I WOULD NOT STEAL! (support artists NOT multinationals)

Look, I hate those little stealing shorts at the beginning of movies, some you can't even skip through. That being said, they have every right to protect their profits. Yes, it is stealing, because, in most cases the company has proprietary rights to said product, not the "artist". If the "artist" wants to maintain ownership, all they have to do is not sign the contract.

Strengthen the rights of creators

Even though the interest of creators has been the main argument for the new copyright laws, the main focus has been strengthening the rights of the industry. Those two are not synonymous. In fact, while people are paying more for culture today than 30 years ago, most of that money is going to the industry, not the creators. New artists are forced into contracts where they transfer much of their creative rights to the record companies. Many artists do not make serious money until they are free from their initial contracts. By strengthening the rights of artists, instead of the industry, we could avoid these kinds of “slave contracts”.

In the end, it’s very possible that the media industry will have to change some of its behavior. Maybe in the future, expensive special effects and massive advertisement won’t be the main selling arguments for a movie. New technology sometimes brings about big change. Today, consumers have the tools to control their own cultural experience. Is that really such a bad thing for artists?

[link to iwouldntsteal.net]

So "they" have every right to rip us of to rip of the artists and we are the criminals for downloading a song that would cost 0.99$ to download.

In Spain you can get 3 years for downloading copying sharing.

If you rape someone who would die of the consequences you would most loikely not go to jail.

But everything is normal, carry on...

It is them doing the stealing anyway. Most artists only get 1cent per album sold, but it is all their work. You can argue and say that the companies have to produce it and market it and all that shit but without the artists the companies have nothing. Artists no longer need shitty rip off companies to make their music.

Share, Remix, Reuse — Legally

Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. You can use CC to change your copyright terms from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved."

We're a nonprofit organization. Everything we do — including the software we create — is free.

[link to creativecommons.org]

They have not for a very long time. Some of the best selling records in recent history have been to independent "artist". Many "artist" crank out one album with a record label, realize it is bullshit and make their own label or find some small independent and go with them. But yeah, let me feel sorry for the "artist" who signed the contract, according to you, without reading they were going to be "raped". If the "artist" truly gave a damn about their work, more than money, they wouldn't jump on board any label who is willing to sign them. Give me a break with this victim crap, making me sick to my stomach LOL.

So what are you saying?
You agree with their criminal system?

You make me sick to the stomach

LOL

Copyleft Foundation

The purpose of Fundación Copyleft is to promote and defend the production of art, culture and science under copyleft licences.

Copyleft licences are non-restrictive and provide creators with greater control over their work, research and projects and a more reasonable remuneration for their work while also giving end users greater access to, and enjoyment of, works released in this way.

Fundación Copyleft will engage in specific projects aimed at developing and raising awareness of copylefted works in the arts, culture and science, while coordinating, and enhancing synergy, with individuals, private companies and the public administrations.

Fundación Copyleft formally invites all participants in the value chain in the arts, culture and science, and any individuals and legal persons interested in copyleft, to participate.

[link to fundacioncopyleft.org]

psycho babble bullshit ,, everything here is

You clearly can't be reasoned with and are just to emotional tied up in this. All you would have to do is like 10 minutes of research to understand how far off the mark you are. Thanks though for the laughs.

Its making you sick to the stomach but you tell me I am emotionally involved...

Well okay

Whatever you say

So tell me NeoFistOfTheGolgoNinja you really agree that a rapist should be punished less severe than someone who downloaded a song?

WOW! You should run for office, with a loaded question like that you would be a great congress person.
What person in his right mind would want a "rapist" to get punished less serverly than a .torrenter. That is ridiculous at best.

If I as an artist paint my house in orange and someone decides to copy me, what right do I have?

Can I say orange is mine?

Not yet, but the way copyrights are going who knows LOL.

If you would take 10 minutes to investigate you will see that what I say is true by law.

Downloaders risk higher punishments than rapists

So how can you agree with this system?

Maybe in some ridiculous country. In most US States there is a mandatory minimum sentence for rape. There is no mandatory minimum sentence for "downloading music".

I didn't agree with it, I just said the "artist" aren't victims.

Secondly, you are talking about 2 totally different things. You can't copyright "orange". It would have to be something like "cream peel orange". Something that is unique. That is what record companies and movie studios are copyrighting. The actors and musicians who sign the contract let them do so as well.

In some ridiculous countries next is happening;

La Ley y Tú

1. PREGUNTA

a) Luis se descarga una canción de Internet.

b) Luis decide que prefiere el disco original y va a El Corte Inglés a
hurtarlo. Una vez allí, y para no dar dos viajes, opta por llevarse
toda una discografía. La suma de lo hurtado no supera los 400 euros.


