Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay is Here to Stay?
vitaly.friedman wrote to mention a Wired article about The Pirate Bay, a file-sharing crewe out of Sweden that thumbs its nose at the MPAA just for kicks and has yet to be shut down. From the article: "The Pirate Bay's legal adviser, law student Mikael Viborg, said the site receives 1,000 to 2,000 HTTP requests per second on each of its four servers. That's bad news for the content industries, which have fired off letter after menacing letter to the site, only to see their threats posted on The Pirate Bay, together with mocking replies. Viborg said that no one has successfully indicted The Pirate Bay or sued its operators in Swedish courts. Attorneys for DreamWorks and Warner Bros., two companies among those that have issued take-down demands to the site, did not return calls for comment."
Money always wins, and in our increasingly global economy, the means for the big studios to finally take them down will eventually come into being. It's just a matter of time.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. I just think it's inevitable.
The socialist-democratic movement has always been very keen on protecting the little guy, and that doesn't happen without protecting his/her rights.
Whether or not what they do is illegal or immoral, I'm glad to see people questioning their government instead of caving.
from tfa:
"Copyright laws are being enforced and upheld in countries all over the world and when you facilitate the illegal file swapping of millions of people around the world, you are subject to those laws", (said MPAA spokeswoman Kori Bernards)
so ISPs are liable?
computer manufacturers are liable?
the guy who designed your file system?
soundcard makers? video cards? screens?
of course, it all depends how far you're willing to take 'facilitating', but that statement just sounds dodgy, especially considering they're talking about applying US law internationally...
Well said! You are right on the money about the freedom to do what you wish with the products you buy. Funny how such a socialist country retains so many freedoms, yet ironically the USA moves closer and closer to the communist ideal of state-owned property.
For those too shy to call, even a posted letter speaks decibels louder than an email or online petition. It might not hurt to speak to your elected official just the same. If and when enough noise is made on both fronts they will intersect at some point and the government will tihnk to itself "hey, I've heard this issue before".
The freedom to do what you want with products you physically own is a great freedom
I really dislike this sentiment.
You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right to listen to them. Where the RIAA is making a mistake is they are trying to limit your ability to listen to the music with DRM and copy protection, but that's another long rambling post for another time. The music is NOT yours to distribute. Other people invested large amounts of time, money, and resources into recording and producing the music that you paid for...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
really? What are they stealing?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.
Well with Bombs like Taxi, Duece Bigalow, and Dukes of Hazzard, this may not be such a bad thing, eh?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It seems (to me, a musician, not an intellectual property lawyer) that what they're doing is technically safe from getting nailed. However... laws governing the physical world are rife with clauses concerning "aiding and abetting."
I think I'd probably wager that the entertainment industry will discern or lobby a means of providing either law or precedence that will enable the industry to go after folks that enable non-sanctioned file sharing services. Has there already been precedence for shutting down servers like The Pirate Bay? For now, it seems, hosting and transmitting (catalogues of?) information isn't getting slammed.
A Passionate Independent Musician
No matter how many letters they send out calling for a shut down, no matter how many people they fine/arrest, no matter how many people they take to court, the record and movie industry should realize they are never going to stop bootlegs. It's like the war on drugs, except 10x more pointless.
6 in a row
Apologies to C.S. Lewis.
Okay, this is a tracker site. It's going to be harder to justify pulling the whole site down because of the torrents it tracks.
However, if the companies are determined enough, they'll get the site yanked.
First they go to the tracker site itself.
Then they go to their provider.
Then they go to the provider upstream.
And up, and up the chain until they reach someone who WILL yank the plug.
Granted, if they proceed above a multi-homed provider, they have to go to an increasing number of upstream providers. At which point, it becomes a MASSIVE hassle. But, as I said, it all depends on how determined they are to down a site.
Not that I'd know anything about downing a site in this fashion....
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
For example, my US Representative here in Cleveland, Ohio, is Stephanie Tubbs Jones. She typically puts most of her emphasis into social programs and other issues that the Congressional Black Caucus tends to work on. Not really much of a standard bearer when it comes to technology issues. But when I sent her office an e-mail opposing the Broadcast Flag a while back, the response I got wasn't the usual anti-piracy line that comes from misunderstanding the issue. That tells me that, while the letter didn't indicate a strong position on the issue, the broadcast flag, digital TV, and other consumer issues are gaining in importance with her.
Admittedly, when it comes to action in Congress, the will of the people often takes a back seat to partisan political wrangling, especially for Congresspeople with, er, higher political aspirations. But if you stay cynical and don't do anything at all, don't be surprised when they don't take your opinion into account.
You made a great comment that reminds me of something I've always been annoyed by as a canadian -- socialism is not contrary to freedom. Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.
