digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at torrentfreak.com

The Pirate Bay and Filesharers Backed by Swedish Politicians

torrentfreak.com — Two weeks ago we reported on Greens EFA launching the pro-filesharing campaign “I Wouldn’t Steal“. With new editorials in Swedish newspapers coinciding with The Pirate Bay’s charges, it seems the Green Party is looking to push the issue forward, thereby supporting The Pirate Bay.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -1/+22I could have sworn that they already did back them. This is nothing new.
    • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10Yes, the article states they did. This is just them stating they are STILL backing them up after the latest happenings. Swedish, Canadians, who's next? Step up, free files for average every-day consumers....
      • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Uh. I still don't understand how this is newsworthy, much less front page, much less front page of tech. Perhaps if The Green Party had STOPPED backing them, or they had gained another country and or parties influence, then sure. Otherwise this seems like same ol' same ol'.
    • CaviMike, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1The unspoken word.
  • ivosilva, on 02/09/2008, -8/+111No comments? Here it goes:

    ***** THE RIAA!!!
    • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -1/+20You got that right. ***** all those criminal organizations!

      How about investing some time and money to take the crack heads off the streets and make North America a better and safer place to live. Why not pay off peoples debt. Wasted money... Wasted.. RIAA, War on Drugs.. All wasted...
      • santaliqueur, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Make North America safer? We gotta clean up Canada and Mexico now?
        And I'm assuming you were joking about paying off peoples debt. Only a moron would suggest that.
        • SideShowMel0329, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2His principles were in the right place, but the details were stupid.
      • SSUK, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Oh right yeah, I forgot mention of drugs in a positive manner on the internet = instant cool.
    • kahrytan, on 02/09/2008, -5/+4I LOVE THE RIAA. I WELCOME THE RIAA OVERLORDS!
  • jcamp08, on 02/09/2008, -7/+7This is very good. Pirate Bay is going to be another step in internet downloading
    • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9??
      • EmperorAwesome, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3As in, the pirate bay vs. international copyright holder pressure will most likely set a precedent for the future legality of filesharing.
        • SlimFastForYou, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4And the most important precedent, which is US lawyers should not try to apply US laws to other sovereign nations. See Pirate Bay C&D letters.
        • Pixelante, on 02/10/2008, -2/+0If the copyright holders win it will set a precedent. If TPB wins, it will only be a short reprieve. The battle will not end until the media companies will have their victory and they WILL have it - they will buy it. And when they will have won, they will have won forever.
          • EmperorAwesome, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Do you hang around elementary schools and tell children they're adopted, too?
  • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -9/+26Why do average, every-day consumers need to pay for an operating system, or software titles for personal use? At least lower the damn price. Who in their right mind is goign to pay %600-$1200 for Photoshop to edit thier pictures? Especially students.... The Green Party is stepping in the right direction. Canada has ruled that personal file-sharing is legal, Get rid of the middle man where it's not needed.
    • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -2/+28Ahem.

      Linux. No, I'm not saying its superior, anything like that. You want free OS and software titles? There you have it.
      • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5You're right! Linux is awesome. But Linux is exactly the kind of license we want - free for personal use, but comes with a charge for business or corporate use (in most cases).

        We still need to give the community something in return, and businesses should pay for that.

        In most cases consumers aren't making money off of thier personal computers - so why pay for the software?
        • vibrokatana, on 02/09/2008, -0/+15No, Linux is free except if you want paid support. The GPL liscense has no clauses for commercial use.
        • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5In most cases, consumers aren't making money from their cars, so why do we still have to pay for engines? Surely we should just buy an empty shell on a chassis and get everything else free, including parts for life. And why are we still paying mechanics to fix them? And brake fluid, why do we pay for that?
          • HonoredMule, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2information != property

            But you are right, every consumer should be fairly expected to pay a price that covers cost of materials, manufacturing, and r&d (a cost which steadily diminishes as the investment is recouped), for software, media, OR property, and only be expected to pay high costs when the purchase will be invested into commercial use that will pay for itself, so that the provider can in turn invest in future development.