RESPUESTA: La descarga de la canción sería un delito con pena de 6
meses a dos años. El hurto de la discografía en El Corte Inglés ni
siquiera sería un delito, sino una simple falta (art. 623.1 del Código
Penal).

2. PREGUNTA:

a) Luis se descarga una canción de Internet.
b) Luis va a hurtar a El Corte Inglés y, como se la va la mano, se
lleva cincuenta compactos, por valor global de 1.000 euros.

RESPUESTA: Seguiría siendo más grave la descarga de Internet. El hurto
sería un delito, porque supera los 400 euros, pero sería de menor pena
que la descarga (art. 234 del Código Penal).


3. PREGUNTA:

a) Sergio, en el pleno uso de sus facultades mentales, se descarga una
canción de Malena Gracia.

b) Sergio, en un descuido de Malena Gracia, se lleva su coche y lo
devuelve 40 horas después.


RESPUESTA: Sería mas grave la descarga. El hurto de uso de vehículo
tiene menos pena, a tenor del articulo 244.1 del Código Penal.

4. PREGUNTA:

a) Ocho personas se intercambian copias de su música favorita.
b) Ocho personas participan en una riña tumultuosa utilizando medios o
instrumentos que pueden poner en peligro sus vidas o su integridad
física.


RESPUESTA: Es menos grave participar en una pelea que participar en el
intercambio de compactos. Participar en una riña tumultuosa tiene una
pena de tres meses a un año (art. 154 del Código Penal)y el
intercambio tendría una pena de 6 meses a 2 años (art. 270 del Código
Penal). Si algún día te ves obligado a elegir entre participar en un
intercambio de copias de CDs o participar en una pelea masiva, escoge
siempre la segunda opción, que es obviamente menos reprobable.


5. PREGUNTA:

a) Juan copia la última película de su director favorito de un DVD que
le presta su secretaria Susana.

b) Juan, aprovechando su superioridad jerárquica en el trabajo, acosa
sexualmente a su secretaria Susana.

RESPUESTA: El acoso sexual tendría menos pena según el articulo 184.2
del Código Penal.

6. PREGUNTA:


a) Pedro y Susana van a un colegio y distribuyen entre los alumnos de
preescolar copias de películas educativas de dibujos animados
protegidas por copyright y sin autorización de los autores.

b) Pedro y Susana van a un colegio y distribuyen entre los alumnos de
preescolar películas pornográficas protagonizadas y creadas por la
pareja.

RESPUESTA: La acción menos grave es la de distribuir material
pornográfico a menores según el articulo 186 del Código Penal. La
distribución de copias de material con copyright sería un delito al
existir un lucro consistente en el ahorro conseguido por eludir el
pago de los originales cuyas copias han sido objeto de distribución.


7. PREGUNTA:

a) Ramón, que es un bromista, le copia a su amigo el último disco de
Andy y Lucas, diciéndole que es el 'Kill'em All' de Metallica.

b) Ramón, que es un bromista, deja una jeringuilla infectada de SIDA
en un parque público.


RESPUESTA: La segunda broma sería menos grave, a tenor del articulo
630 del Código Penal

8. PREGUNTA:

a) Juan fotocopia una página de un libro.
b) Juan le da un par de puñetazos a su amigo por recomendarle ir a ver
la película 'Los Ángeles de Charlie'.

RESPUESTA: La acción más grave desde un punto de vista penal sería la
'a', puesto que la reproducción, incluso parcial, seria un delito con
pena de 6 meses a dos años de prisión y multa de 12 a 24 meses. Los
puñetazos, si no precisaron una asistencia médica o quirúrgica, serían
tan solo una falta en virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 617 en
relación con el 147 del Código Penal.


Ala chavalotes, ya sabéis: pegad, violad, acosad, robad, pero no uséis el emule A esto hay que darle la mayor vuelta posible por toda la red a ver si alguien con criterio pone algún remedio !!!

A esto hay que darle la mayor vuelta posible por toda la red a ver si

alguien con criterio pone algún remedio !!!

Forgive me, I don't know spanish.

I know you dont know spanish and for me its to much to translate. If you are interested however you can translate online.

The pòint I am trying to make is that more freedoms are being taken away. This is only happening because we let it happen.

Its time to make objections, start to think about all this.

"A patent serves a purpose in society. The goal of patenting a gene is not to make anyone rich, but to force disclosure of secret information." He offers the example of biotech company Genentech's patent on the human insulin gene, which enabled pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly to develop Humulin, the human insulin that people with diabetes use.

[link to www.columbia.edu]

Anything can and will be patented, its just a matter of time.

If we let them...

companies with patents on genes have the sole right to perform tests on persons who are ill because they have this gene. These sometimes very sick or dying people are obligated to travel to other countries pay shitloads of money for a relative simple and cheap test.

No other company is allowed to perform these tests.