the back garden during a BBQ] and broadcasting of this record prohibited.”

    The person that wrote that such a displaying in public would be okay as long as an admission fee wasn’t charged, is talking complete cobblers! Urban myth has got nothing on him and quite frankly hes full of it, or at least something that rhymes with ‘it’.

    So from now on I will be expecting all you hypocrites to pay the artists their due royalty from your next social gathering, party, barbecue or whatever you want to call it. We wouldn’t want any of you holier than thou do-gooders to break the law, would we?

    How ironic then, that you use pot for medical purposes and yet you have the cheek to come on here and lambast me for breaking the law for downloading copywritten material…which I never actually admitted to! Whether you actually do smoke pot, or whether that was part of a feeble attempt to ridcule me for my honesty…I do not know.

    Neil

  16. Good article Steve. However, I would like to point out that while torrent piracy has been going on since April 2001, as you said in the second paragraph of your article, it has been going on much longer than that. I know of people who were sharing files was back in the 80’s and 90’s that were using dial up modems to call into pirate BBSes to steal programs. They were much smaller files in those days of course but just as illegal.

  17. Bazman05, you just don’t get it do you. If you copy a song from the radio, or tape a video from the TV, or even copy a CD, you have not broken any law, UNTIL you pass it on for people to freely copy and distribute. You can wrap that up and try and justify it any way you wish, but it is still THEFT. Providing the recording is for your own personal use, it is not illegal.

    Trying to justify theft by saying it’s the sellers fault because the price is too high just doesn’t wash. Try going to the Ferrari dealership and helping yourself to a car using the same argument. Please your honour, the car was priced out of my range, so they brought it on themselves. Yeah, right.

    Every time you illegaly download a song or a movie, you deprive someone of a monetary fee which is rightfully theirs, and that is THEFT. Multiply this theft by tens of thousands, and you are depriving artists of a significant amount of money, enough in some cases to send them bankrupt.

    It’s about time that this was sorted out.

  18. Those anti peer-to-peer group are a deluded bunch.

    According to the music industry and the like, just about everybody some point has broken the copyright law. You recorded a song of the radio or taped a movie on your VCR, you’ve broken the law and need to be prosecuted.

    This illogical argument aside, this is no different to peer-to-peer. These people who have been illegally taping and recording since the middle of the 20th century have not been prosecuted and never will be so why should anybody today.

    Downloading a song ‘illegally’ is no different from taping a song of the radio but those ‘evil’ tapers of the radio will never be prosecuted.

    As for movies, I love going to the cinema but it is so damn expensive these days to both pay for travel plus the hiked up movie prices, so downloading the songs you have been priced out of should not be a problem (they brought it on themselves). Plus, most of the movies that are downloaded would not be seen otherwise so would not have made money either way.

    I know this argument has been made before but when heard back from anti peer-to-peer groups neglect a lot of the point I make because they know they would be treading in some dangerous logical territory for them. These industries hunt for huge profits is causing this so either they wake up or just let the war continue.

  19. As the father of a talented musician, whose band was destroyed by the pirating of his CDs, via file sharing, I feel somewhat strongly on this issue. I have always felt that this practice could quite easily be stammped out, by copyright holders taking certain measures.

    Software should only be usable if it is registered with the copyright owner/publisher. If you lend it to someone else, then that copy will not run until they register it, and then your copy will cease to function.

    CDs and DVDs can quite easily be made copy proof in such a way as to be tamper proof as well. That’s hard luck on anyone wanting to make a genuine backup, but blame the pirates, looters and thieves.

    Recorded music already out there is a special problem. I would like to see first, a clear and unambiguous law stating that sharing copyright material via file sharing, is against the law, and stiff penalties apply. Secondly, I would like to see the copyright owners/publishers become more actively involved. It’s probably a bit fanciful to suggest that they deliberately try and infect as many of these file sharing hosts libraries as possible, so as to cause the maximum amount of angst for these thieves. It would even the odds though, and if stiff penalties did apply, who in his right mind would complain to the authorities that they had been catastrophically infected while carrying out an illegal activity?

