Isn't Filesharing A Socialist Activity?

[echidna]

the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.
i think that it is probably socialist and revolutionary and at least anarchist in the true situationist lineage of anarchy
the community is also peopled by many from nations traditionaly hostile to challenges to property and socialist ideas generally
i wonder what they think
is filesharing political?
why do you do it?
how do you rationalise it?
is filesharing 'un-american'?

[mobboss01]

It capitalizes your funds. Spend less on records, more cash in pocket.

[Jibbler]

Its theft, it has nothing to do with politics, and I'm okay with it. :huh:

[thegroggman]

LOl...ok you could try to complicate this all you like, but I agree with Jibbler. Someone who steals a video from a video store is not a socialist. And in essence thats what we're doing. We're a bunch of guys and gals to cheap to buy this stufff. Pure and simple. :D

[clocker]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Q2YOTUwLcgcC:in.yimg.com/xp/reuters_ids_.jpeg

The patron saint of Filesharing

[El_Jikobie]

I think file sharing will have\is having many social and political reprecusions.

It is important to note that the recording and movie/t.v. industries aren't really all that capitolist themselves. There are few companies that monopolise nearly all media. The value of it is what they set it at, there is no real competition going on. I know lots of very tallented musicians who aren't rich or famous. Sure most pop stars are great preformers, but lots of people could do what they do with millions in advertising, promotion, and personal trainers. They're not that special. They didn't really earn that money.

IMHO the advent of filesharing is akin to the invention of the printing press. Free (or near to free) access to all sorts of recorded media is what the masses are going to get out of the 'information age'. This is our right.

Just because it may not be viable in the future to make $10,000,000 by recording an album doesn't mean people will stop making music. It just means that music will be controled and defined by the people who love to make it, instead of some Hollywood suit who only cares about the bottom line.

[jetje]

Although your question is a nice one :lol: i think this debate better can be held in the lounge...

[echidna]

when you rip stuff off you usually try to sell it or at least keep it yourself
this sharing thing is something different, lots of people rip and share CDs they have bought
stealing is your rationalisation of what you are doing when you are 'sharing' ie. downloading [i'm guessing]
but the actual network of file sharers is more complex and less profitable than old fashioned property crime
people devote hardware and bandwidth to this stuff, buying land and then sharing it wouldn't be theft
i'm not trying to complicate this i'm just trying to look at it through an indirectly pragmatic lens
why is it? :huh:
the topic is directly about filesharing jetje
and what motivations might make people devote such energy and resource
i know it's good to give in order to get but people seem driven to give
look at the verifieds!


ed. clarification & type

[soopaman]

Originally posted by echidna@18 May 2003 - 17:42
the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.
i think that it is probably socialist and revolutionary and at least anarchist in the true situationist lineage of anarchy
the community is also peopled by many from nations traditionaly hostile to challenges to property and socialist ideas generally
i wonder what they think
is filesharing political?
why do you do it?
how do you rationalise it?
is filesharing 'un-american'?

I file share because I can't get enough music with my wages, even though I go out and buy music ,at least, 3 times a week!! Plus there's the advantage of getting rarities and unreleased tracks. I rationalise it by not giving a fuck about it!! I'm taking advantage of a decent, convenient product - as are all filesharers. I've always swapped music with my friends, now I can do it globally with anyone. If this happens to be against the law so be it!!

As for filesharing being political, I don't really think it is. Most of the users, and I'm generalising here, couldn't give a shit about the political motivations of filesharing. Sharing can't be anarchist because we are relying on multi-national companies to produce our computers, give us the communications technology to contact other computer owners, etc, etc. Socialism, although a nice idea, isn't gonna happen. Some "filesharers" are more equal than others!!! :lol: It doesn't work globally either, as evidenced by the fall of the Eastern Bloc countries in the late 1980's - early 1990's.

Also, echidna, why do 90% of your posts contain some sort of Anti-American sentiment or a few lines that could be interpreted as inflammatory?? Have you got a problem with the USA?? I don't think capitalism was created by the USA? It is as old as human civilization, check your history books for details!! I suppose you think America invented sharing as well. Sad. :P

[echidna]

Originally posted by soopaman

Also, echidna, why do 90% of your posts contain some sort of Anti-American sentiment or a few lines that could be interpreted as inflammatory?? Have you got a problem with the USA?? I don't think capitalism was created by the USA? It is as old as human civilization, check your history books for details!! I suppose you think America invented sharing as well. Sad

if read all my posts you might understand that i have no gripe with north americans who live south of canada [excepting war-mongers & fools]
i didn't think it would be inflamitory to equate socialism with un-american [remember the fifties]
i'm just curious
and more so as to the overwelming adherance to P2P and aversion to politics
trade, communication and crime are all political and relevent to filesharing
and all national juristictions have been breeched so it's a bit interesting
why can't filesharing be examined politically?

and i've gotta protest the move of this topic from filesharing, it is SO about filesharing
it's at least as relevant as the gender balance of P2P or topics of legality/illegality :angry:

[jetje]

Well if you have so much problems with the moving, i place it back...
If it derails from the topic it will be moved to the lounge again ;)

[J'Pol]

I will not argue the point whether file sharing is political or not. However in answer to your opening question I cannot really see how you are defining it as Socialist.

Socialism works on the basic concept of "From each according to his means. To each according to his needs".

On the basis that file sharing is open to everyone then the means test (pardon the pun) is irrelevant. Indeed it could be argued that it is the people whose means are least (don't have a PC with internet access) have no access to the system. As such it is anything but Socialist.

I won't start on needs, that just opens a whole can of worms on the difference between needs and wants.

[masta.z]

not sure wether i agree or dissagree with wether filesharing is a socialist activity or not but i was just wondering....

what exactly is wrong with socialism???

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/images/logo.gif

[TIDE-HSV]

I think it's Darwinism in its purest form. We're all trying to perpetuate the genes of those who, even if not close kin to us, think the way we do. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Allende1973]

It is socialist, because ultimately what we are engaged in is creating a collective, where all digital media is freely available to all. This is revolutionary because the multi nationals are no longer in control, and unless they can stop us they will wither away and die.
Just because I own a PC, I don't see that disqualifies me from being a socialist, or from using it for socialist means.
Of course those whose means are least do not have access to the collective. That is a criticism of global politics and not of filesharing. Socialism has always involved any tools at your disposal.

I think it is also certainly anti-american, in that filesharing is anti-capitalism. The irony is millions of Americans are subverting their own capitalist system.
I agree most filesharers never consider the politics of filesharing, but filesharing is always a political act.

[TIDE-HSV]

There is an interesting book entitled "Folklore of Capitalism," written by Thurman Arnold, former US Attorney General and Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. I recommend it to anyone serious about exploring economic labels. Maybe things are not what they're named to be... It's available from Amazon for only a few dollars.

[thegroggman]

what exactly is wrong with socialism??? I dont think anyone here has discusses any hate for socialism. Just that typically i nthe United States Socialism is looked down upon. Even though with programs such as Social Security and Welfare we in reality have a Socio-Democracy. A democracy with some socialist ideals...i think its worked out nicely so far :D

[MagicNakor]

I think a lot of you are confusing communism and socialism... :huh:

:ninja:

[ScotchGuy]

I hope you don't think that using all those large words and complicating something as simple as sharing files impressed us. By the way this..."i think that it is probably socialist and revolutionary and at least anarchist" how on Earth would it be considered anarchy? It is not run by the government.

[opivy]

I think it is anarchist because millions of people are telling the goverments around the world to fuck off and screw there laws and that in my opinion is very anarchist.

