“BitTorrent Sites Are Like Drug Dealers” - DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts

Ladybbird · 24-08-12, 22:40

Posted: 24 Aug 2012

Earlier this month the U.S. Government’s public consultation on the future of U.S. IP enforcement closed.

We already covered a few responses including those from the RIAA, MPAA and RapidShare. However, there are still a few gems that we haven’t mentioned.

The submission of Norwegian songwriter and producer Sigurd Rosnes is a good example. Rosnes apparently is a TorrentFreak reader, because the 10 “illegal search-engines” he mentions in his filing are take directly from our torrent sites top 10.

But Rosnes is no fan of these sites, to say the least.

The musician tells the Government that these sites (and ISPs) can be equated to drug dealers, and that shutting them down is the only solution to the piracy problem.

An interesting take, especially when you consider how successful the war on drug in the U.S. has been.....

Rosnes’ full comments are listed below.

—

Quote:

“We need to address the real problem: That is the illegal search-engines like The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, Kickass Torrents, IsoHunt, BTJunkie, Extra Torrent, Demonoid, EZTV, Bitsnoop, 1337x, etc. (there are lots of them).”

“Here you can steal as much as you want to without paying a dollar! If we want to protect intellectual property on the internet we have to make rules that apply to everyone. If it is illegal to download intellectual property, we need to make it illegal for people to provide that service.”

“Like with drugs, society try to stop the dealers and the people behind who are making all the money, not just the users who will continue using it, as long as some people provide it… ”

“If Target or Best Buy did not lock their stores at night, people would walk in and take whatever they could carry…Right now intellectual property has NO protectors. Ordinary people (and more important, the new generation) learn through lack of laws and action against illegal search engines, that intellectual property is free and you can access it with a “click on the mouse”.”

“They learn to not see the “creators”; the creative people that are not rich or extremely successful. The people who try to live from the art they make….”

“All the customers or users see, is the multi-national corporate, like the record labels, movie companies or the internet providers. And they all think those companies has earned enough though the years…”

“So we should do the right thing: Ban all illegal search engines, and stop (yes, take action against) these sites from ruining the intellectual property on a world wide scale.”

“Lets start with the US. Lets close down illegal sites and let them know that they are the real enemy. Not the users. Not the record labels or the movie companies. And to do that, you will need to make the internet providers responsible for their content. Make the dealer responsible for what he is selling…”

photostill · 27-08-12, 19:11

Another idiot that thinks because he made something he has a right to payment for the rest of his life. Yet real life says otherwise. A mechanic gets paid for the job. If the repair continues to work, long after you've left the mechanic, you don't continue to owe him for the job.

The purpose of copyright is not to provide a payment for the rest of your life. It's to promote the creation, not to stymie it with an, "I don't need to create more" sense of entitlement.

The real problem is not search engines. People look for what they seek. Search engines have nothing to do with anything other than that. Those engines this musician complains about contain no infringing material. However, what he's really saying as the end result of this tirade, is that he wants the internet shut down. After all, the internet does not work without links.

Then there is the issue of what's infringing? Supposedly by the ideas of the IP maximalists, you should just know. It doesn't work that way and never has. The only sure fired way that has come up to determine what is and is not infringing is a court of law. There's a site on the net that attempts to tell you what is and is not owned music. Even they have troubles coming up with the answers to that and it's all they do. But some how, some way, you should just be able to wave a magic wand and everyone know.

The idea of using illegal drugs as the example to compare to this is at best a very poor one. You can't overdose on file sharing. No one gets killed in the neighborhood if you play a song you got over the internet. No massive amounts of money gets transferred off somewhere offshore over it.

At best this idea that file sharing is illegal is another red herring that the IP owners want to be criminal in nature to send people to jail over. Now you want to talk about getting an education, yep, send file sharers to jail and see what they come up with when they get out. Good idea, fart blossum.

I am amazed at the sense of self importance and self entitlement that comes across with this article. Beyond being greedy and thinking he isn't getting enough, there's not much here. Well, here's another news flash for this idiot. No one in public signed any contract to buy at a set rate from some label. The musician did that. If he isn't getting paid enough, he's looking in the wrong place for more money. Being the pet monkey isn't earning him a dime more than he makes now.

Maybe, just maybe, he oughtta be talking to Target and Best Buy about how much they pay the labels for those goods. I'd suggest he'd have better results there than ranting in public over things beyond his control. Before you get too far in this business of talking to Target and Best Buy, you should remember that Walmart told the labels, sell it to us for this price or we'll drop your product from our stores. While Walmart doesn't depend on the labels for it's main business the same isn't true when you turn the equation around. The main labels would see this as a disaster.

It's been the stance of the protection industries that the public needs to be informed so that they learn. Here's another news flash. None of the public who go to file sharing sites, is searching for the store to buy it at. Instead they are shopping for something that might appeal to them because they can't hear it on the radio. There's no place else to try it out to see what might appeal. Many survies have turned up the surprising results of file sharers being the very best customers music labels have. It's free advertisement in lower quality than if they bought it. So this means also that if this idiot has his way and gets his wish, he's liable to see a major drop in income. Between not being known or being known well enough to be popular, guess which brings in less money?

We should do the right thing alright. If you think these artists are bitching now, wait till future trends hit the market. Young folk have now have very little interest in TV and music. Guess where that is going to take the market in 20 years?

Good luck with finding the real enemy while wearing all those blinders. I doubt he could, standing in a room full of major label executives.

27-08-12, 19:11	#2
photostill The Enigma Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 9,977 Thanks: 3,009 Thanked 1,524 Times in 928 Posts	Re: “BitTorrent Sites Are Like Drug Dealers” Another idiot that thinks because he made something he has a right to payment for the rest of his life. Yet real life says otherwise. A mechanic gets paid for the job. If the repair continues to work, long after you've left the mechanic, you don't continue to owe him for the job. The purpose of copyright is not to provide a payment for the rest of your life. It's to promote the creation, not to stymie it with an, "I don't need to create more" sense of entitlement. The real problem is not search engines. People look for what they seek. Search engines have nothing to do with anything other than that. Those engines this musician complains about contain no infringing material. However, what he's really saying as the end result of this tirade, is that he wants the internet shut down. After all, the internet does not work without links. Then there is the issue of what's infringing? Supposedly by the ideas of the IP maximalists, you should just know. It doesn't work that way and never has. The only sure fired way that has come up to determine what is and is not infringing is a court of law. There's a site on the net that attempts to tell you what is and is not owned music. Even they have troubles coming up with the answers to that and it's all they do. But some how, some way, you should just be able to wave a magic wand and everyone know. The idea of using illegal drugs as the example to compare to this is at best a very poor one. You can't overdose on file sharing. No one gets killed in the neighborhood if you play a song you got over the internet. No massive amounts of money gets transferred off somewhere offshore over it. At best this idea that file sharing is illegal is another red herring that the IP owners want to be criminal in nature to send people to jail over. Now you want to talk about getting an education, yep, send file sharers to jail and see what they come up with when they get out. Good idea, fart blossum. I am amazed at the sense of self importance and self entitlement that comes across with this article. Beyond being greedy and thinking he isn't getting enough, there's not much here. Well, here's another news flash for this idiot. No one in public signed any contract to buy at a set rate from some label. The musician did that. If he isn't getting paid enough, he's looking in the wrong place for more money. Being the pet monkey isn't earning him a dime more than he makes now. Maybe, just maybe, he oughtta be talking to Target and Best Buy about how much they pay the labels for those goods. I'd suggest he'd have better results there than ranting in public over things beyond his control. Before you get too far in this business of talking to Target and Best Buy, you should remember that Walmart told the labels, sell it to us for this price or we'll drop your product from our stores. While Walmart doesn't depend on the labels for it's main business the same isn't true when you turn the equation around. The main labels would see this as a disaster. It's been the stance of the protection industries that the public needs to be informed so that they learn. Here's another news flash. None of the public who go to file sharing sites, is searching for the store to buy it at. Instead they are shopping for something that might appeal to them because they can't hear it on the radio. There's no place else to try it out to see what might appeal. Many survies have turned up the surprising results of file sharers being the very best customers music labels have. It's free advertisement in lower quality than if they bought it. So this means also that if this idiot has his way and gets his wish, he's liable to see a major drop in income. Between not being known or being known well enough to be popular, guess which brings in less money? We should do the right thing alright. If you think these artists are bitching now, wait till future trends hit the market. Young folk have now have very little interest in TV and music. Guess where that is going to take the market in 20 years? Good luck with finding the real enemy while wearing all those blinders. I doubt he could, standing in a room full of major label executives. __________________ You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account. & Thank you for helping us. Click;

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)