UK Pirate Party Forced To Give Up Legal Fight

Grumbleduke writes "The UK Pirate Party has been forced to shut down its proxy of The Pirate Bay. The Party had been running the proxy since April, initially to support the Dutch Party's efforts, then as a means of combating censorship after the BPI obtained uncontested court orders against the UK's main ISPs to block the site across the UK. In a statement released through their lawyers, the Party cited the impossibly-high costs of legal action for their decision, but vowed to keep fighting for digital rights however they can."

Comments

Help!

[theswimmingbird]

Help! I'm being repressed!

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for most people when I say "I don't care."

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, a bunch of scumbag leeches whining they can't get shit for free. *plays world's smallest violin*

Re:Help!

[Kenja]

The song you're playing is under copyright! You owe ASCAP 200$.

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. I'll pay. I'm not a freeloader.

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for most people when I say "I think you're an idiot!"

Re:Help!

[flayzernax]

I think I speak for most people when I say "I don't care."

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329

I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?

I think most people care and most people understand that the monopolies have and are doing more damage then piratical distributers of information.

Your authers are not and have not been compensated fairly for a long time. The works of tolkien were removed from the public domain in 1994 and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. They are no longer benefiting from his work, we are being punished. And people like Peter Jackson and the hollywood stuidos he works for and represents are the only people who can benifit monetarily from this work.

Yet because of the damage monopolies has caused. And the turning of copywright into personal property to be handed along from institution to institution has done, we and our descendents and all those living now are paying the price far worse then a simple tax or compensation for people who have done work.

The point is that the law is not fair and there is no fair way to change the law. The beast has become to great and we are locked in a death rattle with a python crushing us. Sensible people are not allowed to give voice to defend the public domain and what should be fair, and a fair law.

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people care

You have a sample bias, then.

Re:Help!

[davester666]

..per day, for the rest of your list + 75 years!

Re:Help!

[trum4n]

But since i heard you play that, its a performance. So that $200 becomes $200,000 per person. And since there's a window open, a chance that people outside heard it, we will just say 500 people were there!

Re:Help!

[flayzernax]

What sample bias that every single person I know personally has copied something from the internet or the radio, or recorded off of TV, or shared something they purchased with someone else who has then made copies of it themselves?

More specifically the institutions pushing for more insane copywright laws have done MORE to damage peoples personal and public image of authors and creators. I think there would be less piracy if there was not such an overwhelming force making people feel like its OK. Take for instance streetside CD shops. These were commonplace in El Paso, TX 5-6 years ago before enforcement started a heavy crackdown. I think people reasonably felt justified in what they were doing. They were not evil people or stupid people, people just did what they thought was right anyway. Was it legal no, was it fair to the original authors still living no. Was it educational to me, hell yeah. I can certainly see why they would do this.

If we had a poll that the laws as they stand now are unfair and have been used wrongly. The overwhelming majority would want a shorter term and more stringent controls on "who" gets to own intellectual property and how its transfered.

Even the so called mass of idiots of youtube would fit in that sample.

Re:Help!

[Belial6]

I second that. I have yet to meet a person over the age of ~5 that has not committed an act of "Piracy".

Re:Help!

[Grumbleduke]

Actually, because you played it before getting a licence, that's copyright infringement. So that's statutory damages at $150,000 per infringement, i.e. per Slashdot user to hear it.

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for most people when I say "I don't care."

I think I speak for most people when I say "I think you're an idiot!"

Re:Help!

[chrismcb]

The works of tolkien were removed from the public domain in 1994 and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. They are no longer benefiting from his work, we are being punished.

The "works" of Tolkien? Do you mean specifically The Hobbit? LOTR wasn't published until the 50s. But The Hobbit wasn't removed from public domain, as it never entered public domain.
Are copyright terms too long? Absolutely. I personally believe current lengths are unconstitutional, as a work from our lifetime will never enter into public domain. Which means for a given individual the terms are unlimited.
Of course I don't see how that means the tolkein estate isn't benefiting from his work (I assume that is the "they" you refer to)

Re:Help!

[chrismcb]

What sample bias that every single person I know personally has copied something from the internet or the radio, or recorded off of TV, or shared something they purchased with someone else who has then made copies of it themselves?

More specifically the institutions pushing for more insane copywright laws have done MORE to damage peoples personal and public image of authors and creators.

Here is the problem with your statement. A lot of people claim copyright lengths are too long. They cite lengths between 14 and 25ish years or so. IF we assume a length of 14 years, that would mean pretty much everything created outside this century is fair game. You said you claim that every single person has copied something from the internet or radio (assuming the copy is outside fair use) HOW many times was that copy of something OLDER than 14 years?
I'm sure a lot of Beatles songs, or other similar songs were copied, but I'd hazard that a large portion of the items that were illegally copied, were products created this century. The fact that copyrights have lengthened doesn't mean anything then. Yes copyrights are too long, but it doesn't change the fact that people are copying mostly newer stuff.

Re:Help!

[flayzernax]

Your correct about the length of terms I think people would respect. As far as correctness of my statement, I did not try to make an argument as to the legality or morality of my samples actions. Just that they pirated what is technically not in public domain. If you did some research on movies alone you would be suprised at what is actually not in the public domain. My other argument is that the tighter the grip on copywright the less respect the general public has for it. I do not see the error in those particular statements.

I think most people would draw the line at 30 or 60 years, probably more likely 60, I would prefer, 30-lifetime of the author, and "the author" not who they were employed with. They could sign over temporary permit to their employer or create a contract with a publisher, but at the end of their lives, it would end.

I also like the idea posited by many that people need to renew it every 5 years or so or it lapses to the public.

I never argued that it was legal or ethical. Its pretty much no longer morally bankrupt to pirate things older then 60 years for sure. People STILL do respect some creators. The game FTL is less pirated then EA sports titles (this could also be because of a smaller audience). Minecraft has heavy pirating but it has heavy support from people who love the game and want valid copies. Some people still, thank god support some of the content creators more often indie titles, or forms of entertainment that dont implicitly rely on copywright for a monopoly (dwarf fortress). However I am not even argueing for an alternate business model, just pointing out here that without the implicit respect of copywright by the general populace, that things arent so bad and apocalyptic.

The majority of the content I know to have been downloaded or recorded are movies older then 20 years, books, and music. That does not mean there are not tons and tons of under 25 year old games and movies and songs and books out there being pirated. And I know particularly in my circle of younger friends they just dont respect movie rights. They produce their own music and could care less about that industry as well. The older people I know pirate less and buy more movies from the store. But even they are pretty grumbly sometimes. A good example would be Star Trek the original series produced from 1966-67. Personally I think it would be covered under fair use as we have purchased the movies, and payed for the series, I personally just finished watching DS9 this year on netflix. I want stuff like this to be produced. But I also know that people with busy work schedules who cant get their TV shows like Fringe, or Vampire Diaries (to name one that is horrible and of a different genre) just wont wait for it, they'll go get it, and since its broadcast or they pay for cable people feel entitled to it.

And never once did I make the argument that it was a good thing, just that its how things are, and I illustrated that someone in 1841 predicted the situation we have quite well.

It is a fairly one sided battle in the legal and political department. So I do not really fault people for just not playing fair anymore. Its definately not going to help fix the problem, but what can we do? I personally would like to see William Shatner earn what he's do for playing Kirk all those years, yet, many don't , many in Finland really couldn't even get their hands on a legit copy of Star Trek.

I really do think things can only get worse if we do not reform our laws. We already have allot of people very polarized on the issue. I personally for the first half of my life didn't care at all until I started reading allot more about it and getting points of view, for example from some of the historical text I linked. To put it in perspective.

So to re-itirate my point. Most people don't respect copywright to the full extent of the law as it is. Copywright owners and big media syndicates are unwilling to relax their stance. People are copying more shit they shouldnt be, and its because of the

Re:Help!

[flayzernax]

Oh and to be clear I know Shatner is not the creator of Star Trek and that its originally Gene Rodenberry's creation and the rights were transfered to Paramount pictures. I also would love people to support the next movie that comes out, as the last was great and in this case I think paramount is doing a good job with the ip.

But I am trying to acknowledge that without someone owning the IP large scale projects would not be able to pay anyone for the production of movies, games, etc..

However, on a side topic, there are allot of fan projects, and fanfiction, that has allot of merit and should probably be allowed to be produced commericially and make their own money using "Star Trek" and the characters from the original series. This is incidently off topic. I know of a particular project Nichelle Nicholes was involved in that would have been great if it had more legitimacy then it did.

Re:Help!

[flayzernax]

Yep sorry I should have been more specific, the Hobbit. You can add George Orwell to that list. Its not the only content that has been taken out of the public domain though. Its crazy what is and is not, its pretty hard to find out for sure for some works.

http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/supreme-court-rules-for-copyright-on-old-foreign-titles_b19551?red=en

Was removed bo a forgien rights holder in 1994. The most recent movie had to be liscened and royalties payed to I'm guessing Tolkien Enterprises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-earth_Enterprises

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Middle-Earth_Enterprises

As near as I can tell thats who ultimately recieves the roylaties and liscences the work. Middle Earth Enterprises has held the rights to the books since it was sold to them (see details in the 2cnd link)

Re:Help!

[flayzernax]

Last double post and to clear up one final thing, I incorrectly state and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. If you follow the links in the post above you will see:

Tolkien sold these rights to United Artists in 1968, who in turn sold them to Zaentz in 1976

I just want to be clear. I am not perfect, nor do I hold any degrees or claim an intimate knowledge of debate, I'm speaking from my heart and personal life times experience.

Re:Help!

[KingBenny]

uhu, well, whatever has been done so far has probably hit a lot of ordinary folk who were used to some carefree downloading. I dont think anything about 'the scene' itself has been damaged at all even if the takedown of demonoid might have caused some scattering into obscurity
not that i know anything about it ofcourse
it's a pointless battle, but i feel it's also pointless for the pp to spend money on proxies like that, there's other things to campaign for than just one website.
even if the piratebay's resilience has become a symbol somehow and it's exactly that which 'they' want to see broken, even if , even if tpb would go down, nothing would change but some guy somewhere would feel as if he had saved face after getting all those middle fingers up his arse probably
its a waste of resources on both sides. Tpb will endure without the proxies anyway and the party itself would do better to concentrate on absurd patent warring and the classic troll instead imo
but i am no one, i'm not even allowed to vote
and why do i even bother posting here ?
never mind
carry on
as you were ...

Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

And once again money trumps justice. Makes you proud to be human.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

"money trumps justice"

Depends how you define justice as you seem to define it as 'being able to steal content from producers'.

Stealing is the lowest of crimes.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I was coming in to say. YAY, BIG MEDIA! Congradulations on once again out-moneying your opponent. Seems to be status quo. But hey, this is the upper caste vs. the lower caste, so it was a pretty safe assumption who was going to win no matter what.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death. The bottom line, at least as far as this situation is concerned, is that one party has been forced into submission not through actual court order, subject to the legal process, but by the threat of such overwhelming legal action that the fear of bankruptcy is the motivator.

That you seem to think "stealing" is worse than that is a sad indication of the general public's complete misunderstanding of the issues at stake here.

I hope your faux moral superiority comforts you at night when your children are sentenced to served time in a debtor's prison.

Re:Onanism

[zentigger]

I'm sure your digital overlords will be proud that you, their lackey, are so faithfully following the scriptures.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of theft.

Re:Onanism

[MatrixCubed]

No, kowtowing as a media conglomerate apologists is.

Re:Onanism

[Grumbleduke]

The point is that the legal merits don't even matter because the Party can't argue them. It doesn't matter whether what they were doing was legal or illegal, right or wrong, no one will be able to find out because they can't afford to fight the case.

Some people may view this as the right outcome, but I would suggest that no one should think it was for the right reasons. Justice should not be dependent on wealth.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right. This isn't about theft, it's about the right to be an whiny, entitled freeloader.

Re:Onanism

[jythie]

Having a day in court?

Re:Onanism

[jythie]

My thoughts exactly. "I could not afford to defend myself" is never the right outcome.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

He's only using the same way that it's used here here and here.

Re:Onanism

[swillden]

Doesn't the UK have a "loser pays" system for lawsuit legal expenses? That creates some different dynamics here, since it means that unless the Pirate Party is very certain of their case, they could end up liable for both sides.

Re:Onanism

[TheMathemagician]

If it's "stealing" why isn't anyone charged with theft? They're charged with copyright infringement. Doesn't that tell you that it's copying not stealing?

Re:Onanism

[ConfusedVorlon]

costs can be awarded so that the loser pays, but is isn't as straightforward as the loser always paying what the winner's legal bills are.

the judge has a lot of discretion here.

nonetheless, you're right about the dynamic. The BPI is threatening the individuals here. The law is far from clear cut.

It is very unlikely that they would win and recoup their full legal bills from the opposition (even if costs are awarded, they don't generally actually cover the full legal cost of your case).

It is perfectly possible that they could lose and still have to pay massive legal bills for the BPI.

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death.

Really? Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked. As a producer with copyright (an author of short scifi stories), I can take my words and ideas, and sell them to people who want to read/hear/otherwise-consume them. A pirate (self-declared or otherwise) can take my story, dump it on The Priate Bay, and suddenly there's a smaller market of people who will pay me for my work.

Without piracy, I have a clear route for making an income from my work. With piracy, I have to hope that my work becomes a loss leader for itself, reaching a wider paying audience through a non-paying medium. Sure, sometimes it will work. I've encountered a few folks who've seen some of my work freely and wanted more. On the other hand, I've also encountered folks who have outright asked me when my latest piece will be on TPB, rather than buying it.

That hurts. I am not a content-producing machine who lives on the happy thoughts of readers and the mental occupation of fans. I am a human, and I need to profit from my work. Piracy removes my income without my choice, forcing me to effectively rely on handouts from those who like my work enough to pay. My art has returned to patronage. Long live the king!

Why do people complain when the government limits the choice of Internet providers, but the pirates removing my ability to choose my own business model is somehow a good thing?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Stealing is one of the worst and coolest of crimes.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

did you cut in a share of all your profits to every person who influenced your ideas, or who you, let's face it, copied and borrowed ideas from when you wrote your shit?

Re:Onanism

[hazah]

Holy crap, batman.. Does it ever occur to you that if you don't have a clear path to income from your work, is that your work is absolutely worthless to everyone but you? You are not entitled. In fact, if you ever want me to read your crap, I'm going to go ahead and ask that you pay me for my time.

Re:Onanism

[hazah]

It's about greed. The only reason you don't see that is because you're paid not to.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an artist, if your art depends on a profit motive than it isn't art at all.

You are free to get a "real job".

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonus points for both managing to side-step the argument and missing the point of your excerpt.

To answer your question, just look around. I'm sure there will be some gems in this very thread. If not, thumb through past piracy threads we've hosted here. Failing that, just Google it. It quite literally requires a staggering level of willful ignorance to ask that question.

More to the point of your red herring, though, that the value you have determined for your product will be impacted by piracy is not in question; it is the extent to which that can be labeled "theft" which is so contorted by the industry to be laughable. If you are a content producer, then you have been exposed to all of the talking points regarding this subject, so spare us both the circle-jerk routine.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the fact that even IF the Pirate Party won, AND was awarded full legal costs to be recouped (which in and of itself means that they had to somehow magically intially come up with the money to pay the legal fees for the entire length of the trial), what are the odds that they'd even see one thin dime from BPI after the fact? An army of lawyers could keep delaying, and coming up with excuses, appealing, and using every trick and loophole in the book to generally avoiding paying for probably decades if need be.

This is upper caste vs. lower caste. The upper caste is going to make it as absolutely difficult as humanly possible to even get one red cent out of them. In all actuality, should such an eventuality come up (which it never would, because being upper caste, BPI would have long since bought their victory, which is obviously the case because that's exactly what they've done... thrown money at the problem until the Pirate Party backed down), there wouldn't be a single payment made to the Pirate Party ever, over any length of time.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Instagram was about to steal photos from people. Is that the same kind of stealing?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You are fighting a loosing battle against your end consumers. Sneaker net will win in the end. USB drives are starting to touch 256 gig each for a reasonable price. You can show up at a friends house with a empty 4TB drive and wish you brought 2. Collections will tend towards bigger and bigger as people aggregate their stuff together. Your stories will be a few files file out of thousands of others.

Your market has shifted. Is it 'right' or 'wrong' that is up for debate. But do not pine for the past (it is gone). What are you going to do about it now? Do not 'hope' for it. What are you going to do about it? How do you add value? That is what people are willing to pay for and do not worry about those who are cheap (yes there is such a thing as a bad customer). Your main product now has little value (even though you put tons of work into it). For example I raked my yard, it took 2 days to do and some blisters (estimate about 600 dollar of my time to do it). That work has NO value now other than a job well done.

A more interesting way to go is the 'There's a sucker born every minute' route. Apple has pulled it off masterfully. Their computers and phones are arguably no better than anything else out there. However people pay a premium for it. Buying entertainment such as you sell (I assume) you need to make people think 'shut up and take my money'.

Perhaps you could write a story on it? Call it 'the pile' about some dude searching for the ultimate warez collection. How he goes thru dozens of groups, and parties, shady chars, looking for it. Then in the end realizes the pile is a waste of time and how he decides to pay for it all, for the rest of his life... You could do it as the heros journey. Then put a patina of 'why are you stealing this when you could be paying me?' Kick in a USB drive signed by you if someone can prove they bought it from you...

Re:Onanism

[TFAFalcon]

And even if they are certain of their case that does not mean they have the money needed to pay their lawyers long enough to even reach a judgement.

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

I did get a real job. It pays the bills, and occasionally, if I can find time, I still write.

My art doesn't depend on having a profit. My art depends on having the time, ambition, and inspiration to produce it after I come home from my real job.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

When I watch a movie I pay for it by purchasing the DVD, watching it on Netflix or whatever.

When I listen to music I pay for it.

I expect my neighbors to do the same. Downloading the content through a third party and avoiding paying the producer is theft, this is not opinion, this is not a misunderstanding. This is what we call the English language and words have meanings.

My moral superiority does comfort me as I am a responsible person and will not face penalties for my actions as I do not steal. Nor do my children as I have taught them to value the efforts of producers of content and to live a moral life.

You on the other hand cannot say this, you are a thief and a criminal.

Have a good day.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's so greedy to be paid for your work. I presume that's why you ask for no payment for work and services you provide, right?

Re:Onanism

[AmazingRuss]

Debunked with bullshit by people who want to feel good about being thieves. It's not surprising you've convinced yourself.

Re:Onanism

[Kneo24]

First and foremost, copyright infringement doesn't necessarily mean theft. There are a lot of factors to look at. If people were passing off your work as theirs, you'd have a sticking point, but only for that subset of infringement. The reason is that at that point they are stealing people who would have been paying customers of yours.

Most "pirates" have no desire to profit from your work. Your work could not be easily accessible, reasonably priced, they want to sample before they buy, or they very well are freeloaders. These are the four main reasons why copyright infringement happens in this day and age.

Personally, I like to sample things before I buy them. I have bought a lot of stuff because I was able to do this, whether is was through legal means or not. There is a small percentage of the time that I just simply do not like the price - sometimes I don't even bother sampling if I see the price is not in an acceptable range. There's an even smaller percentage that I'm just being a freeloader. The last two are corrected over time if I like the product enough - by this I mean that I will eventually pay for it.

Now, concerning the bulk of what you have written, It's sort of clear that you have some understanding of the underlying reasons why people may pirate your work. You will never ever ever eliminate piracy from your work, and you will never know how many people fit the roles of paying customer vs different types of pirates. The only thing you'll ever know is that X amount of people paid for product Y.

I don't buy the idea that you have no clear route of making income from your work due to piracy. You have a lot of different avenues at your disposal. How you choose to utilize them is up to you. Since you've been trying to compare piracy to physical theft, this analogy should work for you. Store owners don't complain they have no clear route of making money due to theft at their stores. They realize it's a part of business and they do what they reasonably can to limit as much as they can.

Re:Onanism

[Belial6]

No. He stole every word. OK, to be fair, since it is Sci-Fi, he probably made up a few words so that it would sound a little alien. But by and far, every word in his book was stolen from other people. He just feels justified because he stole them one word at a time.

Re:Onanism

[kiwimate]

You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death.

Perhaps in your mind. I'll grant that it's been debated to death, and - surprise! - those who like to take stuff for free to which they are not entitled will proclaim loudly that it's NOT STEALING.

At most, you can claim a victory of semantics. Of intent? Nowhere close.

Re:Onanism

[Hatta]

A pirate (self-declared or otherwise) can take my story, dump it on The Priate Bay, and suddenly there's a smaller market of people who will pay me for my work.

Or there might be a larger market of people who will pay you for your work. There will certainly be a larger market of people who will see your work. Even if the proportion that pays is lower, you may come out ahead. You can't assume that piracy is always harmful, hell even Bill Gates has admitted that piracy helps Windows achieve its monopoly.

Without piracy, I have a clear route for making an income from my work.

If and only if you can get a publisher to buy it. That dependency on publishers hurts the progress of the arts as much as it helps it. The best works of art are risky, and publishers prefer sound investments.

On the other hand, I've also encountered folks who have outright asked me when my latest piece will be on TPB, rather than buying it.

You realize those people aren't going to be your customers *ever*, right?

Why do people complain when the government limits the choice of Internet providers, but the pirates removing my ability to choose my own business model is somehow a good thing?

Because copyright itself is a government manipulation of markets. You have no inherent right to have your business model supported by government intervention.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death. The bottom line, at least as far as this situation is concerned, is that one party has been forced into submission not through actual court order, subject to the legal process, but by the threat of such overwhelming legal action that the fear of bankruptcy is the motivator.

So you're saying that taking to people to court over their alleged actions should no longer be allowed?

I don't agree with the MAFIAA as well, but these people (allegedly?) did / are doing somethng that someone else thinks is harming them. Doesn't everyone the right to seek redress against (alleged) harm from others?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are willing to use language clearly and precisely with regard to the term theft, please don't stop there. Force also has precise meaning. The initiation of violence against other actors(those having purposeful behavior) defines all components of government judicial systems as instances of force. The whole process is a system of threats which only rarely comes close to self defense(and even then is so horribly smothered in violence that it often eclipses any morally justified response of defense).

So to hold reality as the standard by which we determine the nature of theft as compared to say piracy, by demonstrating interest in the properties of reality(matter and energy) that describe their differences(tangible material of finite quantity that transfers from user/owner to user/owner vs ideas which do not exist in reality and are infinitely reproducible ... etc), you demonstrate an appeal to propositions that describe what actually is; to truth. This standard of truth requires both universal application(arbitrary exceptions to a 'rule' of nature cannot be true) as well as internal consistency, so any consideration of things like force cannot be self contradictory else that quality of truth in conclusions of ones propositions is lost. Thus, to point out that force is a part of this story but overly limit it to a particular instance is to implicitly argue that violence is not a part of the entire process. To appeal to court order and legal process in one breath and then to speak of threat in the next is a contradiction.

Re:Onanism

[hobarrera]

I consider rape far worse.
If you're gonna call it by some name that doesn't apply at all, why don't you better say that they're "raping producers"?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you kept your argument within the realm of semantics, exactly as the GP intended, but you managed to get just about every detail wrong.

If I make a copy of the DVD you bought, you will still retain that DVD; same with your music. If I were to steal those items, you would no longer have them. As you said, this is English, and words have meaning. Piracy is not theft, and it takes only a few seconds of critical thinking to work out why.

Can it detract from the perceived or assumed value of a product? Unquestionably! Depreciation is not theft, though. Do you accuse car dealers of theft when the vehicle you drive off the lot depreciates in value by $10K before you even leave? How about the US Treasury (or your denominational governor of choice) when they increase the number of bills in circulation?

Labeling copyright infringement as first "piracy," and later "theft," is nothing more than demonization by moral crusaders on the part of industry advocates who believe, perhaps correctly, that people cannot grasp or do not care about the concept of "infringement."

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

Interestingly enough, I have been exposed to all points regarding the subject, and my opinion is partly as I said before. The "piracy is absolutely not theft" argument is just as much bullshit as the "piracy is absolutely theft" argument.

Yes, theft and copyright infringement are different. One's a civil matter and the other's criminal. One results in the loss of a physical item, and the other results in someone gaining a copy. The implementation details are obviously different What remains the same though is the offense. If you steal $1 from my wallet, I'll have $1 less than I would without your interference. If you copy one of my books rather than buy it, I'll have (let's say) $1 less than I would without your interference. Of course, you may not have bought my book in the first place, and I may have dropped that $1 bill by accident. There's probabilities involved, I know, but that's not the point.

The point is that it's no longer my choice what happens to the book or the bill. I produce something, but I'm not allowed to decide what happens with it. I had a bill in my wallet, but I'm not allowed to choose how I spend it. That's where the analogy to theft comes from: pirates aren't stealing an object. They're forcing their way.

That's always the issue that gets forgotten when someone "debunks" the "stealing is theft" analogy. A big deal is made about how information wants to be free, and how the producers make record profits, and how piracy leads to so much more exposure, but they none of the pro-piracy advocates seem to care that this all happened by the pirates' sheer overwhelming force.

Yes, it's terribly wrong that the Pirate Party can't afford to fight. It's also terribly wrong that producers don't let their work go free once it's passed a certain age, or profitably, or some other nice metric. It's also terribly wrong to force someone else to live by your choices.

Re:Onanism

[kiwimate]

If it's "stealing" why isn't anyone charged with theft? They're charged with copyright infringement. Doesn't that tell you that it's copying not stealing?

Who on earth cares? The point is it's illegal and wrong. Does it matter what you call it, or do mere definitions and semantics make something better or worse?

"You just stole money from me! You're a thief!"

"Why, no, I merely changed some digital indicators to increase an arbitrary number called a 'balance' in my electronic bank records and effect a corresponding decrease on the same data cell in your electronic bank records."

"Oh, well, that's all right then. Now I feel ever so much happier."

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that the legal merits don't even matter because the Party can't argue them. It doesn't matter whether what they were doing was legal or illegal, right or wrong, no one will be able to find out because they can't afford to fight the case.

Some people may view this as the right outcome, but I would suggest that no one should think it was for the right reasons. Justice should not be dependent on wealth.

Except that the (Pirate) Party does not exist as a legal entity. The MAFIAA folks have said that they had to go after the folks individually because there was no other legal entity to seek redress from for the supposed harm that is being done to them.

Just because you say "Pirate Party" as a collective noun to group a number of individuals together, does not mean that such a legal entitiy exists.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Art traditionally has no value. Artists were paid for commissions or by patronage from people who believed in them. Kinda like donations.

I feel that if your work is worthy of being supported then your supporters will be willing to give you money. But your work should always be free. You need to suffer for your art.

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

Generally, yes. I've paid for the vast majority of works I've consumed. There are some exceptions where I pay through the magic of statistics (television, radio, and other such ad-supported media).

Of course, there are many ideas for which there is no clear source. The notion is just a part of societal knowledge. I like to think that those have been reimbursed by society as a whole, enough to be fair (though of course some are, and too many aren't). After all, that's the whole point of copyright in the first place: to encourage the production of art, for the purpose of fostering a richer society.

Re:Onanism

[loufoque]

You don't sell your ideas, you sell the right to use them.
If you don't understand this fundamental distinction, you're not going to understand what this is about.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

First: Your work is involved when you write the original material. Your work is not, however, involved when two other people decide that one of them will rearrange the bits on their hard drive to match the bits on the other one's hard drive. That is done purely with the labor and capital of two people who are not you. Paying you for it is not paying you for your work, and is thus economically ridiculous.

Second: You are not selling information. The information is already available. You may be selling copies of information, which is fine by itself; but under the IP system, what you are also selling is the freedom to not be prosecuted as a result of having for oneself a new copy of the information. But the prosecution for making copies only exists because of IP laws, which are ridiculous and unjust for reasons mentioned above. You are selling an exemption from a ridiculous and unjust law. That is not something anyone should have to pay you (or anyone else) for.

Third: Piracy does not remove your income. It does not remove your income from selling copies, because making a smaller amount of money trying to sell copies using an expensive and inefficient distribution system in world that now has efficient distribution systems is already the default circumstance. That is to say, there is only a 'loss' when you compare this world to a world without efficient distribution systems, in the same sense that there is a only a 'loss' for the makers of horse-drawn buggies when you compare this world to a world without automobiles. And it does not remove your income from selling legal exemptions either, because the pirates never received any legal exemptions (no one would expect them to pay for exemptions they didn't get). The pirates have not done anything to your ability to choose your own business model. They have simply chosen not to do business with you.

