Also i pay for rapidshare so hardly is stealing!

Aww, bless. 😀

Sounds like the exact definition of downloading to me, I doubt anyone has the permission from the owner to download their music/movie/game, I know I certainly haven’t from anything I have downloaded. Using old definitions from before digital downloads were around is just a way of trying to excuse it, or not liking being branded a thief. I’ve downloaded/stole a fair amount in my time, and I did/do it because it’s very easy and reasonably low risk. I’m getting something for free that other people are paying for, so not once will I try to take the moral high ground about why i’m doing it, or try and sugar coat it and call it anything but what it is.

The 'problem' is this: The 'original' file, as in, the file in the form that it is presented to be available via conventional means is what they are trying to protect. Well, here's the thing. If you download something that is not digitally identical and has been altered, it can be convincingly argued that you cannot be held financially or judiciously accountable for something if it is not the exact same thing. BUT! If someone downloads an identical digital copy of an album (same meta data, encoding process, etc) as the one which is available digitally, then it cannot be argued. Dotchageddit? The content of the file MUST be identical, unless you are being accused of copying the original file, which infringes copyright. Just 1 stray byte would throw it out of court. 'sorry, not the same file m'lord - next case'. All of those torrents, magnets ét all are re-encoded copies of copies, with different meta data, and encoding processes. DVD Ripping software does not duplicate, it emulates. All these companies are doing is saying 'our product is exactly the same as this 96kb/s file in this persons computer that sounds like it was recorded underwater'. Don't make me laugh too hard...:backfire:

piracy = greed

The biggest problem is when I was younger we had VHS and Audio cassette we where able to record songs playing on the radio and shows on the tv. So I got used to being able to get those for free. Then comes the age of computers where you can get everything for free and the unlimited exchange of idea's information music and video's and now what i got accustomed to growing up is no longer legal to so that is where a big part of the problem lies for the majority of us. I can understand where they are coming from if I work hard I would want paid. But they are truly robbed more by the producer's and production companies than 1 person downloading a song or video. The industry as a whole needs to rise up and get rid of those dinasours. Then they would make more and be able to lower the cost of media access.

Like the others have said Loobyluggs it would not fly in court and another reason that is so is because you legally are not allowed to alter the media in anyway without consent from the author.

So you're saying if you copy a book in it's entirely word for word, but change the font, you're not violating copyright? Or, if you copy an entire movie but merely change the resolution, you've not violated copyright? That isn't going to fly.

I'm saying that if you buy a peice of music or film from a shop and then distribute it over the internet, you are in trouble with the law. If you do what they are trying to stop in Japan (simply downloading copywritten material) then you need to be able to prove that what you have downloaded is identical IN EVERY FORM to the original. Not attacking you here, okay? Just pointing the viability of these laws when you break it down.

Like the others have said Loobyluggs it would not fly in court and another reason that is so is because you legally are not allowed to alter the media in anyway without consent from the author.

And if you are not the person altering the files? Then what?

Loobyluggs, as per above that is pure nonsense and it would be laughed out of court if the defence tried to use that argument. Even if they did entertain such a notion, they would play the file, and if the judge/jury couldn't tell the difference which is very very likely then it would be considered identical. We have not long saw a court order Samsung to pay Apple damages for something that isn't even that similar, and you seem to believe that by making something worse quality then the original content holder has no say on what happens to his/her work. In your "loopy" court, people who were selling fake clothes, electronics, even forging money would all walk free because if its not 100% identical, then its not the same thing.

Lets stick with the facts... buying a CD in a shop and then distributing it online = prison downloading an altered file which has no legal protection associated with it (because it is not the same file, because it's been altered, because it's been ripped etc) = unprovable legal case that no judge would wish to go near. And as much as I avoid argument by analogy, people selling fake rolex's etc, are attempting to defraud and profit. People downloading a file from the internet that is fundamentally different, and structually different, that are not seeking to profit or, gain any finances from it, will never ever go to prison (outside of Japan). You might as well tell me that the millions of people that did not fill in their census forms will go to prison, or get fined, because the likihood and expense of having millions of people attend court and then get put in prison/fined would take so much time and cost the taxpayers so much money (plus lost tax revenue from those in prisons) that it would never happen. y'getting it yet? These laws are put in place to scare people, which is too damn easy, and certainly easier than solving the problem. I'll give you another example of laws being created because they cannot solve a problem: speed limits. You telling me that they cannot flick a switch in a car to stop its maximum speed limit from being greater than the national speed limit of whichever country the car is destined for? FFS, in the UK to sell a car they gotta take the steering wheel and entire dashboard and redesign it - but they can't put an engine limiter in the car? No - they'd rather have hundreds if not thousands of widows every year because some nutball wants to drive at 80 mph, when they know...they know the limit is 70 mph, godamn idiots. back on topic - you know I'm right, stop letting your ego fight it.