Why Web Pirates Can't Be Touched

gwoodrow writes "Forbes has a brief article about, essentially, the ultimate futility of fighting online pirates. From the article: 'As the world's largest repository of BitTorrent files, ThePirateBay.org helps millions of users around the world share copyrighted movies, music and other files — without paying for them ... That's illegal, of course — at least it is in the U.S. But when Time Warner's (nyse: TWX — news — people ) Warner Bros. studio accused them of breaking U.S. copyright law in 2005, the pirates gleefully reminded the movie company that they didn't live in America, but rather in the land of vikings, reindeer, Aurora Borealis and cute blond girls.' The article also touches on the many YouTube clones and AllofMP3.com."

Comments

That's because...

[u-bend]

...there aren't enough experienced online ninjas.

Article is flawed.

[Hobbs0]

It assumes that copyright law around the world will not eventually be in line with U.S. copyright law as per the wishes of the *AA

Re:Article is flawed.

[owlnation]

It assumes that copyright law around the world will not eventually be in line with U.S. copyright law as per the wishes of the *AA

No, the article is correct - it's your understanding of international law and macroeconomics that is flawed.

Firstly, the US's version of copyright is more the exception than the rule.

Secondly, The *IAA is an American organisation but not all its members are in fact American Corporations. Fair use in Germany (where Sony BMG is based) is much more genuinely fair than in the US, BMG has never managed to change that.

Thirdly, if you want to examine legal parallels for international Internet law then you should look at the development of international Maritime Law. After millennia of shipping technology being available, and the finest legal minds in history having examined the problems, there is no international standard Maritime Legal system.

Yes, there is broad agreements and treaties between many countries, but there are just as many disagreements and disputes. There are rogue nations, and there is still real piracy.

The *IAA needs to understand that while the preposterous US copyright laws protect them in that country, they have already lost the War pretty much most other places. And those of you who are American here, need to wake up and realise that your laws are designed to protect you and your interests, not just your country's business interests. You need to take your country back from the Corporations. Your Founding Fathers were wise people with a pretty good understanding of human nature. 14 years is enough copyright for anyone.

The DMCA, is a law that steals from most American citizens, and penalizes no-one outside your borders. The DMCA hinders your economy, because without it your *IAA industries would need to adapt to survive - and they do have the means and technology to successfully adapt and survive in a manner that allows you value and fair choice.

obviously...

[porkmusket]

...it's because they all listen to MC Hammer. Without DRM, of course.

can't the submitter

[Anonymous Coward]

at least remove the stock ticker info when copying?

huh?

[Vexorian]

The pirates were living in the land of vikings

Shouldn't the vikings do something ?

....

Should I point out thepiratebay doesn't really host any copyrighted material or did that argument get old already?

Readable version (i.e., no obscene amount of ads)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Printer friendly" version.

It's also much more eyeball-friendly.

Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder?

[SpiritusGladius1517]

FTA:
From June to October 2006 alone, the Recording Industry Association of America says that 11 million songs were downloaded from the site. AllofMP3 claims those sales adhered strictly to Russian law, but that doesn't satisfy the RIAA; the record labels have launched a lawsuit, asking for $150,000 for each stolen file, totaling $1.65 trillion.

I'm sorry, did they say $1.65 trillion? The RIAA is off their rocker for sure. That much money is going to have to involve a war.

Don't take this the wrong way

[zappepcs]

But could you please justify and explain the statement you made: "You did deprive them - of money."

Please cite your references and explain any statistics quoted in your explanation. Please also quantify how much money the **AA have been deprived of by TPB. Please do this so that we can forevermore trust that the **AA member companies declining revenues and train-wreck-about-to-happen business model is doomed because of TPB and others like them.

If you can prove that this is driving the **AA member companies out of business beyond any doubt, I will start downloading music and movies illegally to help ensure a quick end to the **AAs of the world.

Thank you

I'm moving

[aegisalpha]

"the pirates gleefully reminded the movie company that they didn't live in America, but rather in the land of vikings, reindeer, Aurora Borealis and cute blond girls."

I'm moving. Vikings, blonde girls, AND pirates? Irresistible!