Re:Onanism

[aztrailerpunk]

Both your examples are the same thing. The bank example is theft, You took from my account(an actual loss) and put it in your account. A proper example is a friend of yours likes a cd you have. If your friend goes to a store and walks out the door without paying, this is theft. The store has lost what they paid for. If you make a copy of the cd and give it to him, that's copyright infringement. You still have your cd and now he has one too.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

The product is not the physical DVD or copy, it is the ability to consume the work - to watch it (or listen to the music or read the book or whatever). You are mincing words and you know it.

If you want to watch a movie and you do not have a copy of it you must purchase it, if you copy the content from someone else you no longer need to purchase it. This is theft of a product. Period.

"Do you accuse car dealers of theft when the vehicle you drive off the lot depreciates in value by $10K before you even leave?"

Why would I, this is part of the contract I freely agree to *before* I sign anything.

"How about the US Treasury (or your denominational governor of choice) when they increase the number of bills in circulation?"

Is this not theft of real value? Of course it is.

Re:Onanism

[X0563511]

Well, you certainly have a right then to have an opinion about it (not that others don't, but you're directly involved).

I am as well, and I happen to share an opposing view. In fact everything I've released so far has been released creative-commons.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is retarded. Theft is taking something from you, not refusing to hand you money because you think you should be given it. Do you still have your book when I pirate it? Do you still have a one dollar bill if I steal it from you?

Re:Onanism

[X0563511]

I don't pirate these days. Sure, I used to - but every since I got an income I've been paying for my share.

I still don't think it's stealing. I'm even (to an extent) a content creator and I still don't think it's stealing.

What would you say to that?

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

Or there might be a larger market of people who will pay you for your work. There will certainly be a larger market of people who will see your work.

There might very well be a larger market, but I don't get to choose it. I could also get a larger market seeing my work by hiring trucks to drive down city streets with loudspeakers playing a reading, but that might not actually be what I want. What the fuck gives you the right to decide what happens to my work?

If and only if you can get a publisher to buy it.

Or publish it myself, or hand it to friends and say "give this only to people who'll appreciate it". Again, I can decide where and how my work is distributed, and from that how much risk I must take. I can work with a publisher that will edit my work, likely improving my profit, or I can work with one that will leave my dialect alone, opting for the purity of the art. Piracy takes away that choice.

You realize those people aren't going to be your customers *ever*, right?

I do indeed. My usual response to such inquiries is something to the effect of "thanks for the interest, but I really don't want my work to be distributed like that. Here's a sample of what I'm working on, and if/when it's finished, it'll be available at this store". They aren't my customers, but I'll try to convert them anyway, and sometimes succeed. If not, then I've lost nothing more than if they didn't even ask.

You have no inherent right to have your business model supported by government intervention.

And you have no inherent right to make me write for you for free, with or without government help. I should be the one to choose how I work, and I choose to write stories for a bit of money.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really give a shit if somebody with a magic copying machine clones your car and drives it away without paying you for the privilege? How does it impact you in any way? You still have your car. If they stole your car you'd probably be annoyed. How can you not see that this is a difference worth recognising?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglected to mention that you seem to think is rightfully yours from producing "your art" it as you've attempted to portray in this thread. In reality, you've made it clear you do it for the love of creating and should be happy there is a medium (the internet) which can disseminate your works for virtually no cost to as many readers/watchers (I refuse to call them consumers) as possible. By your own admission money doesn't enter into it.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's ok to force the vast majority of users to to live by the unethical rules of the intermediaries of most cultural works?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck did this get modded up?

When you publish your work, you give up all rights to keep it to yourself. Full stop. You offer your "hard work" to the public in hopes that they might find value in it enough to compensate you. That's how it works. When you PUBLISH (offer to the public) you are taking a risk. If you don't like that, maybe you shouldn't be in the content business. But propping up works with artificial means (law granted monopoly) IS NOT the "right" to profit. No one anywhere, ever (not even in the eyes of the law) has the right to profit. You are asking for compensation.

No one is limiting your ability to choose your business model. You can choose whatever you want, they all come with various risks. Overbearing control will tend to push people away, but this whole "help me, I'm a lowly producer, publishing works in a massively crowded marketplace and I'm OWED money for it" is the worst kind of bullshit.

Stop kidding yourself.

Re:Onanism

[AmazingRuss]

I too used to pirate (and shoplift records for that matter), don't anymore, and I make my living creating content.

I think it's stealing. If not from me, then from the guys that offer free content that don't get any play because pirates are consuming my content instead.

Next question.

Re:Onanism

[hawkinspeter]

As a political party, the "Pirate Party" is a legal entity when it's entered into the Registry of Political Parties ( http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/15592 ).

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You business model exists only from your government granted monopoly of your 'intellectual property' through copyright laws. In a truly free market your copyright monopoly would not exist. Your monopoly was granted to you to incentivise the creation of a product that has a high initial creation cost then a low reproduction cost. In return for that government granted monopoly period, the copyrighted work then goes into the public domain where market forces and competition determine the new price of the good or service. This is the public's incentive to grant a temporary monopoly. Piracy is running rampant because the laws have been manipulated and skewed in favor of the content generators so their works get all the protections but no longer ever fall into the public domain. The collective public thus no longer have incentive to follow copyright laws and have quite a bit of incentive to violate and disregard them as totally and as quickly as possible.

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

In fact everything I've released so far has been released creative-commons.

That is your choice, and in fact it's one I rather like. Yeah, I'm human. I like getting free stuff, too. Some of the stuff I've written that I don't particularly care about (one-off philosophical rants, or abandoned worlds, or even just an interesting character that doesn't fit anywhere else) I've just dropped to public domain. Maybe somebody will care about it someday.

It's the choice that matters. I choose what my writing effort is worth. Sometimes it's worth money, sometimes it's worth the catharsis of writing, and sometimes it's worth a quick strike on the delete key, but it's my choice, not the pirates'.

Re:Onanism

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The concept of IP was created so people, and society in general, could benefit from the product of their efforts without losing it, making the effort worthless, and thus efforts cease.

This is deliberately made akin to stealing and should be considered wrong for the exact same reason as taking an ear of corn from a farmer. Sales are part of the calculus on whether to make the effort to begin with.

Re:Onanism

[TheGratefulNet]

I hear you and feel your pain and POV.

my open-source firmware (I am currently writing a lot of audio/stereo controller stuff) is, no doubt, being used by hardware vendors and being sold as their own. I can see some items on ebay, for example, that have my feature set and this happened a few months after I published my code and schematics.

I don't make very much at all on my efforts, and believe me, I put a LOT of time and creativity into this design.

but, I also used gcc, emacs, makefile, linux, tcp/ip and many many other things to get my work done and those were all free and donated. in a sense, not making a lot of money on -this- effort is a way to pay back for all the good support and free things I got, that got -me- started.

however, one can not sustain oneself on that. you need a balance.

it seems to me that an ideal situation is to have a 'paying gig' that is one thing, and have a donation to society as something you also have, on the side.

all one or all the other is not a workable solution. at least its not for most of us.

what I would love to see is to have more of a micropayment (plus grants) situation where you -could- sustain yourself on entirely 'donated' efforts (code, schematics, board layouts, user interfaces, artwork, whatever you do). you would not feel the need to have 'another, alternate thing' just to stay alive and pay the bills.

I can't fault someone for finding their place in this spectrum. the free software (and hardware, too) movement is important, but people do have to make some kind of living. and I'm certainly not making anything close to 'a living' on the stuff I wrote. I knew it was going to be copied and used and that I would not see major income from it. I knew that and took that path anyway, for lots of reasons. but I also knew that I would have to have alternate stuff going on, just to stay alive.

if you go into the free software/hardware world with the right expectations, it can work out fine. its really hard to have that as your -only- gig, though, and still make ends meet.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

My art depends on having the time, ambition, and inspiration to produce it after I come home from my real job.

If it's your "art", why do you bitch about people sharing it?

Re:Onanism

[blind biker]

What remains the same though is the offense. If you steal $1 from my wallet, I'll have $1 less than I would without your interference. If you copy one of my books rather than buy it, I'll have (let's say) $1 less than I would without your interference.

No, because I wouldn't have bought your crummy book anyway. You didn't lose anything on me.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, do not blame reality for your broken business model. You try to sell ideas/words, and expect noone will copy/repeat them. It's a wishful thinking.

And you're wrong saying you'll have $1 less in your wallet if I copy your book. It *has* been debunked to death.

Re:Onanism

[mSparks43]

I see it less like "forced" and more like "not worth the effort".
I mean - seriously, whats the point in wasting all that money when using google cache of thepirabate.se more than serves the purpose.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's where the analogy to theft comes from: pirates aren't stealing an object. They're forcing their way."

No. They're using REALITY to induce an open market. It's the truest form of a free market, because the alternative is literally that people can take it for FREE. You're the one forcing an artificial and unrealistic restriction on the work you are choosing to release by your own accord. You've released it. If you throw those bills in your wallet into the wind, you also have no control over them... that's how ridiculous your stance is.

If you're good at what you do, and people really want to see more of it, they will pay you compensation for your creativity and throughput. You'd have more in common with artists from the entire history of the world before government granted monopolies, and would essentially boil down to working on commission. The people funding your work would be those commissioning you to create further works through financial incentive.

What copyright is doing is trying to fight REALITY. It's not ever going to work. You can't say that "pirates" are forcing anything when the free duplication of information is the default state!!!!! Copyright is what's forcing someone else's way by fighting reality with artificial limitations. I can't believe people can type what you did without keeling over from the sheer ignorance of it all.

Re:Onanism

[X0563511]

Agreed!

Re:Onanism

[X0563511]

OK then. Lets get a bit more specific. Borrowing from someone else who said this somewhere in this article's comments:

If it's theft, then why are they charged with infringing copyright instead of larceny etc?

Theft and copyright infringement are both wrong. Given. However, that does not make them the same thing. Please don't continue to murk the waters by using one in place of the other - people who don't understand are apt to get them mixed up (case in point: the "you wouldn't steal a car" pre-roll at the movies)

Re:Onanism

[Troed]

What does a proxy steal?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

If you copy one of my books rather than buy it, I'll have (let's say) $1 less than I would without your interference.

Or I could not copy one of your books AND not buy one of your books. Whats the difference between the two in regards to you having $1 less?

You're right, the two absolute sides of the argument are bullshit. The problem is that the "piracy is absolutely theft" side is ACTUALLY WINNING.

Re:Onanism

[sFurbo]

The "piracy is absolutely not theft" argument is[...] bullshit. [...]
pirates aren't stealing [...]

So you argue that piracy is theft by arguing that it is not theft. Interesting tactic, but I don't see it working.

It's [...] terribly wrong to force someone else to live by your choices.

Like people do when they enforce their copyright?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should listen to what Neil Gaiman has to say on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

Re:Onanism

[future assassin]

Without piracy, I have a clear route for making an income from my work. With piracy, I have to hope that my work becomes a loss leader for itself, reaching a wider paying audience through a non-paying medium.

So how do you explain Photoshop and MS Windows being pirated by the tens of thousands for 15+ years yet they remains profitable and market leaders. Hell PS has a monopoly on the market. I'll tell you why, those products have a value that is not easily forgotten. Your books are good for a day worth of reading then done just like most entertainment. With the evolution of the internet your little manufactured scarcity went out the window. People now want instant entertainment and the technology has been there since MP3, Napster and the first PERL based shopping carts. Yet 90% of entertainment industry seems to not get it.

Ok ok lets talk about disposable entertainment. How in the world can porn be so profitable when its probably pirated more then anything, yet people are making millions on porn. They found new themes and ways to deliver their product to their users and this is why they stay profitable.

How do you explain this? http://ca.gizmodo.com/5137827/monty-python-puts-free-videos-online-sells-23000-more-dvds

Look at the Antique business and how the internet all of a sudden made rare items not so rare anymore and lose their value. Some things are not meant to last for ever and look like lots of entertainment styles are not meant to be profitable in the internet age anymore. Maybe time to fine a new career, after all 50% of the population will go through several careers in their life times Why is writers/producers/entertainers be any different?

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

I produce something, but I'm not allowed to decide what happens with it. I had a bill in my wallet, but I'm not allowed to choose how I spend it. That's where the analogy to theft comes from: pirates aren't stealing an object. They're forcing their way.

Now you just sound whiny.

Copying restrictions are privilege, not some absolute moral right.

Re:Onanism

[Troed]

Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked. As a producer with copyright (an author of short scifi stories), I can take my words and ideas, and sell them to people who want to read/hear/otherwise-consume them

I'd suggest talking to the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, Anna Troberg, about this. She's also a published author, and she held the same view as you did before she decided to study the subject. After having done so, she became a Pirate Party member and subsequently its leader.

You'll find the full story here. If you have further questions, I'm quite sure she would be happy to answer them.

http://annatroberg.com/english/

Re:Onanism

[sFurbo]

What the fuck gives you the right to decide what happens to my work?

Freedom of speech for starters.
Furthermore, the idea of owning ideas is ludicrous. That is not how humans work. We copy good ideas, and that fact is what makes us humans. It is what have allowed us to be where we are today. Without copying, fire would be reserved for one tribe, the wheel for another, and farming would be a local phenomenon in the middle East and China.
Finally, your work has been influenced by countless others before you, so if you claim that copying an idea is stealing, you are as much a thief, and more, than the people pirating your work.

Re:Onanism

[thomst]

hazah blurted:

Holy crap, batman.. Does it ever occur to you that if you don't have a clear path to income from your work, is that your work is absolutely worthless to everyone but you? You are not entitled. In fact, if you ever want me to read your crap, I'm going to go ahead and ask that you pay me for my time.

THIS crap is modded "interesting"?

Look - professional writers need to make income from their work. Period.

In the absence of income from their work, there will be no professional writers. Period.

I realize that most idiots sincerely believe that professional-quality writing is something that "anybody can do." Being idiots, they are, of course, completely, utterly, and profoundly wrong about that. In fact, there is only a relatively small percentage of the population who have the inherent talent to write well enough to eventually become professionals at it. Idiots like hazah are almost certainly not among them.