  20. Come on Neil you are making stuff up as you go …. Having a barbecue and letting friends listen to a cd is so much different then sharing files online. First off if your friends are just listening to a CD that is not stealing, in fact it is almost like advertising because maybe one of those guests will now go buy the cd as long as the music is not recorded and given away when the party is over. As well the example of a lawnmower is way out there in space. Unless you are going to reproduce that lawnmower and give a copy away to half of Chicago. In that case you ripped off the person that makes the lawnmower and created less of a demand for that creator. Even mowing someones lawn you would dull the blade, break parts, and create wear and tear on the spark plugs thus creating more business for the maker.

    How old are you? Why is Bruce does not act holier then thou he is just making a point and you are coming off as holier then thou by lumping others into a category of something that you do not know they have done. My father has never shared a download he does not even have a computer. This is and example to stress that you need to be in touch with the fact that still many people may not even use the technology out there.

    As well just because you may take advantage of the system does not mean everyone does. 10 years ago I made over 100 K because of the net, 15 years ago I learned how to use the net! 20 years ago I learned how to use a commodore 64 …. 38 years ago I watched a color version of Giligan’s Island on a 20 inch television while before I remember all of them being in black and white though color tv was around and in use and my dad bought 8 track tapes. Around 50 years ago my grandfather bought my father a car with and fm radio in it …. though 60 to years ago my grandfather thought that the am radio in a car was great and his transistor radio with frequency modulation that was small enough to carry with him was greater then peanut butter. about 90 years ago the roaring 20 were starting to swing in and radio was a brand new novelty in the form of amplitude modulation stations or the am station. 100 years ago the Titanic was about ready to sink and reliable wireless radio signals would have worldwide radio signals would have saved the lives of of a countless number of souls. My point being is that we are in and infancy stage with the internet and some good as well as bad will be used often during this stage but just because we are star dust does not make any of the wrong ways of using something right. My grandfather always stated that cigarettes do not kill, but the way people abuse them does, there is a lot of wisdom in this. Morality and hypocrisy are always the predecessors of technological break thru, our world is infinitely restrained in the throws of the next big side show and our need to justify why we should continue is but a reason that laws and constitutionally designed outlines are formed. Or to make it easier to understand the youth of the world are always stating I know of a better way but wisdom is what gives us the ability to continue to exist in order to exploit and explore these better ways. Without the money made by these artists whether through advertising or record labels paying to be played drove the the airwaves and technology … If you are and artist in most cases today and if you are worth your salt either you are already making money and well off or you are a starving artist trying to make your way through the maze trying to attain your wealth and recognition.

    My opinion is that just because your friends or neighbors copy a file and cheat the system does not make it right. Using that as and excuse and calling out others and thus justifying it as everyone else does it and so I am going to do it as well and if you criticize me I will call you a hypocrite and call you out because we all do it …. well a person doing this is worse. If someone tells you they have not copied music or used torrents in the wrong way …. well they very well may never have done this calling them a hypocrite just makes you look like a long eared son of a horse. Which by the way these long eared horses, they have not changed in the last 100 years and are still used to plow small patches of land in the great Smoky Mountains. I am and artist and I feel strongly about people reproducing my art without permission then trading and sharing it with everyone else. That is part of the reason we are called starving artists at some point in our careers, people just do not feel that this sharing and trading is not stealing and hide behind statements and posts like Neils and justifying it as everyone is a hypocrite …. This attitude is what makes more people accept this kind of despicably arrogant behavior that really hurts the artist/programmer/musician/entertainer. It has less effect on the distributor as they are making money off the creative one, but even once the sales pass to platinum amount the creator is still making the least of any from there own creativity.

  21. It would be illegal to play the records at the dance because there was a admission fee. If I were just playing a recording of records I had purchased and not charged admission then that would not be illegal.

    Any song you hear on broadcast media, Radio, TV is not only submitted before it is played, there is a royalty paid. If you don’t believe it then try to play a song on broadcast TV or radio without submitting it. It’s not going to happen.

    Yes, even Happy Birthday.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

  22. As to the records/recorded-off-the-air music for a dance … playing records you’d purchased was probably also illegal, because such a use would count as “public performance” for which you should have paid royalties.

  23. Oh be nice now Neil, no need to get your shorts all bunched up in a wad lol

    But you would be wrong. I have read hundreds of licenses. I am also fully ware of copyright owners who allow people to copy and distribute their work. I have about 15000 such songs on my hard drive. Which of course isn’t a Windows hard drive because I simply refuse to agree with their license.

