Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Legal Action Dropped In Norway
superapecommando writes "Copyright holders have given up legal efforts to force Norwegian ISP Telenor to block filesharing site The Pirate Bay, one of the parties to the case said. The copyright holders, led by Norway's performing rights society TONO and by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry Norway (IFPI Norge), have lost two rounds in the Norwegian court system, and have now decided against appealing the case to Norway's supreme court."
Is that they've figured out another way to accomplish the same ends. It ain't over.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I'm still going to be a rebel and buy my games, books, and music anyway. Its what all the cool kids are doing now.
The path of least resistance to the ends they want is via campaign contributions and scare-tactic(child pron, terrorism, etc) lobbying.
Stop price fixing and trying to thwart actual fair-use and maybe I would. As I see it, I'm just recovering my lost monies from the days of price fixing before digital media, and from all the albums I lost due to CD rot because I wasn't allowed to make a fair use back up. So until you can play nice, don't expect me to....
Maybe these litigious companies will realize, one day, there's a reason why.
Why? The public in general hates the lawyers, not the people who hire them. In fact, the lawyers are acting as a defensive shield for the public scorn that should be heaped on the organizations that hire them to carry out their legal asshattery. As long as people hate the lawyers without questioning who stands behind them, the organizations that hire them will continue to get off scot free.
That is all.
Copyright is not property right. Is it so hard to understand the difference between stealing and sharing? The point of copyright is to ensure the publics access to new and old books and music. It is not for making media companies rich. Learn your history.
Copyright was created to enforce censorship. it was created to stop people from criticizing the state and the church. Copyright was a monopoly granted to printers in exchange for only printing what the government approved of. It was much later reformed to consider the rights of authors and such. Since then it has degenerated into this so called "intellectual property" that implies that you can own ideas. It is stupid.
Yes, it is in the interest of the public that writers and musicians can make money of their trade so they can provide the public with new works. It is not in the publics interest to give an artificial monopoly on copying works for over 100 years without getting anything in return. It is not in the publics interest to be extorted into paying thousands of dollars for sharing music with each other. When you consider the economic profit of doing something you consider if it will be profitable within 10 years. Maximum. The current situation is ridiculous.
If you sell something to someone, normal property right tells that the buyer now owns said property. He can do with it as he pleases. Including making copies of it and distribute. Copyright is an artificial infringement of the buyers ownership that prevents him from distributing copies of it.
If it costs more than you want to pay then you don't get to have it. Simple. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then you still don't get to have it.
And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
This may be news to you, but laws and rules generally have to have a reason to exist. The law against stealing bread exists for a reason - because stealing harms the person you steal from - it doesn't exist for its own sake. How does downloading something one would never have otherwise paid for harm anyone? It doesn't. Ergo, there is no moral reason for this to be forbidden by law, and no moral reason not to do it.