[jetje]

anarchisme = liberal socialisme, so basicly you agree.. B)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Allende1973@18 May 2003 - 22:26
It is socialist, because ultimately what we are engaged in is creating a collective, where all digital media is freely available to all. This is revolutionary because the multi nationals are no longer in control, and unless they can stop us they will wither away and die.
Just because I own a PC, I don't see that disqualifies me from being a socialist, or from using it for socialist means.
Of course those whose means are least do not have access to the collective. That is a criticism of global politics and not of filesharing. Socialism has always involved any tools at your disposal.

I think it is also certainly anti-american, in that filesharing is anti-capitalism. The irony is millions of Americans are subverting their own capitalist system.
I agree most filesharers never consider the politics of filesharing, but filesharing is always a political act.
Bunkum

1. Socialism is not the creation of a collective. It is the creation of a society where those who are capable of producing do so. They also ensure that everyone's needs are met. No "I'm all right jack" attitude.

2. The fact that other people do not own a PC is the issue here. As they are the most needy and do not have access to the files then the filesharing process, by definition, cannot be described as Soclialist.

This is not a criticism of either Socialism or Filesharing. Just a statement that they are not the same thing.

[Darth Sushi]

Socialist? Communist? I prefer pirate or cheap bastard who don't want to pay for music and movies. It's more pleasing to the ear. ;)

[MagicNakor]

I think it's a stretch to equate filesharing with political motives in the first place, really. ;) Otherwise we can equate political motives to anything. "I only buy organically grown fruit so I'm helping out the Green Party." :lol:

:ninja:

[Switeck]

Originally posted by Allende1973@18 May 2003 - 16:26
It is socialist, because ultimately what we are engaged in is creating a collective, where all digital media is freely available to all. This is revolutionary because the multi nationals are no longer in control, and unless they can stop us they will wither away and die.
Just because I own a PC, I don't see that disqualifies me from being a socialist, or from using it for socialist means.
Of course those whose means are least do not have access to the collective. That is a criticism of global politics and not of filesharing. Socialism has always involved any tools at your disposal.

I think it is also certainly anti-american, in that filesharing is anti-capitalism. The irony is millions of Americans are subverting their own capitalist system.
I agree most filesharers never consider the politics of filesharing, but filesharing is always a political act.Where all industries are owned by the government and goods are given out by the government rather than sold is communism.
State-sponsorship of companies/industries and price supports are socialist government intervention.
Gray and black markets are laissez-faire capitalism. ("Prices" are set by what people are willing to pay/do to get what they want possibly in disregard of government controls.)
Guess which one file sharing falls under. :D

If it is 'anti-American' behavior then so too was the Boston Tea Party, which dumped a state-supported company's tea into the bay. The creation and enforcement of copyrights, trademarks, and patents are socialist government supports of a company or industry and often results in huge government-supported monopolies/oligarchies. Were we actually 'dumping tea', we'd be DESTROYING ORIGINAL CDs in stores (literally burning them :lol: ) instead of just copying them. What we're doing is closer to smuggling or at very worst theft-of-services (usually from the record company, because the artists seldom own rights to music they made.)

If we are reducing any value on the goods we are sharing (often imperfect copies of), it is the artificial/inflated prices we are reducing. (see also: music industry convicted of illegal price-fixing and cost the U.S. music consumer at least $400 million between 1995-2000.) We are NOT reducing the price to 0, because you can't 'play this game' without a large initial investment (a computer) plus additional monthly funds (an internet connection.) By the same logic, there is resale value still for TV shows both to tv stations and consumers, not in spite of VCRs but rather BECAUSE of them. It was once possible for a music company to have nearly 100% control of the market and 0% market share just by discontinuing sales of old music or NEVER releasing a band's album because 'it wouldn't sell'. Filesharing has made that level of control nearly impossible. Still I think media companies will evolve instead of dying, like they did with VCRs.

Anarchy is anti-government/NO-government, lawlessness, and/or disorder/chaos.
Filesharing does NOT seek to destroy governments -- it doesn't blow up buildings, it isn't terrorism, it almost can't be used to make money (to fund illegal activities -- with exception of Kazaa Gold :P), and it can't even 'reach' people who don't go reaching for it.

"I got a virus off Kazaa!"
"But you don't even USE Kazaa!"
"Yeah but I installed it on my computer 6 months ago and Norton says Kazaa.exe is infected -- so I must have gotten a virus off Kazaa!"
(These quotes are made-up but similar to what I've read online...) :rolleyes:

You enter in a word you're searching for... you only get back a list of what others share which match/contain that word. You try to download from that list... sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't.

Calling filesharing pure anarchy like saying GOOGLE is subversive. (China says it is...) :ph34r:

[thegroggman]

I only buy organically grown fruit OMG! We dont take kindly to your tree hugging kind. Everybody...grab your torches..theres a green among us! DOWN WITH THE NADER SUPPORTER!

Oh and Switeck amen man. Relating filesharing to any form of political ism is ridiculous.

[MagicNakor]

:lol: I don't buy organically grown fruit. It was just the example I came up with. It's too expensive. ;) And if I really want fresh apples I'll just grab them off the trees in my backyard. :D

Edit: And I think you're more green than I, friend. :P

:ninja:

[thegroggman]

And I think you're more green than I, friend. GROGGMAN NOT LIKE LITTLE MAGE...GROGGMAN SMASH!!!!! No but seriously, yeah I thought that exact same thing after I posted it...oh well. Oh and, about the organic, yeah I was just being facetious. Ok...Ill let the rest of ya debate this some more...nite B)

Edit: Forgot to mention, that although I dont agree that filesharing is socialism, this is a great thread. Keep them ideas coming.

[MagicNakor]

I knew you were being facetious. ;)

But I'm not a mage.

Because there is no magic.

:ninja:

[thegroggman]

*Sigh*...fine...Ill make one last post tonight...ahem [clears throat]

:x (its the only green one...)
GROGGMAN NOT LIKE SHORT LITTLE GUY WHO LOOKS A WHOLE LOT LIKE VIVI FROM FF9 AND ALL THE OTHER BLACK MAGES FROM THE EARLY FF's FOR THAT MATTER *breaths*...GROGGMAN SMASH!!!!

[MagicNakor]

It's only Vivi because there isn't a picture of Nakor anywhere. :D

:ninja:

[OlderThanDirt]

echidna wrote:

the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.

Bull. Read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first mention of rights for creators and innovators. It was meant to be a "limited time" right. And it was meant to a right "exclusive" to the creator/innovator. The Copyright Act of 1789/1790 was the last Constitutional copyright act. Subsequent copyright acts violated both the "limited time" and "exclusivity" mandates and are therefore unconstitutional. They just haven't been challenged as such ... yet.

And regarding "collectivising data product ownership," our Founding Fathers had a phrase for it -- the public domain. Organizations like Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) are fighting right now to both preserve the public domain rights (yes rights) we still have and restore those that have been taken away.

And file-sharers individually? They are performing acts of civil disobedience ... a time-honored tradition from Henry David Thoreau on down to Martin Luther King, Jr. (and beyond). And if you're wondering why the Founding Fathers demanded both "limited time" rights and "exclusivity," research England's 18th Century law called the "Statute of Anne" ... and why that law became necessary. You'll discover that this country's founders feared the creation of rights kingdoms (estates, companies or corporations, licenseers) like what we now see today in the RIAA, the top-5 media cartel, and "corporate cops" who seek the power to do dirty work without legal mandate to do so.