And yet hazah has the chutzpah to proclaim, ex cathedra from his asshole, that Belial6 - with whose work he is almost unquestionably totally unfamiliar - has no right to profit from his hard work. Instead, presumably, hazah believes HE has a right to make Belial6 his entertainment slave. "Amuse me, vassal," he demands, from his lofty position atop Selfish Cunt Mountain.

Fuck you, hazah. YOU are the one claiming an unearned privilege, not Belial6. If you don't want to read his work, then don't fucking read it - but don't claim that somehow he has an obligation to provide you with free entertainment. Because he doesn't. Period.

Writing is not easy. It is hard, hard work. The more effortless prose appears to be to the reader, nearly without exception, the more that prose has required long hours of drafting, re-drafting, and polishing to seem to flow that freely. Writing fiction at a professional level is an art form which requires a combination of creativity, vision, persistence, judgement, and stringent self-discipline. Any aspiring professional writer must have the right to charge his audience for the pleasure of reading his work, or there will BE no professional writers. Only amateurs. And what you will quickly create, in a world without professional writers, is a world without professional-quality writing.

So: no more Jules Vernes, no more Robert Heinleins, no more Iain M. Banks, and no more consistently high-quality streams of work from writers who are free to concentrate on writing, because their writing pays the bills, instead of being forced to focus on plumbing, or selling cars, or doing double-entry accounting, because the bills MUST be paid.

The late, great, professional science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon pointed out that 90% of science fiction is utter, irredeemable crap. It is worth noting that he was talking about 90% of published science fiction. If hazah's vision of how the world ought to work were to become reality, that percentage would increase to more like 99.9% - and idiots like hazah would be justly punished by being forced to choke down a steady diet of utter, irredeemable crap, with only the most infrequent relief of merely competent writing to mitigate the ordeal.

Want to prove me wrong? Go ahead, hazah - dazzle us with your authorial brilliance.

C'mon. Whip it out - or else shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.

Re:Onanism

[letherial]

Put your emotions aside, as well as try and put your morale high ground aside (like you really have one, you don't and nobody does)

lets just deal with the facts. Piracy is not going away, it doesnt matter the laws, DRM doesnt matter, nor does it matter if you bully ISP and political partys, and country's alike, to do what you want them to do, piracy will increase. There is no way to stop that.

So you can try and stand there and scream to the world with all the other copyright Nazis out there, it isn't going to mean shit, infact, it just makes me want to pirate more. If you cant handle piracy, dont write a book; go work for corporate masters like the rest of us.

As far as e-books go, i wont pay some of the ridiculous prices out there for them...they try and sell hardcover books on a ebook; think about that for a minute, the difference between hardcover and softcover on a ebook is exactly nothing expect a 100% markup price; I will pay for things, i will pay for books, games, apps (not music though, fuck the RIAA)...what i wont do is stand there and get ripped off by the next clever, yet worthless, marketing scheme.

Infact, the majority of reason why i pirate is just because i know that someone is pissed off they cant rip the public off anymore and i contribute to that, gives me a nice warm feeling.

now if your book looked creative, was cheap for a e-book (under 5.00) its easier if i just buy it...and i have bought plenty of books for 3 to 4 dollars.

Re:Onanism

[Shagg]

I'm sorry to hear that, but it still has nothing to do with "stealing".

Re:Onanism

[Sarten-X]

Then as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist, so I want nothing to do with you. I don't want to put effort into writing a book for your enjoyment, because you don't think my effort's worth anything.

Re:Onanism

[Hatta]

What the fuck gives you the right to decide what happens to my work?

Nothing, unless I bought a copy. In which case that copy is my property and I should have the right to use it as I please.

Again, I can decide where and how my work is distributed

Only because the government has granted you a monopoly on making copies of that work. A monopoly that infringes on our natural rights to free speech and our property rights, btw.

And you have no inherent right to make me write for you for free

No one's making you do anything. The only real use of force in this discussion is the government using the threat of violence to keep people from making copies of their own property. That's wrong.

Re:Onanism

[Grumbleduke]

That's a law from Serbia... it doesn't really apply in the UK. The UK law on political parties is considerably more complex and antiquated (and pre-dates the idea of companies etc.) - no one is quite sure how it works, but it seems that English political parties don't have legal personality (unless they set up some sort of company).

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice? Really? People can't steal things they haven't bought and you're talking about money trumping justice? Tool.

Re:Onanism

[HeckRuler]

Then you really shouldn't mind these non-existant people grabbing your book from PirateBay.

Re:Onanism

[Grumbleduke]

"Stealing" has both a legal meaning, and a layman meaning. For the latter, you can argue semantics all night. For the former, it will depend on jurisdictions, but as far as English law (which is relevant here), it is definitely not theft. You can have a look at the relevant statute law, or case law such as Boardman v Phipps, Oxford v Moss or Phillips v Mulcaire (although more obiter stuff, more in the Court of Appeal case).

Legally, in England, you cannot steal information or data. It is that simple.

Re:Onanism

[ifiwereasculptor]

Really? Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked.

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104/

Of course they don't get it right either. They call it "piracy" when the proper name is "non-commercial copyright infringement". You can make pretty much the same points you have made and the issue sparks lots of different even-sided debates, but calling it "stealing" is simply plain wrong - at best, an incredibly bad metaphor, at worst, a farcical plea for the emotions of disgust the work invoke -, regardless of the concept of "lost sales". There's a name for such activity and that one is simply not it. It's akin to calling smoking "arson" or something equally nonsensical.

Re:Onanism

[epp_b]

Without piracy, I have a clear route for making an income from my work. With piracy, I have to hope that my work becomes a loss leader for itself, reaching a wider paying audience through a non-paying medium. Sure, sometimes it will work. I've encountered a few folks who've seen some of my work freely and wanted more. On the other hand, I've also encountered folks who have outright asked me when my latest piece will be on TPB, rather than buying it.

No, you need to find a business model that doesn't rely on creating an artificial scarcity for something that is necessarily infinite.

Complain all you will that it's not how you want to make a living, but you're no different than the vaudeville performers who bitched and moaned about those newfangled "radios" that relegated them to driving taxis and flipping burgers, because they were good stage performers but lousy musicians.

Re:Onanism

[ifiwereasculptor]

In the absence of income from their work, there will be no professional writers. Period.

But would that be a bad thing? If you walk into a bookstore (do they still exist?) and look around you, you'll see plenty of professional writers. Most of them are crap, though (citation, if needed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO8F1HJjzkA ), and even the good ones are derivative to a degree you wouldn't expect (check tvtropes). Most good writers really want to write. Need to. If you take out profit as a motivation, we'll still have new books. Better books, probably, because then only truly passionate people will write. Even if we banished writing altogether, we'd still have so many great classics that we could spent our whole lives reading only amazing, ageless books that have already been written.

It's good that writers can live off their work (even if I usually don't agree with society as to which ones should), but it was never exactly a requirement, not even before the internet made publishers superfluous.

Re:Onanism

[amorsen]

The point is that it's no longer my choice what happens to the book

Once I have bought the book, it is my book and I get to decide what happens to it. If you want to decide what happens to it, do not sell it to random strangers.

Re:Onanism

[lilrobbie]

Let me paraphrase this assertion for you: "I never planned to give you any compensation for your work anyways". You know... that sounds a lot like stealing.

This is post-action justification. You don't start from the perspective of "I feel like pirating things today. I know, I'll pirate this book I never would have bought". What happens is you browse the torrent sites, or potentially read a review, and think to yourself "this sounds interesting enough to look at". From here, there are two paths you might take:

a) Attempt to find a copy by legal means. Potentially you give up and decide to pirate it, or perhaps the asking price is too expensive, but you still want to see/read it so you pirate it
b) (more likely) you go and pirate it because you were never planning on compensating the creator at all

The logic that "I wasn't ever going to buy it so you didn't lose anything" is entirely nonsensical, and I dearly wish people would stop pretending it is meaningful.

Re:Onanism

[10101001 10101001]

If you steal $1 from my wallet, I'll have $1 less than I would without your interference. If you copy one of my books rather than buy it, I'll have (let's say) $1 less than I would without your interference.

Um..buying your book *is* interference. It's the act of copying of your books rather than buying it that is not interference. That's why, in the above scenario, no amount of copying makes you personally less any money.

Of course, you may not have bought my book in the first place, and I may have dropped that $1 bill by accident. There's probabilities involved, I know, but that's not the point.

Funny, but do you know the point? The point isn't whether you get that $1 for a copy of your book X. It's that society has agreed that money is a motivator for action by authors--Mark Twain is a great example of that--to write more works and hence authors who write book X and can profit from it--or at least pay off the loan sharks--will be motivated to write book Y and then book Z and the act of copying without payment, while it benefits society directly, has the side effect of longer term halting the production of book Y or book Z because a person who believes their work is worthless may, no matter how much they like writing, practically look elsewhere to feed their kids^W^W^Wpay off their loan shark.

Of course, once you get to that point, you then have to acknowledge that the only way to encourage an author to write book Y or book Z if book X is widely successful is to end the copyright on book X *within an author's lifetime*. In fact, IIRC, a study a few years back says that the optimal copyright term is 14 years. Now, I imagine there's some real world fuzziness to that number because there's such a wide range of medium and their rate of propagation is varied, but the general point stands if anything that copyright is so out of focus to its intent that there's a pretty strong moral argument to ignore it entirely or at least to effectively treat everything 14 years old as not copyrighted.

But, then, that's just me.

Re:Onanism

[dissy]

Well that's what you get for stealing my post, after stealing my stuff.
I mean what did you expect? If you don't steal you should steal steal. But you keep on stealing, so of course they steal!

Now stop being so stupidly steal and steal up!

Re:Onanism

[Shagg]

The point is that it's no longer my choice what happens to the book

Welcome to the real world. Once you publish/release your work, you've lost control. The only way you can keep absolute control/choice over what happens to your work, is to never publish it.

Copyright does not exist to guarantee control.

Re:Onanism

[Shagg]

Piracy takes away that choice.

No, piracy doesn't take away that choice. You never really had it in the first place. Copyright only gives the illusion of control over your work. Even following copyright, there are things people can do with your work that you have no say over. The only way to keep your choice, is to not distribute your work.

I should be the one to choose how I work, and I choose to write stories for a bit of money.

Good for you. But that's got nothing to do with piracy.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who on earth cares? The point is it's illegal and wrong. "

I care. To me, it MIGHT be illegal but it is definitely not wrong.

" Does it matter what you call it, or do mere definitions and semantics make something better or worse?"

Definition is definitely important. If I call the act of depriving someone of an object "murder", it would muddle up the conversation. Correct definitions exist so we can communicate without confusing each other. Calling everything "murder" makes it worse.

Your example is asinine. If I electronically steal money from your bank account, your current holding do in fact decreased. If I copied your book or your music, nothing of yours is lost except supposed sales. If you call the act of depriving you of supposed sales illegal, then logic dictates that buying from your competitors (depriving you of supposed sales) or abstaining from touching your book or music (depriving you of supposed sales) should all be called illegal.

Re:Onanism

[Omestes]

In the absence of income from their work, there will be no professional writers. Period.

God, I despise this fallacy. There were tons of work before modern copyright existed, and tons more when it was sensible, before our current insanity. Books were written, music was created, art was made... Hell, if you completely removed money from the equation (magically no one will pay, ever, which is implausible at best), music would be made, books would be written, and art created.

I don't get paid a cent, and I still do photography (I don't want to get paid, I do it for its own sake), my girlfriend has never made a cent, and still paints. I know many a friend who plays free concerts, and social gigs, just because they love making music, and love making people happy with it.

Another faulty preconception you include is the fact that artists shouldn't have real jobs, like the rest of us. I don't actually see any reason to believe this, as most artists DO have real jobs, even if they dream of being the next big-wig famous, remarkably rich, artist. There is no "right" to be a self-employed artist who has the money to only do art. You might get lucky, you might have the remarkable talent in self-promotion to make this happen, but there is no right to this. Again, most artists struggle, most artists have a normal job like the rest of us, only the very top of the herd can live off their art, and only after years and years of hard work usually.

So: no more Jules Vernes, no more Robert Heinleins, no more Iain M. Banks, and no more consistently high-quality streams of work from writers who are free to concentrate on writing, because their writing pays the bills, instead of being forced to focus on plumbing, or selling cars, or doing double-entry accounting, because the bills MUST be paid.

So how did these people ever manage to get to where they are today while having a normal job? There is a catch 22 here, since to be a good writer you can't have a job, but in order to shed your job you have to be a good writer. This is bullshit, again. 90% of all artists work, or they're starving and either near homeless or just plain homeless.

To be honest, I can live without your book. I don't actually give a shit. I can live without 90% of all culture (and do, culture is vast, and their is now way to engage it all). I don't NEED obscenely successful books or music, or art. And as stated previously, it all would still exist anyways. Half the art in our house was painted by friends and acquaintances, half the shows I go to are local kids, and friends. Books haven't quite gotten there, but in a few years they probably will be. And actually most of the crap they makes enough money to allow the author to quit their job, is probably crap. Sure, you can say Heinlein, but I can retort with Twilight, or Daniel Steele, or now the 50 Shades of Grey lady, or...

I realize that most idiots sincerely believe that professional-quality writing is something that "anybody can do." Being idiots, they are, of course, completely, utterly, and profoundly wrong about that. In fact, there is only a relatively small percentage of the population who have the inherent talent to write well enough to eventually become professionals at it. Idiots like hazah are almost certainly not among them.

How do you know Hazah isn't, or can't be an author? Do you personally know him or her? And what makes you think you can be one, or be professional? How many authors think they are, try to publish something, and then are never heard from again because no one cared? Don't get me wrong, I wish you luck, but you have to realize that everyone who ever tried to be an author probably felt the same way. Most of them were wrong. Hell, I used to think I would be the next Thomas Pynchon, but sadly I couldn't be, even if I had 60,000 words. I still write, but now just because I enjoy it.

Also, as a tangent, their might be more Jules Vernes

Re:Onanism

[thomst]

ifiwereasculptor theorized:

If you take out profit as a motivation, we'll still have new books. Better books, probably, because then only truly passionate people will write.

Passion alone is insufficient to produce great literature. With VERY few exceptions, it takes lots and lots of time for a talented writer to hone his skills sufficiently to become great. Having to make a living doing something other than writing drastically reduces the time available in which to write.

Try taking a look at Authonomy.com. You will find there THOUSANDS of writers who are passionate about their writing. At best, there are mere hundreds whose work is actually any good.

