From a post on Orkut.....Awhile ago, in the WarDriving Thread, Ian had asked me:I'm interested. If (copyright violation is) not theft, what do you call Copyright violation?To which, the only answer is: Copyright violation.Trying to call it theft is a petty attempt to reframe the debate. Is copyright violation morally/ethically wrong? Yes. Is it theft? Hell no.As mentioned on the war-driving thread, in order for something to be theft, you have to deprive someone of an item. A classic argument is that by copying a work, you deprive the artist of the profits they would have made if you purchased that work. The real question is, would that artist have really made that money? I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that 60%-80% of the time, the answer would be no. (I can only go on personal experience, but I have heard, plenty of times, from plenty of friends, the phrase "I liked it so much, I bought the Album")The debate about P2P, File Sharing, and Copyright violation is not about protecting the rights of artists, it is about protecting the means of distribution. If it was really about protecting the artists, we would hear more about the over-seas CD duplication houses, where REAL piracy is going on. (These guys will copy an entire CD, and turn around and sell it)All one has to do is look at what kind of laws the Recording and Movie Industries are trying to get enacted.In Canada, we pay a levy (It's like a tax, but instead of paying for -- you know, important stuff, like health care and our roads, it goes straight to a business) on every blank tape, CD, and DVD. So wait a second, you used 10 CD's to backup your important data on your Hard-Drive? Some of your money for those blank CD's went to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) Apparently, of the $56 million dollars or so that we have paid into this Borglike entity, only $6 Million have gone to actual Artists.You want to bet how much of that went to Celine fucking dion or Randy fucking bachman?

And south of the border... According to Wired News "A draft bill recently circulated among members of the House judiciary committee would make it much easier for the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecutions against file sharers by lowering the burden of proof. The bill, obtained Thursday by Wired News, also would seek penalties of fines and prison time of up to ten years for file sharing."Does this seem reasonable to you? If I steal 10 movies from the blockbuster, would they put me away for 10 years? I know we aren't American, but bear with me, their policies are important to our own politics."Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah, you might recognize the name (parens mine)) said the operators of P2P networks are running a conspiracy in which they lure children and young people with free music, movies and pornography. With these 'human shields,' the P2P companies are trying to ransom the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue."Does this even sound reasonable? I mean COME ON. Don't get fooled. This is not about protecting the rights of the artists. This is about protecting the monopoly of the distributors.So in short, No, it's not theft, and no, downloading something from Kazaa will NOT finance al-Quida .All one has to do is read the antics of the RIAA and the MPAA, and you'll see what is going on. Hey, have you watched a movie recently? You know, with the whiny set designer talking about how piracy is putting him out of a job. Give me a break. This from an industry that just a few years ago was rocked with scandals, about movies that rake in millions and millions of dollars, but apparently, made no money.I could go on and on. Suffice to say, I am sick and tired of getting bent over, while the big media companies don't even spit, let alone use Vaseline. So when my friends come over, I encourage them to make use of their legal right to make a copy for personal use. Who said Disobedience had to be Civil?