            That brings personal Photoshop 8 licenses up to what, 50 cents? CS3 for $80, and CS3 commercial for $600.

            Business-level license abuse is the only kind that can be even moderately controlled anyway, and short-term leniency usually pays off. Violating businesses either get rich and decide to start paying up, get rich and sued for their infractions for a hefty payoff, or stay small and either go unnoticed, out of business, or are very open to negotiating a fair licensing agreement. But most business just fork over the few hundred or thousand dollars needed here and there to operate legally. Everyday consumers have no natural incentive to live without tools like Photoshop (if they want it) OR pay $600 to get it, but many more could be persuaded to pay a SITUATIONALLY fair price for something they intend to acquire whether by purchase or not. Most open markets understand this and still allow bartering, if not openly using subjective pricing (charge what you think THIS customer will pay--I can't recall the economics term typically used).
          • mrspize, on 02/10/2008, -1/+0You see, therein lies the proble : the word 'think'. You actually want sales people to start having to think about their sale instead of the income? Actrually go back to "the customer is always right", "a fair deal" and "bargain" actually meant something, all the things that make your parent go googly-eyed? No reason it cant be so, but it does require people to start thinking. Imagine that?
        • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -3/+2I never said linux was awesome. I said it was free. For me, it's the biggest pain in the ass operating system you could ever wish for 3 days out of my week, minimum. Just looking at them wrong will cause X to crash.

          To borrow a line from Hustle & Flow : You want quality, Sparky, well, you gots to pay for that.
        • carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3That argument doesn't follow. The engine requires materials, just like the computer's hardware. You're analogy would have to be that you should be charged for the programming on your car's ECU, Radio, and anything else that isn't physical.
          • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I felt I was missing something too, but it's 7 in the morning and I didn't quite get there.
    • alpha94, on 02/09/2008, -3/+14There are alternatives to using Photoshop, even many free ones. That's a pretty poor arguement.
      • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1I never said there wasn't? How is that poor judgment? I was just stating that charging that much for a piece a software (that you could obtain an equivalent for free) is flat out ridiculous... Read before you comment...
        • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -3/+5No, you're saying you want everything for free and businesses should subsidise it by paying. Go ***** yourself.
        • cliffski, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3you moron. photoshop is used by proffesional graphics artists. its not to resize your flipping holiday snaps you idiot. the price is a clue. And how the ***** does this justify piracy?
        • Corman420, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2Umm.. Read the comment.. I said for the AVERAGE EVERYDAY CONSUMER. If you use the tool for a profit, then I'm about 99.9% sure that you would classify yourself as a business. As a consumer, wanting to use the tool, for my own personal use should be able to do that free-of-charge. I don't care that it's a tool for professionals, I would like to use it, and I should have that right without a fee. Linux has been doing this for years. Free for personal use, or pay for it if it's a business use. I dont see how thinking this way would classifiy me as a moron - it's been goign on for years. I love how kids on here always says the same old thing "idiot, go ***** yourself, moron" it's alwasy the same. How about rather than acting like a 5 year old, you give a constructive opnion.
          • Randinn, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1They won't because they can't...
          • cliffski, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Linux is freeware, photoshop is not, or are you too dense to understand the concept of the makers of stuff deciding how it is sold?
    • hotsoda, on 02/09/2008, -4/+23So you steal? I'm sorry, but if you don't want to pay $600 for Photoshop, buy Photoshop Elements. It's a program made for professionals who ultimately have the program pay for itself.

      Don't want to stomach the $400 MSRP for Vista Ultimate? There are OEM copies you can buy of Home Premium for $100. Still too much for you? Use Linux.