Huh? How about freedom to keep what I earn and use it to pay for my own medical insurance of my choice? Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice? Freedom to not be poor through the sweat of my brow? My country's a great one, but it's not all roses here.
Socialism is simply contrary to pure capitalism, which obviously doesn't work (see neighbour, USA). Plenty of imprisonned people with no access to lawyers, lots of people living in complete poverty in major centers, no easy access to medical services for those without insurance, no easy access to pharmeceuticals to those not in the middle and high income brackets.
They have problems, but it's not as grave as the world news would have one believe. They're breaking apart as they become more and more like us! Thanks God we have a good, powerful neighbor.
Look, I love my country, and we have certain "advantages," but they're heavily offset by the loss of real freedom.
"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."
But that is not what Pirate Bay does. What they do is the equivalent to you telling someone, "Hey, they have music CDs at the corner store." If the person then goes to the corner store and steals a CD, well, that's his problem, not yours.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
The sad part is that I have to go online to a swedish website in order to download the TV show that I missed last night. Look at iTunes. Give people a legal way to purchase things online, and people will use it. This is not about the $200 million dollars it takes to make a movie, its about the $1.50 the company could have made from me by providing an equally simple method of getting the content I want.
As the son of a professional musician, one who is barely known outside our small community, I can confidently say that there are plenty of other ways to make money without touring or selling merchandise. And $200 million movies will still get made, assuming the movie studios can keep up with the buisness models of the future.
.
I just have two points to make:
One, congress isn't going to, in my opinion, swing into action on DRM issues. The reasons may be many, but my guess is because the people who actually vote don't care. Look who votes in the U.S. It is old people. It is a generalization, but would say that to the average 50-60-70-80 year old, intellectual propertyis not a big issue. 20 somethings and other young people don't vote in any kind of appreciable number. So you are going to see prescription drugs and prune farming subsidies as big issues until generation x and y decide to vote.
Two, you say calling your congressman doesn't help? Sure it does. Not if you call (unless you are a big employer or donor), but if you are one of many callers. Politics aside- every congressman has been saying that their phones have been ringing off the hook re the Dubai ports deal. Congressman can't ignore their constituancy- If their phone rings all day, they will have to do something, or be voted out.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
No, these guys are more like the stores that sell the little razorblade devices that shoplifters use to slash the shrinkwrap on CDs at the record store very quickly, and pocket the disc. (They were a whole lot more common before a lot of stores went to using those hard shells that have to be broken open by the cashier.) Or the head shop that sells crack pipes "for tobacco use only."
They're not actually doing the stealing/drugs for you, but they're clearly facilitating it.
That said, I don't really give a damn. I can't work up much moral outrage for some kid who rips off Vivendi or Universal, whether its using bittorrent or a tiny sliver of metal. Leech it on your parents' cable modem, or stuff it in your pants, the only question I have is whether by pirating their media, are you still indirectly supporting their grip on content creation and distribution, by giving them free advertising and mindshare. I think the jury's still out on that.
But I save my outrage for crimes that have actual victims, of which there are far too many anyway.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"... there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."
There is an obvious difference: stealing a CD deprives the store of a physical object they bought and owned. Copying data deprives no one of anything. Feel free to preach the evils of copying, but saying there's no difference merely displays ignorance.
"If people stop paying to make [$200 million] movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future."
The imaginary "right" for Hollywood to make $200 million movies at a guaranteed profit does not trump my right to copy and share speech, data, and information with my fellow humans. I reject the arguments of copyright, and only by using threats and violence against people like me can you, the RIAA/MPAA, and their bribed politicians attempt to stop it.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
As for the rest of your post, classic Orwellian statement.
"War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Having to give tons of the money that you legally earned and rightfully deserve to social programs you may not even use is freedom."
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
It's because of $200 million movies that it now costs $7 for a small soda in a theater. If directors were more concerned about putting actual content in their movies instead of million-dollar special effects every 17 seconds, we'd have a shitton more movies with budgets like 'Blair Witch'.
Personally, I'd be glad if they stopped making $200 million movies. Then maybe theater ticket prices would drop and people wouldn't have to resort to downloading movies illegally.
The communist ideal isn't state owned property - it's the dissolution of the state.
It's the transfer between private property and the shared ownership almost inevitable leads to that problem - but it's certainly not the 'ideal'.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
On the contrary, I think Orwell would be disgusted by the total disregard for fellow humanity that you are suggesting is 'right'.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right to listen to them. [...] Other people invested large amounts of time, money, and resources into recording and producing the music that you paid for...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it.
That is true, they do have that right - but not because they were the ones who paid for it (after all, if I manufacture chairs, pay for the cost, then sell them, I don't have that right), or because it's some sort of natural human right. They have that right because the people decided to make a copyright law, that gives them that right for a limited time. It was a good idea at the time, but, if the people decide that the balance has now gone too far towards the music industry, the laws can be changed and the "right" will be gone.
