No, it's not the same, although I do see your point and the pressure is there indeed. Nike is a status symbol in many countries, for instance. So, buy Nike - or you are a nobody. It *could* become peer pressure, but, realisticly, it's not. Nobody is looked down upon because they are not wearing Nikes, although the opposite can be true if they are wearing them (a common thing in China, apparently).

But this is different. I meant the type of negative peer pressure, where people frown on you for doing something (probably a bit how smoking is now regarded in the US, while before it was a symbol of status and independence). Everybody longs to be accepted, and most people will go out of their way to make sure this happens. Frown on someone for being a pirate as a society, and he will either stop doing it or will hide that side of him as best as he can and become a 'closet pirate', hehe. Right now that is not happening, it's still 'cool' (at least among kid friends) to be a pirate and an hAXoR and get all the software they need for free.

Again, not what I meant, sorry. Using your doctor's example, what I am saying is that while the sight of a person bleeding to death would probably shock a normal person, a doctor won't be half impressed. In this case it's a good thing, as it allows him to think clearly and rationally while he saves that person's life.

But now think of it this way, broadning a bit the scope of this discussion: in the name of security, you start putting cameras in every street corner. At first people are a bit shocked about the intrusion of privacy that this implies, but they are told "hey, it's for the common good, it will make us all safer". So they accept it and, eventually, it becomes "normal" and people even end up seeing it as a good thing, not realizing the danger. Then one day what was there for our "protection" becomes a tool for "control" at the flick of a switch. Have you noticed how close we are, with CCTV cameras everywhere, to George Orwell's vision in "1984"?

I'm obviously giving an extreme example, but just so you understand how insidious the process is. You are presented with what apparently is a "good thing", and, little by little, you adjust to it until you think nothing of it anymore. You don't just wake up one day and find out cameras are everywhere - nah, the whole process is very slow. And then one day we do wake up to the harsh reality and we ask ourselves "hey, how did we get here"?

We got there because we allowed it to happen, and didn't stop to think about all the possible ramifications and consequences while we still could.

Same thing with "liberalism". What apparently is a good thing, by going unchecked it might well end up destroying our basic moral values and ability to distinguish right from wrong. It's easier than you think.

Which is my point exactly. Most people want freedom, for instance, but not the responsability that it implies. You have to be a mature person to understand that. Problem exists when they are allowed to get one without the other, which is what is currently happening.

Man that must have been an Awesome show. Ministry rocks.

I still can't get over the fact I'll never be able to go see Type O in concert again. I don't know, the whole thought of even going to a show now just seems depressing.

Screw that. TV isn't all its cracked up to be. Reality shows have taken over and they suck big time. I haven't watched TV in nearly a year. I watch movies ... AFTER ... they get to the DVD stage. As for music ... I got Pandora Internet Radio and that's good enough! So all of this other bullshit they can take and shove it!

OK, now for my late late 2 cents.

Firstly, piracy is wrong. When you invade those ships at sea and take all of their valuable cargo, that is called STEALING!

If you are a broke-ass stiff with a shit and empty life and can't make ends meet, go ahead and download or copy all of the digital media you can. Is it right? No, certainly not. Are there worse things you can do to entertain yourself? Damn right! If you are a guy without a job, you're probably too broke to have a girlfriend, so why not go out and rape somebody today? Seeing as you have nothing else to fill your time with. Hey, those guys from the Jackass shows seem to have a lot of fun. Why not do something crazy like they do, and possibly get yourself and others seriously injured or killed? Smoke some crack that you paid for by prostituting yourself to people with STIs. Steal a car and go for a high speed and reckless joy ride, or try to commit the perfect murder. What you're not that ambitious? How about just general vandalism? Or, you could join a gang and be involved in street wars. At least you'll be part of a community.

Otherwise, go and get a job. What, you don't have the skills? The economy is shit and employment opportunities are thin? That is no excuse! You need to create a position for yourself! Have you considered the booming child-porn industry? Drug dealing? Pimping? Armed robbery? Scamming the elderly out of their pension money? No? What are you waiting for?

But you know very well that none of that is the answer. Your government is spending trillions of dollars in foreign aid and global war campaigns while their country has become more in need of that money than many others, and the capitalist free market system puts the majority of the country's wealth in the hands of an extremely small minority. That leaves you with one option that the government is not going to be against (quite the contrary actually), and that is - join the army. Go overseas, invade some countries and murder the people there. Also, if you are so inclined, you could sexually humiliate and even rape some of them. What joy! It seems that the increasing poverty in the country has benefited the government after all, by providing them with more eager recruits. How very convenient.

But now, if you seriously can't afford to purchase all those shiny digital forms of entertainment to occupy yourself with, just you go ahead and download them. But don't delude yourself into thinking there's nothing wrong with that. Well sure, you aren't really causing a financial loss to the IP owners, as you couldn't afford their stuff anyway. But that doesn't give you the right to use their IP without their permission or without it being on their terms. All that's really going to do however is piss some people off if they find out you're doing it, so be discreet about it. If you can live with that, it sure beats having nothing and being miserable while watching so many other people enjoying some of modern life's simple pleasures, knowing that you can't afford to. And it is certainly a LOT better than some of the other things people resort to when they have idle time and not a lot to fill it with.

Do I mean to say that you must do horrible things if you cannot afford good entertainment? Certainly not. There are other options. Libraries are still open, and reading books is good. Going for walks, or jogging can be fun. Visiting friends and relatives if you have them. But not all things are for everyone, and not everyone is as moral as you'd like them to be.

So if I were to contrive a way to keep the ne'er-do-wells at home and off the streets, I would open up a government agency that assesses people's income and gives them free copies of digital entertainment that they have the hardware for, if they can't afford to get it themselves. Sort of like a Digital Fun Welfare System.

If you do get caught downloading digital media that you couldn't afford to pay for, the law should not allow the IP owners to sue for recovery of financial loss (seeing as there wasn't any). You should be either fined a reasonable amount, or more practically put to community service work, because if you could afford to pay the fine, you could have afforded to purchase the product. At any rate, none of these measures are going to stop or even really deter piracy to any significant degree.

I'm not actually excusing piracy here, if that is the impression you took away from this. All I'm really saying is, get some perspective people. (Governments fighting piracy? Fight your own corruption and murderous recklessness first.)

Great post man. I agree with you completely 

Just a little true story to add to this. I had this best friend when I was around 10, we did everything together, but soon after we went different ways in our lives. I got my first computer (PC286) soon after and found the beauty of computer games. Few years later I heard he started doing drugs.

By the time I was 18 I was playing multiplayer games with friends. A few years later he died of drug overdose...

Breaking news on this issue....despite all the new laws created to deal with this, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security decided to toss due process out the window, bypassing the laws they created, and just shut down 70+ websites "without any notice or warning" to the owners of those websites.

Feds Seize Websites Suspected of Online Piracy: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/27/feds-seizes-websites-suspected-online-piracy/

Government Seizes Domains Alleged to Infringe Copyright: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373488,00.asp

Homeland Security Seizes 70+ Websites for Copyright and Trademark Infringement: http://mashable.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-website-seized/

I would have thought that there were laws all ready on the 'Books' that would have covered the types of activities that the sites are 'alleged' to have been doing.  If it was a 'brick & mortor' store front I believe the store would have been closed while the operators of the store were given a chance to show whether or not they were doing anything illegal.

It would seem 'Homeland Security' has been given some very broad powers.  Again, I'm not sure why this isn't covered by existing laws, unless it's because of not being written when the Internet was not around.

I've read the links that are above and as usual the whole story isn't presented or I missed seeing it.  I didn't see what the sites next steps are now that their domains were seized.

No doubt this will cause a lot of discussion until all the facts are known, if they ever will be.  One very important fact is were the seized domains in fact doing something illegal.

I like the fact that they were seized without any notice or warning, which was mention in all the links I believe.  I would like to use other examples to show that usually law enforcement doesn't normally forewarn someone they believe that is doing or perform an illegal activity but folks would just argue the point.

Of course one could also make the argument that if you were doing an illegal activity those items the you had were not your possessions. 

Like I said above, just not enough information to be able to make an informed decision at this point in time and I doubt we will ever know all the facts.

I agree with you on that k10w3. 

I guess though where folks are having a problem is with who should have control over an item, say a movie or music or piece of IP and thus benefit from it.  I'm sure I probably am making it all to simple in my mind so I can come up with a response that fits very nicely in the 'Right' or 'Wrong' or 'legal' vs 'illegal' box. 

I'm not looking for a perfect world I just want one that allows you to be able to get through the day.

Same here, I don't go to sites that are offering illegal copies of anything.  But then the sites are still there so that has to mean that a whole lot of folks are wanting things for free, or illegally.

The next part I get, corporate American is running the U.S., well they influence it alot for sure, who do you think gets politicians elected.  The following part I don't get.  Are you saying that stuff like movies, music and software should all be free?  I don't think you are.

I'm not familiar with the other sites you mentioned and what they are about.

I'm also not familiar with what approach Canada is taking with all of this either.  I would think though that they have the potential of doing the same thing there.  By that I mean going after the folks that are doing illegal things on the internet. 

Well k10w3 it does seem with that bit of information that nothing is to be accomplished by trying to weed out illegal activity that resides on the Internet.

Now I am somewhat perplexed, is there or isn't there illegal activity on the Internet? 

If there is, shouldn't those folks who are performing illegal activities be brought to justice? 

Are we just supposed to accept this as part of our day to day life and just choose to ignore it? 

Should we take the attitude that 'I don't participate in those activities and I could care less if others do or don't'?

Usually when the federal government is involved, that's the end result. Think it's the only entity that can take your money, by force if necessary, and there's absolutely NOTHING you can do about it. "Legal" armed robbery? 

I don't condone theft either...after serving 20+ years with the Georgia State Patrol that should be obvious, but this thing we call the internet is simply too big now to control unless it were shut completely down which common sense dictates, wouldn't, shouldn't or couldn't happen. That would prove catastrophic to our economy, society...heck, our entire way of life as we know it. People who download content and try justify it with one excuse or the other KNOW in their heart (and head) it's wrong but the availiblity and ease of access are just too great a temptation for some. I can somewhat understand that whether I agree with it or not. I don't know what the answer is but I'm skeptical a practical, common sense solution will come out of D.C.