    So you are calling the wrong person a hypocrite. I am not the one who said he copied and distributed material illegally that was you.

    I do however support and contribute to a few projects that don’t restrict what you do with software, well unless agreeing to do what I wish with it, and install it on as many computers as I want, and to distribute it to others, and even make a profit distributing it to others if I want, I can even take it, change the name if I want. All legally lol

    I have also donated a few bucks to some struggling artists who so gracefully allow people to download their music for free.
    Nope I don’t steal, and than call others hypocrites because they don’t ๐Ÿ˜›

    I do however copy all my CD’s to my hard drive, all my DVD’s to my Hard Drive, Record shows from all kinds of television channels in high definition, and even record a few radio stations occasionally. I don’t distribute, or give copies to others. I do not have the legal right to do that.

    You of course can do as you wish with things you have “bought” and own. But you don’t own your software, the music on your discs, the movies on the DVD’s……………..

  24. This is a scare tactic indeed. If a torrent file is not originally created with a virus already in it, it is impossible to get infected by it, the hash file associated with it will not allow anything foreign to be injected into it. If someone tries to start a torrent with a virus in it, they get spotted quickly and removed.
    This controversy will never end until the human race ends. The fact is, (and there have been studies on this), that 99% of people that download illegal stuff, be it music, movies, software, or what ever, would other wise have not bought it in the first place. There is no lost revenue in this scenario.
    With music and movies, I can see some problem though, because if you hear it on the radio and want it, you should buy it, you already know you like it. With movies, you can watch trailers to know if you will like it; if you want it, you should buy it. Software on the other hand has a gray area. Who wants to spend $500 on some software package just to find out it is crap, or crashes their system, and then they can’t return it because they opened it. Sure, there are some good shareware trials, but not many percentage wise.
    I have downloaded software in the past that was considered illegal, but I did it so I could try it, to see if it fit my needs. If I didn’t like it, I deleted it. There were a few that I did like, and those I ended up buying, because I wanted the support and updates from the companies. Many of them, had I not been able to take them for an honest test spin, I would have never bought them. In some cases, I would have never known they even existed!
    Being illegal as it is, there are many companies that have greatly benefited from the pirate scene, it is in essence, free advertising. One of those companies is avast! They purposely and knowing allowed some registration keys to their virus software to spread as they tracked its progress all over the globe. On their latest version update, they used this to their advantage to broadcast an expiration notice and opportunity to buy the upgrade … they made millions! Look it up, true story!
    Working in the IT field, I have known many people who constantly download illegal stuff, just to archive it to disc and shove it in a corner to collect dust. They never use it! To them, it is just some kind of bizarre hobby.
    One thing I have learned though, you cannot “stereo-type” the pirate scene; there are a multitude of reasons people engage in these activities, some are ethical, and some are not.

  25. Have to agree with Alan. You may be working for the copyright people. Infected files is a lot of hogwash.
    There are good laws and bad laws; also a great many laws are not written for the overall welfare of society but to protect certain business interests. People with money and influence can get such laws enacted. Bruce can now quit ranting about how I am taking food from babies mouths. These big companies will try to squeeze every nickel out of a CD and with the help of congress, they do so.
    I have no qualms in this matter.

  26. Now listen up Brucie-boy! I notice you didn’t answer the comment about the barbecue in the summer and playing music to your buddies that may be in attendance. Because you have no answer!

    I have actually read a few licence agreements which is probably a few more than you have done. I suggest that next time you hold such a barbecue or social gathering at your pad; I suggest you go read the small print on the cd cover or album cover in your case, because you too, would be breaking the law. And if you are going to come down on other people you need to make sure that your own backyard is clean. So by definition, that makes you a criminal too! You hypocryte!

    In addition, you fail to realize that some copyright owners actually put their product out on such sites because it gives their product status and helps it get noticed. Please, note that I am not pro-stealing but rather, anti-hypocrisy buy holier than thou do-gooders such as yourself. You are a disgrace!

  27. It does make it illegal. Perhaps you should take the time to the contract/agreement you agreed to when you “licensed” the software.

    Now if you just want to loan it to them, fine they watch the DVD, listen to the music, use your computer, they return it, that is loaning someone something.

    When make copies and distribute them, you stolen something that does not belong to you.

