Limewire Shut Down

Tews said:

Wait.. are you saying that if a corporation/artist is successful, that theft of their property is less important???

My point is that piracy exists. It always will. If you don't like it, don't do it and don't visit the site's that deal in it. Now if you think that's the same excuse that people could use to defend sites that deal in paedophilia then go ahead. However I think most level headed people could distinguish the difference of importance between the two.

So I'm saying I can't understand all these people crying over file sharing because god forbid somebody like Bono's net worth of 80 mil take a hit. Also bare in mind that most of the artists who speak out about file sharing are the ones who have already made their millions aka greedy sods. Plenty of artists who aren't rolling in cash advocate it.

Tews said:

Sounds like a bad case of situational ethics to me...

In the last thread regarding this stuff I pointed out that most people speaking out against piracy on the forum claimed there are happy to lend their media to a friend. When I pointed out that it's still breaking copy right laws nearly everybody said that they still didn't see a problem. So apparently everybody can have it both ways. In that case... So can I.

Edit:

LiquidSnak said:

So it's ok to shoplift from walmart, rather than your corner market, because it's a huge corporation?

No, let me break it down.

- I said people who actually get bothered about torrenting make me laugh, and questioned why they as people who don't get hurt by it really care.

- Tew said that you could say the same for sites that deal in things like paedophilia.

- I said it wasn't the same because the people who get hurt by piracy are multi million £/$ earning companies and artists, not traumatised abused children. I wasn't implying that's "okay" simply that you should not draw parallels between the two.

My gripe is that you always hear about this crap in the media. Big companies complaining cause they lost a few quid. I'm only pointing out that we need to get our priorities straight, using paedophilia as the example that Tew brought up. Do you really think the two should be compared? You never hear sod all about these sort of sites getting busted.

dajogejr said:

When you become a millionaire off your work then you get to decide how important it is if people steal from you.
Until then, it's easy to be an arm chair QB saying this or that person has millions...they won't miss a little revenue from someone stealing a song or album.

Say you have $100 in the bank. When someone steals a song of yours, the royalty fees, etc., will eat away at 1/100,000 of a cent.

Then figure out how many millions upon millions of people have computers that will do the same.

Do they have enough money to live comfortably? Sure...for 100 lifetimes.
That doesn't make you the judge and jury if it's ok to steal from them.

I'm not the Internet or Music police so personally I don't care. But it just makes me kinda say HUH?? when people think it's OK to steal from someone who is wealthy.

They earned it...what makes it OK for someone to take a shortcut and steal?

And there lays the grey area of is it stealing? If people are happy to lend, yes lend. Not sell copies and make money off it. Is that any different to you giving what you bought to somebody else over the internet?

It's double standards all round. The same people who complain it's wrong to break the law, are breaking the exact same law by lending. Sure the police wont knock your door down becaue of it but it's still pertinent.

Fair enough in the case of software with a serial, but music CD's or music/film DVD's.

HammerHead said:

I'll bet the Hackers are the ones really p----d off.

Actually these days Hackers aren't sub sub teens with "challenged social and communication skills" but highly skilled individuals working for various "dubious" organisations that you don't want to know about as well as others such as the CIA, MOSSAD, EL MOKHABARAT(Egyptian secret service) and others _ often earning HUGE amounts of money too.

Any serious hacker isn't going to infect a stupid mp3 file of a hideously boring re-mixed song that is destined for a portable player rather than a computer anyway.

(Why oh Why is it almost impossible to get old music WITHOUT the hideous rythm and other stuff added into it -- I prefer the ORIGINAL tracks -- remixes generally are HORRIBLE -- but that's another whole issue).

If you've got infected because of using P2P sites I'll almost bet you a Million dollars to a bucket load of Horse shy_e that you've probably been downloading software or accessing a malicious site with "drive by infections" on it.

MP3 files are notoriously hard to infect and in any case who cares if it's on a stand alone music player -- there isn't much of an OS to infect on these devices.

If you do download music from P2P sites then PLAY IT FIRST on your portable music player by transferring from the PC to the device - BEFORE playing / opening the file on the PC then tranfer it back again to a computer before playing on the PC.

If you need to tag the MP3 file this can be done after the file has been transferred to the Music Player.

The Music player will filter out all the rubbish if there is any in the MP3 file.

Cheers
jimbo

Capt.Jack Sparrow said:

Nice share ! Thanks Corrine .. I wonder when they going to shutdown these Torrent sites like PirateBay etc.

ThePirateBays servers are in Europe and are privatly and publicly through fund raisers funded i believe. It is also believe it or not, used to be one of the top 60 most popular websites on the entire internet. Sadly its pry gonna be hard to shut it down anything short of our own green dam girl here in the US or where ever.