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

(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

I always love when people think that writing or calling their elected official makes a hill of beans of difference. For me, all it generally did was give me a nice elated feeling when I received a signed letter in the mail thanking me for my opinion, and then writing a paragraph about why their decisions would never change.

I've lately become a firm believer in wasting the time of the company that has used the power of government against me -- in this case, the content and distribution cartels (RIAA, MPAA). Instead of calling your elected official, call the companies themselves and keep moving up the ladder with the fact that you have a general complaint about their products. Don't accept the underlings and don't tell them exactly what it is you're mad about. If that doesn't work, call up their sales department and work your way up the ladder there requesting information about their services.

The slashdot effect is great on the Internet, but it is even more powerful on the phones. Each and every server request you make costs any one company very little. Each and every phone call you make gets heard, at least in the bottom line.

I'm not telling people to do anything illegal -- don't hassle, don't spam, don't swear, don't threaten -- just call. Call and tell them you don't appreciate their actions, you don't appreciate their products, and you don't appreciate their lobbying to creatre a more powerful Congress.

I know my phone calls don't make a difference -- yet. But over time, as more people realize that voting with their dollars and voting with how they spend their time, we'll see change being made through a free market of motivations.

To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist. I think they'd be a dream country for most Progressives (which means it would be a nightmare for me), but it surprises me how many rights they still retain that we gave up in the US a long, long time ago. The freedom to do what you want with products you physically own is a great freedom, in fact I believe it is the basis for freedom. The freedom to do what you want with your labor and your mind is included in that freedom, and that is why I am against intellectual property rights in every way.

Go TPB!

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".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[MikeBabcock]

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.

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.

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!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Lumpy]

Slashdotting phones and fax machines are extremely useful. It got many of hacker out of jail really early. It also recently helped release a man in california that was arrested for growing pot that he used medically to control his rare cancer. he fled to canada to seek asylum and canada being the United States good lap-dog sent him right back to awaiting arms of DEA officers and directly to jail.

He recently was released because of non-stop phone calls to the jail, judge, and municipality causing their phones and fax machines to be 100% useless.

I do not have any links to the above. I listened to it on several radio talk shows at the beginning of this year.

but shashdotting a companies phones and faxes for days will certianly get their attention as well as action.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mobiux]

I don't think it's state-owned property, the state allows the corporations to retain ownership and just rent/lease it out to people as they see fit.

It's more of a rentocracy than anything.

They don't want to sell you a product, they want to sell you a service.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

You obviously don't understand that the USA isn't a capitalist state. We're a "mixed economy," meaning, essentially, crony capitalism. In a real capitalist economy, the government wouldn't have the power to hand out subsidies, prevent unions from counterbalancing the power of corporations, and legislate things like copyrights. So, while you see it as capitalism that's ruining America, I see it as the elements of socialism that have been introduced into our capitalism.

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."

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see how you're prevented from visiting any doctor you please. At least in Montreal, I can go to any damn doctor I please. I'm moderately sure that most other provinces work similarly.

In fact, I think most American insurance companies force you to stick to a particular HMO - this seems like an even worse loss of freedom, since you're forced to select a doctor not from what you decide is the best option, but from the pool that your insurance company is willing to pay for.

Admittedly, you give up one freedom - the freedom to use your pay as you please - but you also gain the freedom to visit any hospital, anywhere in the country, and know that you can get health care and you won't go bankrupt for it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ProudClod]

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'.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ProudClod]

On the contrary, I think Orwell would be disgusted by the total disregard for fellow humanity that you are suggesting is 'right'.

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:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[David Webb]

Actually I think the U.S. is moving towards more of a facist govenment like what was institited in Germancy crica 1930s and '40s.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hyfe]

To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist.

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] :)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Jugalator]

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My information comes from friends who are doctors. They are really concerned about the problems that they deal with every day. Medical malpractice doesn't make up much of the costs of the system. What's actually happening is that we're treating medicine like a commodity. When you are selling a product that most anybody would pay almost anything for, and everybody's going to need it eventually, you're going to see skyrocketing prices. Anybody familiar with how the supply and demand curves work is going to understand that. Yet, you blame it on malpractice. Don't you believe in the market? Are you a socialist or something?

Otherwise, your comments are really ignorant. Sheiks? Cleveland? Huffington? WTF are you talking about?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[InsertCleverUsername]

I'm guessing you're a white male. Isn't that amazing I could divine that just from the content of your post?

Who are the imprisoned people with no access to lawyers?

With some of the public defenders we've got --ever hear that phrase "you get what you pay for?"

People in poverty? Look at the studies- the average family in poverty has a color tv and other ammenities. The poorest people in the U.S. live better than 99% of the people in some countries.

Yeah, yeah... But, we're a FIRST-world nation, buddy. Are you thinking our nation should be compared to countries like Ethiopia? Can't we do a little better?
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snap shots_06232004

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/ch ild_hunger_facts.html
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?

No easy access to medical services? Where did you get that from? Anyone in the U.S. can walk into a hospital, and they will be treated.

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.

Have you ever been to the U.S.? Where are you getting your facts?

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?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[radish]

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".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

Making a copy of a recording of an artist's performance is NOT the same as mimicing that performance.

Yet it doesn't matter -- it is still me using my own labor, my own money and my own knowledge to perform an act, on my own property. If an architect designs a building, do you pay residuals to the architect for the work they once did? When you pay a check-out line clerk for goods that you'll use, do you pay them residuals for the work they once did?

An artist is not unique, in fact the supply of artists probably outnumbers the supply of workers as I think we all dream of making a hit album or drawing a beautiful painting or whatever. The problem I have with copyright is that it doesn't protect the creator, it protects the distributor. Over time, the distributor becomes the only powerful person in the industry. That is, until the Internet (and mechanisms like BitTorrent etc) came into view.

Now I tell bands, artists, and content creators to find new ways to capitalize on their work. Just like a hamburger flipper has to continue working to earn an income, so should anyone else unless they can find a way to sell their services at a high enough price to give them a life of luxury without work. Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?

I'm not looking for communism -- I'm looking to level the playing field of opportunity. We all work, and we should all find ways to sell that work. Some of us go and find jobs and put the risk of finding work on the employer, in exchange for us getting a lower salary (reward). This shouldn't be different for artists -- if you like to draw, go get a job in graphic design rather than using government to protect your labor. I have no protection for my labor, and I actually repudiate copyright and patents and use my "art" as a marketing tool for my labor. I write, distribute freely, and don't accept copyright. In the long run, my labor is worth more as my customers know what they're getting, and I can charge more as the demand for my limited supply of labor goes up.

That's the end rule, actually: supply and demand. Now that data is digital, the supply is nearly infinite. When supply goes to infinity, the price drops to zero no matter the demand. Artists need to find new ways to add value to their product -- and the Internet lets us all create new ways to earn a living without government enforcing the rules.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Chris Burke]

Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice?

That's pretty hilarious, considering how many U.S. citizens organize trips to Canada in order to escape from the skyrocketing medical and pharmaceutical costs in this country.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rich0]

What's actually happening is that we're treating medicine like a commodity. When you are selling a product that most anybody would pay almost anything for, and everybody's going to need it eventually, you're going to see skyrocketing prices.

Well, it is a commodity - there is supply and demand. Prices are only high when supply is low relative to demand - put enough doctors out there and prices will drop. A big problem is that medical schools and the AMA work to limit the supply of doctors - in order to maintain high prices.

Why is it that every medical school in the country has hundreds of applicants for each seat, and yet none seem to desire to add capcity, and no new schools open up? What would happen if there was a mob outside of CompUSA begging for computers, which sold for $10,000 the instant the truck pulled up?

The market actually works fairly well, but in this case the market is not freely operating - a number of establishments are conspiring to limit the supply side, and the overreaction on the part of government is to attempt to regulate the demand side by fixing prices. The problem with this approach is that it can lead to shortages (ie lines).

Potential health care providers aren't stupid - they figure out what people are willing to pay for, and provide this service. If people aren't willing to pay for life-saving treatments they'll apply their R&D efforts to viagra and cosmetic surgery, or they'll go into other fields of study...

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mOdQuArK!]

It's actually not illegal to sing happy birthday to a group of people. Public domain and all.

"Happy Birthday" is notin the public domain, and if Disney-like companies keep on extending the copyright period, it never will be.

Having said that, however, and as you & the Snopes article describes, non-commercial use of "Happy Birthday" like singing it at a party to your friends & family fall under Fair-Use considerations - at least until "content providers/parasites" manage to kill Fair-Use.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[glesga_kiss]

Pure socialism is pure totalitarianism.

Where did you study politics? I need to register a complaint about their standard of teaching. Never before have I heard such a lunatic suggestion. Socialism is an ecconomic system; it does not require or mutually exclude democracy (which is a political system). Socialsm dictates different "ownership" of property and land, and what you can do with it. If you see owning land as a "freedom", then you really ought to read up on what freedom really entails. Possessions and healthcare aren't freedom; the freedom of expression/religion and such like are.

There are many socialist countries in Europe with more freedom (i.e. less totalitarianism) than the Capitalist states of the world. And there are many capitalist states with really represive regimes. Hell, I've seen people arguing that the USA is moving closer to totalitairism every day. Two years ago, standing out against the Iraq war was a bad career move for politicians. They were deemed unpatriotic and a danger to the security of the USA and were exiled. Capitalism allows freedom only when it doesn't get in the way of a profit.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[EllisDees]

>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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Senzei]

The problem with your argument is that vacuum cleaners and cds are sold as very different concepts. Vacuum cleaners are a product. A CD is a distrobution method for a service, much like the lines coming into my house provide power and water. I don't really care all that much HOW I get my power and water so long as the quality of those items is acceptable.

