Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Court Loss Won't Stop the Flow of Files
Adrian Lopez writes "According to PC World, 'Hollywood may have won a battle, but the war against piracy is far from over. Unauthorized file sharing will continue (and likely intensify), if not through The Pirate Bay, then through dozens of other near identical swashbuckling Web sites. ... What Hollywood needs to remember is sites like The Pirate Bay are like weeds. When you try to kill one, they grow back even stronger. In this case, The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers to the Netherlands, a move that could keep the site running even if The Pirate Bay loses its appeal.'"
OMFG people will stop buying bottled water!!!!
you think bottled is good, I've got the stuff on tap...
seriously though, wasn't FM radio supposed to be the death of recording industry, and VHS the death of movies?
oh my god! humanity is progressing!
-I only code in BASIC.-
This is typical of a situation, where a dinosaur on top of the food chain tries to defend its position.
I am pretty sure that MPAA/RIAA/Big Publishers would like to put the whole filesharing technology back to the bottle until they find a way to monetize it. Then, of course, it would be accepted.
And I can't get over the Swedish court's argument that making the service available is criminal, because it can be used illegally.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
You are a pirate!
They can trash on The Pirate Bay all they want, but public sites like that are mostly just for piracy tourists anyway thanks to their notoriously unreliable speeds that make the 'pr0' pirates steer clear of 'em except as a last ditch option. Sure you can try and stem the tide by taking down one of the big, well known ones, but that's really not going to help matters much. Another public site will spring up, having learned from the lessons of the prior one, and will be even harder to take down. The tourists will latch onto it and the whole mess will ramp up even more.
Besides, the guys doing the really heavy duty stuff (i.e. dedicated download boxes with a ritual morning tracker browse through with 24/7 downloading) are all rocking private trackers and encrypted file transfers anyway. Good luck to trying to crack apart the chunk of the piracy community that actually does know what they're doing and aren't 13 year old girls, grandmothers, or drunk, stupid, college kids.
"I am pretty sure that MPAA/RIAA/Big Publishers would like to put the whole filesharing technology back to the bottle until they find a way to monetize it. Then, of course, it would be accepted."
They had their chance a loooooong time ago. They thoroughly screwed that pooch and will have to stop basing their businesses on suing the crap out of people, which they really don't want to do (mostly because I think they enjoy it).
There is also the issue of the morality of it all. Should something that such a large section of the population do be illegal? Who is the law serving then?
Is this a road we really want to continue down? Seams pretty dark....
So far it seems like we don't have a choice. The lobbyists and governments make billions of dollars from pursuing this dark path. The consumer is too lazy or uninterested to withdraw his funding for that and merely keeps consuming. What the pirates do is a sort of non-violent rebellion on their terms. They still consume but they also demonstrate that they despise the ruling system. Sure majority rule should tell you that what the people want is priority but rationale and observation will tell you that majorities are no longer formed by the number of people but by the number of dollars.
Maybe 'unemployed' is the wrong word here. It is more that the monks lost control of what the general public was able to read. Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas.
There was official censorship long after the introduction of the printing press. My copy of Don Quixote has a notice of approval by the censor, and its first editions were all printed.
Also, even before the printing press, state censors exercised direct control over all written works, not just implicitly through the works' being written by monks. Medieval Jewish texts certainly needed approval by the Christian censors, for instance, despite their being written by Jewish scribes.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Nonono. You misunderstood me. Of course I accept your "fact". (Even when you're only a random guy on the net stating something, why would you lie?)
I just meant that it does not matter if the old industry got hurt. Because it did not hurt the people in the long run. The new industry filled the gap. And that new industry created new jobs. Even more than the old industry. So in the end it's a good thing. :)
Sorry if I did not state things clearly enough.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
No problems - enjoying the conversation :-)
But I would point out, that at least in hollywood, the tastes of the rich are doing precisely what you're suggesting - everyone from directors, script writers, actors and onwards are working on a basis which is very much like patronage for the vast majority of the content they produce. The marketing people/producers identify a concept and a market to tap and assemble a team to make it happen - there is still creative input, in much the same way as the historical figures you mentioned would have had on their own commissioned works, but it's still 'done to order'. Nothing particularly wrong with it either, providing those who are providing the cash can distinguish the subtle difference between good and bad and a single patron doesn't obtain a monopoly...
I'm not so sure that world of music is so dissimilar - the 'patron' here will sometimes manufacture/commission (boy/girl band type of stuff - aimed at a demographic), but generally, they'll be dictated by their own tastes and understanding of the tastes of others before they'll commission an act of any sort...
Don't know :-) - is it just a case of 'the more things change, the more things stay the same'?
None of this is to condone piracy btw - I just think that p2p/sharing it's the next step in an evolutionary chain which started a long, long time back... and there is money to be made by the existing content providers...
My feeling is that it's just a case of the content providers recognising that people will pay, providing certain restrictions are lifted - personally, I would happily pay for downloadable content on the single proviso that when I have purchased it, I am unrestricted on how I personally choose to watch it - be it on the TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone or my wrist watch... a DVD more or less provides me with that, though without any legal rights of course.. it has become the norm to allow CD -> mp3 conversion, so why the restrictions on video?
I'd also add that it's far greener to have a p2p solution for the transcoded versions :-) - there is quite some heavy cpu use/power consumption involved with decent encodings...
Sure you can. The Mythbusters even managed to get a very nice shine on it.
Mythbusters: Polishing a Turd
I know that both the state and the church came to support the censorship with draconian laws. The same thing is happening today.
I believe the media industry is loosing control. A very good example is from the Pirate Bay trial when John Kennedy from IFPI took the stand. One of the plaintiffs asked how TPB affected the music industry. His answer was that they can no longer foresee which position a certain song will get on the music lists. What did Kennedy mean? Did he actually mean that the music industry are controlling who gets where on the music lists? My interpretation is: of course!
The media industry is doing everything it can to prevent losing control and that is why we get all this new legislation both in the US and in the EU. Soon China, North Korea, Iran, etc. will be a lot freer than US and Europe...