[echidna]

Originally posted by Switeck@19 May 2003 - 18:32

Anarchy is anti-government/NO-government, lawlessness, and/or disorder/chaos.
Filesharing does NOT seek to destroy governments -- it doesn't blow up buildings, it isn't terrorism, it almost can't be used to make money (to fund illegal activities -- with exception of Kazaa Gold :P), and it can't even 'reach' people who don't go reaching for it.

Your understanding of anarchy is wrong
it develped in the late 19th & early 20th centuries as a serious political philosophy
you historical knowledge is incomplete you should research the real anarchists and the situationist international

[Allende1973]

Where all industries are owned by the government and goods are given out by the government rather than sold is communism.

I think we are talking about different things. 'True' communist ideals have little to do with the experience of the USSR or China, where one elite simply replaced another.
Anarchists are not proposing simply disorder, but rather a exsistence where controlling influences- government, church, armies, industry, etc- are no longer of relevence. This becomes possible with society organised into local communes with no central control. :D
Oh, and we don't need to physically burn CD's to destroy them. Every item I burn is one less I would have had to buy.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by echidna+19 May 2003 - 10:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 19 May 2003 - 10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Switeck@19 May 2003 - 18:32

Anarchy is anti-government/NO-government, lawlessness, and/or disorder/chaos.
Filesharing does NOT seek to destroy governments -- it doesn&#39;t blow up buildings, it isn&#39;t terrorism, it almost can&#39;t be used to make money (to fund illegal activities -- with exception of Kazaa Gold :P), and it can&#39;t even &#39;reach&#39; people who don&#39;t go reaching for it.

Your understanding of anarchy is wrong
it develped in the late 19th & early 20th centuries as a serious political philosophy
you historical knowledge is incomplete you should research the real anarchists and the situationist international[/b]Are you saying that anarchism is NOT anti-government/no government or the other part (lawlessness and/or disorder/chaos)?

If my understanding of anarchy is wrong, does that mean that filesharing is TRYING to destroy governments -- by blowing up buildings, funding terrorism, and influencing people through its subversive messages?
<!--QuoteBegin--Allende1973@19 May 2003 - 13:00

Where all industries are owned by the government and goods are given out by the government rather than sold is communism.

I think we are talking about different things. &#39;True&#39; communist ideals have little to do with the experience of the USSR or China, where one elite simply replaced another.
Anarchists are not proposing simply disorder, but rather a exsistence where controlling influences- government, church, armies, industry, etc- are no longer of relevence. This becomes possible with society organised into local communes with no central control. :D
Oh, and we don&#39;t need to physically burn CD&#39;s to destroy them. Every item I burn is one less I would have had to buy.[/quote]Sorry, I meant "communism" as it has been practiced on large-scale...

"True" communism is an ideal the same way true capitalism, true socialism, and true anarachism is. Add REAL people to the equation, and none of those happen. :P

And every time you copy a CD instead of buying it, you are not only NOT destroying the original -- you are in fact ENLARGING the supply... the very opposite of destroying it&#33; Now, there&#39;s 1 extra CD that someone ELSE could (but probably won&#39;t...) buy. The perceived demand, as seen by music stores, is decreased because sales versis inventory drops -- so the price should drop if it were close to a capitalistic economy. Also the price should drop for OLDER albums due to reduced demand caused by loss-of-interest, market saturation, and perceived value.

Are you saying we&#39;re &#39;peaceful anarchists and communists&#39; like Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Switeck@19 May 2003 - 22:25

Are you saying we&#39;re &#39;peaceful anarchists and communists&#39; like Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr?
Are you saying that Gandhi and King were "peaceful anarchists and communists ?

[Allende1973]

And every time you copy a CD instead of buying it, you are not only NOT destroying the original -- you are in fact ENLARGING the supply... the very opposite of destroying it&#33; Now, there&#39;s 1 extra CD that someone ELSE could (but probably won&#39;t...) buy. The perceived demand, as seen by music stores, is decreased because sales versis inventory drops -- so the price should drop if it were close to a capitalistic economy. Also the price should drop for OLDER albums due to reduced demand caused by loss-of-interest, market saturation, and perceived value.

Sure, but by opting to share we are dropping out of the capitalistic economy. We are not trading, or seeking any kind of recompense. We are enlarging the supply of music/movies/whatever, but the amount of media that is actually purchased will drop and drop.
it&#39;s not a black economy because no one is making any money.

totally agree with what you said about people and Kazaa virus though :huh:

[Derezo]

Who told the OP that the socialist ideal is wrong?
They were sadly mistaken, I&#39;m afraid.
I live in a heavily democratic capitalist country (Canada).. but socialism isn&#39;t wrong.. it&#39;s just misused.
Sadly, it was thought up by humans.. greedy, blood thirsty humans. :P

Anyway, P2P is socialist.. as it is for the people. Nobody gains, but you must be working-class to use it sort of deal.
K-Lite doesn&#39;t get no money from me, personally... but I get thousands of dollars worth of software, music and movies.

If you think it&#39;s a capitalist ideal, you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about.

[nueromancer]

The reason most Americans are anti-socialist is directly related to the mis labelling of a small political party during the 30&#39;s and 40&#39;s. A group of people calling themselves the "National Socialists" started a wee skirmish that eventually involved America. Actual socialism or communism for that matter can not work. The carrot and stick is the only thing that will work when dealing with humans. Any liberal or socialist agenda only feeds the unwilling. Creating a society of overweight, unbearable whiners that... whoops. I think I had better stop there. :o :o

[mijj]

Originally posted by echidna@18 May 2003 - 16:42
the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.
...
is filesharing &#39;un-american&#39;?

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
...President Abraham Lincoln


... ol&#39; Abe was worried about the prospect of dictatorship by corporations.

It looks like it&#39;s un-american not to fileshare.

:D

[mijj]

... ooerrrr ....

James Madison was worried about the excessive power of corporations, too&#33;

“There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
... James Madison

[mijj]

&#33; Gosh &#33;

Thomas Jefferson didn&#39;t like the idea of government dedictated to bolstering the power of corporations, either&#33;&#33;

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
... Thomas Jefferson


Where on earth did anyone get the idea that opposing and eroding the power of corporations was un-american?

:blink:

[squirleboy]

I love file sharing ( USA born and raised) im anti consumerism and anti big government so go figure

[RealitY]

Phew, 3 pages of descriptions of politics and whatever...
I don&#39;t think we should be comparing file sharing to politics, nor do I care to.
I am also deffinetly not taking part in the battle of wit here as I would probably lose and don&#39;t have much to contribute to this run on.

Maybe a better question would be "do you do it for political reasons"?
Though I thought, the better point of this thread was "WHY DO YOU DO IT"?

I don&#39;t do it for political reason nor do I believe many do.
I think some feel it is their right somehow or someway and should explain, why?

In my opinion we are all THEIVES and thinking any less is denial, now if are a theif with a purpose, then explain it. I myself do it simply because I can.

Why lie, I need a beer. :lol: :lol:

[Tyke]

Why do I share files?

Because I enjoy music/movies and cannot afford to buy/rent all that I want to watch/listen to.

I share because quite simply, everyone who shares is helping the network which gives me all this entertainment on-tap. Therefore I consider it to be helping the network to help me.

A wholly selfish reason, but I don&#39;t hear anyone complaining....well OK I do but stuff the fat cats&#33; :P

[Switeck]

Originally posted by Allende1973@19 May 2003 - 17:54
Sure, but by opting to share we are dropping out of the capitalistic economy. We are not trading, or seeking any kind of recompense. We are enlarging the supply of music/movies/whatever, but the amount of media that is actually purchased will drop and drop.
it&#39;s not a black economy because no one is making any money.
In the Microsoft vs DoJ cases, it was argued that by &#39;bundling&#39; IE with Windows (and offering as a &#39;free download IE separately) that Microsoft was indeed selling it for a price of &#036;0 PLUS limitations and liscencing agreements.

We are definitely dropping out of the NORMAL capitalistic economy, but that doesn&#39;t mean this isn&#39;t a gray or black market/swap meet. Although many DON&#39;T share, this *IS* a file sharing network with indirect compensation. I get my fastest downloads for instance by searching the people who are downloading off me. So there&#39;s my &#39;compensation&#39; right there... :D I EXPECT some kind of &#39;return&#39; because I&#39;m not 100% altruistic -- I&#39;d switch to a &#39;better&#39; p2p network in a second... if there was one. B) For some people, the &#39;return&#39; of getting email and web surfing is enough to pay a monthly bill for internet service. It&#39;s not a quantitative amount and may not be a defineable amount, but it is definitely a perceived benefit -- unless you want to assume it&#39;s a mindless addiction. :lol:

The long-term economic effects of file sharing depends ENTIRELY on whether media companies can still make a profit -- NOT on our numbers OR on how many files we copy/download/burn. It is true that their most recent years SHOW a decrease in sales, but that does not mean a lack of profits for them. And they figure &#39;profits&#39; differently than most companies due to how royalties and kickbacks work. If music stores find they are accumulating inventory, they will sharply curtail future stocks and possibly even sell their excess back to RIAA companies at a big loss. But since RIAA still made the first BIG sale, the buy-back doesn&#39;t hurt as much. Then stores will/may go to back-orders for out-of-stock items, so they can keep their inventories low -- and the real production of CDs will slowly come closer and closer to actual sales. They can still count on huge amounts of &#39;guilt&#39; sales to people who buy rather than download so long as costs don&#39;t go up any/much more, and that alone will probably sustain them once they start streamlining their businesses.

The long-term POLITICAL effects of file sharing? Nobody knows...

[LincolnFrog]

All i can really say about file shareing is, it&#39;s my only way to fight back against corprate control. Why should i pay 20 bucks for the shitty pop album Mtv shoved down my thoat enough that i actully belived for a breif moment,that i might enjoy it.when in actullality it&#39;s has disposeable as a used diaper.... Why should I? .....
13 years ago i didn&#39;t have a choice really, and The record companys got a lot of my money for a less that par product. i.e. That ace of base album i use as a drink coster. a 20 dollar drink coaster. well ive got a choice now damn it. Music has been put back in my hands, i now get to decide what i like and dont like, and dont have to blow the milk money doing it. But i would gladly spend my money for quailty product. and thats what demand&#33; and when the consumer demands he recives. thats capatolisim right?
What ever the out come of this p2p thing is it will defintly improve my quailty of life. Thats what really matters. isn&#39;t it.?

[RealitY]

Aha, an IDEALIST.

Though do you consider youself a THIEF?
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

Hmmmmmmmm...

[mijj]

C&#39;mon, REALITY - it&#39;s your duty as a responsible citizen to fileshare.

Corporations have become far too powerful. We need to take a stand. We need to take every opportunity to erode that power. We&#39;ve begun to accept the dictatorship by Corporations as natural - we need to shake off that feeling.

The principle of Corporate Personhood (where Corporations were granted human rights) was where it all went wrong. Corporations need to be put back in their place. They should be there to serve us. We shouldn&#39;t be in their service.

Corporate Personhood versus Democracy (http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html)
" ... That this idea has the force of law both resulted from the power and wealth of the class of people who owned corporations, and resulted in their even greater power and wealth. Corporate constitutional rights effectively invert the relationship between the government and the corporations. Recognized as persons, corporations lose much of their status as subjects of the government. Although artificial creations of their owners and the governments, as legal persons they have a degree of immunity to government supervision. Endowed with the court-recognized right to influence both elections and the law-making process, corporations now dominate not just the U. S. economy, but the government itself."

[RealitY]

Originally posted by mijj@22 May 2003 - 03:21
C&#39;mon, REALITY - it&#39;s your duty as a responsible citizen to fileshare.
Ok, I&#39;m convinced, IT&#39;S MY DUTY...

and I get free shit too, right?

Aha...

[sexxx]

hmmmm only in the USA would they say file sharing is socialist activity

sorry guys/gals but WHO cares

maybe usa could learn something from it like sharing with the poor souls that live in poverty
3 rd world conditions slums etc

you know the ones that can&#39;t afford to live or eat

yep I mean all the people that just couldn&#39;t get a break in life

THE POOR IN USA

hmm oh yueah that would be called sharing and socialist behavior naah we couldn&#39;t have that now could we LOL

now take on the day :)

[OlderThanDirt]

sexxx wrote:

maybe usa could learn something from it like sharing with the poor souls that live in poverty 3rd world conditions slums etc. you know the ones that can&#39;t afford to live or eat

Let me tell you a story. I&#39;m 53 years old. But, when I was a kid, a week wouldn&#39;t go by without seeing a whole host of commercials for "underpriveleged" agencies ... feeding the poor in, say, Africa or South America. And, these agencies would show heart-jerking photos of people living in squalor and deprivation. These agencies asked for money to help. And Americans gave, and gave, and gave, and gave ...

But, I can turn on my TV today and see updated versions of those very same commercials ... from the same agencies ... and the message hasn&#39;t changed. If 40 years of "sharing" with 3rd world countries hasn&#39;t fixed the problem, what will? And regarding the usa could learn something part, let me ask a question of everyone here. Name one other industrialized country in the world that gives as much (per capita) as we do to the poor in other countries? "USA could learn something" indeed (sheesh). It&#39;s comments like this that make people in the USA wonder if all their giving was for naught ... that no matter how much we DO give, it&#39;ll never be appreciated.

[Ad]

its so we don&#39;t have to pay for anything

[mijj]

Originally posted by REALITY+22 May 2003 - 06:26--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 22 May 2003 - 06:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--mijj@22 May 2003 - 03:21
C&#39;mon, REALITY - it&#39;s your duty as a responsible citizen to fileshare.
Ok, I&#39;m convinced, IT&#39;S MY DUTY...

and I get free shit too, right?

Aha...[/b][/quote]
Poor REALITY ...

He seems to be one of those guys who believes it&#39;s our duty as citizens of Corporate US to be willing slaves. (Corporate US intends to includes the entire world as its servile subject - whoever resists is a traitor.)

... if it feels good and we&#39;re not paying a corporation for the privilage, then we must feel guilt and shame. Isn&#39;t that right, REALITY?

... anyhooo ...

do your bit to grind away at those shackles ...

... fileshare&#33;

:D

[mijj]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@22 May 2003 - 09:43

sexxx wrote:

maybe usa could learn something from it like sharing with the poor souls that live in poverty 3rd world conditions slums etc. you know the ones that can&#39;t afford to live or eat

... and the message hasn&#39;t changed. If 40 years of "sharing" with 3rd world countries hasn&#39;t fixed the problem, what will? And regarding the usa could learn something part, let me ask a question of everyone here. Name one other industrialized country in the world that gives as much (per capita) as we do to the poor in other countries?

As long as there&#39;s a net gain for the West&#39;s enforced impoverishment and servility of the 3rd world, (with token charity to assuage guilt and somehow hint that it&#39;s "not our fault") - there will be poverty in the 3rd world.

[ToraBoraDweller]

I still know why I started filesharing &#33;
I&#39;m from Holland :a very densely populated country with one of the best
infrastructures and distributionnetworks in the world.
I simply felt ripped of by the recordstores when they were asking 20 euros
for a cd and about 45 euros for dvd&#39;s.
Compared to a lot of other countries this must be impossible and can only be caused
by price-fixing : so action causes reaction and I have no problems of being labeled as
an anarchist or thief (pot calls kettle black ?) :ph34r:

It&#39;s btw a shame that in the US the word socialism has such a bad ring ,sure there have
been bad examples in international history but then I feel ppl have been abusing
ideals for other reasons.
I&#39;d like to think of it as a dynamic concept :something to strive for even when mankind is not ready yet.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by mijj+22 May 2003 - 13:49--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mijj @ 22 May 2003 - 13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -REALITY@22 May 2003 - 06:26
<!--QuoteBegin--mijj@22 May 2003 - 03:21
C&#39;mon, REALITY - it&#39;s your duty as a responsible citizen to fileshare.
Ok, I&#39;m convinced, IT&#39;S MY DUTY...

and I get free shit too, right?
Poor REALITY ...

He seems to be one of those guys who believes it&#39;s our duty as citizens of Corporate US to be willing slaves. (Corporate US intends to includes the entire world as its servile subject - whoever resists is a traitor.)

... if it feels good and we&#39;re not paying a corporation for the privilage, then we must feel guilt and shame. Isn&#39;t that right, REALITY?

do your bit to grind away at those shackles ...

... fileshare&#33;[/b][/quote]
You RETARD, I&#39;m being sarcastic...
Hope you are as well...

Read the whole post.

1. I Share
2. I Feel No Guilt
3. I Have Many Reasons
4. I Am Not In Denial
5. It Is Against The Law
6. We Are All Mostly Thieves By Law

[RealitY]

Originally posted by sexxx@22 May 2003 - 07:44
maybe usa could learn something from it like sharing with the poor souls that live in poverty
3 rd world conditions slums etc

you know the ones that can&#39;t afford to live or eat

yep I mean all the people that just couldn&#39;t get a break in life

THE POOR IN USA

hmm oh yueah that would be called sharing and socialist behavior naah we couldn&#39;t have that now could we LOL
Sorry but...

STFU

[Allende1973]

If 40 years of "sharing" with 3rd world countries hasn&#39;t fixed the problem, what will? And regarding the usa could learn something part, let me ask a question of everyone here. Name one other industrialized country in the world that gives as much (per capita) as we do to the poor in other countries? "USA could learn something" indeed (sheesh). It&#39;s comments like this that make people in the USA wonder if all their giving was for naught ... that no matter how much we DO give, it&#39;ll never be appreciated.

Name one other country that TAKES as much as the USA. The West treated Africa as it&#39;s own personal war arena, carved it up arbiterially, used the land for cash crops thereby fostering the dependancy that continues to this day, multi nationals still pay a pittence for raw materials and labour while exploiting Africa. The world economic and political institutions are weighted against Africa and pro-USA/Europe.
Against this, you really think your pitiful charity means a damn thing? Your 50 bucks a year might stop you having to think or worry about Africa, but every time you go to Wal-Mart and every time you vote, you are re-enforcing the system.
And thats without even mentioning the USA&#39;s activities in Latin America.
Sorry, but most in the world would be grateful if the USA/Europe did a lot less &#39;giving&#39; and do lot more to redress the systemic inbalance.

Yes I know this is nothing to do with filesharing :)

[RealitY]

Holy Shit...

This post is heading to the SHITTER in a hurry.

[Tyke]

Originally posted by REALITY@22 May 2003 - 17:59
Holy Shit...

This post is heading to the SHITTER in a hurry.
It made page 4 before going OT&#33; :lol:

That&#39;s not bad going really&#33;

[OlderThanDirt]

mijj wrote:

As long as there&#39;s a net gain for the West&#39;s enforced impoverishment and servility of the 3rd world, (with token charity to assuage guilt and somehow hint that it&#39;s "not our fault") - there will be poverty in the 3rd world.

... and ...


Allende1973 wrote

Name one other country that TAKES as much as the USA. The West treated Africa as it&#39;s own personal war arena, carved it up arbiterially, used the land for cash crops thereby fostering the dependancy that continues to this day, multi nationals still pay a pittence for raw materials and labour while exploiting Africa. The world economic and political institutions are weighted against Africa and pro-USA/Europe.
Against this, you really think your pitiful charity means a damn thing? Your 50 bucks a year might stop you having to think or worry about Africa, but every time you go to Wal-Mart and every time you vote, you are re-enforcing the system.
And thats without even mentioning the USA&#39;s activities in Latin America.
Sorry, but most in the world would be grateful if the USA/Europe did a lot less &#39;giving&#39; and do lot more to redress the systemic inbalance.

... and yada yada yada. Yup, everything in the world is the fault of the big bad USA. Where have I heard that diatribe before? Hell, most of the 3rd world was 3rd world even before the USA existed. And for every one of those countries we&#39;ve (ahem) exploited, let me just say this. For every resource we&#39;ve appropriated from a 3rd world country, there was someone in that country willing to sell it to us. This is a kind-of reverse logic from, for example, how countries deal with a drug problem. All the consternation and rage is directed against the "buyer" while countries are willing to overlook the transgressions of the "seller." OK, one more question. Name one country in the world ... ANY country ... that does things for another country for purely altruistic motives ... without expecting anything in return. Time to grow up and realize that everybody&#39;s in it for themselves (and that includes nations). And regarding the do lot more to redress the systemic imbalance part, when are other countries going to stop asking us to fix their problems and get off their hineys to try fixing their own? Really&#33;&#33;&#33; The USA is the only country that gets damned when we meddle in other people&#39;s affairs ... and damned if we want to stop meddling. Case in point (Saudi Arabia):

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/bok.gif


REALITY wrote:

Holy Shit...

This post is heading to the SHITTER in a hurry.

The topic, "Isn&#39;t Filesharing A Socialist Activity," was guaranteed to go off-topic, hehe, since one of the words in the topic was political. But, getting back on topic, I think that most people don&#39;t wake up in the morning and say, "Well, let&#39;s see who we can rip off today." I think filesharing, while theft is a big byproduct, is mostly done as a means of flipping the bird at authority (corporations and corporate-friendly law). And that isn&#39;t socialism, it&#39;s anarchy. :D

[mijj]

Originally posted by REALITY@22 May 2003 - 17:22
You RETARD, I&#39;m being sarcastic...
Hope you are as well...


:rolleyes:

Gee&#33;

I guess that makes you a retard too, huh?

:lol:

[mijj]

Yup, everything in the world is the fault of the big bad USA. Where have I heard that diatribe before? Hell, most of the 3rd world was 3rd world even before the USA existed.
... there&#39;s no need to exagurate, OlderThanDirt. We know the US is responsible for the criminal behaviour of the US. Slavery exported to the third world is one of the crimes. You&#39;re happy with that as long as you can blame someone else, but a lot of people aren&#39;t happy with that. So - there&#39;s no need to come out all petulant and outraged.

Smile - and the world will smile with you&#33; :D Hug a kitten, OlderThanDirt, you&#39;ll feel better for it.



And for every one of those countries we&#39;ve (ahem) exploited, let me just say this. For every resource we&#39;ve appropriated from a 3rd world country, there was someone in that country willing to sell it to us.


... oh&#33; I guess that&#39;s an admission by OlderThanDirt that the US is oppressing the third world for profit. The weasily getout being they asked the US to do it to them. (Is the US above manipulating local politics for the benefit of the US? hmmmm - I wonder what OlderThanDirt would say if he were still here amongst us? God bless his tormented soul. )

[OlderThanDirt]

mijj wrote:

We know the US is responsible for the criminal behaviour of the US.

We??? Who&#39;s WE?


Slavery exported to the third world is one of the crimes.

Are you suggesting the USA invented slavery? Thought that went all the way back to Biblical Egypt (at least).


You&#39;re happy with that as long as you can blame someone else, but a lot of people aren&#39;t happy with that.

Nah. I&#39;d only be happy if the blame is shared. We may be the Great Satan :P but there are plenty of other Satans to go around.


So - there&#39;s no need to come out all petulant and outraged.

I&#39;m neither. It just gets a bit tiresome to see all the finger-pointing in the USA&#39;s direction when there are many directions fingers need to point.


Hug a kitten, OlderThanDirt, you&#39;ll feel better for it.

I do ... every time I get a chance. Her name is Velcro.


I wrote:

And for every one of those countries we&#39;ve (ahem) exploited, let me just say this. For every resource we&#39;ve appropriated from a 3rd world country, there was someone in that country willing to sell it to us.


You replied:

... oh&#33; I guess that&#39;s an admission by OlderThanDirt that the US is oppressing the third world for profit. The weasily getout being they asked the US to do it to them.

Hmmm ... let&#39;s see if I understand your logic. I guess when I buy an apple from a grocer who&#39;s wants to sell me an apple, I&#39;m oppressing the grocer. I&#39;ll have to think about that :D the next time I go to the store.


Is the US above manipulating local politics for the benefit of the US?

Goodness, of course not ... nor are US politicians above manipulating local politics for their own benefit. But, that&#39;s what we have elections for ... to weed out the ones who aren&#39;t representing us properly.


hmmmm - I wonder what OlderThanDirt would say if he were still here amongst us?

Did I go somewhere? :P


God bless his tormented soul.

Hehe, if I believed in a God who could "bless" anything, I&#39;d ask God to bless something other than my soul (which, to my knowledge, is not tormented). The really tormented souls are those whose myopic vision of where blame lies won&#39;t let them see peripherally. But that&#39;s OK. The USA has been the world&#39;s whipping-boy for a long time and it probably won&#39;t change anytime soon.

Have a nice day&#33; :D

[J'Pol]

Well that seems to be that then.

File sharing is not socialist. It is not political in any way.

It&#39;s chaps getting stuff they want that they either can&#39;t find, cant afford, or just cant be arsed paying for.

Everything else is just so much smoke and mirrors.

[OlderThanDirt]

JPaul wrote:

Well that seems to be that then.

File sharing is not socialist. It is not political in any way.

It&#39;s chaps getting stuff they want that they either can&#39;t find, cant afford, or just cant be arsed paying for.

Everything else is just so much smoke and mirrors.

Sounds good to me, hehe. :lol:

[Allende1973]

For every resource we&#39;ve appropriated from a 3rd world country, there was someone in that country willing to sell it to us.

Well thats OK then, so long as there is a King/Chief/Leader who is willing to collaborate and sell out his people, why not? And you seriously think most people in Africa have a choice in who they sell to?


Time to grow up and realize that everybody&#39;s in it for themselves (and that includes nations).

Again, that must be OK then, why should we try and improve anything? What right do we have to criticise?


And regarding the do lot more to redress the systemic imbalance part, when are other countries going to stop asking us to fix their problems and get off their hineys to try fixing their own? Really&#33;&#33;&#33;

I think you may have got a little over-excited here. Eithier that, or you really are telling Africians to get off their ass and sort themselves out


The USA is the only country that gets damned when we meddle in other people&#39;s affairs ... and damned if we want to stop meddling. Case in point (Saudi Arabia):

Dude, the only people that want a American presence in Saudi are the Saudi ruling elite.

[mijj]

OlderThanDirt - you seem to be getting hysterical in your defence of Corporate US&#39;s crimes.

Take it easy. Take some time off. Have a banana.

:)

[OlderThanDirt]

Allende1973 wrote:

Well thats OK then, so long as there is a King/Chief/Leader who is willing to collaborate and sell out his people, why not? And you seriously think most people in Africa have a choice in who they sell to?

And assuming they didn&#39;t have a choice, do you mean we shouldn&#39;t buy from their leaders? Certainly you&#39;re not suggesting we invade countries to liberate them ... are you? Yes, ultimately the people do have a choice. Rebellions in Africa over the years are a testament to the people who choose to stand up to dictators. The same is true in South America.


Again, that must be OK then, why should we try and improve anything? What right do we have to criticise?

Nothing wrong with improvement or criticism. It just irks me to see people who think that failure to improve society&#39;s lot falls exclusively on the doorstep of the USA.


I think you may have got a little over-excited here. Eithier that, or you really are telling Africians to get off their ass and sort themselves out.

Not over-excited at all, just realistic. And I didn&#39;t say "Africans" (referring to people), I said "countries." The desert tribes in Kenya, for example, have been on one aid program or another since I was a child ... long before massive development encroached on their homelands. And in their culture, they have only one form of "social security" ... having children who, in theory, will look after their well-being when they grow old. So, when we give them aid and they regain their health, guess what? They have more babies ... who later fall into the aid program cycle, regain their health, and have even more babies. Where&#39;s the government of Kenya while all this is going on? Should the US invade them to fix their "social security" problem? Should we require forced sterilization in exchange for our aid so that the cycle finally stops? If we took such direct actions, we&#39;d be seen as interfering in their culture. And if we don&#39;t, our aid is chastised as not enough. Damned if we do. Damned if we don&#39;t.


Dude, the only people that want a American presence in Saudi are the Saudi ruling elite.

... and the first King Faisal ruled back in the early 1900s, long before the US even imported a drop of oil from any country. Are you suggesting they&#39;ll like their ruling elite more when American presence ends? The Saudis have hated their ruling elite for a long, long time ... and it has nothing to do with America. It has everything to do with the royal family being a bunch of playboys and drunkards ... lifestyles THEY chose to live without anybody&#39;s help.


mijj wrote:

OlderThanDirt - you seem to be getting hysterical in your defence of Corporate US&#39;s crimes.

I&#39;m not hysterical, you&#39;re a bad reader. I freely admitted that the USA was the Great Satan. Does that sound like a defense to you? All I&#39;m suggesting is that there are a lot of "lesser" Satans out there who must share the blame for problems in this world.


Take it easy. Take some time off. Have a banana.

You take it easy, too, see an optometrist, and eat lots of carrots. :D

[Switeck]

He said it best:

Originally posted by JPaul@23 May 2003 - 09:16
Well that seems to be that then.

File sharing is not socialist. It is not political in any way.

It&#39;s chaps getting stuff they want that they either can&#39;t find, cant afford, or just cant be arsed paying for.

Everything else is just so much smoke and mirrors.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by mijj+23 May 2003 - 14:07--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mijj @ 23 May 2003 - 14:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--REALITY@22 May 2003 - 17:22
You RETARD, I&#39;m being sarcastic...
Hope you are as well...


:rolleyes:

Gee&#33;

I guess that makes you a retard too, huh?

:lol: [/b][/quote]
Thats based on the idea that I called you RETARDED because you may have been being sarcastic, which is false. Thus if you were being sarcastic, I would not consider you to be RETARDED, thus by your RETARDED analogy I wouldn&#39;t be RETARDED either. Though it seems you were taking my comments seriously, and not being sarcastic, thus making us not the same, so then by your own analogy you are by deffinition RETARDED and I am not...

RETARD
<_< :rolleyes: :D :lol:

This was all based on you trying to analyze my opinions based on a sarcastic comment I made in humor, apperently you were RETARDADLY confused. You said "poor REALITY" and then went on to say that I feel guilty blah blah... which was inaccurate as I stated. Apperently you needed an example to vent and chose me, without using your RETARDED brain...

RETARD
<_< :rolleyes: :D :lol:

[RealitY]

Originally posted by mijj@23 May 2003 - 14:22

Yup, everything in the world is the fault of the big bad USA. Where have I heard that diatribe before? Hell, most of the 3rd world was 3rd world even before the USA existed.
... there&#39;s no need to exagurate, OlderThanDirt. We know the US is responsible for the criminal behaviour of the US. Slavery exported to the third world is one of the crimes. You&#39;re happy with that as long as you can blame someone else, but a lot of people aren&#39;t happy with that. So - there&#39;s no need to come out all petulant and outraged.

Smile - and the world will smile with you&#33; :D Hug a kitten, OlderThanDirt, you&#39;ll feel better for it.



And for every one of those countries we&#39;ve (ahem) exploited, let me just say this. For every resource we&#39;ve appropriated from a 3rd world country, there was someone in that country willing to sell it to us.


... oh&#33; I guess that&#39;s an admission by OlderThanDirt that the US is oppressing the third world for profit. The weasily getout being they asked the US to do it to them. (Is the US above manipulating local politics for the benefit of the US? hmmmm - I wonder what OlderThanDirt would say if he were still here amongst us? God bless his tormented soul. )
Do you have some SICK need to twist the words of others and fill in blanks that are not there so you can vent, or are we all just bad guys to you, maybe you have issues with you father or an unhappy childhood, or maybe your boss at work treats you like shit, I dunno.

I am very sorry to say you are a poor addition to this forum, since you find time to vent on those here based on statements not even made but that you have assumed.

[Rat Faced]

The place for this type of debate is in the Lounge now..............


Cant think why anyone would want to blame Corporate USA for anything.

I mean why would anyone blame an entity that will do anything to improve "The Bottom Line".......



But why are people concentrating on USA for this criticism, apart from the obvious fact that over 1/2 worlds GDP are in the USA. Other non-US companies are just as bad.

Anyone heard of BP?

They are responsible for a lot of deaths in certain countries....... :ph34r:

[OlderThanDirt]

JPaul wrote:

The place for this type of debate is in the Lounge now..............

Amen. The "Isn&#39;t Filesharing A Socialist Activity?" thread has apparently been resolved to everyone&#39;s satisfaction. Perhaps it&#39;s time to move this entire topic to the Lounge. Or (grin), maybe the forum crew could create a new area ... called Graveyard ... where topics that fall from grace languish "frozen" (allowing no new posts) as an example of much ado about nothing, hehe.


Anyone heard of BP?

Have you ever heard the Genesis song, "Dancing With The Moonlit Knight?"


Lyrics excerpt:

Follow on &#33; With a twist of the world we go
Follow on &#33; Till the gold is cold
Dancing out with the moonlit knight
Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.

Guess who the "Knights of the Green Shield" are (grin)?

[echidna]

why do americans from south of canada get so paranoid every time someone mentions politics
i figure that the netherlands has more to do with the filesharing situation than the USA
i just don&#39;t see any other situation where affluent people in the west share things like Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, which is supposed to be &#036;3999 [US], which is a freakin lot to share, are available over kazaa
when IBM buys up stock to let it rust in guarded dumps to keep the market for new hardware fresh, this is a radical action

[echidna]

Originally posted by REALITY@23 May 2003 - 03:22

1. I Share
2. I Feel No Guilt
3. I Have Many Reasons
4. I Am Not In Denial
5. It Is Against The Law
6. We Are All Mostly Thieves By Law
i can&#39;t do anything about the first 4 issues & you may be OlderThanDirt but get with the program G
your on the internet now, who&#39;s law? where? what enforcement? what treaties?

your not in kansas anymore toto
certain persons in the USA need to realise that swinging a mammoth cudgel doesn&#39;t make the whole world theirs
different places have different laws for different reasons
the internet isn&#39;t a place so there are no laws. only systems.

[clocker]

your on the internet now, who&#39;s law? where? what enforcement? what treaties?

Google search... you&#39;ll find lots...


your not in kansas anymore toto
True



certain persons in the USA need to realise that swinging a mammoth cudgel doesn&#39;t make the whole world theirs
Historically false




different places have different laws for different reasons


Yup.


the internet isn&#39;t a place so there are no laws. only systems.

Flawed logic...were that true, Internet kiddie porn would be legal.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 May 2003 - 11:31
The place for this type of debate is in the Lounge now..............


RF

Do us a favour, make sure it is in the Stunningly Condescending Room, it&#39;s decended into Mutual Intellectual Masturbation now.

In fact this one hasn&#39;t even gone that way. It&#39;s just cheap point scoring and debating technique.

We chaps in the lounge just like trivial or stupid subjects and having a laugh at each others expense. This is a wee bit too vitriolic.

[echidna]

Originally posted by JPaul+25 May 2003 - 07:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 25 May 2003 - 07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@24 May 2003 - 11:31
The place for this type of debate is in the Lounge now..............


RF

Do us a favour, make sure it is in the Stunningly Condescending Room, it&#39;s descended into Mutual Intellectual Masturbation now.

In fact this one hasn&#39;t even gone that way. It&#39;s just cheap point scoring and debating technique.

We chaps in the lounge just like trivial or stupid subjects and having a laugh at each others expense. This is a wee bit too vitriolic. [/b][/quote]
if people could post on topic for 5 minutes maybe, this topic could&#39;ve had half a chance
instead people with little opinion and many disparaging remarks turned it into cheap point scoring
mutual masturbation is far more fulfilling than this [you should find out what you&#39;re missing if this equates to masturbation for you]
if your speed is stupid and trivial then you should learn to but out, and allow people to discuss the topics of their choice

the downfall of this topic has everything to do with how it was pursued on the board and little to do with with the topic as it was set out

[hobbes]

Originally posted by echidna@24 May 2003 - 16:39
why do americans from south of canada get so paranoid
Filesharing is simply just breaking the law. If there were a pay service which could legally provide the same service, I would join and pay my dues. End.


Listen you egg laying mammal, I already told you why we refer to ourselves as Americans. Get over it already.

from http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act...1&t=30831&st=40 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=30831&st=40)

Why do we call ourselves Americans?

"United States of America" is a description of a relationship and a vague locale. At the time it was coined, it was probably a sufficient description. New World (the Americas)vs Old World (Europe).

So the issue is NOT, why do we call ourselves Americans, but rather, why have we not named our country&#33;


It&#39;s so simple, it&#39;s not about attitude or swagger, but simply that "I&#39;m a United Stateser of America" sounds absolutely ridiculous. I&#39;m not saying it, no way.

Since we are the only country containing the continent name, "American" functions quite nicely.


I just noticed that your name is an anagram for "can hide" which is apt because you have actively concealed your nationality from us.

[echidna]

hey hobbes how can i &#39;actively conceal&#39;? [we&#39;re on TCP/IP, and i just haven&#39;t told anyone who hasn&#39;t asked nicely. also i find all the pointed conjecture quite amusing]
i don&#39;t care what you call yourself i call people from germany german while they call themselves deutsch, am i wrong or are they?
you&#39;re repeating yourself anyway, i thought we had already discussed this [and there is no reason for me to comply with your desires]

[hobbes]

Originally posted by echidna@25 May 2003 - 04:09
hey hobbes how can i &#39;actively conceal&#39;? [we&#39;re on TCP/IP, and i just haven&#39;t told anyone who hasn&#39;t asked nicely. also i find all the pointed conjecture quite amusing]
i don&#39;t care what you call yourself i call people from germany german while they call themselves deutsch, am i wrong or are they?
you&#39;re repeating yourself anyway, i thought we had already discussed this [and there is no reason for me to comply with your desires]
Echidna you are repeatly violating my arbitrary rules, virtually admitting that you have WMD. Intervention may be necessary if you do not surrender to me.

But really, you inferred some time back that our use of "American" was arrogant and that is why you make an issue of it. My post showed you how simple the explanation is, and how it has nothing to do with arrogance or superiority. Why continue to make an issue of it?

:ph34r: As to your identity, I think that revealing your ethnicity, religion or nationality, as they pertain to a discussion is helpful in allowing the reader to "see where you are coming from". :ph34r:

This forum is about discussing or discovering the truth, not about winning an argument. When people hide relevant information, it makes me wonder if they are presenting straw horses to conceal a secret agenda.

Anyway, I repeat myself, because I enjoy the sound of my own type. <_<

I personally think you are male, living in Australia (where else can you find an Echidna) but with Middle Eastern parents and religious influence(the symbol in your Avatar). You learned to speak English very young (your syntax is natural), indicating that you were probably born outside the homeland of your parents.

Actually I was joking about Australia, your use of English has a strong American influence. You could potentially live in the US, but your comments are more akin to an observer from afar. This places you in Europe somewhere.

I think you are left handed, single, over 30, and like long romantic walks in the park and post in the nude.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@24 May 2003 - 22:21


I think you are left handed, single, over 30, and like long romantic walks in the park and post in the nude.
Hobbes, you are scary...
http://www.lucky-numbers-analysis.com/images/crystal-ball.jpg

[echidna]

i discussed american self identification in another topic posted by another member on that topic
that is where that discussion belongs, and where i had discussed it
i started this topic to discuss something else but somehow we&#39;re back on this topic again


as to my identity

obviousness is unappealing to me
just because i don&#39;t have to ask doesn&#39;t mean that i wanted to know
[keep guessing if you want - some of them are good, some off the mark - why it is relevant is still not made clear, it might be helpful for you to contextualise and rationalise my position but that isn&#39;t relevance]
and since [as many posting in this topic have claimed] somehow filesharing is some international crime why would i want to identify myself?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by echidna@25 May 2003 - 06:20
i discussed american self identification in another topic posted by another member on that topic
that is where that discussion belongs, and where i had discussed it
i started this topic to discuss something else but somehow we&#39;re back on this topic again


as to my identity

obviousness is unappealing to me
just because i don&#39;t have to ask doesn&#39;t mean that i wanted to know
[keep guessing if you want - some of them are good, some off the mark - why it is relevant is still not made clear, it might be helpful for you to contextualise and rationalise my position but that isn&#39;t relevance]
and since [as many posting in this topic have claimed] somehow filesharing is some international crime why would i want to identify myself?
do you like dodge ball?

Yep, the relevance is obvious.

You are bobbing and weaving.

Don&#39;t you understand intellectual honesty?

Your post is jabberwocky, you know that too, quit hiding, you coward. You don&#39;t want to identify yourself because filesharing is illegal, cut the crap&#33; I have identified myself, I lead by example.

If there is a relevant post, please link it. Am I supposed to search all the threads for this "American self identification"?

Really, don&#39;t piss on my foot and tell me it is raining, you are too smart for this. I am insulted by your post.

[echidna]

now that&#39;s both of us insulted, touche.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by echidna+24 May 2003 - 16:51--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 24 May 2003 - 16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--REALITY@23 May 2003 - 03:22

1. I Share
2. I Feel No Guilt
3. I Have Many Reasons
4. I Am Not In Denial
5. It Is Against The Law
6. We Are All Mostly Thieves By Law
i can&#39;t do anything about the first 4 issues & you may be OlderThanDirt but get with the program G
your on the internet now, who&#39;s law? where? what enforcement? what treaties?

your not in kansas anymore toto
certain persons in the USA need to realise that swinging a mammoth cudgel doesn&#39;t make the whole world theirs
different places have different laws for different reasons
the internet isn&#39;t a place so there are no laws. only systems. [/b][/quote]
Fist, you have quoted me, not OTD.

Second, that post was a responce to another idiot.

Also, IT IS ILLEGAL, though to what extent they can pursue us remains to be seen. I live in the US, and in addition most coutries have similar copyright laws. Are you trying to say that if you have a copyright file in you shared folder and are uploading (considered distripution) it, that it is not illegal, shit whos living in Kansas? Have you somehow aquired the right to distribute those files. Why are ISP&#39;s sending out warnings. Maybe you live somewhere this does&#39;nt apply, but for most of us, it does. Have you heard of the DCMA for starters dreamer.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by echidna+25 May 2003 - 02:54--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 25 May 2003 - 02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -JPaul@25 May 2003 - 07:32
<!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@24 May 2003 - 11:31
The place for this type of debate is in the Lounge now..............


RF

Do us a favour, make sure it is in the Stunningly Condescending Room, it&#39;s descended into Mutual Intellectual Masturbation now.

In fact this one hasn&#39;t even gone that way. It&#39;s just cheap point scoring and debating technique.

We chaps in the lounge just like trivial or stupid subjects and having a laugh at each others expense. This is a wee bit too vitriolic.
if people could post on topic for 5 minutes maybe, this topic could&#39;ve had half a chance
instead people with little opinion and many disparaging remarks turned it into cheap point scoring
mutual masturbation is far more fulfilling than this [you should find out what you&#39;re missing if this equates to masturbation for you]
if your speed is stupid and trivial then you should learn to but out, and allow people to discuss the topics of their choice

the downfall of this topic has everything to do with how it was pursued on the board and little to do with with the topic as it was set out [/b][/quote]
I opened my post by referring it to a mod, so it was quite obviously aimed at him. It was also, given the content and context intended as being homourous. I even had a blatant pop at myself.

So you butt out, possibly also learn to spell. Particularly when you chose to be a self-important arse.

The topic is not important, it is based on a stupid and frankly insulting (to socialists) premise. It is no more than a device for debate.

Take it outside.

[sexxx]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@22 May 2003 - 09:43

sexxx wrote:

maybe usa could learn something from it like sharing with the poor souls that live in poverty 3rd world conditions slums etc. you know the ones that can&#39;t afford to live or eat

Let me tell you a story. I&#39;m 53 years old. But, when I was a kid, a week wouldn&#39;t go by without seeing a whole host of commercials for "underpriveleged" agencies ... feeding the poor in, say, Africa or South America. And, these agencies would show heart-jerking photos of people living in squalor and deprivation. These agencies asked for money to help. And Americans gave, and gave, and gave, and gave ...

But, I can turn on my TV today and see updated versions of those very same commercials ... from the same agencies ... and the message hasn&#39;t changed. If 40 years of "sharing" with 3rd world countries hasn&#39;t fixed the problem, what will? And regarding the usa could learn something part, let me ask a question of everyone here. Name one other industrialized country in the world that gives as much (per capita) as we do to the poor in other countries? "USA could learn something" indeed (sheesh). It&#39;s comments like this that make people in the USA wonder if all their giving was for naught ... that no matter how much we DO give, it&#39;ll never be appreciated.
Man I&#39;m late

well so much being scarcastic any more (and being able to spell that word)

I only meant to make two points

1) in a true democrap (oops) state (country) freedom of speach means a right for all even if its against some majoritys freedom of speach (or paranoid version of such)

2) 3rd world conditions exist in the us of a and till that problem is solved then worry about the rest of the world

hmmmm oh yeah then again that would be socialist behavior won&#39;t it :)

Can&#39;t have that cus socialist&#39;s are not alowed in the great free country of USA

hmm and yes this was about filesharing wasn&#39;t it sorry about this last reply