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?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

No, and you're free to "mimic" any music you hear.

I can? Not with copyright. If I see someone shoveling a hole in the ground and I believe I can shovel a hole better, I am free to go and sell my labor (my time, my body, me) to someone else, mimicing the original guy entirely without giving him any compensation. Yet if I want to do the same thing with my voice, mimicing the voice box motions, I have to pay a fee. That isn't freedom.

Now, what is it the Pirate Bay is copying that you own?

The Pirate Bay is not stealing anything from anyone -- all they are doing is sharing the work of others -- others took the time to mimic the data that someone else decided to distribute without protecting it physically. If I want to hide my secret shovel techniques, I should put a box around it and not let anyone see. The same is true with content -- if you don't want it reproduced, don't make it.

The Pirate Bay was never authorized by the artist or anyone else to distribute the music.

And yet they didn't force the artist to lose any labor agaisnt their will -- the Pirate Bay just took the labors of others and found people interested in using that labor of others. The "others" here are labeled pirates, but I see them more as people who are selling themselves too cheaply.

So if I take a camera into a concert and record it and sell copies of the recording for $1 a piece, that's okay? Even though my labor involved recording someone else's labor, that other person is just out of luck?

First of all, when you go to a show, you're usually on someone else's property. The right to property should mean that the property owner can tell the visitor what rules to follow -- no cameras, no drugs, no clothes, no talking, no blacks, no women, no midgets, whatever. It is there property. If they say it is cool to take pictures on their property, go right ahead.

And if someone decided to take your book, print it, and sell it, they should be able to without your permission. If they were to choose to change it a bit, that's up to them. After all, they're "mimicing" it, and mimicry isn't always exact.

I openly allow this, and I actually love it when I find others mimicing my words -- it is a great form of marketing for the original author. In a free market, companies like Google would offer tools to track down who exactly originated a certain creation -- words, lyrics, tunes, whatever. If an artist wanted to make sure the world knew who wrote the song, they could register the song with a variety of Wayback Machine style sites -- archivers, cachers, whatever. When someone wanted to find out who was the first person to write "Happy Birthday" they could go to these archiving sites or companies and find the truth. Anyone else is free to mimic the tune, but they won't get the recognition, and the recognition is a key factor in selling or marketing your labor.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Dantu]

That doesn't change the fact that Canadian hospitals have waiting lists that are insane. Not private business would say "Sorry about the heart problem, come back in 6 months" because you would to to another hospital - and long waiting lists only save money if people DIE before they get thier operation!

My mother (and she isn't rich) forked out several thousand a while ago for a "grey-market" MRI here in Canada because that cost less than losing another 6 MONTHS of work waiting of our public care. Frankly, for 'minor' scans and treatments, anyone making better than minimum wage can afford better treatment than our public system provides. It's only major surgery where you really get any benifit.

A while ago there was an uproar because in Vancouver you could get your pet a CAT scan (no pun intended) in 48 hours, while the waiting list for people FOR THE EXACT SAME MACHINE was several months. Because you could pay to have your pet scanned after-hours.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Cal Paterson]

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.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[shutdown -p now]

Soviet Union was in fact socialist. As far as that went (education, medical care etc), it worked just fine.

As for the USA being the most powerful country in the world - this says nothing about how good it is to live in such a country; nor it is evident that it is the advantage of capitalist economy. The USSR, when it existed, was also a very powerful country, arguably on par with the USA. This has nothing to do with economy, and everything with what some people call "imperial approach". The USSR and the USA are (were) both empires.

Arrrrr

[TimeTrav]

Arrrrr, ye swabs cannot take back me booty so easily!

Re:Arrrrr

[TimeTrav]

The following link is for your enjoyment:

http://www.tiffman.com/bork.cgi?url=http://yro.sla shdot.org/yro/06/03/14/1323219.shtml

No heros to be cheered at.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing these guys will get done, is Draconian copyright DCMA-like laws to be passed in Schweden.

So they shoot normal people in the foot, even if they use OpenBSD.

We demand..

[dotwhynot]

We demand that you provide us with entertainment by sending more legal threats. Please? :-)

Re:We demand..

[Jamu]

If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, ...

Oh crap, I just did. Why didn't they warn me at the start of the message!

Re:We demand..

[Odin_Tiger]

...you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.

[Emphasis Mine]

Uh-oh, now you're going to jail. And me to, I guess. Oh well.

In an interesting twist of English interpretation, couldn't it be said that acknowledging and abiding by the sentence in whole or in part would be a violation of the 'or use' statement, thus nullifying the whole thing?

Re:We demand..

[arwel]

One of my email signatures goes:

IMPORTANT - ANTI-DISCLAIMER - This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. If you have received this message by mistake, it would be ridiculous for me to tell you not to read it or copy to anyone else, because, let's face it, if it's a message revealing confidential information or that could embarrass me intensely, that's precisely what you'll do. Who wouldn't?
Likewise, it is superfluous for me to claim copyright in the contents, because I own that anyway, even if you print out a hard copy or disseminate this message all over the known universe. I don't know why so many corporate mail Servers feel impelled to attach a disclaimer to the bottom of every e-mail message saying otherwise.
If you don't know either, why not e-mail your corporate lawyers and system administrators and ask them why they insist on contributing so much to the waste of bandwidth?

Gete your factes straighte

[spyrochaete]

The Pirate Bay isn't a "file sharing crewe", they're an open bittorrent tracker with a website. They're not a release group like Razor 1911 or The Humble Guys.

From the site's about page:

The Pirate Bay is the worlds largest bittorrent tracker. Bittorrent is a filesharing protocol that in a reliable way enables big and fast file transfers.

...

The Pirate Bay was started by the swedish anti copyright organization Piratbyrån in the late 2003, but is since October 2004 separated and run by dedicated individuals. Using the site is free of charge, but since running it costs money, donations are very much appreciated.

The EU will catch up

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a nice directive-in-the-making called IPRED2 which criminalises copyright infringement.

Re:The EU will catch up

[gowen]

Not strictly true. It criminalises copyright infringement on a commercial scale. That's an important distinction. That means it may be possible to share things with your friends, as long as you don't run it like a company (or on the scale of a company).

I think that's reasonable. A little sharing doesn't hurt "content providers" (an ugly phrase) much; wide ranging, large scale, profit making, illegal duplication operations can easily steal genuine sales.

Not illegal

[michrech]

They aren't hosting any of the content. Only text files (as explained on their web page).

It is not illegal (Again, according to their web page) to host files that *point* to the content. Untill that changes in their country, they will stay alive (also, so long as they can keep their bills paid, that would help... :) )

Re:Not illegal

[hkmwbz]

"The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft."

Theft? Even if they did give you instructions on how to get to the nearest CD shop and you chose to steal a CD, that wouldn't matter. Are you saying that giving people directions should be illegal? That's silly. TPB doesn't give you driving instructions anyway.

Oh, you were talking about copyright infringement rather than actual theft (taking someone's belongings away from them), weren't you? Sorry, you got me all confused with your newspeak...

Re:Not illegal

[ajwitte]

s/theft/copyright infringement/

If you use the word "theft", you're falling for the **AA's propaganda. "Stealing music" would be if you took your neighbor's CDs, or maybe it would apply to that guy who stole your car stereo. Legally, theft and copyright infringement are different things.

IANAL.

Re:Not illegal

[spyrochaete]

Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content. The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

That's the law. In the eyes of Swedish law, TPB is not facilitating theft, they are a library of text files. TPB has mentioned that as soon as storing text files becomes illegal they will provide hyperlinks to the text files. And when hyperlinks become illegal they will provide hyperlinks to the hyperlinks. They are committed to bogging down copyright more than providing a specific service to the people.

I, for one, am glad to see the beaurocracy of law choke on its own bulk. Despite what some mega corporations are whining for these days, many countries allow their citizens to share culture openly. To share and to be shared with, not to give or take and remove from the source.

Technology is granting great freedoms to the populace, and some countries feel the public needn't put a nickel in the jar every time they whistle a tune.

Re:Not illegal

[thatguywhoiam]

They aren't hosting any of the content. Only text files (as explained on their web page).

Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content.

What makes you say that? More difficult, sure. Impossible? Don't think so. Its a bit of text, and it can move at supersonic speeds in several directions and forms at once. A real bitch to pin down, Pirate Bay or no.

The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

Well, see, that's a tricky thing. The problem with that line of thinking is again a practical one, it is very hard to hang a crime on a person who is simply indicating an easy crime opportunity. If I point out to someone in the library that the photocopier on the right is malfunctioning and does not require money to operate, am I committing a crime? So of course you are right when you say the idea is to let people download movies and software, but the facilitating of that is not a crime in and of itself.

Seems like you were not here for the Napster affair then. During the Napster affair there was no shortage of people flaming about how the service was obviously 100% legal. After the company folded it turned out that they had never received even an internal opinion to the effect that the service was legal.

Sure, that was a new ruling basically. And the original poster did say "until that changes in Sweden"; you always have the possibility of the winds of law shifting on you, no matter what the case.

Re:Not illegal

[Pofy]

>Absent a favorable decision from the Sweedish courts...

But there is such a decision, and quite old one, from the days of the BBS which is what makes it OK to make such linking as they do.

Re:Not illegal

[spyrochaete]

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 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 /. and in your blog.

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.

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

[dada21]

This is a very important thing you said, moreso than the casual single line post would usually dictate. Protecting rights is the role of government -- doling them out and giving preferential rights is not their job. 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. I plan on hitting Sweden this year for visit -- I haven't been there for over 17 years, but I do recall loving the country's people. Except for all the 6'6" women :)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[OnePound]

Social-democratic, not socialist-democratic.

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

[dada21]

Actually, I believe that being successful at being an open in trade and having a vibrant economy is very important for the social structure of a nation or any group of people. Wealth and being rich are two different things -- and I think the best "rating" for how wealthy a country is can be rated by three items:

1. Passing on no debt to the next generation
2. Giving people the opportunity to pass on their own wealth to their descendents
3. Being able to afford to buy from others outside your country without being in their debt

The US fails on all 3 items.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Bazzalisk]

Mine is pretty subjective all told.

Money is nothing more than units of exchange issued and maintained by the government of the state in which you reside. For historical reasons it has generaly been made clear that granting people a certain share of these units in recompense for their work is a good way of ensuring that society continues functioning - that's your pay.

Similarly it has also become clear that the "obvious" way of doing this - which would be to have everybody work for an organ of the government and be payed a reasonable amount by them doesn't work much of the time (although as a research student it's notable that this is how I get paid - so it can work under certain circumstances). The alternative which seams to work is to have quasi-independent organs called "bussinesses" which overpay their workers, and then have government organs remove the excess (that's your taxes).

So your pay and taxes are realy just an organisational thing - no one is "taking things away from you" they just give you too much and then take it back.

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

[manthrax3]

How can you have freedom of religion if you don't have enough money to donate to your church?

How can you have freedom of press if you can't buy printing presses, web servers, etc.

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Yet money was not a creation of government, in fact historically money was created by private citizens looking for a medium of exchange, and then over time government has destroyed money in each and every case where they've gotten involved in.

Here's a great book: free, electronic, and a very quick afternoon read: What Has Government Done To Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard. Go grab it, print it or send it to your PDA, and read it. It is an amazing book written decades ago that still holds true today.

Money is the most important item in society since it allows us to store the work we've performed for someone else and redeem that work for the work of another. It is only government's intrusion into money that has destroyed wealth, savings and created the class warfare that exists today.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[op00to]

How can you have freedom of religion if you don't have enough money to donate to your church?

Donate your time, or knowledge, or your living room to church groups. Religion does not require money.

How can you have freedom of press if you can't buy printing presses, web servers, etc.

Make your own paper, cheaply copy things via carbon paper if necessary.

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Strawman. No one mentioned abolishing personal property. The term was de-emphasize. In the Swedish model, you can still own crap if you really want, but the government makes it not necessary to own a lot of the crap that is necessary in places like the US. Need a car? Not really, because the government requires neighborhoods to be built at a scale where one can walk, bicycle, or take public transit for most daily trips. Need a loan to get higher education? Not in the Swedish model, the government will provide that for you. You can still have your precious baubles if you'd like, but many of the common needs which can be more efficiently provided en masse are there to be used.

Have you ever actually been to one of these countries? In my experience the people enjoy their freedom from a lot of the petty issues that we in the US are concerned with like auto insurance, health insurance, and working one's self through school.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AK Marc]

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Even in the most socialistic democracies, people own personal property. You are making a straw-man or slippery-slope out of the whole thing. 60% tax rate still allows 40% retention. 40% of my salary will still get me a house and a car, as well as enough to give to church, a web server, etc. Not to mention that at the same time, I'll have a whole lot more freedoms over my property because the business will be told to go screw themselves when they try damaging DRM and try to take away my rights of first sale, Fair Use, and such.

Maybe you focus on freedom related to property because that's the only freedom you think you have left. Take a look at the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments and tell me they are still in full effect. What's the point of property if it can be searched at any time without a warrant? It isn't yours at that point, they just let you pay for it and pay taxes on it. Might as well have the state own it for all the rights you have over it. We are moving to all the drawbacks of the worst communist nations with none of the supposed benefits.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Dutchmaan]

A corporation or a government or a church are all just organizations of men and as such can aquire power and autonomy. You don't fear a corporation because currently they are not power, though some may argue.

The only difference between a corporation and government is scale. The government was created at least in theory for the people, a corporation exists for its own benefit. When a corporation weilds excessive influence in government its decisions become law via a government proxy. Over time the corporation can BECOME the government if the people do nothing about it.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.

Great question -- the reason is that this gives opportunity to the poor as well as the rich. I have MANY experiences with ultra rich familes and ultra poor families. The rich families often find themselves bankrupt in 3 generations because they just pass on money without teaching responsibility. The poor families who pass on responsibility and some money to their kids often see their kids succeeding because they learned how to work, save and invest in themselves. I believe the cliche is "Blue Collar to Blue Collar in 3 generations" but I could be wrong.

I can buy cheap things and not go into debt or expensive things and go into debt, whether I'm buying from my neighbor or from a guy on the other side of the planet. I don't understand your point here.

By having positive trade balances and not owing anyone anything, you give your own societal group the benefit of maximizing their own skills. When a society can buy something cheaper from another society (as long as its not debt bought), the first society can focus on new skills where they are most productive. In a society of 5 people, it is very hard for everyone to find wealth. But once that society of 5 people mixes with 10000 societies of 5 people, everyone can maximize their wealth by opening up their market to new places to sell to and new places to buy from.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation. Too much debt though...

I completely disagree. Since the dawn of the Federal Reserve (1913) the dollar has lost over 95% of its value. Before this time when we had free market banking, the dollar of 1800 was equal to the dollar of 1912 minus maybe 2-3%. A 100% reserve banking standard is a requirement for a healthy financial review and the Keynesian economists that teach in the colleges and run the market today are wrong 100% that government should have anything to do with money.

Money should be a free market product, not something created on the whim of those in power. I fully believe that our economy is worse today than it was in the 80s, we just haven't realized it yet. I blog about this daily, and I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Hercules Peanut]

Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights: the right to earn and keep property...there is one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty.

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

Speaking of "attitude adjustment" your response sounds pretty harsh. You might want to better understand WHY people believe they are never free if they do not own property. I need air, water, food and shelter. I think that's the minimum requirement for survival. If I buy property, sink a well, grow some crops I become truly free. I may not have a TV or Slashdot but I can be free.

Unfortunately, here in America, I can buy a house on some land and do all of that but still not own property because my property tax will always force me to pay rent to the government (at least in my state). I would like to be free. Even if my life didn't change right away, it would still be freedom. I would know that if I lost my job (or through Eminent Domain) no one could ever kick me out of my home. Since my home is one of those basic necessities of life, I will never be truly free unless I truly own it otherwise I will always be dependent on someone else.

Does that make more sense? Freedom of expression and the freedom to share ideas are both very important but not as important as food and shelter.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

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

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[2short]

Um, previous to the Federal reserve, the US had various forms of government sponsored "hard" currency, which was mostly pretty good, except when they tried to set the value of silver vs gold differently than the rest of the world. It also had a lot of privately issued "free-market" currencies, which were universally crap. They all lost their value in time frames that make the Fed managed dollar look like bedrock.

If you require "100% reserve", what is there for the "free market" to do? Compete on the degree they can convince people they are not cheating in a business where the only possible profit is by cheating?

"I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard."

So you've convinced everyone you do business with to set prices based on fixed amounts of shiny metal?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AK Marc]

Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation.

I'm not going to crack open the history books, so don't take this as gospel, but until the depression, the only debt the US entered into was war related and short term. There wasn't any debt passed on until after WWII, when the debt was constantly shrunk as a percentage GNP until Reagan and the Bushes. Isn't the debt held by the Federal Reserve technically private? The chairman sets the interest rate on that, but isn't it on the debts they issue (credits)? So we'd be passing along credits, not debts and still be able to manage the interest rate. Or are you referring to some other aspect of the system I'm not seeing?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Trailer Trash]

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.

And, yet a million Mexicans risk their lives swimming the Rio Grande and running through 100 miles of desert each year to become one of these poor "have-nots".

The individual wealth in this country continues to rise, even for the "have-nots". And, what, exactly, do they "not have"? Everything they want? Seriously.

There is no dictionary-definition poverty in the US. Period. There are people who want more than they can afford, but that isn't poverty. Shit, when I was young being "poor" meant that you didn't own a car. My father was a grocer near a poor neighborhood, and many of the people walked to our store.

They had no car, their houses were small, and they weren't wearing the latest fashions. They were poor.

But they had enough money to pay the rent/mortgage and eat. By definition, that's not poverty, as they were able to meet their basic needs.

In contrast, about 60 million children die every year from malnutrition afound the world. Many others end up blind or with other significant health problems.

Whaddya bet those kids wouldn't mind a taste of American-style "poverty"?

The American definition of poverty: I can't buy everything that I want.

Like most Americans, you need to get out of the country now and then to see what most of the world lives like.

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:socialist-democratic not communist

[aeoo]

It'd be nice if you at least understood and acknowledged the parent's conscious choice to be less rich in order to be more wealthy.

As it is, I don't think you understand wealth and you don't appreciate the choice that parent post speaks of. See, you measure everything in money, and that's not the right way to measure true wealth.

Point by point, 1 is money, 2 is money (unless you mean wisdom passing on to descendants, which I really doubt, having read quite a few of your posts), 3 money again.

I see wealth as having a happy life -- the kind of life where the person feels at ease and social relations are free from strain. When people focus on making money, they make all other goals half-assed. Or spoken in different words, a person who performs some art, such as healing (like a surgeon), constructions, etc., when doing so for money, is bringing ulterior motive into their art/craft, thus invariable and necessarily degrading it. And this is what we see happening all around! Look how crappy the fruits and vegetables are in your supermarket. Shit, you may not even have seen a good looking tomato in your entire life, if you grew up in USA. What they sell in supermarkets across America is CRAP. Why? Because it's efficient -- the fruits are not tasty enough for worms, they don't rot, they last long. The main priority is quantity and lastingness. That's what happens when you do it for money. If you did it in any other way, then you'd make less money. So we have tomatoes that taste like leather, green bananas, mushy and blackened potatoes and so on. Some things you can't even buy, because they're not profitable (but damn, they are tasty). I once had to fight with the store ordering guy to get him to order some beets for the store. His argument, "No one buys beets, so we don't carry it." So what if the majority of culture is happy with just fucken' ramen? And that's likely to happen because they sell crap vegetables. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you sell crap produce and drive people to rely more on canned goods and cereal (5 dollars for a box of air) and pasta, etc... People buy fewer vegetables, so you have to carry a less diverse stock and less more expensive cereal. Profit. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

This is not what I'd call wealth. Lots of money flows thru a supermarket store. But everything on its shelves is CRAP and every fuckin supermarket employee I've seen has been a very SICK and unhappy person. Why is that? Because the store treats them like crap. That's why. But they don't have to be treated like that. They could be paid more (and yes, I know... I KNOW the store will make less money if they pay their clerks more, or GOD FORBID, give them part ownership of the store, so they feel responsible for what they do and they feel part of the success of their own work). The result: very very strained human relations. The result of strained relations is segregations of society into layers. The result of layering of society is formations of elites at the top and gangs who have nothing to lose and nothing to live for at the bottom.

Greed and the focus on money as exclusive measure of wealth turns everything into crap. You end up with booming economy, with lots of dollars, but all the people are pissed off, the government is bloated (YES, because, for corps to keep pumping more and more money out of public, they need to get government on board, and this is just a natural extention of doing it for money and seeing money as wealth), and all the products are of bare-minimum quality that the market will bear, and there is no point in excellence if a mediocre thing will sell too.

dada, it is people like YOU who bloat our government. You just don't see how it happens. It's a guy like you who ends up, in luckier circumstances with owning a corporation. And it's a guy like you that at the end of the day goes to the government and asks for laws that protect and ensure your business. You only talk trash when you're a small fry, but once you get more

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Why should the government be involved with deciding what I do with my property

Once you're dead, it's not your property anymore.

be it my body, my house, or my wallet?

Your relationship with your body is much more intimate than "property".

Your house is your property only because of a government deed; those funny green pieces of paper in your wallet are government creations too.

Capitalism requires all sorts to the government involvement; contrary to the concept of "liberatrian capitalism", capitalism is not a ground state that occurs in the absence of state action. That's why anarchy is a form of socialism.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

I think we should spend more money on education than we do on medicare (ie, more money on children than old people: the richest age group)

Agreed. I'd include things like WIC, subsidized child care, and the like in that; those things aid the working poor.

cut taxes so that people can spend more money on employees

That's a good idea in theory; however, the money won't go to the employees, it'll go into the pockets of the executives and stockholders.

lower the minimum wage to create more entry level jobs

No minimum wage job I've ever seen is "entry level". They're "be glad we gave you a job", "raise? you're lucky we don't fire you, go mop the floor", no-advancement-possible jobs. All lowering the minimum wage will do is drag down salaries across the board. The resulting decrease in buying power could very well drag the whole economy down.

cut property taxes to reduce rent and the overall cost of living.

Again, if you're talking about a landlord-renter situation, the rents will not come down, they will stay the same, with more money staying in the pocket of the owners; in other words, the rich get richer.

The means by which we fund social programs are what cause them to exist in the first place.

Reagan tried that "trickle-down" theory in the 80s.. and it didn't work then, either. All these suggestions you've made do acheive one thing: they make more money available to the wealthy. The wealthy do not wish to have company; they'll keep the money for themselves instead of improving matters for the less fortunate. (Yes, that's a stereotype, but it's one well rooted in the facts.)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

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. Well, then you're fixing the wrong problem aren't you? * Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling around collecting art work for their private collections does not induce innovation. First off, it would induce innovation in the field of art that appeals to undeserving rich kids. Second, I think you are greatly overestimating the number of undeserving rich kids that would result from the permanent abolition of the estate tax. * Govt research and investments Good. Surprisingly very wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett support the death tax. Surprisingly, middle class people such as EatHam could give a fuck what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet support in the way of taxation. Middle class people such as EatHam also realize that the problem isn't the tax rate, the problem is with the method of collection. If people paid their tax bill in full and didn't evade, we would still have a surplus. Don't blame Bush for that, blame your criminal tax evading neighbors.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

Once you're dead, it's not your property anymore.
Right, it's my family's property. Not yours, keep your grubby dickbeaters off of it.

Your house is your property only because of a government deed
OR because I paid for it, tomayto, tomahto.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"See, you measure everything in money, and that's not the right way to measure true wealth....I see wealth as having a happy life"

Well, sure is hard to be happy without money. I certainly don't work because I like it...I'd much rather have great loads of money so I could just concentrate on doing what I like, and not having to worry about making a living. Money is the one thing that allows me to buy and do things I enjoy in life. With enough money, I can buy the 'toys' in life that I enjoy. I can travel. I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

Especially the women point...women are attracted to men that can provide what they need for their children, home, better life...etc. In the old caveman days, this was brute strength and brawn. Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.

:-)

They say money doesn't buy you happiness? Well, it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to live with I can tell ya. I like the things money enables me to do with my life...

"Shit, you may not even have seen a good looking tomato in your entire life, if you grew up in USA."

Now...I DO have to agree with you on this. I enjoy good foods, I like to cook a lot. And I am quite saddened by the lack of good produce in the normal, run of the mill grocery store. I think in addition to the reasons you mentioned above...the demand and knowledge of good produce like a good tomato, is gone due the the fact that so many families do NOT cook their own meals any more. I had to stay with a friend of mine's family post Katrina for awhile, and was shocked at how often they came home in the evenings with Sonic or other fast food. I liked to cook and did so for the family quite often. I was happy to give the wife some cooking lessons..as that she did not know very many basic cooking skills.....and this is from someone born and raised in souther Louisiana...food capital of the world!!!

But...good food CAN be found. Get out of the box grocery store and hit the farmers mkt. You can grow your own too...there are places selling sproutlings of heirloom tomatoes these days on the web...you have to look a bit harder, but, there is good produce and food out there. Hell, if you look enough, you can find good meat too....I've started seeing places that actually sell prime grade beef to general consumers. It may cost a bit more, but, I figure, when I want a good steak...it is worth the money.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

It is a very complex mess of government intervention that has caused the problems that the US and many 1st world countries will soon face: someone has to continue robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

First, the inflation of currency is a double edged sword: it kills many at the profit of the few. The Fed prints new money out of thin air in the US, which is the direct cause of price increases -- home values go up, the stock market goes way up, consumer goods go way up, but salaries do not keep up enough. This means that while you earn more, you actually earn less as the dollar does not buy as much.

When you introduce a new supply of an item into any market, the price of the item will generally go down -- it will be worth less. When the Fed prints new currency, it eventually lowers the value of all the other currency out there. This is why home prices tend to go up -- the demand for dollars isn't as great. Pile on top of that the easy credit the Fed enforces (low interest rates), and people tend to buy more of something than they'd otherwise need (note the 4 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom home being the norm).

At some point in time, the creditors who helped create these dollars will demand something in return for the notes they bought (receipts against a loan). If we can't produce anything, and we aren't worth anything, they'll foreclose. I like to think of the Chinese and Indians (who save up to 40% of their disposable income only to loan it to us) coming over to the US and living in our mortgaged houses, driving our leased cars, and watching our bought-on-credit widescreen TVs, while we slave in the factories to pay it all back.

Sorry you can't access blogspot -- I'm moving my blogs to my own domain name ( www.unanimocracy.com ) very soon, hopefully you can join in the "fun" in the future! Drop me an e-mail and I'll let you know when we made the transition.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[drinkypoo]

Well, sure is hard to be happy without money. I certainly don't work because I like it...I'd much rather have great loads of money so I could just concentrate on doing what I like, and not having to worry about making a living. Money is the one thing that allows me to buy and do things I enjoy in life. With enough money, I can buy the 'toys' in life that I enjoy. I can travel. I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

The fact that we in America (myself included) need a bunch of "toys" to feel good about ourselves is a symptom of cultural disease. So is drug abuse - and I have been known to use drugs. (You can get one of the most dangerous drugs known to man, and can also get one of the most addictive, at the gas station...)

Oh, and, this is slashdot, remember? There's no women, numerous or otherwise, in your folks' basement, except your mom.

But...good food CAN be found. Get out of the box grocery store and hit the farmers mkt. You can grow your own too...there are places selling sproutlings of heirloom tomatoes these days on the web...you have to look a bit harder, but, there is good produce and food out there.

The parent commenter was talking about supermarkets, where better than 99% of the population buys groceries. If everyone in the US demanded quality produce, there wouldn't be enough to go around.

Also, you give farmer's markets as an example of where to get good produce. It's quite correct, but misses a point entirely; those businesses tend to be run by the people who own them, and thus the people are more highly motivated - which proves the grandparent comment nicely.

Also, you might be interested to know that fast food is cheaper than cooking at home, at least if you want any kind of variety. Sure, you can eat pretty healthily at home for cheap, but beans, rice, and a little bit of chicken can get a bit same-y after a while. In most cases, buying fresh produce is several times more expensive than just buying processed foods.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Bun]

Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.

Because the money has already been taxed during its accumulation? Because the whole point of amassing wealth is to give your children a better life? Because the government does absolutely no service of any value in the transferrence of that wealth?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[enjo13]

There are also good opposition arguments:

Continued concentrate of power in the elite

This is the most compelling argument to me. An estate tax is a way of limiting the formation of a 'ruling class' in the form of a monetary aristocracy. There are trade-offs however.

Limit Innovation

Rich kids have a funny habit of spending a lot of money. While they are 'travelling around collection art work', they are REALLY putting a lot of money into the economy which will eventually find its way into investment. The money that the family fortune is built on is also not sitting still, in most cases the vast majority of that money is being invested in a number of places. That investment money is the fuel is for innovation as the whole point of an investment is to increase the 'value' of your wad of cash by owning something that is going to become more valuable. A good chunk of venture capital is directly tied to large amounts of cash available as part of a particular families fortune. Innovation, after all, earns the highest rewards for money invested.

  You also have to look at the flip side. By collecting money in taxes government is not in a particularly strong position to encourage innovation. I would argue the opposite, actually. By concentrating wealth in the hands of government you are putting money in an organization that has the LEAST incentive to grow that money. Instead it gets doled out in various welfare programs, public works, and other projects (note: I'm not arguing that these things aren't neccesary are good, just that they provide remarkably little in the way of innovation or wealth creation). The money is not being invested in growth, but rather in stability. This is not the recipe for innovation.

Govt research and investments

This is not an argument for an estate tax, but rather for taxes in general. The question is: When does government have 'enough' money? History has shown that more taxes does not mean a better investment in government research and education, but rather a swelling of the overall government bureaucracy. I would argue that we would better served by LIMITING government, rather than further extending its reach. Liberalizing social law (we spend BILLIONS on enforcing 'moral' like prostitution every year), limiting welfare, and limiting our expensive habits (such as nation building) make the need for high levels of tax simply go away.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[poopdeville]

Don't be retarded. They already tell you what you can and can't do with any firearms you might own. They already tell you that you can't drive your car on the sidewalk and hit four pedestrians. They already tell you that your home needs to pass city code inspections before a remodel is complete. There are very good reasons for each of those. The government even prohibits suicide.

The question now becomes, "What makes wealth so different that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate its use?"

Keep in mind, as well, that the constitution does not guarantee a right to wealth.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[rrohbeck]

What's wrong with 6'6" women? Sorry, couldn't resist.

But on the topic, check out the UN's Human Development Index at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Ind ex.
Norway is #1 in the world, Canada #5, Sweden #6, and the US #10.

The more "socialist" democratic countries score more towards the top of the industrialized nations while the more capitalist countries are further down the list.
Economic power != standard of living.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Troglodyt]

Excuse me? I take offense to that. We have perfectly good medical and technological research here in Sweden. Just because you are at the cutting edge of research about viagra and weapons of mass destruction, that does not mean you are carrying the lion's share of the technological development. And quite frankly your not doing too well in the entertainment development either.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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

Funny. Your first sentence is a complete contradiction of itself. If I "earned" my property, then it is mine by right of my hard work, shrewd investment, keen intellect, or whatever. Goverment can only hinder that by regulation, taxation, etc., but it cannot earn it for me. Yet you say it's all due to a "stable society, economy and government investment in infrastructure." It's either one or the other, but it cannot be both. If I earned it, it's mine free and clear. If government "gave" it to me through social programs, income redistribution, welfare, and so forth, I didn't earn it (if fact, somebody else earned it and had it taken away from them by the government, but that's a story for another time).

You can argue that the government's maintenance of a stable environment assists me in my hard work, and you may be corrent in some circumstances. But without effort on my part, government cannot "earn" me anything. I, on the other hand, can earn things without the need for government to do much of anything for me, although it may be more difficult for me to do so. But the important point to take from this is that government needs me to earn things more than I need government to help me earn it. Unfortunately, it seems these days the government wants me to earn things specifically so that it can take it away from me in the form of taxes and give it to someone else that hasn't earned it. Karl Marx would be proud of our Social Security system and the IRS.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Right, it's my family's property.

No, it's no one's property after you die. It becomes your family's property only through government action.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

This is completely untrue. I'm an average/below-average looking short guy who has always dated very attractive women, including some models. The one I chose for the rest of my life is hot AND intelligent. I never once offered that I had money, and I rarely even paid for their share of the dates. Of course I've been writing about how to date amazing women for 10 years (and now I offer the advice freely).

Also, you don't need to be rich to travel -- I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for almost 17 years and I earn 40-60% less than the average slashdot IT reader here. You don't need to be rich for a nice home, or to eat well. I firmly believe a single guy can do VERY well on $20,000 a year in 2006.

Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.

This is wrong, completely wrong. Money can be a very big attraction for any gal initially, but the money wears off if the guy isn't able to offer the woman what she really wants -- mystery, intrigue and the chase. This continues through marriage and retirement, women want to chase. If you're rich and you have an attractive girl on your arm for your money, the marriage won't last -- look at Donald Trump for proof there. Yet I believe that a fat, bald and poor geek can still land an amazing girl -- attractive, smart, even one that earns much more than him. All they need to do is ignore what they thought the rules were and start acting like a real man.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[fatmal]

Except for all the 6'6" women :)

Yeah, you've got to go up on them!

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[ignavus]

"Your house is your property only because of a government deed
OR because I paid for it, tomayto, tomahto."

What is this "paid" thing?

Oh, I get it, you gave them some government-secured pieces of paper, while relying on a "contract of sale" which exists under the government's law .... with all the support to a relatively stable and reliable market-place that government gives us.

Government is what stops me (and people with less sensitive morals than I) from just taking your property.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[CommieOverlord]

It's either one or the other, but it cannot be both.

Yes. Yes it can. The fact that the government provided and managed the social and economic structure does not mean you didn't earn your income/property. You put the time/effort/knowledge/whatever into obtaining something; you earned it. Yet, without the economic structure and social stability the government you would never have had the chance to earn anything substantial.

Whether or not they're wrong...

[NevDull]

Whether or not what they do is illegal or immoral, I'm glad to see people questioning their government instead of caving.

hmm.

[user24]

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...

Long Live the Pirate Bay!

[David Webb]

it's great to see someone that is anti esteblishment stay strong and alive in the face of big business and big government. Power to the People!

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

really? What are they stealing?

Re:How to be popular

[digitaldc]

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?

Re:The Atlantic barrier works both ways huh?

[Threni]

> start a process in Sweden.

Afghanistan - check.
Iraq - check.
Iran - tba.
Sweden - tba.

No success in Swedish courts

[Billosaur]

Viborg said that no one has successfully indicted The Pirate Bay or sued its operators in Swedish courts.

RIAA Lawyer: We are petitioning the court to shut down this illegal operation, called The Pirate Bay, on the grounds they are trafficking in illegally obtained and downloaded material.

Swedish Judge: Worrrr dooooo ishky dishky mooooovvvviesss kannnnshhhhhh veeeeeeeee downshky looooooodshky?

RIAA Lawyer: What?

Swedish Judge: Worrrr dooooo ishky dishky mooooovvvviesss kannnnshhhhhh veeeeeeeee downshky looooooodshky?

RIAA Lawyer: I don't understand!

Swedish Judge: Caaaaaaaaasssssshhhh dushmiskked, bork, bork, bork!

Re:No success in Swedish courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who should be more offended by that post:

Swedes or the Muppets!

Re:How to be popular

[erroneus]

No, I'm already convinced. It's good.

For all the damage these industries cause honest and would-be honest customers, they deserve a true thorn in their sides. For all the monopolistic and oligopolistic crap they pull; For all the price-fixing and other dirty tricks; For all the innocent people they have attacked with their lawsuit crusades. We have no effective weapon against their activities since they have already bought all the politicians that are for sale. All we have is our defiance.

It's good even if it's not good enough.

Re:How to be popular

[Stavr0]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft. For the umpteenth time, no. Not theft. Copyright violation, or 'piracy', the land-based kind, where nobody gets boarded, killed and thrown to the sharks. And at that, they are not engaged in 'piracy' either. They are at most 'enablers' or 'accomplices'.

The pirates are here to stay

[pheco]

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.

Re:The pirates are here to stay

[murderlegendre]

It's like the war on drugs, except 10x more pointless.

That's exactly right, Gary.. and the war on drugs was 10X more pointless than the war on poverty, leaving the war on piracy somewhere between 20X and 1000X more pointless than that.

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:How to be popular

[TFGeditor]

"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.

Re:How to be popular

[epiphani]

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.

Re:How to be popular

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:The Atlantic barrier works both ways huh?

[Stavr0]

There is nothing stopping the ??AA from connecting to the tracker, logging the U.S. based IP addresses, then sending out subopenas to the ISPs of said IPs. And haven't they been doing that already?

Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Bluude]

My favorite was when they moved the servers to a new location across town. They even put up a GPS map showing their exact location so everyone would know how soon the site would be back up.

They must believe their country will protect them instead of hunting them down and arresting them.

I wonder if their government will still protect them when the US threatens to impose trade sanctions if they do not get rid of The Pirate Bay. Janet Reno did that with Australia and they caved soon after. Now Australia has some of the toughest copyright laws in the world. I think they are even harsher than the US equivalents.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[liangzai]

The Swedish government is not known to protect its citizens very well. Recently, the Justice Department and the security police caused the shut-down of a political party's website because of a cartoon of Muhammed looking at himself in the mirror with a blindfold, with the accompanying text "self-censorship". That is just about the tolererance level the Swedish government has.

Sweden is also notorious for being a leader in the EU implementing repressive laws in general and on the Internet in particular. The recent EU Data Directive is essentially one man's work, Swedish Justice minister Thomas Bodstrom, a former football player who smoked dope, somehow managed to become a lawyer and then to everybody's surprise was turned into minister of justice, on which position he has drafted more laws than anyone in history and effectively flushed personal integirty down the toilet. The directive, since long before in effect in Sweden, makes it mandatory for ISP:s to save customers' internet traffic data for at least two years. Other repressive measures in Sweden include a law against writing about other persons without their express permission unless being a journalist.

Sweden has also joined the ranks of the filter regimes, using DNS spoofing and other sabotages to the infrastructure to redirect pornsurfers looking for kiddie porn to a government website. It is not by law, but by cooperation with all the larger ISP:s (under threat of legislation).

You might also wonder why Sweden has not voiced concern over Chinese journalists being jailed in China. Well, that is because Sweden has had its own Shi Tao since the 70s, Jan Guillou (and Peter Bratt), who investigated and reported about an illegal spy organisation (Inormation Bureau) and subsequently was put to jail for espionage.

One might have the impression that Sweden is a free and modern welfare state, but those days are since long gone. Today's Sweden is the leading oppressor in Europe, with no-tolerance laws on everything from gambling to prostitution and drugs. The Swedish government sees the Internet mostly as an outlet for hate speech, porn and illegal downloading, and if they would decide to shut down the Pirate Bay during a lunch break, it would be done in a matter of minutes by a simple phone call.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[drstock]

Yeah, soon all americans will be eating freedom meatballs while watching the freedom chef on the muppet show.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

One might have the impression that Sweden is a free and modern welfare state, but those days are since long gone. Today's Sweden is the leading oppressor in Europe, with no-tolerance laws on everything from gambling to prostitution and drugs.

Look, things are far from perfect, and Bodström does need a reality check, but things are far from as bad as you make them out to be. In fact Sweden still receives top marks for freedom.

And Guillou and Bratt served two years for not revealing their sources and are long since out of prison. In fact, the Swedish consitution again receives top marks for protection of the press, even though you're not allowed to perform espionage, which one can debate is exactly what they did (even though their actions were IMHO justified).

Also, the data processing directive, while misguided in implementation, is actually there to protect you, from corporations and the like. Really a blessing, but alas heavily disguised.

Re:How to be popular

[David Webb]

If there were no movies and no t.v. due to piracy? I would cheer that the world had taken a shift for the better. I on occasion watch movies, however our entertainment options are used to placate us as a people. This way we don't think about our own failings. Nor do we strive to improve ourselves educationally and compete against the wealthy for the better jobs. We stand by as companies institute 401ks and do away with defined benefits plans. As we are sold out to big business and big government. As we're told that we don't need unions. That gold and silver are things we don't want to invest in. That we should buy buy buy but you better not go bankrupt! If we could get rid of movies and T.V. then perhaps people would think for themselves a little more and be more conserned with quality education. Keeping our jobs here and not outsourced. Concerned about invasion of privacy by the NSA, FBI and whomever else wishes to use the power that they were entrusted with in a corrupt and manipulative manner. If Piracy could bring down our now traditional big businesses then let piracy reign. I understand that many people would suffer but this would only bring about a greater good. We need to teach big business and big government that the people as a whole still make and break and rewrite the rules for the greater good.

Re:How to be popular

[Rocketship Underpant]

"... 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.

Re:How to be popular

[richie2000]

there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.

*sigh* Yes, there is. If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

No, but you can't realistically build a real movie theater at home either. Any way value is added, it can be exploited to drive sales of a good or a service. In Singapore, movie theaters have luxury seats and serve meals as an added value to the movie. Economically, there is no longer any added value in making a copy so it should not be used as the basis for value. Economics 101.

References:
Mindjack - Piracy is good?
International Herald Tribune - Imagine a world without copyright
A History And Possible Future Of Cinema
First Monday - Piercing the myths of p2p
TV Week - NBC: iPod Boosts Prime Time
Stealing Music
Roderick T. Long - The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

The future of movies

[typical]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

Copyright infringement. If you're complaining about people playing mind games, you can at least have the decency to avoid doing the same thing yourself in the same sentence.

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.

This is the real issue. Not whether something is "right" or "wrong" -- those are just social norms that have been instilled in people -- but the pragmatic issues.

Currently, the fact that people pay to see movies allows the funding of the creation of said movies. If you endorse infringement, you need one of a couple of justifications:

(a) It's going to happen anyway -- in the presence of a worldwide system (the Internet) designed to cheaply replicate and distribute data, content funded on the predicate that duplication is hard and expensive cannot exist. That means an end is going to come to this funding system, at least for movies in the $200 million scale. Regardless of the methods used, social pressure to not infringe is not going to be effective. We will not be able to make movies that require $200 million in resources in the future -- movie prices will have to drop far enough that the convenience is worth the purchase. Future movies will have to be more thrift-oriented -- if this causes a drop in the enjoyment factor of movies, then that drop will occur. I know some people that dislike those "big budget action movies" that would probably fall into (a).

(b) Infringing movie usage does not damage movie sales. People will continue to go to theaters as the same level as before (well, sans the bite taken away by home theaters), but just spend a larger amount of time viewing movies, as they will infringe on some additional movies.

(c) Movies will continue to make as much money, but by using alternate approaches (like product placement or commercials) that are not affected by redistribution.

(d) Movies can be sold on a viable non-redistributable medium, but some type of DRM-enabled device will be used and this one will actually work.

Remember that, as technologies change, policies we use have adapted to fit the times. I'm quite certain that, in one form or another, the movie-making industry will be around in fifty years. The printing press, the cassette recorder, the VHS tape, home entertainment systems -- all have had significant impact on how content was provided, but content continued to be provided via one mechanism or another.

For example, the drive-in theater is pretty much dead today because of TVs and movie-playing systems at home. People rent tapes, which was a mechanism that really wasn't expected by anyone to make a lot of money at one point (and, in fact, was expected to kill the movie industry at one point).

It may be by simply instituting policy capable of fighting off all infringement; my personal guess is that the movie industry will instead morph and twist and adapt in one way or another. It may even be one that we haven't dreamed of yet. History supports this idea.

Re:How to be popular

[SenorAmor]

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.

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.

If they fly to the U.S.

[mindaktiviti]

Would they be prosecuted? And if so, then that would be a bad thing.

I'm just curious in case they ever in their life times ever want to visit the U.S. for whatever reason, and then they end up being on some terrorist watch list because of their involvement with the Pirate Bay.

From the pdf announcement:

...Newsgroups are electronic bulletin boards which in recent years have become a major source of pirated content as users are able to attach movie, music and games files to their messages. The following is a list of the sites being sued by the MPAA and its member companies.

Recent years? Try over 10 years ago. (from my knowledge anyway, probably closer to 15-20)

Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[Trash]

By Swedish this is perfectly legal. Some years ago a guy was sued for posting links to mp3's on his web page. And the Swedish court desided that it was nothing wrong with that. He didn't ditribute the mp3's only showing were they where. And the same thing is pirate bay doing now.

Hope my english is better the Swede in the muppets show.

Complete hogwash!

[cypherz]

"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

Yeah, but maybe those movies suck.

[vertinox]

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.

(Legal) Mails to and from The Pirate Bay

[lemmen]

There are some legal complaints and the response from TPB posted at their website: http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php Funny to read them though.

A silly question but ...

[pandrijeczko]

... why would a web site trying to avoid being shut down by the MPAA/RIAA/etc. give itself a name called "The PIRATE Bay"??? Isn't this just a case of "Waving a red flag at the bull"?

Re:A silly question but ...

[murderlegendre]

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.

Re:A silly question but ...

[Scarblac]

... why would a web site trying to avoid being shut down by the MPAA/RIAA/etc. give itself a name called "The PIRATE Bay"??? Isn't this just a case of "Waving a red flag at the bull"?

Have you read their legal page? They're just taunting them, yes. Apparently they have some pretty strong precedent in Swedish law to back them.

Re:They'll lose eventually.

[rakkasan]

I see a future where computer skill and military experience merge to form - corporate mercenaries. A quick, forced entry, a small shaped charge and thier servers are toast. In and out in 10 minutes before the local authorities can react. Cash into the swiss account. ok.. too much Shadowrun as a teenager, but hey it could happen.

Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[babbling]

I'm an Australian who has just returned to Australia from a 1.5-month long trip to Sweden. Sweden is doing so many things right and it's really unfortunate that Australia isn't a bit more like Sweden.

First of all, there's not nearly as much crime in Sweden as there is in Australia. The Swedish government takes proper care of their people, so no one feels a need to commit crime. There's no homeless people sleeping in parks at night. People are much, much friendlier.

They also don't have any terrorist panic. There's no "terrorism alert levels", and there isn't much security. There's not even nearly as many police around as there is in Australia. The Swedes haven't made enemies for themselves by invading other countries, so they don't need to be afraid of any terrorists attacking them. The Swedes are more "free" than Americans are, which proves that terrorists don't hate America because they "hate freedom", as George Bush wants everyone to think. They attack America because America attacked them and is occupying their countries.

Sweden will probably also now lead the way in having free culture. They will soon show that money can be made even from creating free culture. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow their lead. Unfortunately, the rest of the world seems to be going crazy.

I just hope everyone who reads this post can imagine what life would be like to live in a country where you don't need to be afraid of terrorism or crime, a country where almost all of the population gets a good education, and all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that such a country can't exist, but it's important that everyone knows it does, for that is how other countries can follow the Swedes' lead in being a more peaceful, calmer, and better educated population.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[danro]

I'm swedish, and obviously I'm flattered by your opinion. However, you paint a little to rosy a picture. Countrary to popular opinion there are some homeless here, and if you visited Stockholm or Malmö I am surprised you didn't see any. Not homelessness on an US scale maybe, but the problem still exists. Also, the the privacy and freedoms you speak of is under threat here, just as it is anywhere else in the west. The swedish government is leading an effort to increase electronic surveillance in the entire EU, for example. (The opposition basically agrees, so I guess privacy will just have to take one for the team, no matter what happens in the upcoming election.) On the whole, this is a good place to live, and stand up well in comparison to just about anything out there. Just don't expect heaven on earth.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[wootest]

As a swede, it's a strange feeling reading these kinds of comments.

To say that I voraciously live through the Internet would be wrong, but I do practically live in some sort of pseudo-american culture when I'm spending any amount of time online. Swedish, real life friends, sure, they're there too, but my AIM buddy list (the one I use to keep in touch with online friends) is longer by far than the MSN Messenger list (swedish friends).

Every day I read on Slashdot and on other sites about how freedoms are in the process of being taken away. Mostly, the problems are international or apply globally in some ways, but a surprisingly big chunk is US domestic. I'm really quite surprised you haven't risen up, shook your heads and beaten the crap out of your established political system yet - as an outsider, it seems like the "American" thing to do, if I'm to believe various over-patriotic messages relayed to me over the years.

What I think is happening is this: the US is more and more about its government. Two major political parties and a winner-takes-all system in general does that. The "American" thing has evolved towards supporting the government, instead of the government supporting the people. And any government today - especially Republican, *it seems* - "are not above a little bribery and corruption in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds" (thanks, Douglas Adams). What you have is the government, who is either to be awed or to be ignored, played around by the corporations while your civil rights go straight down the can and anyone who opposes is a communist^Wterrorist. (McCarthy would have been proud, from all I hear.)

I'm not saying my analysis is right. I'm currently not 'rooting' for one of the major american parties, though I am certainly rooting against the current administration. I'm just saying that it's odd that Sweden's the one following the 'socialism' ideology branch, while it's the american citizens who have to take in in the hiney from their government.

And for what it's worth, Sweden is far from perfect. But there's no doubt in my mind that it's the american citizen that's worse off of the two.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Lars Arvestad]

As a Swede, I have to comment on some things.

First of all, there's not nearly as much crime in Sweden as there is in Australia. The Swedish government takes proper care of their people, so no one feels a need to commit crime. There's no homeless people sleeping in parks at night. People are much, much friendlier.

It is too cold to sleep in the parks, that is the main reason you don't see them there. It might be that we have fewer homeless people here than in other countries, but they certainly exist and the situation is not nearly as good as you suggest.

And there are many who feel that Swedes are cold, more so than friendly.

I don't have any crime statistic, but I would be surprised if it was much lower than for comparable European countries. The most scary thing to me is that we have an unemployment rate of about 15% today and this hasn't changed for several years. It is a social bomb ticking away.

They also don't have any terrorist panic. There's no "terrorism alert levels", and there isn't much security. There's not even nearly as many police around as there is in Australia.

I haven't been to Australia, but aren't you describing most of Europe here? I can tell you that many Swedes would actually like to see more police on the streets.

I just hope everyone who reads this post can imagine what life would be like to live in a country where you don't need to be afraid of terrorism or crime, a country where almost all of the population gets a good education, and all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country.

Are you suggesting that alcohol is easy to get in Sweden?! The alcohol taxes are among the highest in the world, and you can only buy alcohol in special government stores. They are closed on Sundays and it was only last year that they started being open on Saturdays.

I like Sweden, but I have to say that you have a very unusual view of my country. Either that or you are astroturfing for the government...

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[liangzai]

Dude, you seriously need to WAKE UP!

There are PLENTY of homeless people in Sweden, but they sleep where you can't see them, because if they sleep in the park there might be some teenagers having some fun burning them to death (yeah, there is no police protecting anyone in Sweden).

Crime in Sweden is notorious and ever on the rise. The police is mostly concerned about filming prostitutes having sex (so that they can convict the buyer) or dismantling illegal gambling from public squares. 80% of all crimes are never solved. This all goes in hand with the increase of poor people in the so called welfare state, making people desperate. Not a day goes by without a security transport loaded with money being robbed. Petty crime is of course notorious; buy a bike and see for yourself.

The "terrorist panic" is alive and well in Sweden, although we are not at risk. This is manifested in a whole slew of new laws effectively abolishing personal integrity, allowing the police to bug and surveill each and everyone for virtually no reason; this includes news paper agencies. Yes, you heard me right: the media can be bugged by Swedish police. And all this is motivated by the fucking "terrorist threat", that has only served as an excuse to finally install a fucking camera everywhere. I must congratulate Osama to the convincing victory.

Sweden in my mind, and I am a Swede, is a totalitarian cradle-to-grave one-party state with no future.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Politburo]

UHHH how about the military bases that were in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden SPECIFICALLY called out as being a problem? FYI, those bases were quietly removed after 9/11. It wasn't until then that OBL started using the Palestinian conflict as a boogeyman.

Insightful comment is true in other countries too:

[davidmb]

"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.

Re:How to be popular

[mysticgoat]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

You must be new here. Write this on the blackboard 100 times: "Copyright infringement is not theft."

Re:How to be popular

[2obvious4u]

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.

Re:How to be popular

[j-turkey]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

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

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

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.

Re:Steve Kubby?

[Lumpy]

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.

Bittorrent improvement to help defense cases?

[MadCow42]

Bittorrent trackers don't host any data, just links - so they could theoretically be ok under Sweedish Law. However, hosting Bittorrent data isn't so innocent, and easy to track if you get the locations from the tracker.

However - what if you "improved" the bit-torrent protocol so that when a file is split up and distributed amongst hosts, that some of the files are NOT part of the original data. When recombining the pieces, they're discarded. If encrypted, you couldn't tell which were real, and which were not... making it difficult to prove that someone was hosting copyrighted data. It's sort of like a firing squad - one rifle is loaded with a blank so you don't know if you're the one that killed they guy or not.

Just a thought (un-informed, but inspired. :)

MadCow.

The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to realize that The Pirate Bay does not host any infringing content on its servers.

The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google:

Both sites allow users to enter searches from a web page, and both return a list of links to (sometimes infringing) content.

If The Pirate Bay can be shut down, then Google can be shut down.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[caffeination]

Does TPB index content by having spiders randomly follow links? I honestly don't know. If they don't, analogy destroyed.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Telvin_3d]

The difference? Google can afford a more lawyers than could fit into the court room. The Pirate Bay is using a law STUDENT as its legal council. This is why even if TPB goes down, Google never will.

where do you live?; impose views; schoolyard bully

[PhYrE2k2]

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.

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

They're breaking apart as they become more and more like us!

Going hunting on a full stomach? Imposing our views on others who couldn't care less what we think? Let's jump for joy!

Thanks God we have a good, powerful neighbor.

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

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.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[pandrijeczko]

Who are the people who are so poor they can't afford music and so addicted that they must have it?

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.

Re:No really, heroes

[Marce1]

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.

Because they can

[m50d]

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.

My favorite snipplet from TFA:

[VMaN]

-- Antipiratbyrån's efforts to halt file sharing have prompted Sweden's outspoken pirates to run for office as the Pirate Party. Party spokesman Mika Sjöman said pirates are alarmed by both the IP tracking and Sweden's newly expanded surveillance and wiretapping laws.

"People are getting scared," said Sjöman. "The two issues are really connected because copyright organizations are telling the government you have to invade the right to privacy if you want to defend copyright. That's really destructive for democracy because when you make lists of people that will be the end of privacy."

It may sound like a joke, but Sjöman said the Pirate Party has 1,500 members, and has gathered enough signatures to participate in the Swedish general election in September. He said the government estimates that there are 1.2 million file sharers over the age of 18 in Sweden, and the Pirate Party needs only four percent, 225,000 votes, to get seats in the country's parliament. According to Sjöman, the success of The Pirate Bay illustrates just how embedded file sharing has become in Swedish culture. --

now THAT could be democracy in action!

Re:How to be popular

[spyrochaete]

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.

Re:How to be popular

[raju1kabir]

A fence who receives stolen goods is engaged in theft even though someone else does the actual stealling.

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.

A person who sells spam tools to a spammer is engaged in spamming even if they never use the tool themselves.

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?

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. 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.

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.

Socialism != social democracy!

[Jesus_666]

If you want an example of a socialist state look to Europe - Denmark, Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK, France, Netherlands, etc.

Those are not socialist states. Social democratic, yes, but not socialist. Just because those two terms sound similar doesn't mean that they're synonymous.

Re:How to be popular

[Eivind]

Really ? What are they helping others to steal ?

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.

Slashdotting retail establishments

[quokkapox]

I've always wanted to try this, to get together a flash mob or even just a few people, and go in to a large franchise grocery store (SFW, Giant, Walmart, whatever).

If you have enough people, this type of DOS attack could be devastating. Everybody goes around picking out non-perishable items in large quantities and putting them into their carts. Go for the cat food cans (50 varieties!), the spice aisle, maybe the Jello aisle, and top off your cart with a few large 50-lb bags of kitty litter or something. At a predetermined time, everybody drives their loaded carts up to the front, parks them randomly in the way, and exits the store. It takes them forever to put everything back correctly. And if your group has a message, the management gets it because you can leave flyers everywhere on the shelves or at the bottom of the carts. Fun fun fun.

Think about Tom Cruise ...