Writing is a skill. Anyone can learn to do it well enough to achieve some level of competence - but even achieving mere competence is a lot of hard work. Achieving greatness? Like any skill, very few will ever become truly great at it. And next to none of them will do so without the ability to essentially devote their entire lives to the effort.

Even if we banished writing altogether, we'd still have so many great classics that we could spent our whole lives reading only amazing, ageless books that have already been written.

And there are currently more movies available than any one person, no matter how dedicated, can watch in one lifetime. Should we then simply accept that there will be no more movies made? Ever? How about software? Millions of programs have been written to date. Why would we need any new ones?

If you're that willing to sacrifice an entire realm of human endeavor - not to mention an art form that's been evolving since the Epic of Gilgamesh - you are certainly no friend of civilization. To dispense with the aspiration to create greatness is only to ensure decay. To consign that aspiration entirely to the hands of amateurs is to relegate it to the status of mere hobby. Either mistake would be a disservice to humanity of the very worst, and most pernicious kind.

Re:Onanism

[Terrasque]

The thing is, you're not selling a product, you're selling an idea. An idea entombed in a product, but still an idea.

If someone made a chair, it's a definite product. I can touch it, sit in it, and sell it. If someone wants a chair like that, they can
1. buy the chair from me, at which point I'd have to make a new chair to be able to sell to a new customer. or
2. copy it, make a replica of it. With enough time, materials, equipment and skill, it can be done. They get their chair, and I still have mine to sit in and sell. They can also
3. Steal my chair, in which case they have a chair, and I have none. The time and materials I invested in it is gone. I'd have to make a new one from scratch.

The problem with an idea is that, at the core of it, it's just data. And computers are truly excellent at working with data. So with option 2 above skill, time and materials mostly disappear. The only thing left is equipment, and almost everyone got a computer. It's still not stealing, but it can be a devaluation of the product you are selling (I say can be, because there are cases where product value have increased as a result of rampart copying. Adobe products, Microsoft products and this story are examples of this).

If someone said "I've now made this chair, and shall now get paid for everyone sitting in it, until I've been dead for 75 years!" people would think it nuts. If however, he was offering a service (a place to rest, which included a chair) then it would be different, but just the chair, wherever it happens to end up? Hardly. Yet, "I've now written this book, and shall now get paid for everyone reading it, until I've been dead for 75 years!" is perfectly acceptable. Now, think a bit before you say something. The book is sold as a product. Yet, unlike other products, when bought it's not ours. I'm not free to for example publish pictures of it. I can't improve it and sell the better version (AFAIK). It is sold as a product, yet it is not. This is, I think, one of the core problems with copyright as it is now. Intellectual property (*cough*) is cherry-picking advantages both from the product side of things, and the service side of things, and it has allowed itself to grow too big. Into a completely new thing, which the world is still struggling to get a grip on. And thus you see where some of the completely crazy stuff happening are coming from.

All this goes double and triple when applied to music and software. And I'm producing software myself, so I see your point. I'm not saying copyright needs to go, I'm saying copyright in this age is something new and unbalanced. Before copyright, people lived by performing their ideas, whereas they were stories or music. They created books containing their ideas, before mass production was possible. Now, any idea can be replicated across the entire globe in a matter of hours, by more or less anyone, at little or no cost. And people expect to live off their (or someone else's idea) idea for the rest of their life - and then some. The times ahead will be .. interesting.

Why do people complain when the government limits the choice of Internet providers, but the pirates removing my ability to choose my own business model is somehow a good thing?

You forget that you're not free to choose just any business model. I'd like a business model where everyone owning a computer paid me $1 per year as license to my software, but I doubt that would fly (hell, I'd even stretch to $.5). Here it is not the government or the fat cats restricting your business model, but your customers. These who are copying your books are people who actually want to read your story. They are your target, your potential client. They have a different view of how to get your books than you have. Think why, and think if there's any way to move closer to wha

Re:Onanism

[thomst]

Omestes demanded:

And what makes you think you can be one, or be professional?

Because I've made my living as a writer since 1995?

Also, as a tangent, their might be more Jules Vernes out there if we let copyrights lapse again. When he was writing, copyright existed a mere 28 years after the works creation, with a chance at a further 14 renewal. Just think if this was true still, we'd have everything up to the early '80s to inspire us.

I am convinced that copyright law, as it currently exists, is badly broken, and is contrary to the best interests of civilization. I support a return to strict limits on copyright length and renewability. At the same time, I am unshakably convinced that authors MUST have the right to control the dissemination of their own work. That copyright law is in dire need of major reform is, I think, established beyond debate. That somehow that implies that copyright itself should be abolished is idiocy, promoted exclusively by selfish fools, and it should be rejected by anyone with a particle of sense.

Re:Onanism

[dissy]

You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death.

Really? Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked

How about this deal then.
You can keep calling it stealing, in exchange for signing a contract that when court time comes, you never Ever once use the words "copyright infringement" and instead only call it "theft"
You sign that for me, I'll stop bitching and will never say another word on the subject.

On the flip side, does this mean we can all assume you are not a writer but a scam artist trying to sue us for purchasing your book?

After all, if someone downloading your book is not infringing your copyright but instead is only stealing from you, then doesn't that also imply people who purchase your book in ebook format do not have any sort of license to read it under copyright law?

Sounds to me like you are trying to steal my money (by depriving me of something of mine that you take for yourself) and then sue me for reading your book because you refuse to transfer a license to me to read it after purchase (a copyright infringement)

Will you sue me a second time when I sell your book to my friend? My friend will have a legal copy of your book and you won't see a dime of that money, so despite the first sale doctrine this act is also depraving you of money for your book, aka stealing from you.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

> it is the ability to consume the work - to watch it (or listen to the music or read the book or whatever).

I feel a disturbance ... as if the moral fabric of millions of library clients suddenly has been ripped asunder.

Perhaps you should consider picketing your local gateway-piracy-pusher/library?

Re:Onanism

[ifiwereasculptor]

Regarding your first point, it's circumscribed in what I said. Only the truly passionate will spend whatever leisure time they have honing their skills, therefore becoming good writers. That doesn't mean that every writer will be good, but, on the whole, we'll have better literature. Most crappy celebrity novels and biographies would be immediately off the table, since they are merely cash-ins on someone's fame. Half-hearted sequels that do not live up to the original would also not see the light of day. And yes, I would say exactly the same about movies. All Michael Bay movies could vanish from history today and the human race would be better for it.

Software is an entirely different beast, though, and I'm not such why you'd touch on it. It's more akin to language itself than to novels. Companies need custom software like newspapers need custom texts - hence the existence of journalists. New hardware needs new software, too. While it can be used as a purely creative medium, it's in itself a way to command machinery. It's not only a matter of volume, it's a matter of what the works you currently have available do for you. Once you get to a certain point, you see that most stories have been told before - and well told at that. Pretty much all of our so-called creative arts is redundancy. The same old stories, the same old literary devices, the same even older emotions being evoked. Obviously there is an infinite number of combinations and, while that's a weird concept to allude to, I'm not against "evolving" literature. But it should be left for people who are passionate, who want to tell a story or say something because they feel the need for it, because they want to express something, not because it's commercially viable. Those are the only ones stepping on new ground, anyway. The rest is perfectly disposable, even when quite successful.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. It's the principle that law can be manipulated by the amount of money thrown at the issue.

It's interesting that the new head of the MPAA came from the US Government...hmmm

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. We do not have liberty. We do not have equality and we do not have fraternity. Being that the revolutions in France, America and England were all about gaining exactly those three things just why does anyone support these governments?
                      Argue it if you like but look at the America court system and tell me the poor have the same legal protections as the rich. So much for equality. Now tell me that in America the poor and rich both get quality Medicare.
                        This week we sorrow for the poor slaughtered innocents recently gunned down. Much yacking is going around concerning the ease with which mental health care is important. John Hinkly begged to be readmitted to a mental hospital as he knew he was out of control and was told he had to wait nine weeks before he might be readmitted. That was decades ago. The only change now is that it is even harder to get mental health care.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is the best comparison I've probably ever seen when explaining copyright its still wrong.

If instead you had written. "I copied the number that is your balance and made my balance the same number without changing yours." then it would be accurate.

But, this brings in "stealing" from the bank, and the metaphor breaks. Not that it really works in your example either.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

The right wing has limited access to justice in Florida with radical tactics. For example if you are in a suit and the other side offers a settlement and the judge or jury awards one dollar less than the sum of the offer then you can not collect one red cent. So suppose that you suffer the loss of your right leg and the opposition offers $50,000 to end the suit. But for whatever reason you have a jury that settles as $45,000. You do not get one penny. You will also be paying your own legal expenses and just maybe the other sides expenses as well. So through no fault of your own your leg is gone. You have an ongoing disability and continuing pain and loss of employment. Just to make it better you are now bankrupt.
                    Here is another Florida treat. If you are injured in a wreck and do not ask for an ambulance on the scene you now can sure for no more than $600. total for your medical and loss of wages. The obvious issue is that if you have ever been injured you may well know that the injuries are not obvious for a day or so. But you are out of luck. You just had no idea you were bleeding internally from your spleen and that makes it all your fault.
                      Outrages like this is what the right wing has brought to Florida.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked.

Not one thing you said in your comment is relevant to whether or not it's stealing. It's not legally considered stealing, and I think it's a bad idea to call it stealing. The problem is that it confuses people who don't understand what copyright infringement entails. It's just a loss of potential profit at most.

but the pirates removing my ability to choose my own business model is somehow a good thing?

They're not; they just want to remove your monopoly over ideas. You're just telling what other people can and can't do with their own property.

Find a real business model? Go ahead and use it.

Re:Onanism

[cheekyjohnson]

but it's my choice, not the pirates'.

It is once someone buys your book, it becomes their property, and they decide to share it with everyone. Well, not according to copyright law, but I don't believe it's the 'pirates' who are removing anyone's choices here.

Re:Onanism

[Omestes]

Because I've made my living as a writer since 1995?

Touche.

Sorry, I've known several "writers" in my day who've been perpetually working on the bit of literature that will set them free from the mundane crap us uncreative hoi polloi have to put up with. As a result, I am a bit jaded and cynical. You have my apologies on the snark, then.

I am unshakably convinced that authors MUST have the right to control the dissemination of their own work. That copyright law is in dire need of major reform is, I think, established beyond debate.

We don't disagree as much as I thought. I mostly disagreed with some of your reasoning, but I think our ends are the same. Some flavor of copyright is needed, and inevitable, this much is obvious. And obviously authors (creators) need some level of control, so they can attempt to make money from their works. Copyright is a carrot to force creators to keep busy for the good of the rest of us. But I do think fair use should be expanded, terms severely limited, and everything should be made more public (not creator, not corporation) friendly.

That somehow that implies that copyright itself should be abolished is idiocy, promoted exclusively by selfish fools, and it should be rejected by anyone with a particle of sense.

Its a good thing I didn't espouse this, then. And I doubt it is really a very common view among the non /. crowd. I bet even most of them would shut up if we had something sane, like 30 years, with a 15 year extension, or limiting transferability, or just expanding and protecting fair-use. Though I'd probably still be a pirate, for the reasons I stated (try before you buy), but I view this as ethical piracy, as long as you purchase it, or delete it once sampled.

Re:Onanism

[cheekyjohnson]

if you copy the content from someone else you no longer need to purchase it.

And no one's property is gone. I do not believe that is theft. Period.

Watch this: "It's not theft. Period. It's not theft. Period. It's not theft. Period." There, now you're absolutely defeated!

Re:Onanism

[chrismcb]

The "pirate" who copies something without permission. GAINS. They may think the product is crummy, and not worth paying for (or at least not the price that is being charged) But it is apparently worth their time to copy it. It has some value to the "pirate." The "pirates" net worth has gone up. Even if that only means 2 hours of enjoyment of a "crummy" product. And the creators of the product were not compensated. If the product was so crummy, why did they waste their time taking it?
But obviously the "crummy" argument isn't true for a lot of items that are copied. I've heard time and again 'I would have paid, but not the price they are asking." One common item complained about here, is the cost of Game of Thrones. Just the other day someone quoted $1000 a season. More than they were willing to spend, so instead they took it for free.
It may not be stealing, but the person admitted they would have paid some money, but instead paid nothing. AND they got to enjoy the product.
It may not be "stealing' but it is still morally wrong. Everyone knows it, hence the reason they rationalize what they are doing. They make it look like they are the victims, instead of the creators.

Re:Onanism

[chrismcb]

How does copyright infringe on your free speech, and your property rights?

Re:Onanism

[hazah]

Alright, if you insist on being an asshole, here we go:

Look - professional writers need to make income from their work. Period.

In the absence of income from their work, there will be no professional writers. Period.

How do you explain the existence of written works spanning millenia then?

I realize that most idiots sincerely believe that professional-quality writing is something that "anybody can do." Being idiots, they are, of course, completely, utterly, and profoundly wrong about that. In fact, there is only a relatively small percentage of the population who have the inherent talent to write well enough to eventually become professionals at it. Idiots like hazah are almost certainly not among them.

I said that? I said that's something "anybody can do?" Funny how I can't find that anywhere in my comment. Yes, a profoundly small percentage are capable of professional writing, yet a profoundly large percentage demands undeserved entitlement for utter shit (my actual point that you completely missed). You know nothing of my skills and I care not show you any, as it is moot and completely off the topic at hand.

And yet hazah has the chutzpah to proclaim, ex cathedra from his asshole, that Belial6 - with whose work he is almost unquestionably totally unfamiliar - has no right to profit from his hard work. Instead, presumably, hazah believes HE has a right to make Belial6 his entertainment slave. "Amuse me, vassal," he demands, from his lofty position atop Selfish Cunt Mountain.

Dagid li, achi, ata makir oti bichlal? I didn't say he "has no right", you've put words in my mouth again. He has a right to profit from whatever the hell he wishes from. The question is about entitlement. To say that I want an "entertainment slave" out of Belial6 is stupid. The intent of the phrase is to illustrate that I'd rather have him take his precious content and go elsewhere instead of jumping up and down telling me to give him money. Asking for payment would be my chosen method to accomplish that goal. It is up to the writer to sell me on their content, not the other way around, because as you admit, very few of them are actually good at it. And what the fuck is wrong with you? Did I hit a nerve so hard that you're literally foaming at the mouth? You're the one being a cunt here.

Writing is not easy. It is hard, hard work. The more effortless prose appears to be to the reader, nearly without exception, the more that prose has required long hours of drafting, re-drafting, and polishing to seem to flow that freely. Writing fiction at a professional level is an art form which requires a combination of creativity, vision, persistence, judgement, and stringent self-discipline. Any aspiring professional writer must have the right to charge his audience for the pleasure of reading his work, or there will BE no professional writers. Only amateurs. And what you will quickly create, in a world without professional writers, is a world without professional-quality writing.

I completely agree that a lot of work goes into professional writing. However you will have to explain away millenia of literature to assert that the world will be without professional writers.

So: no more Jules Vernes, no more Robert Heinleins, no more Iain M. Banks, and no more consistently high-quality streams of work from writers who are free to concentrate on writing, because their writing pays the bills, instead of being forced to focus on plumbing, or selling cars, or doing double-entry accounting, because the bills MUST be paid.

Verne: born into a wealthy family

Heinleins: navy

Iain M. Banks: he eludes me for the time being but I'll dig his orgins up too.

2 of 3 of your examples had a means to support their hobbies outside of strict sales of their material. Pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to sa

Re:Onanism

[g253]

I've never heard of you. I would never ever read any of your work. Except if I could find some of it for free on TPB... That's just me of course, but I don't think I'm particularly atypical.

Also, even if piracy really did hurt artists, big fucking deal. I love art but it should be produced for its own sake dammit, what makes you think you can profit for years, decades even, from a few hours or days of "work" during which you did exactly what you wanted to?

What, that book you spent five months writing a quarter of a century ago isn't bringing you money anymore? Boo-fucking-hoo.

Re:Onanism

[icebraining]

A pirate (self-declared or otherwise) can take my story, dump it on The Priate Bay, and suddenly there's a smaller market of people who will pay me for my work.

Paulo Coelho, who sells more books than almost anyone else, knows that's not true-

Re:Onanism

[thomst]

I contended:

That somehow that implies that copyright itself should be abolished is idiocy, promoted exclusively by selfish fools, and it should be rejected by anyone with a particle of sense.

Prompting Omestes to respond:

Its a good thing I didn't espouse this, then. And I doubt it is really a very common view among the non /. crowd. I bet even most of them would shut up if we had something sane, like 30 years, with a 15 year extension, or limiting transferability, or just expanding and protecting fair-use. Though I'd probably still be a pirate, for the reasons I stated (try before you buy), but I view this as ethical piracy, as long as you purchase it, or delete it once sampled.

I doubt most of the yammerheads who currently employ pretzel logic to defend their UNethical piracy would reduce the volume of their bullshit by a single decibel, even if a sane a copyright law revision was implemented. When satisfying your greed depends on ethical blindness, the wise man invests in dark glasses and white canes.

I actually have no problem at all with "try before you buy". No one should be asked to blindly invest his hard-earned money in bad writing. That's why I make a 38,000-word excerpt of my novel freely available for download in a number of ereader-friendly formats (see my .sig for a link). I'm confident that anyone who likes the disaster/thriller genre and reads the excerpt will gladly pay for the full novel.

And, no, I don't think we're far apart on copyright law, at all. Others, however, are badly in need of a one-eyed king.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Who on earth cares?

Well, the people (and organizations) defending (and also wanting to strengthen it even further) the current copyright regime obviously care. It's they who have deliberately chosen to try to frame the issue as theft.

Blame them. For that too.

Re:Onanism

[Hatta]

It prevents me from using e.g. a CD that i own, a CD burner that I own, and blank media that I own in the most obvious and most useful way. It also prevents me from thoroughly describing the disk, as a complete description of a disk is considered a copy.

Re:Onanism

[wertigon]

Rowling had a day job while writing her first Potter. How would keeping copyright exactly as it is help Rowling 2.0 write her first Potter 2.0 without having a day job?

For that matter, if copyrights were to be reduced to twenty years, how would it prevent Rowling 2.0 to earn just as much money writing Potter 2.0?

Copyright is today a limitation of the consumers ownership rights. Therefore we must always ask ourselves, is it fair that they keep having this right? Why? And is their right outstepping their bounds?

Re:Onanism

[Omestes]

There is always going to be a level of pure greed involved. Piracy will probably never die, as it seems to be a consequence of our increasingly digital age. And when I was younger I admit to be a rather voracious pirate, and justifying it with various youthful "revolutionary" ideals. Free stuff is awesome, how can you go wrong, right? As I got older, and started having an income, I realized that I don't need most media, where when young it was almost a obsession, wrapping myself in the robes of cultural identity. Perhaps time became scarce, and money more plentiful...

I do think, though, that there is a good degree of heartfelt ideology involved, over the greed. Some of this ideology might have valid bits, as well. We all know something is broken, so we try hard to figure out how, and how to act when human nature isn't in accordance with law. When people are approached by an extreme, they often reply with an opposing extreme.

Re:Onanism

[hazah]

This guy's just pissed because he's trying to be a writer and can't fathom why he isn't automatically entitled to get paid, as if it's some god given right. There is no logic there, only the piss poor rhetoric of a starving artist.

Re:Onanism

[thomst]

I posited:

So: no more Jules Vernes, no more Robert Heinleins, no more Iain M. Banks, and no more consistently high-quality streams of work from writers who are free to concentrate on writing, because their writing pays the bills, instead of being forced to focus on plumbing, or selling cars, or doing double-entry accounting, because the bills MUST be paid.

Prompting hazah to blather:

Verne: born into a wealthy family

Heinleins: navy

Iain M. Banks: he eludes me for the time being but I'll dig his orgins up too.

2 of 3 of your examples had a means to support their hobbies outside of strict sales of their material. Pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to say.

In fact, Verne's father was an attorney (i.e. - middle class, not wealthy), and he DISOWNED Jules when he learned he was writing, rather than studying law.

Heinlein was medically discharged from the Navy in 1934, BEFORE THERE WAS A G.I. BILL. So, NO NAVY PENSION.

Thus, neither man had an outside source of income to support them. They both made their livings BY WRITING. Period.

FWIW, Iain Banks' father was a Navy officer. His mother was an ice skater. Neither one was wealthy.

Banks has made his living as a writer since the 1970's - when his first (mainstream) book won the Whitbread Prize.

I then mentioned Theodore Sturgeon, prompting hazah to again quote Wikipedia:

As an adolescent, he wanted to be a circus acrobat; an episode of rheumatic fever prevented him from pursuing this.

From 1935 (aged 17) to 1938, he was a sailor in the merchant marine, and elements of that experience found their way into several stories.
He sold refrigerators door to door.
He managed a hotel in Jamaica around 1940–1941, worked in several construction and infrastructure jobs (driving a bulldozer in Puerto Rico, operating a gas station and truck lubrication center, work at a drydock) for the US Army in the early war years, and by 1944 was an advertising copywriter.
In addition to freelance fiction and television writing, he also operated a literary agency (which was eventually transferred to Scott Meredith), worked for

I think I see a trend here... I wonder if you do.

Indeed. I see a professional writer's typical career arc: a seemingly random series of jobs that create a fund of experience that provide the writer with a well of knowledge and incident on which he will later draw when he finally settles on WRITING as a profession.

I see another trend as well: a fucking imbecile who quotes blindly from Wikipedia without ever understanding the implications of the factoids which he selects in a desperate (and doomed) attempt to prop up his ethically and intellectually bankrupt pretext for piracy.

The rest of your response is similarly lame - and for identical reasons. You have the intellectual depth of a Kleenex, you grasp at straws, in the futile hope that no one will notice, and your defensiveness precludes any useful introspection. In short, you're a swine.

Ergo, I will be damned if I will continue to cast pearls before you.

So, get lost, little girl. Go play in traffic.

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Lowest?

Really?

I bet there are at least 40 parents in Connecticut who'd love the opportunity to debate with you whether there's anything in the world of crime lower than stealing ...

Re:Onanism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death.

Yes, but the debunking proved that it was 'stealing' as it is considered 'theft of service', and it has always been called that.

It is the same as parking your car in a paid parking spot and not paying to park there. You haven't actually 'stolen' the car spot, but you've stolen the use of the car spot by parking there. It is the same as going to a restaurant and refusing to pay for anything more than the cost of the actual food, it means the waiter, the chef and others do not get paid for the services they rendered. In the same way, taking for free things like software, movies, music etc and not paying for it is not paying the code writers, cast and crew, musicians and producers etc. So you are not paying for the service they rendered putting the product together.

Thus, once again it gets proven to be 'theft of service' and can be legitimately referred to as 'stealing'.

Re:Onanism

[strikethree]

Hm. A long time ago in a land far far away, I used to like listening to various forms of Heavy Metal. The stuff on the radio was just too weak and uninspiring for me but I had friends, friends who would let me me duplicate their collections.

So I would hear these various artists and go out to buy their music... but less than an hour of music costs as much as a two hour movie? I was dirt poor but I bought quite a lot of music despite the insane prices.

Then, I just stopped copying. That is what you and all the other artists want right? Well, once I stopped copying, I stopped knowing what was good or not. The prices are way way too high to experiment and get a bad album. I can only afford to buy music I like. What this means is that since I do not know what I would like, I spend nothing. I do not buy any heavy metal albums at all anymore. None.

Is this the situation that you really desire? It is the situation that strong copyright will give you. There are two players in this game: You and me. I can not control you and you can not control me. What is the best way for us to interact? I do not need you, I just enjoy you. You need me. Let the negotiations commence...

Re:Onanism

[Kernel Kurtz]

It's also terribly wrong to force someone else to live by your choices.

No doubt you do have to live with the choices of the world's other 8 billion people, but nobody is forcing you to do anything at all.

Re:Onanism

[mcgrew]

I've never read any of your work and I'm not likely to, as I've never heard of you and never seen if your work is exceptional or crap. You expect me to buy your work sight-unseen? If so, you're a fool.

Nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many an author has starved in obscurity. If you're talented, your greed will guarantee your failure.

I guess you're all for shutting down the public libraries, too? Damn, dude, nice job shooting yourself in the foot.

Re:Onanism

[thomst]

mcgrew bloviated:

I've never read any of your work and I'm not likely to, as I've never heard of you and never seen if your work is exceptional or crap. You expect me to buy your work sight-unseen? If so, you're a fool.

Nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many an author has starved in obscurity. If you're talented, your greed will guarantee your failure.

I guess you're all for shutting down the public libraries, too? Damn, dude, nice job shooting yourself in the foot.

So you only read books by authors with whom you're already familiar?

Like Mr. T, I pity the fool.

As for my "greed" - I make my old Boardwatch columns and articles freely available on my web site. I also make a 38,000-word preview of my novel available there, in a variety of ebook formats. And I permit no ads on my site.

Oh, and I'm the former president of the Friends of the El Cerrito Library.

Three strikes - and you're stupid.

Re:Onanism

[mcgrew]

So you only read books by authors with whom you're already familiar?

I only buy books from authors I know I enjoy. The rest I read FOR FREE from the public library. None of your books are in the library? I won't be reading any, then.

I make my old Boardwatch columns and articles freely available on my web site.

Columns and articles are no indication of how good a book by that author will be. I saw lots of Cory Doctorow's columns and articles and thought they were garbage, but I enjoy his books. I enjoy Jerry Pournelle's articles but his books bore the hell out of me.

Oh, and I'm the former president of the Friends of the El Cerrito Library.

From your bloviation I would have thought you'd want to burn down all the libraries.

Three strikes - and you're stupid.

Way to get more readers, dumbass.

Money

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to court cases, being right (or at least being not-wrong), it often matters less what the law says and more what your bank account says. And, as long as the world works this way the bullies of litigation will continue doing what they do and passing along their legal fees to customers.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

As the old saying goes, privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

As Jack Sparrow said, "Take what you can, give nothing back". Makes me wonder who the real pirates are :P

Re:Money

[RivenAleem]

Doesn't bother me, I'm not, nor will I ever be, a customer of BPI

(pardon the narrow view, but I'm just making a point)

Re:Money

[Phrogman]

There is no actual "Justice" available. Its for sale these days, all it takes is enough litigation to break the opposition, or the threat of it, and your principles, justice, honor etc, is meaningless. So we have gone from "Justice is Blind" to "Justice is a Whore"...
This is why corporations are so evil I think, it enables people with an agenda to wield bigger bank accounts with zero risk to themselves and use those to bludgeon free speech and political opinion to death.

crowdfunding for this fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Start a crowdfunding campaign for this cause. They will cover costs in a few minutes.

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[Grumbleduke]

The Party did. It raised over £9,000* in the last couple of weeks from supporters. Which is great... but just getting preliminary advice over the last couple of weeks has cost £1,600, and fighting this case to trial could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. While it might be possible to raise that money, the feeling seems to be that it could be spent better elsewhere (although, of course, those who donated to the legal fight should have already been emailed to explain how they can get their donations refunded).

I find it particularly ironic that we are told pirates are stealing money/income from artists etc., but it turns out pirates don't have that much money - whereas the BPI Ltd (all of whose funding would otherwise be going to artists etc.) seems to have plenty of cash to throw at lawyers and legal actions.

*But less than £10,000 - you can't make this up...

[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for PPUk, but was not one of the individuals sued.]

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[jythie]

I think you have a typo.. you wrote 'in' instead of 'for'. Easy mistake to make.

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

fighting this case to trial could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds

"Your honour, we are not an ISP and do not fall under the provisions of the ruling"

"Case dismissed"

Total cost: one pint of beer.

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost as if the people who support the Pirate Bay are cheapskates who don't want to contribute financially to things that benefit them. Who would have thought?

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[hazah]

Straw-man. Unlike the aggressor, the people are average and live average lives with average incomes. Unlike the aggressor, there is not an endless coffer from which to resupply. When the choice is to eat, or to fight an uncertain battle, the fallout is far from surprising.

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[Grumbleduke]

"Your honour, we want a new order against the Pirate Party because they are acting as a service provider within the scope of s97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and are providing access to a website that they know is being used to infringe copyright."

"OK, here's your order - also, as the law is (mostly) clear, they were wasting all our time, so I'll make them pay all your costs on an indemnity basis."

Cost, a few hundred thousand pounds, plus more to appeal.

Re:crowdfunding for this fight!

