Rapidshare Fined $34 Million for Copyright Infringement

@courtneyhopkins on twitter says "Come on, this is so futile, not to mention nonsensical. RT @Mashable Rapidshare Fined $34 Million-"

@swwtel_links on twitter says "Mashable: Rapidshare Fined $34 Million for Copyright Infringement: Let’s call a spade a spade: it.."

Eh, Megaupload is better.

How can you steel something that doesn't have any physical dimensions? You're not depriving anyone of an actual material object, and nobody is profiting on anyone else's copywritten material, so how can it be defined as theft? By their standards, karaoke would have to be defined as theft.

Envision a potato. If someone stole my potato, obviously that would be theft. But if someone constructed a duplication machine and duplicated my potato, leaving my original unscathed, that would be amazing. Now imagine that I attempt to sue this person for potentially depriving me of the profits that I might have generated by selling my potato had my potato not been duplicated for the infinite benefit of all society. The only conclusion to draw would be, fuck me and my profiteering ways. The whole of society stands to benefit and all I can think about is how much my potato is worth to ME. Nevermind that many people still prefer my original potato and that I'll continue to make a comfortable living regardless. No, I'm so fixated on the monetary potential of my potato that I wish to deny utopian progress to all of civilization by way of police coercion.

OHHH CRUMBS!!!!

Better tell my friend about this he SOMETIMES get's his programes and applications from these sites, so I must tell him not to get too much stuff from these guys.

It's ridiculous. It like when an old episode of Cheers is uploaded to YouTube. How could THAT be copyright infringement when the original show was broadcast to the entire country for FREE way back in 1985?

I watch it in 1985. I taped it in 1985. I sat through all the commercials in 1985....therefore I am ENTITLED to watch it again in 2009 on YouTube, aren't I? How could something be both FREE in 1985 and not-free in 2009?

But the more annoying question is why only certain content is selectively protected.

What about THIS comment I'm posting. I "created" it and therefore (theortically) could derive a profit from it, couldn't I?

How is this comment technically any different that, say, a book written by Stephen King? They are both just words with revenue poetential....yet anything HE writes will be backed by the full strength of the courts whereas anything WE write is dismissed as worthless (from a revenue point of view) and purely public domain.

I mean we're getting into a really fucking grey area in terms of what "content" is or isn't and which of that "content" deserves protection and/or financial compensation in the courts.

any thoughts on a subject link?