      File sharing can be perfectly legal. Copyright infringement is not.
      • SpyDerMann, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2Um... file sharing IS copyright infringement.
        • mrspize, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2You can legally share files without infringing copyright... like linux distros

          The one does not imply the other
          • cliffski, on 02/11/2008, -0/+299.99% of filesharing is copyrighted content.
    • Rapter09, on 02/09/2008, -0/+18Who in their right mind is going to pay $600 for Photoshop? A company. A graphics editor. Somebody doing it professionally, because Photoshop is essentially the must-have for graphics editing.
      You don't *have* to spend $600 for Photoshop. Yes, I agree, it's absolutely ridiculous that even a program as powerful as Photoshop should cost that much, but there's many alternatives that are much much cheaper, and one awesome free alternative - The GIMP!
      It's like a Ferrari - rich people have Ferrari's. Fast-car enthusiasts have Ferrari's. The average Joe drives a Civic.
      • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -1/+13GIMP is like an older model (mid 80's) RX-7: it doesn't look like much but it can suck the side panels off of almost any car on the road in a set of capable and skilled hands.
    • santaliqueur, on 02/09/2008, -3/+6"Who in their right mind is goign to pay %600-$1200 for Photoshop to edit thier pictures?"
      WTF? You realize that Photoshop is a tool for PROFESSIONALS, right? It's not intended to 'edit pictures' for a home user.
      Should we lower the price of Ferraris because they can get people to the grocery store faster than Volkswagens? Your argument is horribly flawed.
    • jlnr, on 02/09/2008, -1/+12Perfect example if warez idiot attitude. Photoshop is so expensive because it does a hundred million things that you don't need. By stealing it as a student, you are indeed not harming Adobe; but you prevent a whole industry of cheaper competitors from growing. In fact, you are probably even helping Adobe building its graphics monopoly.
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -2/+19Politicians love some free movies like we do.
  • FromTheTop, on 02/09/2008, -46/+2In the past selecting a VP from a particular region in our country to add delegates to the campaign for POTUS was essential for success. Today this is a choice of ideology in which McCain wants his VP on the same page as his. He should select a VP who is against McCain/Feingold,the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill and McCain/Lieberman Global Warming and Energy Bills and for drilling for oil in ANWR. I don't believe the pundits, talk show hosts, radio talkers, TV talking heads, or evalgelicals will decide the outcome. It will be the professional, political parasites on the Democrat side who will decide in the proverbial "Smoke Filled Rooms" by their 800 "Super Delegates" who can legally choose either candidate. Either way this goes, unless there is a clear winner, whether the "Super Delegates" choose Senator Clinton or Senator Obama as the Democrat nominee, I believe the outcome will become chaotic no matter which one is chosen and make Florida 2000 look like a rally for "can't we all get along". I am saddened Mitt Romney had to suspend his candidacy for POTUS. It was an admirable and graceful exit. I feel conservatives will be rejuvenated and will continue our support for Mitt Romney for POTUS in 2012. He, his family and over 4 million supporters spent a bunch trying to get there, but it was not meant to be in 2008. I believe this a blessing for Mitt Romney. During the next four years the whole world will know who he is, especially the prognosticaters mentioned above. McCain should name him Chair of the Republican National Committee. This would please a bunch of conservatives. JFK was the only other candidate I have supported 100% for POTUS. I was shocked and stunned when he was asassinated. Yes, I remember the time, the day, the place, where I was and what I was doing. It is a no brainer now for the Republican side of this fiasco of primaries and caucuses. McCain is the nominee. He will win or lose. Simple as that. It appears there are four Democrats and one Libertarian still in the race. America is in for a long siege until 2012 regardless of the winner. Moreover, I believe the conservatives are willing to let Senator Clinton or Senator Obama win this one to let them know how it feels when governance is blocked by the other party. The only reason conservatives will want McCain to win is the possibility of appointing two Supreme Court Associate Justice's to the Court. There is a strong possibility of this occuring within the next 4 years.
    • iofthestorm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Wrong thread?
    • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6ummmmmm wrong topic?
    • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -0/+9I speak for manny here - WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
    • CaviMike, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1^^^You guys actually read that? I said 'oh my god' out loud when I saw that jumbled mess.
  • Disinterested, on 02/09/2008, -1/+27I'm moving to Sweden
    • dondara, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7The chicks alone are worth doing that but individual freedoms are protected there much better than the "land of the free". In the US, corporations have great rights, the citizens ...not so much.
      • nastajus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1The Corporation is a good documentary about some of this.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 02/09/2008, -4/+10The green party is the laughing stock of Sweden. Sorry. 19 seats on 349.
    • ShootTheCore, on 02/09/2008, -1/+17And how many seats do you have in the Swedish parliament?
    • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -2/+119 aint bad. Do they have proportional representation?
    • Radan, on 02/09/2008, -3/+5To be honest, the green party has not done anything worth mentioning in their whole existence. They pretty much just whine about everything and nothing without coming up with something better as a replacement. Yay, for closing down all of our "dangerous" top of the line nuclear plants and replacing them with imported coal generated energy, which is so much better. Idiots...
      • SimonGray, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I thought it was just Barsebäck that was shut down because it was in close proximity to Copenhagen?
        • Radan, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, Barsebäck was closed down, but it was also decided that no further research in nuclear generated energy should be made, also it was planned that all nuclear power plants in Sweden should be closed down for an alternative power source (which consists of coal and waterpower).
        • Amric, on 02/10/2008, -2/+0@ Radan