And it is a weird right - after all, as the grandparent says, something you physically own is usually yours to do with as you please. That's what ownership means, and it's a rather more fundamental right than copyright.
The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways. Act as if they're selling a single physical thing, then restrict your use by saying you only bought a license.
I'd be fine with buying a license for music - I'd pay for the license to listen to a song. If that means I can replace a scratched CD for a fee equal to the cost of pressing it; if I could redownload a song whenever I wanted, say if I accidentally deleted it; if I could make personal copies to listen to it on whatever gadget I may own. That'd be fair - I paid for the right to listen to it, so I can listen to it.
The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways.
If it's a license I bought, why did I have to buy the CD for the full price when I already owned the LP?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."
Complete and utter hogwash! Stealing the CD or DVD deprives the merchant of goods, copying a CD or DVD doesn't deprive anyone of goods!
Depriving someone of their property equals stealing
Copyright infringement does NOT equal stealing, because no one is deprived of their goods or access to their goods. It MIGHT deprive retailers etc of sales. Deprivation of sales does NOT equal theft.
HTH
This sig kills fascists.
It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.
1. Many large budget movies lately have been sucking and maybe should go away.
2. Directors with vision will still get money somehow because they make good movies (Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg for example)
3. People will still pay to watch movies in theaters and buy DVDs.
Seriously... I think a lot of crap gets churned out in the theaters is because Movie Execs throw money left and right and into fireplaces because some hack director *coughs* Uwe Boll *coughs* gave a fancy powerpoint presentation.
If these piss poor movie makers didn't get those big budgets we'd see more room for smaller more entertaining movies with reasonable budgets.
But then again... Maybe that would just lead to more smaller budget crap movies.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Actually I think the U.S. is moving towards more of a facist govenment like what was institited in Germancy crica 1930s and '40s.
"It has in many ways been obvious to the public that the anti-piracy lobby is also operating in their own, very doubtful, legal gray zone," said Piratbyrån member Rasmus Fleischer. "They are dependent on the existence of police officers willing to give priority to the hunting of file sharers over real criminality."
I think it's true that our law-makers and enforcers have a skewed set of priorities when it comes to copyright infringement vs. real crime.
AFAIK Europe, and especially Scandinivia, has always had very different definitions of freedom than the US.
As I see it, the American definition is pretty much 'The Freedom To Be F*cked Over'. It has led to unparallelled economic efficiency, a reasonably succesfull forced integration of minorities (no cuddling and not too much bullshit; get a job and stop complaining!), however also it has lead to corrupt(er) politicians, massive corporate power and extremely few consumer rights. Not too bad of a deal, it turned you into a superpower, but I'm really, really not sure if it gave you happiness.
You believe in the freedom of speech, but for some obscene reason it only applies to government censorship. Which, to me, seems totally ludicrous and as absurd as it gets; after all The Government is just a reasonably large corporation with you as the owner. In a liberal democrazy it's about the only thing you don't need protection from; because it's about the only thing you have control over (mark, I come from a small country. I've met ministers and high goverment officials on random places like the street, shopping at the local supermarket etc on numerous occasions (and I'm not even from the capital).. and so have pretty much everyone)
On the other hand, 'we' (I do atleast) believe in the freedom to live a nice life. Healthcare, pensions, social security and extensive consumer rights comes at a price though; economic efficiency. However, I believe we're more than rich enough to pay it. My family have no problems only having one car (walking to the grocery store isn't social suicide here either) and if the price for being 10% richer is a significant decrease in living standard for the 10% poorest, then I'm saying 'No Thank You'.
However, we have really, really large problems with immigrants coming here and seeing everything they get for free (somewhat understandably too, most of them come from shitty places). Our way of society only works as long as people accepts the implied social contract of 'You Own The Government, exploiting it hurts society and leaves us all worse off' and actually prefer working.. and it's on this background you need to analyze alot of the problems Europe is having with immigration and integration.
[/rant] :)
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Try getting medical care in some places. Either you've got one doctor or no doctors in your one cow town, or you're waiting for months to get a mammogram. And insurance is way too expensive. The US health system shouldn't be used as an example - it's failing.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Total crap, you've just been hoodwinked by the RIAA and MPAA. As long as the actors are making more than 50,000 per year then we the consumers are paying to much for their product. I stopped bying any and all music when napster got shut down. When napster was up and running I bought over 400 CD's from music I was sampling over torrents. I liked finding stuff I liked and supporting those artists. I still buy movies and games (just bought Galactic Civilizations 2 which has zero copyright protection!!), with movies the movies I buy it for collectable value, not because of the "art" itself. If all I wanted to do was watch it I could just Tivo it, thats not the issue at all. Don't fall for all this copyright crap, its only illegal because the music and movie industries spent millions lobing congress to make it illegal. Its time for the model to change, there are other options. Copyrights need to be shorted or changed. There are alternate methods for music and movie industries to make money without stopping all the free advertising from p2p networks. The should have exlusive rights to merchandise such as clothing, action figures, ect that are not digitally reproducable. Digital content free to duplicate (well there is bandwidth cost) but it doesn't necessitate $1 pluss download fees. If you want people to by the albums again make special inserts tot he albums, package them with band t-shirts, sell concert tickets. There are tuns of ways to make money off music and movies without charging for the actual work itself. Give the music and movies away for free and merchandise off the fanfare. Take pokemon for example, get the kids hooked on saturday morning (freely distributed content) and then hit their parents up with all the accessories and games that aren't digitally reproducable. The MPAA and RIAA are using the government to strongarm their position. The are standing on the greatest advertising tool ever and a potential booming market, but because of their closed and narrow mindedness their are missing the big picture and missing a golden opportunity to grow their market and expand, instead they are waisting their resources (and their income from legit sales) to promote a war that is being lost more rapidly than the war on drugs or the war on terror. They need to look at the world around them, see the new technologies, and then see how best to use it to their advantage, going with the flow not against it. How does that old saying go... you'll attract more bees/flies with honey than vinegar? The music and movie industries are standing on the verge of a golden age, but instead they want to drive it into the dark ages.
Actually, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that they are engaged in theft. They are a site which allows users to upload trackers. Trackers do not contain any protected IP, they simply point to where the IP can be found.
Their actions are similar to pointing out the location of a brothel to an stragner. Sex with a prostitute (for money) may be illegal, however, pointing out where one can acquire a prostitute's services is not illegal. These guys at the Pirate Bay aren't even pointing out where the illegal activity is taking place. They are hosting a bulletin board where people can come and post this information.
Am I convinced that this is a "good" thing? I can't say that. Should it be legal? I certainly believe so. I'm surprised that the activity that TPB is engaged in is not legal in the United States. Perhaps is has to do with our strong tradition of copyright protection.
IANAL
-Turkey
Funny how such a socialist country retains so many freedoms, yet ironically the USA moves closer and closer to the communist ideal of state-owned property.
Umm, what's so "funny" about that? Many Swedish socialist parties have liberties as a quite high priority.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
No they aren't. There is no copyrighted material on their website. And even if there were, it wouldn't be stealing. If I shoplift a DVD from a store, I'm stealing. If I copy a movie from the net, I'm NOT stealing. I might be committing a copyright infringment, but it's NOT the same thing as stealing. If I steal something, it means that I deprive someone from their property. If I make a copy of that property, no-one gets deprived of anything.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Exactly. If they'd used a name like Suprnova or something, everyone would have just left well enough alone.
I think you are missing a crucial point here, in addition to a smidge of irony.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Yes exactly! If everyone blasted sony's phone lines and fax machines when they pulled their CD rootkit stunt the whole issue would have been very different today and companies looking at DRM would really think twice before risking losing days even weeks of productivity over adding DRM to a product that really does not need it.
If people do all 3 phone,fax,email it will get the management's attention and force them to respond.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What crazy impression of Canadians do you have?
- keep what I earn: Yeah the tax bracket system does have a higher top value than in the USA. Yippie. If you're in that bracket, a good financial advisor can make you minimize any taxible income. Additionally, there have been countless comparisons that all show that by the time all is said and done (adding in health care, education, etc) we're not far off in the purchasing power of your income
- pay for your own medical insurance : why would you want to? I'm offering to give you an amazing doctor and the services you need, and you'd rather 'shop around'? It's there when you need it. You're not buying a car. You're not looking for a better deal. Everyone is entitled to a standard of health care. Note that there are 'extras' such as private rooms, that can be paid directly of through insurance, but why would anyone want to shop around for anything but a good grade of health care?
- Run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice: You sir watch too much Dateline
- be poor through the sweat of my brow: see comment # 1
Going hunting on a full stomach? Imposing our views on others who couldn't care less what we think? Let's jump for joy!
Yeah- nothing quite like hanging out with the schoolyard bully. That'll just get us in detention as well , or put us near the line of fire when someone shows up at school with a weapon.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Theft means that someone deprives someone else from their property. Who is being deprived of their property here? I believe that the word you are looking for is "copyright infringment", not "theft". The two acts are called different, because they are different acts. downloading movies is not called theft because it's not theft.
