Smash and grab? Nonsense. Nobody should say that thievery is easy. Some obscure stuff requires real skill to get and days of work, you know, searching multiple sharing networks, and anyway eventually it's often best to try uncle Google to find some private blog that uploads to Rapidshare. In that case it's of course better to conceal your IP through anonymous proxy switch. Anyway, you've got to switch it back later, because these proxies AFAIK don't support javascript, therefore no Rapidshare countdown.
In my opinion, the programs that randomly choose proxies all around the world every few seconds are a nice choice to shut the door from nosy government. I know one like this and it's paid, I'll have to see if there's an... alternative

American economy is dead or exported abroad, so people seek to make money from nothing, like from speculation and copyright laws. So yeah, piracy can destroy economy, if the economy is as fucked up as american. And this will not be fixed by catching pirates, because pirates won't buy the stuff anyway.

And yeah, what Obama administration plans is not only thought crime, but it's literally a threat to nation, if all nation does something and it's regarded as crime, then anybody can be punished anytime. Sometimes a "crime" is so widespread, that it becomes normal and eventually becomes legalized. This was the case with plentiful bribes to administration officers, the bribes are now legalized as administrative fees. It's like a change in morality. I'm not sure how small creatives are going to survive this, though. Big companies will either survive or we'll be spared of their mainstream product of consumer culture. But independent creative people or groups have lesser budgets and more artistic talent, they deserve the support.

Just buy the damn music/movies/games you cheap skates.

Careful- your inner right-winger is flaring up again.

Unless stealing from video shops is ethical.

Well, I can see that both of you buy into the lies that are being spread around by the content industry.

Homework for either of you is to find a verifiable clip anywhere on the internet of John Phillips Sousa conducting his orchestra.

Don't bother actually because you will not find one. JPS is on record multiple times refusing to conduct his orchestra when he knew or believed recording equipment to be present. There are plenty of recording of his orchestra kicking around, just none with him running the show.

His stated reason: If people could listen to music at home any time that they wanted to do so, that would spell the end of music as was then known. After all, people would no longer have to pay to attend a public performance, so why should musicians want to record if they did not get paid every time someone heard their work?

Since then, copyright law has been reformed a couple of times, yet the concept of a public performance remains in the law. That is the reason why your home videos have the legal notice at the beginning informing you that the work is only for use at home.

FSM forbid that you have some friends over to watch a movie and you asked them to pony up for the beers. Legally (in the US at least), you are causing a public performance and the producer of whatever movie is not getting his fair share of the beer money.

Actually, in the 70's, 20^th century fox sued an owner of a small lunch restaurant for the train stopping crime of playing a radio in his establishment. According to them, turning on a radio in a setting where someone who does not own the radio might actually hear the music constituted an illegal public performance of a protected work. Fortunately, the Supreme Court handed Fox their ass on a silver platter over that one.

Those examples are demonstration of the sheer greed that is going on. When you say that you really ought to pay for what you hear, remember that the logic behind that is that you should not be able to buy a recording of any music or dare to play a radio without headphones lest someone get a moment of enjoyment that has not been paid for in cash.

Actually copyright originated as a means of insuring that artists could be identified and punished if they printed things that were blasphemous or seditious. That isn't why I think copyright is wrong, I'm just pointing out that from its origins it was no less detrimental to society than it is today. The reason i think it's wrong is that it is tantamount to a ban on published material that is not commercially viable. So, of course you would buy the material because there isn't anything available for free because when published content loses its commercial viability instead of being placed in the public domain it is banned by copyright and you can't buy it or have it for free, and in that sense content providers are engaged in racketeering as they are creating scarcity from which they may profit. 

They have games so fuk'd up already, I bought one and found out you can only install it 3x and then you have to call customer support to install it any more.

I bought and paid for a fukin cd, I should be able to share it with friends. I do agree that making it available to thousands online is crossing the line though.

They are so paranoid and greedy, movies used to say that if you got caught charging anyone to see it at your house you would face a huge fine and imprisonment, lol.

Now it's hard to even share guitar tab online if they deem it to be too accurate...

Insane little "I will sue you for any fukin thing you do" world we live in.

How did George Lucas get so much money, again? No I'm not talking Indiana Jones or Episode I-III, I mean from Episode IV alone. Yeah, the flick released in 1977.

In your favor, I will fess up on the whole musicians getting shitty deals while the album publishers rake in most of the green -this isn't the first time I've read about this either. The entertainment biz has always been slanted towards the investors' side of the table. It's only natural- the kid with the biggest toys always wins, and the guy who decides what's greenlighted and what isn't, usually gets to make bargains in his favor.

I think the problem will never go away until people feel a sense of economic security. No one will buy music if they believe they may be out of work and unable to find a new job for a long period of time. So, even if the artists have their way to stop piracy, I don't think it would add much to the bottom line. So I think the music industry would be better served by getting the government to focus on economics and social structures that work.

I’d also like to be able to claim money back for the (more common) moments of suffering.

Intellectual copyright is a complex issue and my opinion isn't fixed. Until recently I considered it acceptable to take a fresh free copy of an album one had bought on vinyl years ago, but no longer owned. Now, especially if that recording is being sold by the artists themselves, I feel that one should buy a copy again. Another fuzzy case is where something might be banned or difficult to obtain like Gary Glitter. An issue mentioned by Gauche.

Music is tricky as it leaks and there is the advertising aspect.

Artists no doubt get a tough deal in the music business, but that’s true for employees in most businesses.

I guess that my general opinion is that if only consenting adults are involved, it is probably ok. I also agree with Cpt_p that the main idea is that artists should get due compensation. Twentieth Century Fox should also. Working out a fair price is another matter.

I’d be unhappy if software I’d taken years to write was copied for free and used by every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

Would you download a sock?

Would you download dinner?

Would you download A CAR?

Yes, yes and yes.

Would you be alright with Bill Clinton violating copyright law?  I ask because he has done so on television quite a bunch of times.

Of course nobody made a big deal about those felonies.  After all, that was long thin stuff going in his mouth.  They were still felonies.