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."
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".
really? What are they stealing?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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? """
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.