          I might be speaking out of my ass now, but as far as I know it is internationally forbidden to research nuclear power since it can be used to create nuclear weapons. I am not sure about this thought.
        • init100, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2@Amric

          You are speaking out of your ass. It is not internationally forbidden to research nuclear power.
    • verkon, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah, they are always very close to the 4% limit, no wonder why they try to get the attention from younger voters now.
    • yellowcalx, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0..this from a ron paul supporter?
  • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -2/+9Or move to Canada where it's legal too... :)
    • DCordy8, on 02/09/2008, -19/+1Canada kinda sucks.
      • Tape99, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8There is extra taxes on mp3 players and Cd's.... so that's why its legal.
        • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -0/+11Which is a good thing really.
        • gyronic, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1Unless it goes to an arbitrary corporate shill company like the RIAA.
          If it goes to the artists then OK!
  • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -9/+2I speak for all here... FromTheTop - WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????
    • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4And I speak just for myself: Learn to use the replybutton.
  • linkin2, on 02/09/2008, -16/+2green party? just because a bunch of hippies decided to bribe people with weed to get them to vote for 1 or 2 members, it does not make them politicians.

    buried as inaccurate
    • Corman420, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4I dont think people are priasing the Green Party. This is just an artle stating there is political back-up. Same thing in Canada... Not sure if you think that all Green Parties mean "Marijuana", because they don't in most cases - that's the "Marijuana Party"... lol
      • linkin2, on 02/09/2008, -8/+2lemme explain to u what is a green party (in any country)
        politics is like business, you have a market.
        republicans markets are religious/rich/military people
        democrats market are hollywood/athiests/blacks
        green parties market are prisoners/criminals/drug dealers
        • carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3ahh, now i understand, rich people can't be atheists, military people can't be black, and religious people can't be criminals.
          that clears things up. Thank you.
        • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Ah, no. Our green party is well represented in parliament with support from a reasonable cross section of the society. You are retarded.
  • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -4/+6Anyone ready to start a real file-sharing news website? Torrentfreak seems to be for retarded 13 year olds that are fresh on the scene, and slyck seems to be the 15-20.
  • destron, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Wow, this story just keeps getting better and better. First the Pirate Bay Three totally pizown their interrogators, and now they have political support! Thumbs up to anybody trying to help them. :D
    • TuxedosRevenge, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2...It's the same support that they've had for three ***** years.
    • cliffski, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1it will all crash down once a judge visits the site kiddo.
  • sdquinn, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Very interesting. However, the Green Party only holds 5% of seats in Riksdag [Swedish Parliament] so how much weight does this actually hold?
    • Jackolas, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0They've had this support for many years. If you care about the situation please note the history.
      HISTORY /=/ NEWS you got it TorrentFreak???
      • sdquinn, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1OK, but my point is the support they're receiving is equivalent to the support I'd be receiving from 27 members of the US Congress on an issue where the other 95% of Congress disagrees.