[Troed]

Much much better is for everyone who consider this court abuse by BPI to join their local Pirate Party. We're represented in over 40 countries, and if there isn't one in yours you're welcome to copy what you need from another Pirate Party to get started ;)

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

http://wiki.pp-international.net/Main_Page

Disclaimed: I'm a proud board member of the Swedish Pirate Party. Changing the world, one byte at a time.

Well there's a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone really expect a party made up of software pirates to actually _have_ any money?

Re:Well there's a surprise.

[Trepidity]

what about all the money they saved from not buying software?!

Re:Well there's a surprise.

[Grumbleduke]

But we're Pirates, who steal all sorts of stuff from musicians and creators, and deprive them of £billions in income a year - all that money must go somewhere.

Oh, wait...

Re:Well there's a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. For all the billions they steal every year, you'd expect them to have a little more bite to their bark. They must be spending it all on amphetamines.

Re:Well there's a surprise.

[X0563511]

You mean the money they perhaps never had to begin with? Not everyone pirates just because they can.

Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[smooth wombat]

to keep fighting for digital rights however they can

When they speak of digital rights they mean the ability to get any piece of software without compensating the person/people who created the software, and who are not giving that software away.

After all, it doesn't cost someone a single dime to create the software in the first place so why should they have to pay for it? Everything's free, right?

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[alen]

listen you greedy capitalist pig

you should be happy to live off the pennies you make on selling t-shirts and coffee cups

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[QuasiSteve]

I'll let others do the usual list of reasons why pirating is better for all mankind, and just point out that the digital rights referred to may be the access to resources on the internet (TPB), being allowed to host a proxy (as they had doe), or redirect (as some others do).

It is most unfortunate that they're basically giving up the fight. It makes their statement that they'll continue to fight the good fight elsewhere a bit hollow. I realize one should fight the battles one can win, live to fight another day, lose the battle but not the war and all that - but it still sends a message that when faced with legal threats, they'll back down pretty quickly.
Given the great number of 'pirates', mounting a legal defense fund should have been easy. Getting those 'pirates' to put money into that fund may be easier said than done for obvious and non-obvious reasons, though.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Grumbleduke]

Actually, software piracy is pretty minimal in the UK - at least, through personal downloading (rather than commercial-scale forgetting-how-many-computers-you-are-allowed-to-install-it-on infringement); according to Ofcom's recent study, only 2% of Internet users have illegally downloaded any software ever (compared with 6% for TV and film, and 8% for music). And as for it being free, about 85% of software that was acquired online *was* free.

That said, the study is a bit dubious because they claim only 17% of Internet users have ever downloaded computer software... I was under the impression that Firefox had a larger market share than that in the UK...

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[kiwimate]

I'll let others do the usual list of reasons why pirating is better for all mankind

Excepting those who don't get paid for their hard efforts.

and just point out that the digital rights referred to may be the access to resources on the internet (TPB)

Access all the resources you like, so long as it's not focused, even if "only" partially, on something illegal.

being allowed to host a proxy (as they had doe)

Nothing wrong there, host all the proxies you like, so long as it's not focused on something illegal.

or redirect (as some others do).

Redirect to your heart's content, so long as you're not focusing on something illegal. Wait, am I repeating myself?

It's not about digital rights. All the so-called "rights" you list are not at risk.

And despite the raving spewing forth, doing illegal stuff is also not at risk.

If you're really serious about digital rights and so forth, learn some marketing and put forth a proposal as to how business models should evolve. Back it up with numbers and hard data (not just "if only everyone did this, then such-and-such would work" or "me and my friends would support this, go on, give it a try"). The cop-out I see all the time on Slashdot is "business models need to evolve". So suggest this magical evolutionary path, then. If you can come up with a realistic and feasible roadmap, you'll make a lot of money. Otherwise you're just taking stuff because you can and because you're too damn cheap to pay.

Everything else is sophistry, and the reality is that no matter how much business models evolve they will most likely be a losing proposition regardless because people like being able to get stuff for free with low risk of getting caught breaking the law.

"Digital rights"? Please...what about the right to produce something, choose a business model that says "I want to be paid for this artifact up front, not when or if you feel like it", and bear the consequences of people rejecting your chosen business model by NOT BUYING YOUR PRODUCT and doing without it rather than just taking it?

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

You are absolutely right! Last week a friend of mine wanted digital copies of some of my CD's. Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix, and of course...Bach. I told him to sod off with that glowing feeling in my gut, the knowledge that with one less dirty rotten thief these artists have a better chance of being fairly compensated for their works and will continue to create new music. Plus, I'm sure that when these artists die their works will be released into the public domain in a reasonable amount of time.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Anonymous Coward]

When they speak of "intellectual property", they mean the ability to create a system of artificial scarcity for information, and demand real money that took real work to make, for a mere copy that took *zero* work to make. (A copy of the work that some poor schmuck, who didn't get shit, made, of course.)
In other words: To get free money while sitting on their fat asses. Forever, until the end of the universe.
Even for imaginary copies. Any price they want, because of their illegally enforced (yet utterly delusional) monopoly.
And you have the audacity add insult to injury, by calling *US* leeches!

Even though it's statistically *proven* that 1. sales didn't go down *one bit*. It only shifted to things like iTunes, and prices got into an actually realistic range again; 2. file sharers are *by far* those who spend the most money on information (like music, movies, etc); 3. all small labels, except for the cartel of the big ones, actually noticed that the more they uploaded their stuff for file sharing, the more popular they got, the more money they made.
Those are all facts, and you an look them up.

Fuck off, you fuckin' criminal and organized crime supporter! You know *shit*, and are dumber than a decorative cherry on top of a plate of monkey feces! Go learn at least the *basics* of the psychics of distribution of information, before you open your mouth full of shit! And stop gobbling the jenkem-flavored FUD Kool-Aid of the Content Mafia!

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Runaway1956]

Speaking of sophistry - I'd like to know which artists are going hungry due to piracy, and which artists are going hungry because *IAA affiliated companies don't pass the profits on to the starving artists. Give me a list of artists who have missed a meal because pirates "stole" their music, so that all us "pirates" can send them a dollar or two. Oh, those poor suffering artists! The idea just hurts my soul!

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that none of the artists you listed have recorded anything in a long time.

It is because of those pirates, no doubt.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Slashdot would learn some damn economics.

The cost of producing a copy is the (marginal cost) + (fixed cost)/(total copies sold).

If I spend $1,000,000 making a movie and sell $1,000 copies even if the process of copping and distributing the film is $0 (It never is, servers and bandwidth do cost money), it still costs me $1,000 per copy because no copies can be made until the original exists. So unless I sell it at > $1,000 each I'm loosing money.

This is why pirating hurts artists. It doesn't matter that making the copy is free, because your not paying for that. You're paying a share of the fixed cost associated with creating the work in the first place. And if a particular work doesn't make it into the black the odds of that artist getting another chance shrink.

You can argue that copyright terms are too long, or that the *AA organizations are abusing their partners, or that the second order effects of piracy sometimes included increasing legitimate sales. However none of that changes the fact that it is not free to produce a digital copy, and claiming otherwise is an argument from ignorance that you need to cure yourself of before you can be taken seriously by the people in a position to do anything about copyright law.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Anonymous Coward]

given that buddy died over 50 years ago, all of his recording are out of copyright (at least they are here in the UK) as it only extends 50 years from the year of recording/release.

If you have a recoding of Bach playing his own compositions - please share with the rest of the world.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[mcgrew]

You should read Doctorow. It won't cost you a dime, he puts his books on boingboing for free and credits that for his standing as a best selling author. IINM "Makers" is the one with a good explanation for teh worth of piracy, but I could be wrong. Hell, read them all, they're free. You might wind up with a few copies on your shelf and him with an extra buck or two.

I wonder why libraries never put print authors out of business? I wonder why I have a dozen Asimov books on my shelf, when every single one of them is or was available at the library? After all the library is a monstrous pirate haven, with all those people getting books, CDs, and DVDs for no cost whatever! The horror! Close down all the libraries!

Nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many talented artists have starved from obscurity. And IMO anyone who can't understand that is not very intelligent.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Anonymous Coward]

just don't, you know, share it on the pirate bay. Cause fuck that site.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[Shagg]

Access all the resources you like, so long as it's not focused, even if "only" partially, on something illegal.

Based on that I assume you view Google as being just as guilty as TPB?

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[chrismcb]

Nobody ever lost money from piracy,

Citation Needed.
Just based on some of the comments on slashdot, plenty of people have lost money from piracy. Of course there are some people who gained money from piracy. But YOU don't get to choose someone else business model.
If someone wants to give the first one away for free, and charge you for the second. That is his right. It isn't yours to choose that method. You can suggest it, and you can take your business elsewhere.

Re:Digital rights? Is that what we're calling it?

[mcgrew]

Citation Needed.

Citation given.

Citation given.

Citation given.

Citation given.

The golden rule...

[Anonymous Coward]

...he who has the gold rules.

Consider: money can be seen as an abstract representation of how much influence one has over others. Seeing as how politics is largely just the exercise of influence over others, it should be obvious that we can no more take the money out of politics than we can take the medicine out of health care.

Re:The golden rule...

[capedgirardeau]

Yes, maybe as what you said. But we are not talking about politics and legislation, we are talking about the legal system which should be the one place that the playing field is level and it clearly is not.

That's fine.

[SuricouRaven]

There are still many, many, many Pirate Bay proxy sites left.

Re:That's fine.

[RivenAleem]

The question is, can the Pirate Party host a website that lists the proxies?

Re:That's fine.

[Grumbleduke]

I haven't seen the details of the agreements made, but I think the Party Executive would probably be in breach of them were they to do so.

Other proxies

[Meneth]

So, what other proxies can UK residents use to circumvent the block? TOR, obviously. But that can be a bit slow. Here's a fairly long list.

Re:Other proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no longer about actually accessing the site. A political party can no longer support their own manifesto because a company has decided it's a bad thing for the business. The political part can no longer go to court to show that company the status quo of the situation because there isn't enough money to have a civil debate about cost/benefits to the whole of society.

A political party is no longer able to back it's politics because it is unable to attempt to show the world the politics are a good idea. How is this a positive move for anyone?

Re:Other proxies

[Grumbleduke]

And the BPI guy had the nerve to suggest they weren't trying to censor us or restrict our freedom of expression...

Fascism

[zixxt]

The claws of Fascism are spreading worldwide.

Re:Fascism

[Skapare]

Actually, it's just a plutocracy.

And the game of whack-a-mole continues....

[mark-t]

After well over a decade, it's not even interesting anymore.

Re:And the game of whack-a-mole continues....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah well, it remains very interesting to BPI and their ilk, who eventually win because people like you get bored and stop resisting.

Re:And the game of whack-a-mole continues....

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's their endgame?

What constitutes 'winning'?

Re:And the game of whack-a-mole continues....

[Anonymous Coward]

A combination of:

1) Strict laws punishing people for attempted copyright infringement (complete destitution of middle-or-lower class families per file shared).
2) Strict laws forcing all hardware to have back doors that allow for remote monitoring of all use (to enforce the above laws). Harsh punishments here too.
3) Strict laws forcing ISP's to perform deep packet inspection on all communication, at their own cost (which is passed on to consumers), with harsh punishments for using encryption or anything to skirt this.
4) Strict laws forcing all software (OS and application level) to disallow any data-duplication options that might be used for copyright infringement (with harsh penalties).
5) Automatic royalty collection for all distributed music, regardless of whether or not it is copyrighted, regardless of the means of distribution. Major players will transmit a minute fraction of this royalty to the artist provided said artist has signed the appropriate contracts (otherwise they just keep it all, and sighing up costs more than what is given back in most cases).
6) A tax on all forms of data-transmission (physical and electronic) to compensate artists for the illegal infringement that is still going on. Actual artists will only see a minute fraction of this compensation, provided they are properly signed up (which costs more than the amount returned in most cases).

Note...every single point on this list has either already been enacted, or has been proposed and pushed, by industry lobbies.

Re:And the game of whack-a-mole continues....

[mark-t]

Most of those would actually be completely unenforceable with today's technology... and among those that might even be theoretically enforceable, even at a minimum would require cutting the nation off from all communication with outside countries, including all forms of international travel, unless you could get the entire world to agree to a single governing body.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks, goto to http://www.goldenfrog.com/vyprvpn - buy and use. End of story.

Shut up and take my money

[tepples]

When they speak of digital rights they mean the ability to get any piece of software without compensating the person/people who created the software, and who are not giving that software away.

Sometimes the author is neither giving the work away nor selling it. For example, how should one obtain a copy of the film Song of the South, the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea, or the English version of the video game Mother (the Famicom game before Earthbound) while fairly compensating the author? And how should one compensate HBO for Game of Thrones without compensating Disney for ESPN, an unwanted service?

Re:Shut up and take my money

[Kjella]

And how should one compensate HBO for Game of Thrones without compensating Disney for ESPN, an unwanted service?

So if you're at the store where they sell boxes of mixed chocolates and you really like the dark chocolate and nougats but hate the creamy and vanilla chocolate what is your idea of fair compensation? Because your other points were pretty good but that you don't like the commercial bundle is something quite different than "the author is neither giving the work away nor selling it".

Re:Shut up and take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the copyright owner have the right to *not* sell the work? It is my understanding of the law that the answer to that question is "yes" in many/most circumstances. Compulsory licenses for streaming music are one exception: you must license your work at the stated rate if there is a compulsory license law in effect. Barring those exceptions, however, if you own the rights to distribute a copyrighted work you also have the right to *not* distribute that work. It's incredibly frustrating (and stupid) for the various studios (both movie and music) to intentionally restrict the things they release. However, a lack of distribution does not invalidate their copyright.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[alexgieg]

Sometimes the author is neither giving the work away nor selling it.

Which is why I use to suggest anti-copyright activists should start hammering into their (and their opponents) discourse the much needed counter-concept of "copyduty".

Copyright discussions are always about currently on-sale IP, but the tons upon tons of nowhere-to-be-legally-found copyrighted content out there that's dying is quite worrisome. From the three branches of IP, trademark is the only one that comes with a duty: if you don't actively use and protect your trademark, you lose it. Copyrights and patents should be the same. In fact, as much as I'm against copyrights as a matter of principle, I wouldn't mind an eternal one provided lack of worldwide (because: Internet!) publishing/manufacturing for 'n' years after creation/invention caused it to automatically expire. Sure, some extremely successful stuff would go on under tight corporate control for centuries, but the huge amount of stuff that would end up freed would more than make up for that.