There is a huge difference between those two
Or you were modeed down because your comment was just plain WRONG, not to mention stupid? What Pirate Bay or it's users are doing is NOT theft, not even close. You can't call it theft because it's not theft.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
People tend to "justify" piracy in the mistaken belief that they're outlaws, fighting the cause of the common man against the evils of the mega-corporations. In reality, all they are doing is giving those same corporations justification for not actually fixing the core problems which are hype, over-marketing, inflated prices & poor quality products.
If everyone was more discerning, read reviews of products before buying and treated their money with a little more respect, nothing would force those corporations to clean up their act more than seeing their profits dwindle because people simply don't believe what they produce to be worth the money.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Some people beleive that they can be of service to goverments which have the right to tell them (and you) what to do.
Some people treat their government as a public service, which is told what to do by the people.
Guess which type of people the Swedes are?
Saying what you have about the draconian backlash is like saying that there would be a backlash of bull-fighting and bear-baiting in the UK after banning fox-hunting, or a backlash of 'gun-control' in all the other US states if one was more permissive than the rest about automatics. It is possible, but it's not in the nature of that culture.
As an example, 10 or so years after the abolition of free public transport in Amsterdam, it is still culturally acceptable to ignore buying a ticket, and ride for free. Most choose to comply with the imposed laws, but that doesn't mean they will stop you, and they would think you a better person for doing what you believe, even if they personally dissagree with it.
[ insert meme here ]
Yes it is. They're doing precisely that. And they're *still here*. And they're showing everyone you can do this and still be there. The MPAA would very much like people to think that what they were doing was illegal, but it isn't, and by being very blatant about what they're doing, they make more people aware of this fact.
I am trolling
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_sna
And, although many selfish conservative types might agree that adults deserve to suffer if they aren't successful, what about the kids?
http://www.secondharvest.org/learn_about_hunger/c
http://www.savethechildren.org/usa/
Did they personally do something to you to deserve an insurmountable handicap in pursuing the American dream? You do believe in the promise of America, that everyone is given the opportunity to succeed, right? Yeah... And maybe they'll take you to the third hospital the ambulance passes. You might even live that long. Or, if you're lucky, they'll see the insurance card in your wallet and take you to the nearest emergency room. It's all over the Internet. However, I don't think anybody is saying the U.S. isn't a great place to live, just that we could do better. Don't you believe in self-improvement?
Ask me about my sig!
Is a library theft? If you read the book at the library doesn't that negate one sale?
Is borrowing a video game theft? If you borrow your friend's copy of Katamari Damacy and you finish the game, doesn't that negate one sale?
How about if you walk away from the TV while watching your favourite show? Don't commercials pay for the airtime?
What if you use the Adblock plugin in a web browser?
Or watch public access television without donating?
etc. etc. etc.
If you publish media in any way it is susceptible to free consumption and duplication. Nothing will ever change that as long as media is percievable by humans somewhere along the line. However, this is secondary to the point of sites like TPB. These sites are exercising the freedoms of the people to share culture with their friends. The traditional barriers of communication are breaking down and it's underground movements like P2P that facilitate this. It can't be uninvented and it can't be stopped.
It's up to media corporations to entice us to purchase its products in new ways because its monopoly on distribution is over forever.
In an ice age the rodents and cockroaches survive, not the dinosaurs.
No, a fence is "receiving and concealing stolen goods." This is a crime that depends on theft, and which helps to make theft profitable, but it is not in itself theft.
Really? Am I speeding if I tell the driver of a car to put the petal to the metal? Am I committing assault if I sell someone a set of brass knuckles?
Rather the contrary, it is starting to sound like you don't get the point.
Stealing means a certain thing. There are other things that might also be bad, but just because they are bad doesn't mean they're stealing. As someone else posted above, murder is not "stealing someone's life". Likewise littering is not "stealing cleanliness", and libel is not "stealing a reputation".
Even if I really, really, really don't like piracy, I am not going to call it stealing, because that's not the correct word for it. As long as you continue to use words for other than their intended purposes, you come off as a dogmatist fishing to score emotional points rather than a rational participant in a mature discussion.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Somehow, I think people in the Soviet Union or China would disagree with you there...
Newsflash - the Soviet Union hasn't existed for many, many years.
That aside, even when it did it wasn't Socialist, and neither is China. If you want an example of a socialist state look to Europe - Denmark, Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK, France, Netherlands, etc. They're doing OK.
How doesn't Capitalism work? The US is the most powerful country in the world.
It also has some of the higest rates of crime, violence, poverty, illiteracy and inprisonment in the western world. It's the most powerful country in the world and yet it can't (or won't) even protect it's own citizens against a storm given ample warning. It's the richest country in the world and yet it's people are still dying of malnutrition and lack of medical treatment every day.
Yes the US is rich, yes it's militarily powerful, yes it's full of itself. It's a matter of opinion as to whether that's enough to be considered "succesful".
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Hint: You're confusing two unrelated issues. They may be helping others to perform copyrigth-violations, but they are *not* helping others perform theft.
Despite the propaganda of the **AA these two are two completely unrelated crimes. Described in different laws, with different punishments, different rules, different *everything*.
Yes. Both are illegal. But you don't go calling "speeding" "rape" just because both are illegal.
Umm, what's so "funny" about that? Many Swedish socialist parties have liberties as a quite high priority.
Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that SOCIALISM = AUTHORITARIANISM, while CAPITALISM = FREEEEEEDOM. This is what allows them to believe that they are "free," even while inequalities and authoritarianism continues to rise in their own country. They tacitly accept wage slavery and a brutal competitive attitude that encourages stepping on everyone else to get to the top -- all under the rubric of freedom, individualism and other brain disorders of Puritanical heritage.
Ahh, the whole theft vs copyright infringement debate. Wouldn't it be great if all arguments could be settled by such technical hair splitting?
Example:
Common Man:
He hit me with a bat! That's assault!
Bat wielding punk:
No no, when you actually hit someone it's battery. You're stupid and wrong. *goes off to hit more people with a bat*
Further example:
Worker:
You were cooking the books and killed my pension! You stole all the money I was going to retire on!
CEO:
No no no, that's FRAUD. Although I may have taken something that belongs to you, because you used the wrong term I can laugh at you and pretend it's something different.
I've burned copies of CDs and DVDs that didn't belong to me, so I'm as guilty as the next guy. But I've never felt the need to call someone on the whole "Copyright Infringement isn't theft!" Since both boil down to "Taking something that doesn't belong to you", why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?
>If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs.
Yes, it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so if you have the materials and the ability to recreate it. If there were replicators (ala Star Trek), I would have no moral problem with copying anything at all.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
But yes, capitalism-the-ideal does grind the poor into the dust. If you believe in private ownership, it generally follows that you don't believe in redistributing wealth when a minority of people have so much wealth that the trickle-down effect no longer functions -- after all, no one spends 100 million dollars in one year. Even people making a quarter of million dollars spend only a small proportion of it. The rest gets hoarded. And that causes the economy to grind to a halt and the poor to suffer. Creating wealth is worthless when all of the new wealth just goes straight into the hoards of the rich.
Not to mention the fact that capitalists invariably oppose any form of organized behaviour on the part of workers that might give them enough power to successfully bargain for better wages/work conditions/rights/whatever with their employers. Anyone who would deprive people of the right to organize and peacably assemble is monstrous, and that's what capitalists want to do.
According to your argument I should not be allowed to bottle up tap water and take it with me in the car. I pay for cds only as a vehicle for distributing content. The content is what I paid for, not a stupid plastic disc, and if I want to use that in my car, my house, my mp3 player, and my laptop why should I not be able to?
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
If you think that the most important political issue facing the world today is your right to take what does not belong to you without paying for it I really do pity you.
/. and in your blog.
And if you think the most important political issue is for people to hoard what they own and make because sharing is freeloading then I pity you. But I don't have to pity you because you don't actually think that. You have a blog.
Nowhere do I say that I am against paying for things. Of course we must buy goods if we expect anyone to make them. I don't think it's unreasonable to offer the things I've bought or made, or to enjoy what other people offer. The appropriate give\take ratio is a personal opinion. Personally, I think you, Zeinfeld, are entitled to take from the digital cookie jar because you are the type of person who is kind enough to publish your knowledge and opinions for free - on
You and I may not agree, but we each have benefitted from the other's argument. Not only this, but others benefit from our argument as well because we have decided to discuss this publicly. We could sell tickets to this battle of titans or get paid to publish it in a magazine but we've chosen to do so for free, as is our right.
I'm not touting some bullshit reasoning like "movies suck so it doesn't matter if I steal them." I'm saying that every freedom we give up is a freedom lost forever, and our freedom to share, freely and anonymously, is one worth fighting for. This is precisely what the internet was designed for, and by using the internet at all you sign a contract stating your approval for sites like TPB. Furthermore, you approve of the freedom of speech for Nazis, the KKK, the Taliban, the Dalai Lama, for me, and for you.
The internet is not the real world, even though the two are tied sometimes as they are in business. The Internet Protocol transmits bits and that's it. That's how it was designed and that's all it can do. It was designed to be open, to allow anyone to create any application for it, and to allow anyone to use those applications however they wish.
An argument against file sharing is an argument against the internet. Don't you appreciate your freedom to publish your blog for free to the whole world? And the freedom of others to hyperlink to you without your written consent?
Fine, you amuse yourself by stealing from others and I will amuse myself by bringing the law down on you and people like you.
I pay levies on blank media to the Canadian Recording Industry Association even when I burn music I wrote to a CD. I pay this company money to listen to my own music on my own CD player in my own car. I pay this company money when I back up my Word documents, make a boot CD, make a DVD of my home videos, and even when the burn fails and the disc is useless. Please bring the law down on me because the law is infallable, it serves my fellow man, and it is in our best interest.
Excuse me? If I buy a vacuum cleaner, lawnmower, weed eater, blender, power drill, I can do any damn thing I want to them including making new devices using parts from them, upgrading them with aftermarket parts to work better, rent them to other people, and resell them later when I'm done with them.
If they break during normal use, in the warranty period, they are repaired free by the company- sometimes with a small shipping fee.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you've been brainwashed.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Does TPB index content by having spiders randomly follow links? I honestly don't know. If they don't, analogy destroyed.
I work for a Swedish software development company, and we have no issues with PirateBay and similar sites. Our software is used basically by three categories of people - academic researchers, students and industry. Only the latter can afford it anyway and they generally don't get their stuff from warez sites. The other two, especially students can't afford it anyway, so there is no loss of profit if they use 'illegal' copies of our software. On the contrary, they get to know our product so when they start working there's a good chance that they'll buy software they are used to working with.
;)
So why don't we give out the software with a non-commercial use restriction? We tried that for a while and it was a disaster - the commercial users ignored the license restriction and used the free version instead of buying it.
As it is now, we do provide a free student version, but only through their universities - which is a load of extra work for us and inconvenient for the students. So it's actually much less of a hassle for us if they obtain the software in other ways.
However, this is not good enough, especially when it comes to academic research licenses. We provide them at a lower price, but would in reality like much more control over that. A European or US university can afford our software for research use (discounted), while a university in a third-world country can't. We'd like to charge the former and give it for free to the latter (again, we may as well give it to people who wouldn't buy it anyway). This is fairly impossible today without lots of manual work on our part.
Ideally, the system should be socialized and automated. Our goals are that we 1) Get as much money as possible (duh!) 2) Get as many people as possible to use (and benefit) from our product. The old Karl Marx quote "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." fits quite well in that context. Basically the ideal solution is that people pay for the product relative to their income. (Even more ideally, the return-on-investment should be factored in, but that's nearly impossible to measure.) Although unrealistic, the automated part would be possible with verifiable global digital IDs and verifiable income statistics. Some form of market regulation of that type of pricing would have to be invented as well.
Utopian ineed, but one can dream.
You already have a far more powerful weapon that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to not break any laws, in the opinion of anyone anywhere: DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
(Of course, that means doing without the latest movies, music, and games, but your principles are more important than that, right?)
When I was having trouble collecting money from an eBay sale, I researched the person who owed me money, found out he was a pastor of a church, and have asked his co-pastors, and his secretary to help me motivate him to settle debts.
Sometimes indirect approaches work. And so.. I had a thought.
Pirate Bay clearly has a lot of energy, and will get a lot of news coverage. This public awareness can be useful. What if they partnered with some business-savvy new college grads and wrote a business case study (5-10 pages long) showing how the record companies were ripping off the artists.
Then send a copy of each threatening letter, along with the business study, to every artist who's material is referenced in a threatening letter. It will make the original authors think, and they may realize there are better ways to distribute their work or make money from their work.
Done well, this could dry up the people in the middle screaming "violation". I have pursued protection of some material I wrote, so I understand from the artists' point of view. I honestly want to compensate them for their added-value into my life. But I sure don't like the intermediaries.
It's actually more accurate to say that many people, Americans, in particular, fail to see the difference between social and economic policies.
Americans are fairly free; in the economic sense. Short of a few laws and such, trade is mostly untouched by government. Where they lose out is in social freedoms; gay marriage isn't possible in most (any?) states, and the opposition to open sexuality was such that half a boob on primetime tv warranted such a massive scandal. They also routinely abuse the civil rights of citizens; the PATRIOT Act for example.
France is a good example of a western country that's fairly opposite. Social freedoms are high on the list, with open sexuality on television, and except that school-headscarf law social freedoms are good (it does seem like this is starting to change, however). Look at economic freedoms though, and you'll see that there aren't many; the government has heavy taxes and a strong benefit system.
The real killer in the US is that they call the Democrats "liberals"! The democrat party are actually very conservative by international standards. Republicans seemed similar when Bush was elected the first time, but since have slipped heavily into the Authoritarian corner.
I think you're dead on in your observations. I read recently that America does not really have two opposing political parties; it's more like we have two divisions of the same corporation. They may compete at times, but they still want the same things in the end.
Sadly, I don't know that the Democrats are any better about graft and corruption. It's just that the current administration is so incredibly obvious about its corruption and bribery that it's causing other Republicans to be more open about their graft...and get caught as a result. Note that not a single Republican has been charged on the Federal level...it's always state law that brings them down. The Federal courts are completely compromised, and will not lift a finger against the adminstration or its friends.
I don't know that we have an answer. Got any room over there in Sweden for some disaffected techies?
This is an argument a hear a lot in rallys/debates by the democratic group at my college. That it is somehow the government's job to run around the school yard and topple anyone who gets too big.
The Death tax hurts little people, too. I have a friend who's parents died recently, and as an only child, left him pretty much everything. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford the taxes associated with his parent's estate, mainly the house his parents were living in - a house that had been in their family for four generations. Yeah, that death tax was real fair!
Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.
Indeed, that is why your parents pay taxes during their entire working lives. And that is why I'll also be paying taxes my entire working life.
I would prefer to have a society were wealth is based more on merit and hard work and not just because some distant ancestor made it big in plastics. There are several key arguments for an estate tax.
Great, so teach your kids the value of a dollar and a hard days work. My parents did. Not everyone has megawealthy ancestors who are responsible for their wealth - my parents simply worked their entire lives for it (and were the first generation to ever graduate high school, let alone college).
Continued concentrate of power in the elite...
It is undeniable that there is a connection between wealth and political power. And unfortunately, no one, not democrat, and not republican, seems willing to separate the two, by any means. I don't think the solution, however, is letting the gov't jump in and say "HA! You died, now gimme half!!!1" Protecting consumers has nothing to do with an Estate tax and everything to do with regulatory bodies such as the FTC. There are other ways with dealing with such issues and a Death Tax is certainly an indirect and overly broad method.
Limit Innovation.
Please, it is a gross generalization that all rich kids are snobs and do nothing with their lives, and some kid being rich hardly limits your ability to innovate. If anything, your argument would eliminate your competition and make it easier for you to innovate!
Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.
Neither of which, I would argue, are the purpose of government. With the exception of military research, the government has no business funding research. Sure, it's a great pie-in-the-sky concept, the government dumping billions of dollars into cancer research to help humanity. But is that their job? No. If I want to fund cancer research I'll fund it myself knowing that it was *my* decision, not the government's, to do good.
Clearly, education has worked its way into the purpose of government (and it has done a terrible job) and that fact wont be changing. I would love to see the government give interest free loans to ANYONE, regardless of race/ethnicity/class/religion/sexual orientation/geographic location, who wishes to go to college (I'd say you need to be a citizen, however). But that's pretty pie-in-the-sky as well, isn't it?
Instead of solving the problems of society by giving the single thing we should keep in check the most - the federal government - why do people (especially democrats, who always say they are looking out for the "little guy") insist that giving more wealth, and by your own statement, power, to the government is the solution to all of societies ills? When did we stop being grown ups and instead being children of the government our parents gave their blood and sweat for? Giving the government more power is a sure fire wire to give yourself less.
By conflating theft and copyright infringement groups with vested interests seek to take advantage of the public view of the effects of theft, i.e. the obvious loss of something tangible, so that copyright infringement is seen the same way even though there is no obvious loss with copyright infringement. They want people who copy movies and songs to be branded criminals in the minds of the people. They are trying to change the public perception of copyright infringement via the use of emotive terms rather than logical argument. That sort of underhanded tactic deserves active resistance IMHO. Also, to accept the conflation of theft and copyright infringement as you apparently do is to accept the argument that an unauthorised copy represents the loss of revenue equal to the retail price of the original. The groups in question want you believe that, but it is still very debatable.
CD = tangible item.
mp3 = intangible string of 1s and 0s.
Comparing the theft of the two is silly, as stealing tangible items is often much more problematic to the victims than intangible items, when all that is lost is the possibility of extra money, but nothing that they current have is lost.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I happen to be an estate planner, and I can say that the current system doesn't work that way. The rich, who use good financial planners (like me) never have to pay estate taxes. There are way too many loopholes, and a bit of good planning can usually elimate most death taxes. It's only the financially uneducated middle class that usually ends up paying death taxes. And what that usually means is the difference between their kids or grandkids going to college, versus getting mcjobs when they drop out of high school.
The system looks good from afar, but in reality it's just a clusterfuck. I try to help, by giving my services for free to the middle class as well, but there's only so many people I can educate.
The internet is a different beast than the book. In the internet, information is copied ALL THE TIME. Every time somebody reads a web page, they aren't accessing the original content, but a COPY of the content, cached on the user's computer. Every bit of information passes through many nodes and is temporarily stored as a copy in memory, or in wires, or airwaves.
The content of the internet was designed to be copied. This doesn't mean it's ok to steal a work and present it as your own. But providing a mirror of content while providing citation is simply part of the flow of things. There's hardly a difference between being a mirror of a site, and being a proxy server that will communicate with the site and pass it to the user. And if the proxy caches a copy, there's no difference.