The Pirate Bay is Here to Stay?

(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by dada21 · 2006-03-14 02:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

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! by spyrochaete · 2006-03-14 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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! by MikeBabcock · 2006-03-14 02:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by Dachannien · 2006-03-14 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
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! by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · 2006-03-14 02:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I just have two points to make:
One, congress isn't going to, in my opinion, swing into action on DRM issues. The reasons may be many, but my guess is because the people who actually vote don't care. Look who votes in the U.S. It is old people. It is a generalization, but would say that to the average 50-60-70-80 year old, intellectual propertyis not a big issue. 20 somethings and other young people don't vote in any kind of appreciable number. So you are going to see prescription drugs and prune farming subsidies as big issues until generation x and y decide to vote.
Two, you say calling your congressman doesn't help? Sure it does. Not if you call (unless you are a big employer or donor), but if you are one of many callers. Politics aside- every congressman has been saying that their phones have been ringing off the hook re the Dubai ports deal. Congressman can't ignore their constituancy- If their phone rings all day, they will have to do something, or be voted out.

--
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by Lumpy · 2006-03-14 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by TooMuchEspressoGuy · 2006-03-14 02:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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."

--
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-14 02:43 · Score: 3, Informative

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! by ProudClod · 2006-03-14 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The communist ideal isn't state owned property - it's the dissolution of the state.

It's the transfer between private property and the shared ownership almost inevitable leads to that problem - but it's certainly not the 'ideal'.

--
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by Scarblac · 2006-03-14 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right to listen to them. [...] Other people invested large amounts of time, money, and resources into recording and producing the music that you paid for...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it.

That is true, they do have that right - but not because they were the ones who paid for it (after all, if I manufacture chairs, pay for the cost, then sell them, I don't have that right), or because it's some sort of natural human right. They have that right because the people decided to make a copyright law, that gives them that right for a limited time. It was a good idea at the time, but, if the people decide that the balance has now gone too far towards the music industry, the laws can be changed and the "right" will be gone.

And it is a weird right - after all, as the grandparent says, something you physically own is usually yours to do with as you please. That's what ownership means, and it's a rather more fundamental right than copyright.

The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways. Act as if they're selling a single physical thing, then restrict your use by saying you only bought a license.

I'd be fine with buying a license for music - I'd pay for the license to listen to a song. If that means I can replace a scratched CD for a fee equal to the cost of pressing it; if I could redownload a song whenever I wanted, say if I accidentally deleted it; if I could make personal copies to listen to it on whatever gadget I may own. That'd be fair - I paid for the right to listen to it, so I can listen to it.

The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways.

If it's a license I bought, why did I have to buy the CD for the full price when I already owned the LP?

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by David+Webb · 2006-03-14 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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! by hyfe · 2006-03-14 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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] :)

--
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by Jugalator · 2006-03-14 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Funny how such a socialist country retains so many freedoms, yet ironically the USA moves closer and closer to the communist ideal of state-owned property.

Umm, what's so "funny" about that? Many Swedish socialist parties have liberties as a quite high priority.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by Chris+Burke · 2006-03-14 03:46 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman! by glesga_kiss · 2006-03-14 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Arrrrr by TimeTrav · 2006-03-14 02:13 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
[sig]you really dont want the answers, trust me[/sig]

We demand.. by dotwhynot · 2006-03-14 02:15 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:We demand.. by Jamu · 2006-03-14 02:28 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--
Who ordered that?

Gete your factes straighte by spyrochaete · 2006-03-14 02:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-14 02:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Not illegal by michrech · 2006-03-14 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

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... :) )

--
bork bork bork!

Re:Not illegal by hkmwbz · 2006-03-14 03:06 · Score: 5, Informative

"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...

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:Not illegal by spyrochaete · 2006-03-14 03:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by spyrochaete · 2006-03-14 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by BoxedFlame · 2006-03-14 02:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by dada21 · 2006-03-14 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by OnePound · 2006-03-14 02:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Social-democratic, not socialist-democratic.
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by raju1kabir · 2006-03-14 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by BVis · 2006-03-14 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by dada21 · 2006-03-14 03:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by op00to · 2006-03-14 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by AK+Marc · 2006-03-14 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by Dutchmaan · 2006-03-14 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by dada21 · 2006-03-14 05:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by EatHam · 2006-03-14 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by AK+Marc · 2006-03-14 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by truckaxle · 2006-03-14 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
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 by aeoo · 2006-03-14 06:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Mr.+Slippery · 2006-03-14 06:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by EatHam · 2006-03-14 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Bun · 2006-03-14 07:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Re:socialist-democratic not communist by Mr.+Slippery · 2006-03-14 09:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Whether or not they're wrong... by NevDull · 2006-03-14 02:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

hmm. by user24 · 2006-03-14 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

Re:How to be popular by 10Ghz · 2006-03-14 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

No success in Swedish courts by Billosaur · 2006-03-14 02:27 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network

Re:No success in Swedish courts by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-14 03:37 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Swedes or the Muppets!

Re:How to be popular by erroneus · 2006-03-14 02:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Stavr0 · 2006-03-14 02:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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'.

Further up, further in. by Chas · 2006-03-14 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apologies to C.S. Lewis.

Okay, this is a tracker site. It's going to be harder to justify pulling the whole site down because of the torrents it tracks.

