Slashdot Mirror


Interview With Suren Ter From 'You Have Downloaded'

An anonymous reader writes "Suren Ter discusses privacy, piracy, and the future of filesharing. Suren produced the virally popular YouHaveDownloaded.com, which displays all downloads on the public BitTorrent network associated with an IP address." When asked about his views on piracy: "Just like I told a French journalist and to the lady at the Washington Post, pirates are thieves and they do steal. Yeah yeah, 'when I steal your DVD, you have no DVD, but when I copy a file, you still have a file' — I get that BS. We all know that it’s BS too. However, SOPAs and PIPAs create tyranny. If given the choice between thieves and tyranny, I’d rather stay with the thieves."

6 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Right, because BS is a thorough refutation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh well I used to believe there was a difference between theft and copyright infringement; but now that someone's called the distinction BS I'm changing my views. Heh, my captcha is "proofs"

    1. Re:Right, because BS is a thorough refutation by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah yeah, 'when I steal your DVD, you have no DVD, but when I copy a file, you still have a file' — I get that BS. We all know that it’s BS too.

      Who says it's BS? You point out the primary function between theft and copyright infringement is completely different, and then say it's not?

      I live by this philosophy. Copyright infringement, and copying of protected works, is in no way theft. Nor is it equal to a lost sale. Nor is it lost revenue.

      I don't care WHAT website this guy made, his take on copyright is flat-out wrong. And going by how well it works for my IP and the amount of shit I download, I would say he's not very good at building web apps either.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  2. You know what's BS? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea that you can sell your product and retain control over what people do with it. That's BS.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Re:I can't wait to start moderating by peppepz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As it currently stand the purchase once and give away free to everyone is not sustainable. What do you propose those industries do then? I'm not saying it's gonna happen tomorrow, but

    Why should I give a damn thing about the industries? Do the industries care about me? Do they care about the workers they fire when they move manufacturing to overseas sweatshops? Do they care about how they make their own country poorer when they move their capitals into tax havens? Did we care when cars destroyed the economy of the horse? A failed business model must be failed for a reason, and therefore it's best to let it die.

    outline to me how "sharing" would not eventually kill these intangibles based industries we all love so much?

    If people love the industry so much, then those who do can pay for it by themselves. It's absurd that the Government must pass laws, spend money to uphold them, and limit the freedom of all its citizens, to create an imaginary property for those industries to sell.

    All property, tangible or not, exists only because the Government defines and protects it. Tangible property needs to be protected because it can't be duplicated. Intellectual property hasn't that problem.

  4. Stop considering the wrong issus please by sanotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah yeah, 'when I steal your DVD, you have no DVD, but when I copy a file, you still have a file'

    The real issue here is not that copying is stealing or otherwise a lost sale, the real deal is that the world has changed and the business model for media creation and distribution is DEAD. FULL STOP. No ammount of lobbying, no matter how many laws Hollywood can get of their payed puppets will change that. It's like the railroad owners of 19th century were sen't on destroying that new "invention" called automoviles and trucks that let anybody achieve transportation without giving them their share. Let's face it, I can go to the west coast without needing you, train company. Let's face it, I can get content without needing you, big media company. BUT!!!!! Big media produces the media I want, and the actors, directors producers etc. etc. needs their food too, so... What is needed is a new way to monetize content CREATION, note the word creation, not DISTRIBUTION. Nowadays distribution is FREE, as the roads are "FREE"... you owned the railroads, but you don't own the roads anymore, so for everybody's sake, stop trying to charge me for using the road and go invent some new way to get my money (Sell gas, sell insurance for my car, and so on). Because, like it or not, being fair or not, being legal or not, charging for distributing media is NO LONGER POSIBLE, and trying to "regulate" this is like trying to pass a law that abolishes gravity... it will not work.

  5. Re:Intellectual property has OTHER problems by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intellectual property has value

    Actually, much IP is worth nothing or less than nothing. For instance this post is IP, are you going to pay me for writing it?

    Therefore, we want people to produce it

    Not really. We want people to produce quality scientific advancements and entertainment. Most IP is neither and much only becomes valuable when a government granted monopoly restricts other people from using similar material or methods.

    Compared to the population at large, producers of IP are rare

    Nope. Pretty much anyone who can write, talk, or operate a camera is an IP producer.

    Also, IP can be expensive and/or time-consuming to produce

    Some IP can be expensive, most is created automatically via copyright and costs nothing. Creating the work the IP is derived from may be expensive or time-consuming but the work is not the IP.

    If the producers are not repaid in a manner that sufficiently encourages them they will be less inclined to produce

    And if the producers are paid too much they will also be less inclined to produce. Why continue working when your one hit can guarantee that your great-grandchildren never have to?

     

    So we should make sure that said production is rewarded, not shared without recompense

    Says who? Most media companies will give away free copies to garner interest in their product. It seems like they know the value of sharing when they want to.

    Hence, society rightfully sees "sharing" as criminal behavior

    Actually, society does not see "sharing" as criminal behaviour. Certain people with a commercial interest in preventing sharing have been running a propaganda campaign to convince the easily swayed that it is so. Most of the people who believe sharing should be criminal belong in one of two categories: fools or profiteers.

    Information may want to be free, but IP producers want to pay the mortgage.

    "I did it to pay my mortgage" is likely to be the 21st century's "I was only following orders". It's not a justification for sending people to prison for the crime of "sharing". The current copyright regime is unsustainable.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical