Piracy

the courts seem to be against you

The courts are also against the use of medical marijuana in Florida, that doesn't make them correct.

Leaving aside that the internet is not public (every aspect of it is privately owned), theft does not require that a person gain financially from the theft, nor even intend to. How old are you, 13?

Why misconstrue my obvious point. The internet can be accessed by the public through private institutions... It did not used to be like that, it was not widely used. This goes without saying.

Your point seems to be a moving target. Previously it seemed that your point was that the internet would bring a hitherto unknown access to information--which doesn't happen to be true. I have no idea what you're attempting to claim with this "It did not used to be like that . . . " If you had the home computer (whether or not you know it, such things existed before the IBM PCXT) and could pay the phone company charges, it was available to you. That's why i have been pointing out that any benefit, even any necessity is limited of access or even denied on an economic basis. You're just babbling now.

Complete bullshit. I've stated my points clearly and with intent.

Even if your statement was true, which it's not, you'd still fall under the US code for forgery:
Class B felony

You're a liar, and as i've already said, puerile. Your statements are not concise and unchanging, and your "points" are varying and vague.

clearly you can't argue against anything I've said because I had to repeat myself 5 times and you still haven't acknowledge anything written

A file sharing website grooveshark.com just got shut down today. I'm friends with a high executive vp they're based out of Gainseville, FL. My stance is that I believe that if a profit is being made off of an online file sharing website where rights aren't secure then there is legitimate claim against them. They were regularly offered contracts that were impossible for them to secure as a smaller company. There was a time when they were the only legitimate competition with Pandora before they really took off.

The industry was short sighted not to see that their existence is necessary and offer them realistic contracts to make their music and new music available to a wider audience. I can imagine a free file-sharing platform like napster but it would have to be a torrent like program (not a website) which connects users directly. Grooveshark had a feature like this with profiles and favorites but all of the songs were still on Grooveshark servers. If a program was created, anonymously perhaps and maintained by users then there would be no company who could shut it down.

I systematically stated my reasons why I believe that such a program is inevitable and a boon to all who download copyrighted media.

You have the right to not make it available for free but you don't have the right to sue someone who gives it to someone else for free.

bump

You can download music and movies for free from other countries.

The good thing is that these are free and no viruses are received, there is no need of subscription, and you are not required to download anything extra.

You must know at least the basic of Russian, Greek, and similar or, be smart enough to guess what the web page is about in order to click and download the movie video or the music song.

These are "shared" web pages, where you can select which one of the videos or songs are of best quality.

How bad is "piracy" when people from other countries share their movies and songs online, I have no idea, but surely they are sharing them with you... and you will be dumb when rejecting such a generous opportunity...

I've addressed your nonsense directly. That you are willing to repeat nonsensical claims five times is not evidence that what you say is correct. Your original claim was some pie in the sky bullshit about "democracy" reaching its full potential if you are allowed to steal other people's intellectual property with impunity. When the issue of intellectual property was pointed out to you, you came up with feeble and childish analogies to suggest that it's not theft. Your silly, childish petulance doesn't change the laws, nor impede their enforcement. There's no reason to argue against your nonsense once it's been pointed out. You're a waste of everyone's time in this thread, which is probably why people have stopped talking to you. Number me among those who will waste no more time on you.

You never once acknowledged anything that I said directly and the forum is evidence of that.

File sharing is not forgery, inherent in all forgery is the falsification of the original. When a file is shared it is completely duplicated, the new clone of the original file is not a forgery but a perfect copy.

With forgery, there is the implication that you are manufacturing something of existing significant (usually) monetary value, with the intention of capitalizing from the trading or other usage of that item.

It is my opinion that for file sharing to warrant a lawsuit from the copyrighted party there would have to be the intention for direct monetary gain or indirect through some website which exploits shared copyrighted material without permission.

This is the heart of what I have claimed, it is the origin of the Napster controversy although he gained recognition for the program he created I don't believe he originally made any money off of it. If it was done anonymously in the way I mentioned with a Torrent like program that is not maintained or credited to any individual or entity but updated and managed by users.

If no files are stored on a server, if there is no one to charge criminally or with a lawsuit except for the millions of users which share music around the world on this program. The program would be downloadable and it would link users who opt to share music/media files for free with other users. Governments and compnies would have to begin sueing, arresting, and charging individuals for merely sharing files without monetary gain, something which has not been done on a large scale since the war on internet piracy began.

No way.

You are trying to model the law to your views.

It's simple and clear; when you make an illegal copy (without the agreement of the owner) it's forgery.

What I'm talking about already exists through torrent websites like torrentz, kickass to and the well known piratebay... The only difference is this program will not be a website but an anonymously created program maintained by users. It may not arise until these torrent sites have been eradicated but once it does there will be no way to stop it. They will have to target individual users and they have not been able to do that with the current sites like piratebay; they've only gone after the site, servers, and creators. The existence of a law has to be debatable and this one is, there are many unjust laws.

You trolls are sheep.

No, I don't want you to steal my work, period.