However, if the companies are determined enough, they'll get the site yanked.

First they go to the tracker site itself.
Then they go to their provider.
Then they go to the provider upstream.
And up, and up the chain until they reach someone who WILL yank the plug.

Granted, if they proceed above a multi-homed provider, they have to go to an increasing number of upstream providers. At which point, it becomes a MASSIVE hassle. But, as I said, it all depends on how determined they are to down a site.

Not that I'd know anything about downing a site in this fashion....

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:How to be popular by Kadin2048 · 2006-03-14 02:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, these guys are more like the stores that sell the little razorblade devices that shoplifters use to slash the shrinkwrap on CDs at the record store very quickly, and pocket the disc. (They were a whole lot more common before a lot of stores went to using those hard shells that have to be broken open by the cashier.) Or the head shop that sells crack pipes "for tobacco use only."

They're not actually doing the stealing/drugs for you, but they're clearly facilitating it.

That said, I don't really give a damn. I can't work up much moral outrage for some kid who rips off Vivendi or Universal, whether its using bittorrent or a tiny sliver of metal. Leech it on your parents' cable modem, or stuff it in your pants, the only question I have is whether by pirating their media, are you still indirectly supporting their grip on content creation and distribution, by giving them free advertising and mindshare. I think the jury's still out on that.

But I save my outrage for crimes that have actual victims, of which there are far too many anyway.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Sweden vs US Capitalism by Bluude · 2006-03-14 02:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by liangzai · 2006-03-14 03:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2006-03-14 04:02 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Stefan Axelsson

Re:How to be popular by David+Webb · 2006-03-14 02:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by richie2000 · 2006-03-14 02:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
Money for nothing, pix for free

Perfectly legal in Sweden. by Trash · 2006-03-14 02:45 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

(Legal) Mails to and from The Pirate Bay by lemmen · 2006-03-14 02:49 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Daxy's Networking Blog

Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world. by babbling · 2006-03-14 02:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. by danro · 2006-03-14 03:51 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--

"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world. by wootest · 2006-03-14 03:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. by Lars+Arvestad · 2006-03-14 03:54 · Score: 4, Informative

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...

--
Reality or nothing.
Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world. by liangzai · 2006-03-14 03:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Insightful comment is true in other countries too: by davidmb · 2006-03-14 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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:The pirates are here to stay by murderlegendre · 2006-03-14 02:53 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.

Re:How to be popular by 10Ghz · 2006-03-14 03:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

No they aren't. There is no copyrighted material on their website. And even if there were, it wouldn't be stealing. If I shoplift a DVD from a store, I'm stealing. If I copy a movie from the net, I'm NOT stealing. I might be committing a copyright infringment, but it's NOT the same thing as stealing. If I steal something, it means that I deprive someone from their property. If I make a copy of that property, no-one gets deprived of anything.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Re:Steve Kubby? by Lumpy · 2006-03-14 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes exactly! If everyone blasted sony's phone lines and fax machines when they pulled their CD rootkit stunt the whole issue would have been very different today and companies looking at DRM would really think twice before risking losing days even weeks of productivity over adding DRM to a product that really does not need it.

If people do all 3 phone,fax,email it will get the management's attention and force them to respond.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:A silly question but ... by Scarblac · 2006-03-14 03:07 · Score: 4, Informative

... 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.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.

The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-14 03:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by Telvin_3d · 2006-03-14 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by PhYrE2k2 · 2006-03-14 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!

Re:How to be popular by 10Ghz · 2006-03-14 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Re:No really, heroes by Marce1 · 2006-03-14 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Some people beleive that they can be of service to goverments which have the right to tell them (and you) what to do.

Some people treat their government as a public service, which is told what to do by the people.

Guess which type of people the Swedes are?

Saying what you have about the draconian backlash is like saying that there would be a backlash of bull-fighting and bear-baiting in the UK after banning fox-hunting, or a backlash of 'gun-control' in all the other US states if one was more permissive than the rest about automatics. It is possible, but it's not in the nature of that culture.

As an example, 10 or so years after the abolition of free public transport in Amsterdam, it is still culturally acceptable to ignore buying a ticket, and ride for free. Most choose to comply with the imposed laws, but that doesn't mean they will stop you, and they would think you a better person for doing what you believe, even if they personally dissagree with it.

--
[ insert meme here ]

Because they can by m50d · 2006-03-14 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes it is. They're doing precisely that. And they're *still here*. And they're showing everyone you can do this and still be there. The MPAA would very much like people to think that what they were doing was illegal, but it isn't, and by being very blatant about what they're doing, they make more people aware of this fact.

--
I am trolling

Re:How to be popular by raju1kabir · 2006-03-14 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

Re:As a counterarguement... by crabpeople · 2006-03-14 04:39 · Score: 3, Informative

"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.

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...

Too limited - that's the problem by denoir · 2006-03-14 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by denoir · 2006-03-14 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

a voice from behind the iron curtain (Moscow, ru) by vleo · 2006-03-14 07:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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"

--
Vassili Leonov ...it is the actions that affect us, not the motive...RMS

Re:How to be popular by RedWizzard · 2006-03-14 08:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

I wish it worked that way. by Stoutlimb · 2006-03-14 10:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

The Pirate Bay is Here to Stay?

81 of 956 comments (clear)