[ta ma de]

The bay and its band of pirates might eventually damage the finances of Tom Cruise and Scientology ... that can't be tolerated and must be stopped. I can't afford for the cost increases on my e-meter that are sure to come as a result of lost licensing revenue.

Re:How to be popular

[Risen888]

If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

So wait a minute...are you saying that I download and distribute, say, 10,000 copies of Legally Blonde, they won't make any more of them? Deal!

Re:Saudi Arabia

[vertinox]

UHHH? Which part of the Middle East were we occupying before 9/11?

Well it is a more consensual thing, but one of the reasons of 9/11 was Al Queada's desire to get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia so they could topple the Saudi Royal family.

Secondly, our support for Isreal is pretty much seen as American backed occupation. And don't forget what happened with Iran and the Shah.

My suggestion is that we stop publicly supporting Israel. Doesn't mean you can send money, weapons, and secret CIA type of assistance, but not so out in the open.

Re:As a counterarguement...

[crabpeople]

"If you write a 20 page paper and turn in for a course and get an A, then someone photocopies your paper and turns it in and also gets an A are they doing something wrong or unethical?"

When i start claiming that i wrote the new metalica album, then your example would make sense. People arent passing off other peoples work as their own, they are merely disseminating other peoples content, almost always with credit to the original author. Thats why when you download an episode of lost it doesnt say "Churla's magic island of doom.avi" it says "lost.avi". IF you tried to pass off an episode of lost as your creation people would laugh at you. in other words, your analogy falls very far short.

Considering the rest of your post seems to be random words thrown together, i think we are done here.

For what I hope is the last time

[rsilvergun]

1. China and the USSR were not Communist nations. They were facist dictatorships that borrowed communist rhetoric to justify the horrible things they did.

2. Globalism breaks Capitalism. Adam Smith envisioned a world where capitalists would act responsible because they lived right next to the squalor they create. Capitilism was layed out in an era before global transportation and telecommunications, not to mention before modern militaries eclipsed what a civilian militia could stand up aganst and modern propaganda/populace management techniques existed. These things combined mean a modern capitalist can live detached from the hellhole he creates, pit labor in one country aganst another to lower everyone's standard of living, and use the military and gov't propaganda engines to put down any serious challenge to his power.

3. The US became the most powerful country because we're on a continent with two really weak countries at either end. We have no serious rivals, and could prosper as such. While the rest of the world was reeling from WWII, we just kept on growing. It has nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with Geography and dumb luck.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:How to be popular

[arose]

The site is engaged in theft, they are not performing the theft themselves

Funny, that's what people say when they blow up civilians for what their goverments do...

Capitalism

[Mark_MF-WN]

That's precisely why idealogues are so stupid and dangerous. While Canada and Sweden beautifully combine the superb tool that is capitalism with the aims of socialism, Neocons try to elevate capitalism into some deranged ideal.

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.

Re:Capitalism

[Peaker]

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.

Not that I love capitalism so much, but I would guess that Bill Gates puts his money in the bank and not in his sock drawer.
That means that his money is being re-invested in the economy which means it does not grind to a halt.

Too limited - that's the problem

[denoir]

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. ;)

Re:Too limited - that's the problem

[Crizp]

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.

If that's your company's official opinion, and not only yours, congratulations! It's the first time I've heard of a company holding this view. Most people are law-abiding - when they can afford it.

Most people I know that run businesses use warezed copies of new versions of $favourite_software, and buy it if they feel the need to use it instead of their current (bought) version. While trying the warezed copy, they also make sure no commercial works are created with it - it's purely "in-house" testing.

Granted, many softwares have a two-week "pre-activation" test period after you bought it (like WinXP), but try and get your money back if you decide you don't want it. It's meant to be a grace period for phone/fax registrations, not evaluation. And no true eval copies exist.

Re:Too limited - that's the problem

[denoir]

It's an unofficially official policy, so to say. You won't find it expressly written on our website or in a press release or something like that, but it is the policy we follow.

It is however not an altruistic policy - on the contrary it's entirely business oriented. If you are confident that the market segment that actually buys your software won't use pirated, cracked versions of your software then there are two possible ways at looking at the rest. You can either try to go after them with legal means and get nothing out of it, as they most likely wouldn't have bought the software anyway - or you can see it as a long-term investment. Just the fact that more people use your software is beneficial for the company. Non-paying customers strengthen the reputation of the software as well - which in turn leads to more paying customers. If nothing else, it promotes the technology. In addition, if the non-paying user (like a student) comes to a point where he actually can buy some software, chances are he'll pick yours as he already knows how to use it.

More cash to TPB

[foolip]

A few days a go a swedish reality series (on public service TV) called "toppkandidaterna" (top candidates) with young people with political ideas competed was finished. The winner was a leftist guy who will give 50000 SEK (US$6270) of the cash prize (250000 SEK in total, the rest will go elsewhere) to the pirate bay. The money is to be used for new hardware (the site has been running a bit slow lately and the search function has frequently been unavailable). That's public service money well spent!

Re:How to be popular

[Have Blue]

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?)

A bit off, but still on

[Brothernone]

I cannot explain how much much i dislike and hate the content comming out currently. Movies, Mucis, TV, Blah blah blah. It's all crap. I don't spend my money on the latest boy band or some teen whore. I don't spend my money watching crap movies that get fluff reviews just so the reviewers can keep thier job. I spend my money procurring acess to the interent. I spend my money on imported CD's because PEOPLE, not instruments and soundboards, make music. Today's america is full of one problem: Too much. There is simply too much to do, too many bills to pay, too many debts to correct, too many cars in the traffic jam, too many people in your department. People are so sidetracked with their wordly shit that they spend their hard earned money on crap that makes them feel better for 20 minutes. That being said, i'm all for piracy. Not only do i support TFSM (The flying spaggehti monser) i'm all for mass digital content delivery. Since studios and content makers feel it is their right to demand my money for crap i don't even want, I go out of my way to avoid paying for the content I do want. Movies, TV Shows, it's all about what the CONSUMER wants, not what they think we want. Instead of handling this technology like mature people, they have chosen to sit on their Copy Rights like the fat kid hoarding his cake. Instead of being smart and offering their own way of digital converstion and distrobution, they choose to stick to old methods that are simply obsolete in today's world. TPB is not just a piracy site, it's a community. Real people have real opinions and are making it known in real ways. They are executing their powers under their laws, and I think it's fantastic.

a voice from behind the iron curtain (Moscow, ru)

[vleo]

I have spent 13 years of my life in the US and moved back to Moscow, Russia recently. The reason was that from day one in the US I felt like I'm "back in the USSR" in some strange way - capitalizm, sure, but also lack of freedom,and there was much more freedom in Russia in 1992, and it is still lots left, although the constant anti-freedom pressure from the West and US on these topics is felt:
a) copyright (although, my economical and political beliefs are Linux/GNU/FSF, and repressive law against Windows lusers benefits me economically). And prohibiting hollywood movies and music would only benefit (any) country.
b) war on (some) drugs - overall policy that results in black market prices grouth for said products, with strong govt. corruption and consumption grow, accoppanied by constant media hypocrasy.
c) human rights erosion under the pretext of "war on terror" - like x-raying my boots and stealing my nail-clippers at the airports, phone and internet surveillance. Although - right now in Moscow you can buy 1) anonymous GSM phone card 2) anonymous internet access card 3) anonumous electronic cash cards 4) cannabis seeds selling and buying is legal
d) prostitution - at least it's still not a criminal offense in Russia, for private, individual relation between two (or more :-) conscenting adults. There are so many reasons why people might want to have sex, I don't see why govt. should be involved at all. And the girls are very good IMHO. Just look up on the Web.
e) erosion of state/church separation - but at least in Russian schools children are not forced to pledge submission to Govt. and GOD on a daily basis
f) untill now complete databases for all private information from phone numbers, to passport, drivers license, property, taxes paid were available for no more then $30 complete set. Unfortunately lately FSB(KGB) got upset that such complete information discosure was available to anybody, not just them. But, Westen position on this is such - give that wealth of information only to Govt. agencies. Whereas, if there is no choice, better everybody has it, rather then only Govt.

Speaking of "Pirate Bay" - well, firstly, I prefer eMule. Secondly, I never bother to download movies since on every metro station there are kiosks that sell DVDs with up to 8-6 latest Holywood shit movies on a two sided disk (russian creativity! :) for $3 each. And most latest software for evil OS (MS-Windows).

p.s. my wife delivers a baby in 10 days and althouth I can't say it was not without a hassle to get all paperwork and state medical insurance papers - it's free. We probably feel obligated to tip doctor with $200-$300 for delivery, but that's our choice and in case we were broke it would still be the same hospital and doctor. And Govt. gives a $250 bonus for a newborn baby. Of course it costs a hell more to rise a child, but :-)

Now, I do hate socializm :-) "Those that trade freedom for some security end up with neither"

So much for a free society, then

[Vlad2.0]

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.

Re:How to be popular

[RedWizzard]

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.

If the CEO in your example was charged with theft, they would (should) be found not guilty. They didn't commit theft. We have different crimes with different definitions because those crimes have different effects and warrant different punishments. One of the ironies of this debate is that according to the law copyright infringement is already considered to be much more serious than theft. If I steal a DVD from a store I am likely to get banned from the store and perhaps a minimal fine. If I make a copy of the same DVD I could be fined $50,000 and go to jail.

why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?

Because it is the crux of the matter. Theft is clearly morally and ethically wrong. If you accept that copyright infringement is theft then what argument remains?

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.

Re:How to be popular

[Joe the Lesser]

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 wish it worked that way.

[Stoutlimb]

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.

yes and no

[Khashishi]

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.