Biased article, but what can you expect from Forbe

[whoever57]

For example:

The music-selling site AllofMP3.com uses a simpler business model: Base your company in Russia, steal music from American labels and sell it cheaply. AllofMP3 allows users to download full albums for as little as $1

The whole point of, and the reason the RIAA has not been able to shut it down, is that it is not stealing -- in any sense of the word. Firstly, the owner is not deprived of the work and secondly, AllofMP3 apparently operates within the legal framework of Russia -- in other words, it has a license to run its business model that way. The use of the word stealing is inflammatory.

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Forbes! I didn't know about "sites like Alluc.org, VideoHybrid.com, Peekvid.com, TVlinks.co.uk and YouTVPC.com"!

How does Forbes get away with it?

[HollowSky]

Okay, TPB doesn't host any pirated content, it merely points to pirated content. The *AA contends that's still bad. Whatever.... But what about Forbes? They just told me about all these other sites I didn't know about. Forbes just provided me a directory to illegal content. Doesn't that open them up to lawsuits? Journalistic freedoms don't apply when aiding a "crime?"

Re:Please everyone:

[Knara]

Gotta love frothing rants in response to well-reasoned arguments, but I'll respond in spite of it.

oh please... you are missing out the description of your brave new world business model. Where nobody gets paid for creating ANYTHING that can be easily copied.

I suspect that you've deliberately misunderstood and are intentionally misrepresenting my statements, since I didn't write that. However, if you make paper airplanes and try to sell them, should no one else be able to make copies of your paper airplane?

Do you have ANY idea how much work is involved in making something like Photoshop, or The lord Of The rings? or Halo? Why the fuck is anyone going to spend any money on making entertainmnt if it can be freely copied without compensation?

Because by and large consumers like to pay for the Real Thing. This is the idea behind the Windows Genuine Advantage bit, though obviously it was clumsily implemented. If you have a shitty product, no one is going to buy it. Should we be also legally guarantee that if someone makes something, they will get revenue from it, even if it sucks?

Lord of the Rings cost a ton to make, but also made a hojillion dollars in merchandising, home video releases, etc. Why? Quality product and merchandising that consumers wanted, and it was all sold at a price they wanted to pay. Photoshop may indeed cost a lot to make, but it's obviously not sold at a price consumers want to pay. Adobe's answer to this, it seems, was to make Photoshop Elements. PSE is up to version 4.0 I think, so it at least hit some sort of pricing sweet point.

let me guess, you dont care, because like most copyright infringers, you dont make creative content for a living, and are just loving the excuse to take other peoples work for free arent you?

Ahh, strawmen. I make plenty of creative content. Don't make much money from it, but I do make it. But let's apply this to a well-known set of intarwebs content creators: Gabe and Tycho of Penny-Arcade. They're on record (as a matter of fact in writing at the back of their first hardcopy collection, of which there are 3 so far, and I've bought all 3 because of the added value in buying them at a decent price) as saying that hiding your content from your users because you're afraid they'll take it is kinda silly (which I tend to agree with, and why I think the subscription based Modern Tales group goes about the whole thing the wrong way - and why I think PVP's add-on animated subscription featurettes are a great idea; you get the meat for free, and if you want the dessert you shell out a little cash for it). PA was once in dire straits due to the ad network collapses and the loss of revenue thereof. They didn't have the financial resources to go down the failing route of the RIAA and MPAA, instead they adapted and are thriving to this day. None of their strips require you to pay for them, and there's no silly DRM preventing you from doing Save-As on a strip. Even so, people pay cold hard cash to get their books and their merchandise. Why? Cuz they know how to make what their target audience wants and what price their audience will shell out for extra stuffs.

Re:typo?

[iminplaya]

Oh. Do you think these laws were passed on their merits? Is there any evidence of that? What is the possible merit of extending copyright to 75 years after the creator is dead? Or DMCA? Do some research and prove him wrong if that's what you believe. There are some things that are fairly obvious in their own right. You're asking him to prove that the sky is blue or water is wet. And the mods get pretty defensive if anyone dares point out how ugly the truth really is when spelled out in an easy to understand fashion. So the bar is still fairly high.