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."

Comments

socialist-democratic not communist

[BoxedFlame]

The socialist-democratic movement has always been very keen on protecting the little guy, and that doesn't happen without protecting his/her rights.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[raju1kabir]

I think Sweden's view on not just protecting the rights of the minority, but also giving them some subsidy rights, is where they fail overall in having a much more powerful trade position as well as a more vibrant economy.

Calling this a failure is really dependent on the assumption that their primary goal is to have "a much more powerful trade position and a more vibrant economy." I would submit that the Swedish people have decided other things are more important.

I could easily be a lot richer than I am, but the tradeoffs are not worth it to me. That doesn't mean I'm a failure at wealth acquisition, any more than you're a failure at getting sex-change operations or being a circus clown.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights: the right to earn and keep property.

If you truly consider that the most important right of all, above every other right, you're pathologically materialistic and need an attitude adjustment.

In a society where personal property is de-emphasized, there is one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty. There is a direct correlation between the number of freedoms enjoyed (and protected) in this country (I'm in the USA) and the income of the citizen in question. Before SLAPP legislation (and even after) people who spoke in a way that made the rich people (read: big business) look bad, or that called on them to take responsibility for their actions, were frequently named in lawsuits with no basis in the law, not designed to be won, or even tried, but intended to force the speaker to choose between shutting up and going bankrupt defending themselves. The current actions of the MPAA and the RIAA are analogous to this scenario, except the big money in this case is defending its "right" to require its customers to give them as much money as possible.

If you turn that example on its head, you'll see what I'm talking about: Let's say I'm a computer technician, with a clientele that includes small businesses and residential customers, and let's also say I'm really the only game in town. One day, someone, somewhere, invents a program that allows my customers to share information that I've given them in the course of doing my job. This is information that I've spent time and resources acquiring, and as a result of this sharing I lose business. If I tried to sue the developer of this program for my "lost business" I'd get laughed out of court, mostly because I can't afford the lawyers that have $3000 suits.

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening every day, and there's really no middle class anymore; we're a country of haves and have-nots. These days it seems the only rights you have are the ones you can afford to defend. A deemphasis on personal material gain would alleviate this.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[truckaxle]

Why should the government be involved with deciding what I do with my property, be it my body, my house, or my wallet?

Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure. 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.

• Continued concentrate of power in the elite. In any democracy, wealth can be translated into political power. It is a fact of life. Rememeber Bush's address to a group of wealth business men, "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." Continued power concentrated in the hands of few will diminish the protection and representation of the unelite. Growing numbers of the very rich can give money to political candidates who support their personal agendas. "Those contributions clearly have an influence on public policy," Gates says, such as more tax breaks for the rich or weakening of regulations that protect consumers.
  
  
• Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling around collecting art work for their private collections does not induce innovation.
  
  
• 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.

Surprisingly very wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett support the death tax.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[spyrochaete]

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".

Further up, further in.

[Chas]

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....

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Dachannien]

Actually, writing or calling your Congressperson can be more informative than you're giving it credit for.

• If your representative has already made up his or her mind, you can tell from the response letter, and then you can plan to vote against them at the next election.
• If they're keeping an open mind, you can usually tell from their noncommittal response, and thus you'll know that continued pressure may have a positive effect.
• If they (or their office) are completely clueless, or the issue you're concerned about isn't really on their radar, their seemingly off-topic response will clue you in.

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Scarblac]

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?

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

The site is engaged in theft

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.

Sure you can rationalize a set of values where taking a movie off bittorrent is different from stealling a DVD off the shelf of a store.

There is a huge difference between those two

But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.

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.