    I have lent my car to friends, lawnmower, tools…………. I don’t go to the car dealership, steal one and give it to someone because well I already bought one so I am entitled to give away for free the dealers/manufacturers product lol

    Amazing the way people justify their outright theft of goods and services. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I wonder, how you would feel if you worked all week, and because I have some money in my pocket I am entitled to the money in your pocket, so I just take it. After all, you will have more next week, so no harm no foul right?

    You know, you like to work hard and and work for nothing, just like all those software makers, music artists, actors…….

    Or is that your work is more valuable then theirs therefor no one has the right to rewards other than you? However they should work and just sit back and watch as millions of people steal from them essentially picking their pockets.

    Now maybe you should go read those license contracts agreements you made. Because after all they are only licenses to use a product, you did not purchase it. You are only entitled to use the product so long as you do not violate the contract/agreement you made when paid for a “license”

  28. It seems obvious who is paying your wages.
    Infected files! What a lot of hog wash.
    Seems like a scare campaign to me.
    I have never had an infected file.

  29. If I want to go out and buy a book and then when I’ve finished with it, go lend it to my neighbour or a friend; then what business is it of yours or anybody elses? In fact if I want to share any product that I have bought in real life, with my friends, colleagues or neighbours, then that is my choice. Just because the product in question is on a computer network, it doesn’t make it any more illegal. It would be an absurdity to have the police knocking at my door because I happened to have lent Aunty Floss my only copy of War and Peace?

    How many of you hypocrytes have lent something to your friends or neighbours which you have brought yourself? Lawnmower? Book? CD? OS Disk? Or how many of you hypocrytes have held a party or a barbecue during the summer months and had the CDs blaring out in the presense of a large number of people? If the answer is yes, I trust you went and charged those people an admission fee and gave some money back to the copyright owner of the music you publicly displayed?

  30. My godson just got hit with a lawsuit for downloading some porn via BitTorret. This is the pornographer’s attornys’ 2nd try. The first try was quickly dismissed. Traditionally class action suits are made of many defendants against one plaintiff. This is the reverse — one against 300 + defendants. One of the main snags is the filing fee of over $325.00. The judge said that is ‘per defendant’. In other words $90,000.00 + for them to file the suit against 300 people. Yaaaay!! That kinda rained on the pornographers’ parade.
    My godson is disabled. He has no bank account, no stocks, no real estate, and usually less than $50.00 at any one time. Let them sue!! I hope they spend a whole lot of money doing it. He has some old shoes they can have. His old computer is not worth their filing fee.
    When millions can, with a few keystrokes, obtain their stuff, it seems obvious the pornographers have hopelessly lost control of their copyrights. Perhaps they would have a case if they could sue whoever made it available to begin with. This is like punishing people for picking up a quarter off the ground. I have no sympathy for their attempts to intimidate the general public.

  31. I admit that I used to download torrents, pretty much all the time. When I first started downloading, it was to allow my wife to watch new movies. She had mental problems that prevented us from being able to go to the theater (it’s just not a choice to take a paranoid schizophrenic with psychotic tendencies to a dark crowded room). I would have gladly paid for them, but had no avenue to do so.
    Since her death, most of it was copyrighted software. However, everything that I ran and enjoyed, I would then buy. I quite literally viewed it as a full function trial. If I didn’t like it, I removed it. Never have been much of a music downloader, have too many friends who make music for a living to want to steal from them

  32. But Rob, it is “legal” to record content that is broadcast over the open air waves. It is also legal to copy discs, albums, DVD’s that you own.

    It is not legal to copy DVD’s, albums, CD’s, Software or operating systems and then “distribute” them.

    Even back in the old radio recording days it was illegal to distribute copies of the recordings you made. The VHS copying court cases also said you could indeed record content from television, copy tapes and on and on, however it was not legal to “distribute” those copies.

    It is not an issue of copying media, I do that all the time. I bought the media and have a legal right to make copies.

    I do not however have a legal right to take those copies and re-distribute them, sell them or do anything other than keep them for my own personal use.

    The issue isn’t copying, recording, it distribution.

    Unless a license gives me explicit rights to do so than I don’t re-distribute the copies I make.

    I will be the first one to say that copyright law, trademark law, and especially patent law is such a mess that it is asinine.

    Because i may not like certain laws or copyright issues doesn’t mean that the laws don’t apply. In fact I refuse to persoanlly use many operating systems, software, and utilities because they restrict what I can and can not do with them. Many I think are overpriced, so when I don’t think they are worth paying for I simply don’t use them.

    Because they are restrictive, overpriced, or limited doesn’t make me want to steal them, it just makes me say they are not worth using.

    I guess I just don’t understand the steal if you can, whether you need it or not mentality. Whats going on today is in my opinion way out of hand. It is not an issue of people wanting things for free, if that was the issue then there are thousands and thousands of free applications, software, utilities, operating systems, music and on and on and on.

    They steal because they can, not out of need. I know so many people using pirated software, I know as many who pirate software, steal music………..that they don’t even use. Photoshop, Adobe CS, AutoCad, Microsoft Office……..are great examples of software people steal that they will never use.

    Most can’t figure out the most simple basic of those advanced applications but for some reason they just have to have them.

    I just don’t understand it. ๐Ÿ˜›

    The most amusing thing is when I tell them there are free applications they can use that equal or come close to the ones they think they have to have, I so often get the resonse that those are hard to use, because they are not familiar with them. Of course they say this after admitting they don’t have a clue about the expensive ones they stole.

    Wheres the logic? there isn’t any logic. There is just stealing for the sake of stealing.

  33. Bruce,
    I remember when the Napster craze had just broken and I felt that Napster was wrong. If you remember, Napster also had a built in chat, so I started asking people why they were doing an illegal thing. A common response was that it was the same as 1) listening to music on the radio for free or 2) making a cassette copy of an album for free. The issue, I think is that free is/was already embedded inside of our society and our thinking, and this is just a tiny step towards things being even more free. I don’t agree with it, but that is the way it is.

    There was in interesting book called Free by Chris Anderson that goes over this entire topic in detail. There was a time when you could download and read the entire book for FREE.

  34. I think it comes from the fact that people simply think because it is not a physical tangible thing that they are “stealing” that it makes it OK. They know it is stealing, they just don’t perceive it as a loss to anyone because they don’t know the people they are stealing from, they don’t know how much hard work went into the content they are stealing, they just don’t care. But mostly they steal because they can get away with it.

    Much the same way when there is a disaster somewhere people start looting. They don’t steal/loot because they have to, because they need to, but because they think they will get away with it. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Sit those same people down in an area where they know what they do with the computer is being monitored/watched and the majority of them wouldn’t steal at the time and space.

    So you see regardless of what all the surveys, polls and questionnaires say it comes down to this. People steal because they can. They steal even more if they “know” the will not be caught. They steal even more when they can’t see the direct harm they are doing because it isn’t right in front of them.

    Now if they worked all work, worked hard, and someone picks their pocket, steals their pay, raises their taxes, charges more for something they scream bloody murder, then turn around sit down at their computer and commence stealing, picking the pockets of people on the internet.

    My personal belief is this. If it isn’t worth paying for then it isn’t worth having.

    There are thousands and thousands of music artists providing their music for free, there are hundreds of operating systems available for free, there are literally thousands and thousands of free software applications (open source).

    People don’t want those because they don’t have a price tag attached they don’t see “value”

    Take an old furniture item, put it out on the front lawn with a “free” sign on it. It will be there for a long time. Bring it back in the house wait a couple weeks, take that same item bput it back out on the front lawn with a $50.00 oprice tag on it. When you wake up the following morning and look out the window, someone will have stolen. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  35. Hey Bruce, thanks for the comment. I agree that most think of torrents and their use as illegitimate software used to steel files. Like a lot of things in life it’s not that black and white. There is plenty of legitimate content available.

    Do you think this mis perception comes from the number of torrent users that do use it for illegal acquisition?

  36. I use torrents all the time. I have never been infected, and never will. I use it for 100% legal downloads. Not only are they legal but the companies that implement them, encourage their use to reduce bandwidth on local servers and mirrors.

    Of course the great majority of people are clueless about the “legitimate” use of these applications, and automatically equate them with being bad.

    I didn’t say all people, I said the great majority ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Sooner or later if this comments section gets more posters one of these people will show up ๐Ÿ˜›

    I’ll probably post back at that time with some great torrent links

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *