...

"You gonna foot the bill?
And then...where do we put
the rapists and murderers?
The jsils would be pretty
full of jay-walkers,
rolling-stoppers, and
file-sharers"

...

In most states, jay-walking and stop sign violations are
non-criminal traffic offenses. In no states are these
felony offenses !

This is not the forum to discuss penology.

Your favorite rodent has invited you (any of you) wishing
to discuss this to come to Bro. Rat's forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/New_Geneva/

But, in capsule, it's more expensive for society NOT to
incarcerate criminals.

Crime costs far more than prisons.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

LMAO...

In no states are these
felony offenses !

Neither is Copyright Infringement....

Copyright infringement can be a felony offense if you are selling the copyrighted material.

Sorry, thought we were discussing File Sharing of copyrighted material. ;)

Somewhere else on the internet: http://tweakers.net/nieu...de-adres-als-Brein.html

1. The judge turns out to be part of the management team of a association for copyright (since 1988).
2. This association has the same address as "Dutch anti-piracy organization BREIN".
3. Which phone is being answer by "Buma/Stemra" which is anti-piracy and one of the founder fo "BREIN".
4. Judge claims that she is no longer part of the association for copyright, but is still registered so at the chamber of commerce.
5. Judge also claims that is no longer part of "Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale".

Anybody found anything else?
(ps. Brein is not called an organization. it's called a foundation.)

Shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Big Media is buying US courts left and right, why wouldn't they branch out to other countries.

I guess that makes America not the only country with corrupt Judges.

This guy should not have been making any ruling on this case. Thats like letting the MPAA play Judge. (well they probably already do that).

...

"I was merely pointing out
that the Rat seems to think
it is *more* important"

...

The PC Rat never addressed the issue of "property
crimes" vs. "intellectual property crimes".

~That~ was PC_Tools' imagination !

But, as a matter of fact, your fav rodent believes
that ALL thieves should go to jail.

Some jail time ought be included in the sentencing
for ~every~ felony conviction (and most non-traffic
misdemeanor convictions).

PC_Tool was just guessing what the PC Rat's
position might be.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

"Some jail time ought be included in the sentencing
for ~every~ felony conviction (and most non-traffic
misdemeanor convictions)."

Wouldn't be very practical. The costs of correctional institutions will be sky-rocketing and bussinesses will have to miss employees all the time.

You did not specify, so I merely used your lack of such to point out reality.

It's a nice place to visit once in a while.

As for sending all felony convicts to jail, *great*!

You gonna foot the bill? And then...where do we put the rapists and murderers? The jsils would be pretty full of jay-walkers, rolling-stoppers, and file-sharers.

...

Everyday more bad news for the file-sharing
crooks !

They're gradually -but progressively and
inexorably- being rounded up and packed off
to prison to pay their debt to society.

"Share a file / Go to jail !"

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Love it!

Share a file, go to jail!

Steal a CD or cell phone and get a fine...maybe a little community service, if you're unlucky.

Yeah. You got your priorities straight.

Not defending piracy, but lets use a little perspective here, eh?

Material/Physical merchandise is more important than non-material merchandise? A software you invent, it took you hours to create. You sell 1 copy to a company. Maybe its 1000 dollars. Wouldn't you expect to keep getting paid for your work?

Just because we don't have a way to clone phones YET.. its ok to simpy share music (because you aren't profiting) but not TAKE a phone? So its ok that someone clones your phone number and starts using your account to make long distance phone calls?

You have to pay your mobile bill, and an artist has to feed their family. You can get the charges removed, but an Artist FOREVER loses income because their songs are shared inifinity times?

I never said it was *less* important.

I was merely pointing out that the Rat seems to think it is *more* important.

Dude, please read my comments instead of just flaming them.

You can *plainly* see I made no judgement whatsoever as to which, if any, should recieve a tougher penalty. Frankly, I knew you'd blow it out of proportion if I did, hence my act of purposefully leaving it out.

I see now how much good it did me...

Oh lord, I didn't flame you.

But my comments are not as much directed at YOU as they are to some other fool that wants to argue for file sharing..

That's all I meant. Sorry man, I need to quit using your posts to argue my point, you always bring up good points so I seize the moment..

"and that's another thing..." mentality.. not "are you an idiot? you are wrong..." stance.

Wow... you sound real "enlightened". You know, maybe people should go to jail for, oh, say, outing a CIA agent or spying illeagl on people, but for this? Come, on. All you're doing is increasing the police state industrial complex. You'd have to round up the majority of every nation to lock them all away.. and for what? For not bending to the whims of the RIAA/MPAA? Big Entertainment, like Big Oil, are corrupt institutions.

And how is that "foolish"?

because, you are STEALING property. Just because you can justify it, doesn't make it right.

Would you want someone giving away your hard work for free?

...

"Steal a CD or cell phone
and get a fine...maybe a
little community service,
if you're unlucky.
Yeah. You got your
priorities straight."

...

When did your favorite rodent ~ever~ say stealing
ANYTHING should result in a fine and/or community
service ?

We got so much stealing ~because~ there's no real
punishment anymore !

Steal a file, steal a CD, steal a cell phone
...and you need some jail time.

Fear of incarceration is the only thing with much
deterrent effect.

This ain't the place for in-depth discussion of
penal theories, but anyone wanting to follow-up
can do so on the PC Rat's forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/New_Geneva/

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Well, just a technacality but you have to deprive the owner of the item in order for it to be considered theft.

Now, I've published software before, and people have copied my software without paying, and guess what, I didn't care. If my software is that good they won't pay for it, then the free advertising I get is worth the loss of a few licenses. (And it was)

...

"Oh lord, I didn't
flame you"

...

PC_Tool thinks ~he~ is the only one to flame
anybody, make personal attacks, etc.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

...What Frozen.One said.

When did your favorite rodent ~ever~ say stealing
ANYTHING should result in a fine and/or community
service ?

never said you did. That was *my* response to what *you* said.

Reading comprehension is your *friend*.

Since the rest of your post is based on that fault, I'll ignore it. Especially the 'favorite rodent' part. I'd likely die laughing. ;)

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Didn't a few of your recent posts get modded down?

Funny how that's only happened to me when b****ing about how certain articles ended up on BN.

:)

...just sayin'.

good post,

if only more people would realize this

Not to mention the fact that Copyright Infringement currently carries *no* criminal penalties.

It's a civil offense, tried in civil court. It's good and bad. It won't damage one's record, but the requirement for proof is much less, and the defendant must prove innocence. No "innocent until proven guilty" here.

Call it RIAA's playground, if you will.

(Note: The above applies to US courts, not Dutch.)

(NoteNote: I am suprised I haven't seen an Austin Powers quote here yet.)

The defense is kind of lame, don't you think? "We have links to hundreds of MP3s that you want! Just don't click on them, because they're illegal, mmkay?"

i can teach you how to build a bomb, just don't do it, cause it's illegal, ok?

should this information be banned too?

why should the internet site be held accountable for what users do with the info?
prosecute the people who are taking the music, not the site for posting it.
is a physical business guilty of breaking the law, for being robbed of copyrighted meterial?
of coarse not.
so why should the site be accountable for it's visitors actions?

like the saying goes, "don't shoot the messenger"

it's not what you are doing with the info, its not YOURs to do with in the FIRST place. That's the deal. You don't OWN the copyright to the song, therefore you don't have a right to distribute it, period.

That's what is going on. Its not any more complicated than that. Its not YOUR song, you didn't produce the music, so its not yours to do with as you will. It belongs to some other company. They have FULL rights.

Here is another analogy. Julia Roberts complained that people took a picture of her, without her permission. They then posted the picture on a website. The STAR wanted exlusive access to those pictures. STAR paid something like 1 million for the rights.

First question, you are the photographer, you are supposed to give ALL copies (originals, film if applicable) to STAR. Therefore its a transfer of ownership. Is that still your property?

Now we all know pictures can be copied. since STAR struck a deal with you the photographer for the pictures, Julia Roberts sued STAR because the pictures were unflattering and they weren't supposed to be taken in the first place.

The restaurant where the pictures were taken, prohibited taking pictures. So is this even Legal?

No, and NO!! The pictures were invalid, they were taken where Julia had ASSURANCE they couldn't take pictures.

So she sued STAR and the Photographer, and won.

Now, had those pictures been leaked on the internet (by someone at STAR) to make a few more bucks, and the pictures were to DESTROYEd, they became the property of Julia and STAR should have surrendered the pictures. So those pictures don't belong to the photographer, that employee at STAR that stole them, or whoeever downloaded them, but stuff like this happens. Just because *YOU* don't have a problem with it, and you were not involved in the financial deal, DOESN'T make it LEGAL.

That's what we are dealing with. Intellectual property. If you had an idea for cutting gas consumption in half, and someone else STEALS your idea, you could have earned millions for this idea, but instead, you got ripped off, wouldn't you be just a tad pissed off that you now can't prove it was your idea in the first place? You can never get credit for *YOUR* idea.

Music is the ownership of 2 people, and 2 people only. The ARTIST and the STUDIO (RIAA is ONLY the management company in charge of Artists rights). The ARTIST/STUDIO are the *ONLY* people that can dictate what happens to THEIR song. -PERIOD-

you can argue this until the cows come home, but it IS stealing and it IS wrong. The song is copyrighted you don't have a SAY in how it gets distributed, it's not *YOUR* music.

You have a talent for arguing by yourself... he didn't condone piracy, so put you gun back the holster.

maybe I was adding to his comments?

Arguing by myself.. hmm.. is that why I do it on a public forum, becuase I only do it serve myself? Wow, you shouldn't become a pychiatrist, you won't get any clients, because your assumptions jump to conclusions which are baseless.

"prosecute the people who are taking the music, not the site for posting it."

should have read:

"prosecute the people who are taking the music, not the site for posting links to it"

maybe shoulda clairified, they're not really hosting the files

"maybe I was adding to his comments?"

Maybe you went off on a tangent and became over zealous about it.

"Arguing by myself.. hmm.. is that why I do it on a public forum, becuase I only do it serve myself? Wow, you shouldn't become a pychiatrist, you won't get any clients, because your assumptions jump to conclusions which are baseless."

Maybe you do this in a public forum because you need a straw man, and it does appear to be somewhat self serving. The world is safe as I have no psychiatry plans, but for you I would suggest a career in juggling because you do have balls and you are entertaining.

lol
:-)

Really if we follow the analogy you're trying to make, Julia should have sued the restaurant for allowing her to be photographed. After all, it was a venue that had signage prohibiting photos (like this site prohibits downloading copyrighted material) yet they still allowed the photos to be taken.

The restaurant is the one to compare to this website - yet they had no liability in this case? :P It's a stupid argument either way, if you ask me.

The world is safe as I have no psychiatry plans, but for you I would suggest a career in juggling because you do have balls and you are entertaining.

That has got to be one of the funniest things I've read on here yet.

Thanks, man.

When all this crap started, many would post how they were happy they lived "in free countries, not the USA".

Money talks and speaks all languages.

Here in China there is a crackdown on IP violations of all kinds. A 15 year old market selling everything from fake Rolexes to 1 dollar DVDs is set to close next week.

It's a damn shame how the world has gotten greedy in recent years. And that I will blame on the US.

Yeah, whatever you do, don't blame it on human nature, or the lack of ethics and morals in today's global society... That'd be too close to the truth.

Let's just blame the US, they make a decent scape-goat.

Oh, you mean STEALING?
--->crackdown on IP violations of all kinds

IP violations do not deprive the owner of property.

Stealing something generally involves the loss of property.

...not defending it, just explaining that there *is* a difference.

*IP violations do not deprive the owner of property.*

Ah, but they do deprive the artist/owner of compensation. For EVERY song that is simply distributed on the internet, the Artist loses legitimate money for sale of that song.

Obviously you want the song, so why not legitimately PAY for that song?

I don't like paying 1 dollar for a song either, but certainly 5 cents a song is better than nothing. At least if ALL pirates, bit torrents, newgroups people that distribute these copyrighted materials, they aren't making a dime, but the artist isn't getting money for work THEY created.

Is that fair? Its ok to distribute material even though its not "taken" from the artist, but they don't get money for THEIR work? They own the copyright to the song. Each time you distribute the song further keeps the artists from getting even a very small compensation for their work. It becomes freely distributed.

MP3's are NOT freeware. Somenoe bought them, copied them somehow, and decided they would GIVE it away. It wasn't theirs to give, nor is it yours to give away either. Each time you share music, you are giving away material that isn't YOURS.

Its not depriving the owner of property that I have a problem with, its the lack of respect that people DON'T have for copyrighted material they don't OWN. And if you did BUY the CD, it grants you permission to that 1 copy and 1 copy *ONLY* of the song. It doesn't mean you can freely distribute it. That's not your call.

Oh yea, when was the last time china had an original idea? They STEAL everything, and WE are greedy?

You need to get your facts straight there RED chink.

you can't blame the USA because your country condones STEALING of merchandise. I suppose you think its ok to simply STEAL stuff just so you can have money to feed your 25 kids. buy a damn rubber, you dumb ass. Put that 1 dollar you sold the DVD for to good use.

Ah, but they do deprive the artist/owner of compensation. For EVERY song that is simply distributed on the internet, the Artist loses legitimate money for sale of that song.

BZZZT@!

Wrong.

For instance: A buddy of mine saw Cars at the theater last weekend. He just downloaded a high-quality TS of the movie.

Did he just cost Pixar money?

Nope. Not a dime.

When I download FLAC encodes of a song I have the CD for(because I can download it faster of the usenet than I can encode it on my PoS computer), I am not causing the artist any loss in compensation.

There are many other reasons where the artist either already has been, or would never have been compenstaed anyway.

Simply stating that *every* act of Copyright Infringement is a loss of revenue is a straight out, bald-faced lie.

As for it being fair, well...our state fair ain't 'til august. ;)

From what I understood of PC_Tool's comment, is that he was just explaining the difference between theft and IP violation as being (as described from the victim's point of view):

Theft : Loss of material (something physically tangible)

IP violation : Loss of possible revenue

Like he said, he was not *defending* it, just explaining that there was a difference.

Just saying...

Vla

*For instance: A buddy of mine saw Cars at the theater last weekend. He just downloaded a high-quality TS of the movie.

Did he just cost Pixar money?*

Not directly, but come on, if you can simply download the movie, why go the theater and pay for it? So in essence, YES you did starve ... Actually to be more to the point, its not Pixar you are taking the money from, but the local theater, because they ALREADY paid Pixar.. and Pixar gets a % of the ticket sales.. So if you can download it, and we become a society of people to just simply download stuff for free, why would we pay for anything from now on?

Why doesn't EVERYONE just do this? Because we won't EVER see another movie made ever again, that's why..

*When I download FLAC encodes of a song I have the CD for(because I can download it faster of the usenet than I can encode it on my PoS computer), I am not causing the artist any loss in compensation.*

How do you figure? you downloaded the song. Therefore they have no way to trace who currently has the songs, and no way to find out how much money they *COULD* have made from the sale of a song, which is obviated because YOU downloaded it. So if they didn't sell you the song, or the guy that you got it from, and 100,000 people that download it this week, you don't think they are missing a few dollars in there someplace?

C'mon be reasonable. The songs are downloaded for FREE, but they AREN'T FREE. There were promotions, sales, records, it COST money to promote it, but YOU got it for less than ZERO, because each successive distribution is further loss for that artist.

*There are many other reasons where the artist either already has been, or would never have been compenstaed anyway.*

So that justifies stealing? Theft by taking doesn't limit to physical merchandise. Software, even you can see the value behind "support" for a product. What about "support" for an artist? Where is the love for artists you supposedly like?

If your mother were a singer, and she were trying to make a living, would it be OK to GIVE her songs away to EVERYONE? How is she supposed to get paid? Let's start there.

artists get a % of sales. Maybe they negotiated a contract for 5% of ALL sales. 5% of FREE downloads is umm..let me see.. ZERO!

*Simply stating that *every* act of Copyright Infringement is a loss of revenue is a straight out, bald-faced lie.*

Well lets use mathematics to consider this point shall we?

Albums are sold. 10 bucks. I buy an album. I pay 10 bucks. I rip the CD. I post it to newsgroups. the artist, expecting to get "millions" due to the sale of their album, gets NOTHING.

The album continues to get distributed for free on the internet.. so where exactly is the money coming from? Its obviously NOT from consumers!

So if you develop software, you want to be "compensated" in this same manner? Do you expect to feed your family and take your wife out to dinner, on ZERO money?

Yeah..OK!

It's not unreasonable for people to simply PAY for merchandise, or shall we cal you Wynona Ryder?

Um... no, the RIAA deprives the artist/owner of compensation. Go to some music artist blogs, will, ya, to read their disatifaction with them. From Chuck D, and so on. Hell, TLC had some of the highest selling albums but had nothing to show for it for quite awhile wile the record companies got to cash in on that cash cow... the music artists are screwed, but not by the consumers.

That is just wrong. "IP violations" is not stealing. Even infringement is a civil matter not criminal.

Actually, the USA is stealing from China in the way the are trying to run the government.

OMG... did you just use a racial slur "chink"?

Uh... I'm not sure HOW to report someone on here, but that defiantly NEEDS reporting. You want to defend the RIAA aand then you go around and not only make personal attacks, which I though wasn't allowed, but then you call someone a racial epitath? Ya, you've pretty much lost ALL credibilty, you rascist.

"Ah, but they do deprive the artist/owner of compensation"

lol

they're not being deprived of anything except their own fantasies
the recording industry is currupt
they seem to have currupted you too

:-p

*OMG... did you just use a racial slur "chink"?*

DAMN SKIPPY! And I will do it again. Communist asia bas****s.

*Uh... I'm not sure HOW to report someone on here, but that defiantly NEEDS reporting.*

Fine report me, and that other retard Ed whatever his name is can blow me. Go ahead, probably be the first thing you EVER did to lift a finger.. At least I have to commend you on your "effort".

and I am not DEFENDING RIAA, you lame ass, I am attesting to the right of EVERYONE to make some money. Stealing musical masterpieces, even though you don't see it that way, is WRONG! If you had a band, and they wanted to sell their music on the street, I suppose its ok for me to stand near them and everytime someone hands them money, I say "NO! Just download it! Yeah, they don't need the money, distribution is cool!"

How would that make you feel?

I am not a racist, you communist sypathiser, did you even read his Anti-USA comments? Its ok for people to just slam the ENTIRE USA.. Yeah, whatever. Get out, you illegal alien.

BTW, I am a "naiontalist". I am not making fun of his race, because for all I know he could be a black chinese national, I just don't like people putting USA in one big category. WE are ALL different, and just because we choose to LIVe here doesn't make us ALL the same mindset.

Your threat doesn't frighten me, I hope you weren't going for some "weak ass" scare tactic.

forget the recording industry, see that's where your problem is.. you keep thinking this is limited to RIAA.

I don't like the RIAA, lets get that straight, I also don't think that starving artists should suffer right along with the RIAA.

And its copyright. Do you know what copyright is? It means it doesn't belong to you, because you don't own the rights. You may think that possession is 9/10ths of the law, well buddy boy, this is the 1/10, you can't distribute or give something away that isn't yours to begind with, or maybe you don't care about the law? Maybe you are some lawless moron that thinks they can do whatever, whenever they want.. just because its not "hurting" anyone..

I hope you make some software, or have an idea for invention, cause I am just going to take it.. then we will see how quickly your mood changes on stealing then, huh?

The RIAA isn't the one getting the dollar from every song. Artists get some money. I don't care what SOME artists think, they are like you .. the "man" is keeping them down. BS! They are just self indulgent losers that can't make good music, and they think the world owes them something. Nobody owns you a damn thing, you EARN it. But they can't even EARN it, because you people WON"T PAY for it. So how is anyone supposed to make money around here?

Riddle me this, if artists promote their music themselves, will you pay for the music then? I seriously doubt it, you will still find a way to b**** about how much it costs.. you want something for nothing, its the American way! someone else makes, I deserve it, therefore, I should get it for free!

Well its not free, its not yours, so quit distributing stuff that doesn't belong to you, and quit using it if you have a problem with it.

The RIAA promotes albums, yes they are greed, but if they are so bad.. why do artists keep using them?

Go ahead, I am listening.. this should be really nice to see the answer to this..

I already know the answer, because the RIAA has the power. They have the contacts, and they have the reputation to GET the artists on the map, that's why!.. And who the hell pays for this, huh? Evidently not you..

I guess that family of 6 in Idaho will have to support Chuck D and TLC then huh? If the RIAA can't promote music and get reimbursed for their sales and studio time, then what do you think that is going to mean to the artists? They will be on the street working at Burger King that's where.

If you want that, than keep freely distributing music. Screw the artists... DON'T EVER make a song, software, or offer your services, because what goes around, comes around. You don't get compensated for your work, fairly.. good. Because everyone else is paying for theft. That's just lovely. SOMEONE is paying them... thanks to people like you, this is why we continue to pay 15 dollars for an album, or why they sell it for 15 dollars..

This is just great, take the wrath of RIAA out on Artists.. that's brilliant!

yes. That's right. I saw it..

"I hope you make some software, or have an idea for invention, cause I am just going to take it.. then we will see how quickly your mood changes on stealing then, huh? "

is this your example of ethics?

keep leading eh

:-p

And you know what, I would actually care about the poor artist if copyright had a resonable term on it. But thanks to that media-wh*** Sonny Bono we don't have a public domain anymore.

Go cry me a river, its all about greed.

You must definetly have heard of China's one-child policy so your comment is nothing more than a racist personal attack.
Could you please die or something?!

1.) I never tried to justify it. If you *haven't* paid for the music / to see the movie, then you should *not* download it.

2.) The movie issue is touchy, but the point remains, and that is that not *every* download can be put up as a lost sale. It's just not true.

3.) How is myself downloading the FLAC different from ripping it myself from the CD (Which I own) to save time? How does that deprive the artist of income? I understand other folks can get it from the same newsgroup I did, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue, is whether or not *my* download counts as lost revenue.

3.) I merely pointed out *2* circumstances where downloading did not equate to a lost sale. Stretching that to "if everyone did it", or another "100,000" people download it. Thay are not the issue here.

The point, simply, is that in those *2* limited, sole instances, the industries in question were *not* deprived of revenue.

I *understand* that not paying for your music and movies is wrong, dude. You're preaching to the choir here. I am merely pointing out that "Each download equals lost revenue" is complete and utter BS. Hell, if they simply said "Most" instead of "Every", I'd be happy.

Think back to Junior High, man. Didn't they teach you that in almost *every* (notice the 'almost') situation using words like 'Every' and 'Always' is going to get you burned? Virtually nothing is 'Every' and 'Always'. Life would be *much* simpler if it was, but it just isn't the case.

/rant

or shall we cal you Wynona Ryder?

Only if I can call you Courtney Love.

ever heard all of it? such as rich people can pay the gov to have more children, and the poor just keep having them regardless, because they dont listen.

keep the prices high to compensate for ip violations(notice not stealing or theft, or even piracy as that word isnt correct either.) Brilliant!!!

lets pull more money out of the few people left who still believe in paying for muscic, brilliant!

bands i listen to charge $5 a cd on average, maybe ten for one with more than 15 tracks, and have no drm, yet time and time again we come back and buy their stuff. why? because we believe in them and they in turn dont gouge our wallets. and they dont whine like babies either. and i can proudly say EVERY single track i have ever downloaded i have bought the album within a week after, or even before, cause alot of times downloading is easier than ripping, or sometimes they are out of stock and im impatiant to listen to it.

Guess TPB has to move again....... hahaah

Yes, back to Sweden:
http://thepiratebay.org/blog.php?id=29

Looks like TPB is going to have to pull up stakes yet again. I wonder where they'll end up this time....

If I were TPB I'd set up shop in China or maybe Venezuela, well out off reach from the US authorities ;)

China's out due to the Great Firewall.

I guess that narrows it down.

that is why China isn't allowed to join the UN, for thinking just like that.

If China wants cooperation from USA for *ANYTHING* they must play by the rules. If they don't, they don't get squat.

Just because its OK for now to distributed illegal merchandise in China, doesn't mean that one day a new regime won't take over and put an end to it. Its still WRONG.

What I have a problem with, is that people ENCOURAGE wrong doing. I copy music and I buy some music, I can't afford to BUY every song I want, so I download them.. But I don't ENCOURAGE or SHARE my music. Someone else made the copy, but I don't further make it worse by passing it to someone else.

If China wants cooperation from USA for *ANYTHING* they must play by the rules. If they don't, they don't get squat.

Yeah...*that* must be why all of our businesses are going over there....

Well obviously they struck a deal to cooperate at least on SOME level..

and ALL businesses aren't going over there, only a scant few. Besides, if there is money to be made, they would hire drug dealers if they could, or the mob.. Its not about ethics, its about money.

but hey, steal from the mob one time.. see what they think about distributing drugs for free.. If you live more than 2 days, I would be very impressed.

"Its not about ethics, its about money."

that describes world economy pretty well, including US business
why do you single out china?
americans hide their misdeeds behind lawers and legalistics, but just as un-ethical

as the old saying goes..

"2 Wrongs don't make it right".

I am not saying we Americans are perfect or even just.. but someone needs lead by example...

"I am not saying we Americans are perfect or even just.. but someone needs lead by example... "

lol

That's true, I didn't think of that. Maybe North Korea is an option.

Erm, China has been a member of the UN since October 24th 1945, they even hold a perminent seat in the UN's Security Council.

I have to say that stealing is wrong. I have to agree that downloading something that is not yours is stealing and that If someone has a database that is their property and they own everything on that database because they backed up Music, software, games, and so to keep their investment safe (the things they own and paid for) should not be sent to prison or even fined for someone else taking their things. The website should be able to sue the person that downloaded (stole) from their website. And
also, is it stealing when a guitar player goes to the store and buys a CD then goes home and listens to it and in turn learns a song on his/her own by ear and then goes out to the park and plays that song they learned and someone throws them a nickel?
Bands play cover songs everyday and get paid to play it. (Playing songs that are owned by Artist and Music Producers.) The more popular the song the more popular the band that is getting paid to play in live in a bar. If I buy a CD and let a friend listen to it is that stealing also, or do I need to turn it off if someone comes over? Next thing you know you will get a ticket if someone next to you at a traffic light hears a CD your listening to in your car. And one more thing, how can you say stealing music is wrong when we all can listen to just about anything we want on the radio for free and then make it a crime if I record the music off the radio that was free to the public and then share it with a friend or 10 million friends that had the same free music playing on the radio. What it comes down to be is greed. Music artist and music producers are greedy. And in my opinion people should stop sharing music and DVD’s we should stop buying cd's and DVD’s. To stop all of the bs people should just wait until it comes out on HBO or the radio and then record what they want. Because they do pay for the service that makes it possible to watch or listen to these things. The fact is people all over the world can get what they want without stealing it or having to pay double for it. Just wait. Music artists like Metallica want to protect their Art. "Prosecute their fans for stealing their music". Well don't take it and don't buy it. Music artist don't play for their fans they play for money.

"is it stealing when a guitar player goes to the store and buys a CD then goes home and listens to it and in turn learns a song on his/her own by ear and then goes out to the park and plays that song they learned and someone throws them a nickel?"

No it is not stealing, but it is a copyright infringement. When a band plays a cover song in a bar they are supposed to pay royalties to the artist.

And do you really think they pay the Artist?
I know several bands and Not one that plays cover songs pays anyone. THEY GET PAID!
You can go to "mysongbood.com" and find that you can't even tab music yourself and share it with anyone. I am surprised that new artist can even play songs at all. Their are only so many notes in music. Soon these bands will be fights for people using notes they used in a song. I am not saying that downloading music is ok. I am just saying that the music and movie industry's are out of control.

If you mean the bands playing cover songs when you say "they", then no, I don't think they are paying the artists like they are supposed to. You proved the point made by those who feel the artist should be paid, when you said bands get paid for playing covers songs. In theory the artist should be compensated, but realistically it is rarely going to happen.