Is it just me, or is this CNN article leaning pro-filesharing and Pirate Bay?

I may be registering more subtext and undercurrents than are actually present, but this CNN article about the Pirate Bay and it's seemingly doubtful future seems surprisingly (and pleasantly) supportive and understanding of us "pirates"' plight for rebellion against greedy companies and distributors. None of it is overt, but still ...

That's because -- wherever one stands on the issues of file sharing or copyright -- as long as films and music can be digitized and there is an open Internet, file sharing will exist. That reality is not lost to the Motion Picture Association of America.

A spokeswoman for the film industry's trade group said: "We'll continue to evaluate and take appropriate actions against sites offering unauthorized copies of our member companies' works."

The question is whether any of these clones and wannabes can build the kind of cult following or wield the same influence as The Pirate Bay -- they're unlikely to be "game changers," one music industry executive told me, and he's right.

The Pirate Bay's founders did more than just index torrents. To the 20 million who visited the site monthly, co-founders Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfried Svartholm Warg are Scandinavian Robin Hoods, who freed the masses to enjoy music and movies and protected them from profiteering conglomerates.

Just stating the facts, as good journalists should do ... but I can't help but wonder if this article may in fact understand just why we condoners and supporters of filesharing, or "Internet piracy", think like we think and do what we do. It really is, at its core (and other than just a means to get free stuff quickly and easily), defiance against the injustice and tyranny of those giants – MPAA, RIAA, etc. – who crush artists and squeeze every last penny and ownership right out of their works and lifestyles just to line their own greedy pockets. It's basically telling them, "fuck you, assholes, we're not gonna help you screw other people over". At least, that's definitely how I see it, myself.

But then, the article did have to contain at least one stupid line:

To many artists, the three are little more than thieves who stole their work to line their own pockets.

That's a dumb thing to say for two obvious reasons. First, this "lining their own pockets" when talking about the operators of the Pirate Bay is tired bullshit. It's entirely non-profit; for fuck's sake, they run the entire operation out of their own pockets, with their own hard-earned money. They lose money in doing this, but they do it A) for fun and B) to provide (what I consider to be) an essential service.

Second, anyone with a bit of reasoning abilities will realize that filesharing is, far from damaging to artists, a great boon to them. It's a powerful tool they can use to grow and solidify their fanbase, increase sells, increase awareness for them and their works, etc. Polls have even concluded that musicians who had their music shared online actually exploded in popularity (and, by extension, financial gains) as more and more people bought their albums (to encourage them, or to have it in solid) and attended their live performances.

Basically: to popular big-time artists, piracy isn't strong enough to truly affect them heavily, and for smaller artists, it actually provides a huge, much-needed and well-appreciated boost. It's that simple: it truly is harmless. (Except towards the big companies who lose some of their profits. *sniffle*)

Don't worry about The Pirate Bay, though – I seriously doubt it's going offline for good, anytime soon. Popular support is simply too massive and overwhelming, and there's always a flood of people who would be interested in stepping in should the current owners be forced away.

Oh, yeah ... go there, now.