        It's irrelevant.
    • Amric, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0You would be surprised at the weight they had during the last government (not the current).
      Since we essentially have a two block blocks in the swedish parliament. The former government needed left party and the green party in order to archive majority in the parliament. This made the green party into one big pain in the ass. Think of it like this
      Green party: If you don't give us what we want you can kiss your government goodbye.
      Actually it was VERY close to becoming a reelection at one time during the last term sice the green party did not get their way and threatened to undermine the sitting the government. It did not come to that, but it was close.
  • verkon, on 02/09/2008, -2/+5I like how they put it. Filesharing is not the equal to stealing someones car, it is the equal to making an exact copy of it
  • Barbarino, on 02/09/2008, -8/+3Her argument is very misguided. Making a copy is not stealing? How does she come to this conclusion? If you copied it, you didn't pay for it, ergo you stole it.
    • MacGyver2210, on 02/09/2008, -2/+4I think your argument is the misguided one. If you make a copy of someone's Resume, does it destroy the original? Does it deprive the original owner of their copy's functionality? No. If you burn a copy of an audio CD and give the original back to someone, did you steal the music from them? Did you - by definition - forcefully and unlawfully remove the music from their possession? No, of course not. You simply created another of something, based on an existing item. That is not stealing. Nor is filesharing. The reason they try to equate filesharing to stealing is simple propaganda. Do you think what a musician or movie producer does actually warrants the ludicrous sum of money they are paid for it? How about Britney Spears or Metallica takes only $10,000 per concert gig(just for the band) instead of their current $50,000-$75,000 per performance(or much more in some cases)? It's just like South Park said: "Now Britney is forced to only fly on her Gulfstream IV, instead of the Gulfstream V she had wanted"
    • artfiend77, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3So if I photocopy a portion of a text book for myself, am I a pirate?
    • TechCF, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2No you do not steal. You break the copyright law in some countries.

      If the original author doesn't loose his work, it ain't stolen.
  • Homes223, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3This is awesome.
    • Kyan, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it is! And not only is it awesome (you're dating yourself with that word, btw), it gives me an idea. I'm going to make a copy of everything on torrent freak and put it on my own website. Then I can make some better advertising money and don't have to waste time writing anything.

      And they'll never complain, since I'm not stealing anything. The original stuff will still be on their website.
      • alittleroy101, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Awesome is now a dated word? So am I making a total ass of myself when I say "wicked awesome"?
  • hdrkid, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2Tired of execs with million dollar salaries making the rules; no more rules POLICE STATE!
    • cliffski, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2what drugs are you on?
      thepiratebay steals EVERYTHING. Not just work done by multimillionaires. they don't give a ***** whose business they are wrecking. take your ignorant faux-communist ***** somewhere else little boy.
      • theonlywizdum, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to the Internet my good friend.
      • Amric, on 02/10/2008, -2/+0@cliffski
        The pirate bay steal NOTHING. They help people share files. Thats right SHARE, not steal. PB just don't interfere with what you share.
        But you are probably right in one thing. It is a genration thing. So why don't you take your ignorant BS elsewhere old man.
        • cliffski, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3why don't you grow some brain cells little kiddy, because with an attitude like that, nobody on earth is going to give you a job. Do you feel entitled to share your bosses car, and his petty cash too?
          The digg generation are going to have to stay unemployed methinks.
  • HonoredMule, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2I think this is a VERY good point.

    “Not only is the struggle [to end illegal filesharing] doomed to fail, it also creates a risk that filesharing on the Internet becomes anonymized and encrypted. An increased availability of untraceable networks will make it harder to fight organized crime.”

