agreed, he had extra space and basically said "hey, wanna get your name seen? feel free to hammer your sign in right here, finders fee of course"Signa said:This is enraging. Yes, some people have said that he was profiting from piracy, but I disagree fully with this being a punishable method.
See, the reason profits from piracy is bad is because it takes a customer away from EVER buying a product. They have a "close enough" copy of the original work, and the artist never gets to see a dime of that transaction. Even if the copy is shit, the customer isn't going to feel the need to buy it again unless they REALLY want it. Getting someone to buy something once is hard enough, getting them to buy it twice is very rare.
In this case, the guy wasn't taking money from IP holders. He was just being more or less gifted money by people that wanted to get their own names out too. Any potential customers that went through him could still see value in buying a product they saw through his service. He didn't take their money, and if they wanted to spend it, they still had it.
I mean really, since the beginning of time people have made money with smart advertising, I don't see how this is any different, not to mention it's not like movies/tv shows kill or physically hurt people, so don't go playing that extremist crap card I've seen thrown out there a few times.
My goodness... I'm not sure if i'll ever agree with some of the wonky paragon republican boy scouts on here. Definite overkill on his sentence/court case.