    The broader your application of the criminal label, the greater user base and innovation your "criminal" enemies will have behind them. Try to shut down file sharers and end up empowering child molesters--not a pretty thought.
  • cliffski, on 02/09/2008, -8/+2what a bunch of opportunist dicks. aligning yourself with thieves just makes yourself look desperate. I hope they get totally slated for this.
    • skinturtle, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1What's the matter cliffski? A few million isn't enough..gotta have some more? That corporate greed is just like cholesterol...it'll cause you to have a heart attack.

      File sharing is going nowhere. I too ..along with millions of others am tired of execs with million dollar salaries making the rules and running the government. I can totally agree with "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.." but the problem is they in turn are using their money and wealth to control the media and the governments.

      Even if they stopped file sharing of copyrighted material...as soon as people began becoming interested in consuming all the independent stuff instead...the corporate media would do something to outlaw it or soemthing.

      The industry needs to be burned to the ground and built back up again.


  • ethereel, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1after the green party assumes control downloading will be freely encouraged, as long as it sings the praises of the state, anything that does not will mean death or exile to the gulags...
  • kaptainsteve, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0Semantics about the what is or isn't stealing really isn't the issue, the issue is a voluntary yet implied agreement made between a buyer and seller and in this agreement, the buyer agrees not to copy the damn thing and does. It's really about a breach of contract.

    yet, i think the damages are so small, due to technology and easy of copying rendering the original almost worthless.
    • init100, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2That is a new interpretation. When you buy stuff at the store, you aren't signing a contract. You are allowed to do as you wish with the purchased item within the bounds of the law. Thus, copyright infringement, while illegal, is not a breach of contract.
  • SeBBBe, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3IMO, Miljöpartiet ("The Green Party") is flat out retarded in many questions, but this goes a very long way to redeem them.. I would consider voting for them. If this becomes a central question in their programme, I will.
  • Shogi, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Dugg for placing blame where it really lies: with the corporations for failing to adapt to the new technology ahead of time.
    • jlnr, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1The one who fails to adapt is the pirate crowd; to the concept of paying for non-individual service. Why do most products on TPB even exist? Because someone knew that there would be a demand for them, and expected people to pay later on, which would cover up the production costs plus some extra donuts. Just because they don't lose anything physical if you copy their products doesn't mean that you aren't ruining this system. Not everybody can adapt to selling individual service like Red Hat does, plus the other two examples that are always cited. Especially for smaller companies, there isn't really much 'adapt'ing they can do.
      • alittleroy101, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I don't know why the hell you're being dug down.
  • AvangionQ, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1""You could argue that filesharing hinders some people from earning as much money as they would have if filesharing was not possible. But now it is possible, the technology is there, and then the industry needs to find new ways of handling it. They've had the chance to work on new ways for 10 years but haven't come up with much else than silly trailers that say filesharing is theft. -- When new technology emerges, it's not necessarily it that must be adapted to the old ways. Sometimes, the industry itself must adapt."" - Akko Karlsson, member of the Swedish Green Party's executive board ... actually, there have been studies which show that the opposite is true -- filesharing encourages purchase of popular media ... in addition, it has been noted that P2P activity generates about half of all internet throughput -- meaning that P2P activity is deeply ingrained in the cyberculture ... the RIAA, MPAA and IFPI must recognize that they cannot force their customer base to purchase their product through litigious bullying tactics. Assuming that their goal is the improvement of their profit margins and not a political power grab, these multinational corporations must find a way to adapt to this new free internet market, such as provide pre-releases of ad-driven content onto the already existing P2P networks, then watch the free advertising generate revenue, or to create unlimited use monthly subscription packages to sites which rival the existing P2P networks for sheer volume of popular and obscure media content ... [ADDENDUM] Another thought would be to re-release movies in theaters by genre on days (or weeks) in between new blockbuster openings and give out all-day passes to those events ... almost makes me wish someone from the MPAA, RIAA or IFPI would read this -- perhaps listen their customer base for ideas and then try to implement them -- now *that* would bring an upward spike of return to their profit margins ...
  • Yodzilla, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You guys need to check out this article to see what the Pirate Bay is all about

    http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/The_Pirate_Bay_sho ...
  • simigen, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Hey New Project http://simigen.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.