Let's start talking about copyduty whenever possible. It's a must.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[alexgieg]

However, a lack of distribution does not invalidate their copyright.

It should. A right (to restrict distribution) without a corresponding duty (to do said distribution yourself) is unbalanced. And worldwide distribution at that. 'N' years without publishing and presto, right lost, similar to what happens with trademarks. (See also my answer to the OP for more on this notion.)

Re:Shut up and take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

The chocolate manufacturers are bright enough to realise that by packaging the dark chocolates by themselves (or the nougat for that matter, but not the coffee creams, obviously) that people will, if they are priced accordingly, buy them.

Quality Street (or more precisely whoever makes QS) made a point of this tactic by introducing "Big Ones"

http://www.chocolatemission.net/2008/10/october-31st-quality-street-my-caramel.html

presumably working on the basis that people who wouldn't buy a mixed selection of sweets would buy their favourites.

It has seemed to work from them, but then they're only selling sweeties, not trying to control what we see and hear at a price that suits them alone.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, you believe I, as an author, should be required to release ALL my work on your time schedule and via a channel that you desire.

I will not produce anything under those terms. Ever. I will go get a construction job rebuilding Initech first.

Copyright gives me exclusive rights to control the distribution (or lack thereof) of my work and that's the way it needs to stay. It doesn't matter to me one whit whether you want a copy of something I don't want to sell or you don't like that you have to pay Disney to view my work or that you have to wait awhile for DVD release. (Do you also demand I release the many, many pieces of crap I've written but not published over the years?)

The problems as I see it are:

-Copyright terms longer than 14 years. I'd be okay with 28 years. But there has to be a limit. Life+ridiculous isn't working.
-DMCA
-Possibly, though I'm not 100% on this: The ability to transfer a copyright.

Focus on fixing that and you'll have my support. Otherwise, keep your mitts out of my cookie jar.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[fuzznutz]

So basically, you believe I, as an author, should be required to release ALL my work on your time schedule [...]

Absolutely. If you want copyright which lasts two lifetimes, there should be a compulsory publishing duty. If there is no incentive for the rights holder to publish, the copyright has no value anyway. Locking up works (essentially indefinitely) with no copyright value deprives the public domain. Disney's Song of the South is a great example. My kids have never seen it and have no idea what the characters or songs on Splash Mountain are about.

I will not produce anything under those terms. Ever. I will go get a construction job rebuilding Initech first.

And nothing of value will be lost...

Re:Shut up and take my money

[tepples]

Does the copyright owner have the right to *not* sell the work? It is my understanding of the law that the answer to that question is "yes" in many/most circumstances.

In what way does this government-granted right to withdraw a work of authorship from availability "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

Re:Shut up and take my money

[amorsen]

Because your other points were pretty good but that you don't like the commercial bundle is something quite different than "the author is neither giving the work away nor selling it".

If I like dark chocolate and nougats, I am free to buy the bundle and sell or give away the creamy and vanilla chocolate.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[chrismcb]

And how should one compensate HBO for Game of Thrones without compensating Disney for ESPN, an unwanted service?

Since generally ESPN is included with the first paid tier, which you usually have to get before getting HBO, you can't. Of course Disney isn't the only one being compensated. The other option is to talk to your Cable operator, or HBO directly.
What you don't do, is take it for free. "Well I didn't feel like paying for the full package, as there was stuff I didn't want... So I just took it for free instead.'
I only wanted to watch one of the 4 bands playing. I didn't want the other bands to get my money. So I snuck in.
No, you don't get to choose how they run their business. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. That doesn't mean taking the product without permission, it means spending your money on a different product.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[chrismcb]

Does the copyright owner have the right to *not* sell the work?

NOT sell the work, is not the same as not distribute the work.
Of course you have both rights. You own the copyright, well you own the distribution right. You can give it away for free (or release it into public domain) OR you can choose not to release the work. If you want to do a play, and do it once. Should you be forced to do it everynight forever? Should you be forced to film it and give it away?
If you paint a painting, should you be forced to paint copies for anyone who wants one?

Re:Shut up and take my money

[chrismcb]

It should. A right (to restrict distribution) without a corresponding duty (to do said distribution yourself) is unbalanced. And worldwide distribution at that. 'N' years without publishing and presto, right lost, similar to what happens with trademarks. (See also my answer to the OP for more on this notion.)

Trademarks and copyrights are completely different matters. If you don't use a trademark, then well nothing really happens. If you don't distribute a work, then the works that are in the wild could potentially have more value.
You are claiming that no one can have a limited run of something. If a book is out of print, then anyone can copy it? That is absurd.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[alexgieg]

You are claiming that no one can have a limited run of something. If a book is out of print, then anyone can copy it? That is absurd.

No, that's simple sound justice. Copyright is a monopoly 7+ billion people are granting a single individual for the SOLE purpose of advancing the culture. Said individual has at a minimum the obligation of repaying said monopoly by making his monopolized content available, otherwise he's just not helping advance the culture at all.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to provide different material expressions of his content. He could do a "limited numbered signed official premium deluxe gold plus plus 2.0 run" for 20 times the standard price, all the while still releasing the bare contents for the masses at standard market prices. But do the later no matter what, or you lose your monopoly by not following with the complementary cultural duty to the cultural right you were granted. That's how things should work.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[tepples]

it means spending your money on a different product.

What is the closest substitute for the television series based on A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin?

Re:Shut up and take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything else which entertains you.

Re:Shut up and take my money

[Alsee]

Nice catch. I wish I saw your post much sooner, I had mod points a few days ago and I let them expire.

-

Extremes are always absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the absurdity of the other extreme, which is exactly what many interested parties are after:

1) Everyone must pay for every individual use of every bit of software and data on every piece of hardware they own.
2) Software patents ensure that only the patent owner can produce any software that is even remotely similar to the outright-obvious thing patented.

This results in a world where the few wealthy players are the only people who can produce any software at all, and they can price gouge horribly for it.

Don't even start with "anyone can get a patent." It has been clearly demonstrated many times that only the super-rich can afford the litigation costs that come with defending a patent.

THAT extreme is morally corrupt, economically devastating, and exactly what groups like BPI are pushing for. Neither you nor anyone should be surprised that the people who suffer from this are resisting in the only ways they can.

Re:Extremes are always absurd

[Quila]

It has been clearly demonstrated many times that only the super-rich can afford the litigation costs that come with defending a patent.

That's actually a case for patent trolls. In a sense, they buy the rights to a regular-guy patent and then bankroll its defense.

http://fucktimkuik.org/

[SmallFurryCreature]

http://fucktimkuik.org/

Links to a random proxy and hasn't gone down yet.

The silly thing? I actually stopped for a long time with file sharing because it just wasn't worth it anymore and not much fun. Now it is.

Challenge accepted!

Re:http://fucktimkuik.org/

[X0563511]

Do those just proxy the site, or can you somehow communicate with the trackers?

Re:http://fucktimkuik.org/

[Anonymous Coward]

Trackers? TPB hasn't been running trackers in *quite a while*.

Re:http://fucktimkuik.org/

[X0563511]

Then what exactly is the torrent supposed to locate peers with? Do you have client recommendations that support these alternative means?

Re:http://fucktimkuik.org/

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it uses DHT to locate peers with the torrent data, so any client that uses DHT will be fine, you may need to check that it is turned on in the settings.

Re:http://fucktimkuik.org/

[Inda]

TPB magnet links often include other tracker references. It is also possible to include an IP address of a peer in the magnet link.

DHT as the other replying AC said.

Peer exchange is where most of the peers are found. Your client only needs to find one peer in the swarm.

I still use uTorrent. It's mature. It's not fashionable though and I understand the reasons people are dropping it. I'd assume all other clients, and the libraries they all seem to all share, offer the same functionality.

Re:http://fucktimkuik.org/

[X0563511]

Aah. I run Vuze (in classic mode, with all that library BS disabled), and it seems to not like TPB's magnet links ("no sources found"). Google suggests this was found and fixed way back when, but it still happens for me.

Been trying to start seeding that morse code course again. Author was thrilled to find out how popular it had become. The Blender tutorials, too.

Gotta do my part to help give torrents legitimate use cases :) It's not all just linux ISOs.

Add another crime to the list...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Creation and sustainment of a cartel for the purpose of organized crime.
2. Creation of a model of artificial scarcity (imaginary property) through manipulation of and lying to government officials.
3. Conspiration to commit usury in millions to billions of cases. (Mere copies are not worth anything since they didn't require work to make. Let alone at those prices.)
4. Racketeering, blackmail and extortion in tens to hundreds of thousands of cases.
5. Distribution of propaganda, slander, libel and hate-speech at the expense of millions, if not billions of cases. (Calling people "pirates" and all those hate ads.) ...

How linking to a proxy to TPB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they still be liable to compile a list of quality PirateBay proxies and redirect people to them when they try to access the proxy?
How about them linking to a website that redirects people to proxies when they try to access the Pirate Party proxy?
What I'm trying to say is: when do people stop being liable for links/proxies?
What if I'm running a free SOCKS proxy? Am I still liable for the content that passes through?

s/psychics/PHYSICS/

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S.: I bet you will cling to that typo like a motherfucker, because it's the only thing you got.

P.P.S.: If you chose a delusional business model that has no relation to reality, and it then comes crashing down as reality approaches like a freight train at full speed... Don’t come crying to me!. Boo-hoo; Fuck youu!

Silly Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

The Courts are for the Super Rich and Mega Corporations!

Re:Silly Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

The Courts are for the Super Rich and Mega Corporations!

Which means they deserve to fall in an armed revolution very quickly.

True

[Anonymous Coward]

We all just need to stop consuming their product... Listen to alternative music and documentaries. In a few years they will be to broke to do anything . . .

How convenient for them

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

As a result of this proxy their site has jumped into the top-ten UK sites for traffic from being down in the mumble-hundreds. That's going to be a pretty penny in traffic costs.

Suddenly from on high comes a reason for them to shut it down.

The court order in question specifically lists the six ISPs that are required to block the Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party is not on the list. Neither is my ISP. The BPI is not suing my ISP. What makes the Pirate Party so special?

Perhaps someone from the Party could state right here what provision in legslation has them so spooked:

________________

Disclaimer: I do not respect the Pirate Party. Nor the Green party, for that matter. Or the Tories, Labour, Lim Dems...

Re:How convenient for them

[Grumbleduke]

s97A Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows anyone, including the BPI (or their minions) to apply to the court to get an order requiring any "service provider" to block access to any website or similar service. This is how they got their blocking order against both ThePirateBay and Newzbin2. BT tried to fight the Newzbin2 ruling and got hit by a massive costs order. There's a reason no ISP has dared to fight any such order since (including the TPB orders).

While a big ISP like BT can afford a few hundred thousand in legal costs, the Party can't. That that is what we (or rather, the officers personally) are facing if they don't take and keep the proxy down. This isn't theoretical, this is after 3 weeks of back-and-forth between lawyers.

What makes the Pirate Party so special? You'd have to ask the BPI about that, but I imagine it is due to us actually standing up to them (or trying to) and causing problems for them politically. Plus there's a scale thing; other ISPs only cover the odd percentage of the population, whereas the Party's proxy is high-profile and being used by a large number of people. Apparently.

Heh. Sue for damages.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really.

Sue for damages caused by being forced to abandon their distribution method for their content.

Addendum

[kiwimate]

I hope your faux moral superiority comforts you at night when your children are sentenced to served time in a debtor's prison.

You're talking about people who choose not to take/steal things based on principle, even when it's trivially easy and "everyone's doing it". You are, moreover, taking the side of those who claim it's their right to do the opposite and acquire music, movies, and software, even when it's illegal, because of some theorized "digital rights", or because of a vague claim of "information wants to be free", or because "it benefits everyone in the end".

And you have the audacity to sneer at your opponents for "faux moral superiority" (while posting as an anonymous coward). How pathetic.

Re:Addendum

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are a lot of words you're putting into my mouth. Perhaps you could point out where I made any of those assertions?

Don't worry

[GameboyRMH]

TPB proxies are still available on all major darknets and can't be taken down.

Poor Strategy

[Martin Spamer]

This was predicatable; they should adopt the same strategy as that used in the McLibel Trial.

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

Works that have been publicly exhibited

[tepples]

Do you also demand I release the many, many pieces of crap I've written but not published over the years?

There's a difference between works that you've never published or publicly exhibited and the works I'm talking about. The film Song of the South was publicly exhibited in U.S. movie theaters several decades ago. The television series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea was publicly exhibited on Nickelodeon more than two decades ago. The video game Mother was first published before Famicom games were discontinued; therefore about two decades ago.

impossibly-high costs of legal action

[nurb432]

And that folks is why ultimately we will lose. We cant afford to fight, so we lose by default.

Don't fall for it

[ProPropertyRights]

There isn't anything moral about fighting for your right to download content that you don't have permission to use. What does your conscience tell you? That you should be able to get whatever you want for free? Or do you feel that the person who created the content you enjoy should have the right to control what they sell it for? We all should have to earn whatever we want to purchase from one another.

There is a place for producing and giving away content for free, but it’s only moral when it’s voluntary on both sides of the transaction. That way the relationship can still be win-win. That's what open source is all about at its very moral, capitalist core. You can be for freedom and not in favor of piracy. The Linux kernel benefits from copy protection and wouldn't exist as it does today without it. Each company that funds Linux development would have to think twice if we lived in a world without copyright protection. They would have to worry about companies stealing their investments and not contributing back. There is no benefit to a "digital right" to take advantage of other people in a civilized society. The Pirate Party doesn’t stand for freedom.

Use a foreign one?

[coofercat]

Can PPUK just use that £9000 to pay one of the other Pirate Parties to run a proxy for them?

It may also be possible for PPUK to run a "find a good proxy" DNS service. You go to proxy.pirateparty.org.uk and it CNAMEs you to somewhere else.

There's got to be a way to still provide a service, but not to get sued so convincingly.

Re:Use a foreign one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hazard a guess that they are not in the business of providing a service, but respresenting a political idealogy and martyrdom fits that bill. Though its always better to win then to be a martyr in my book.

playing the rigged game

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the Pirate Party is that they are attempting to win a rigged game. In the legal game the one with the most money wins.
Inability to access a server is a technical problem, even if it was caused initially by a legal ruling, and it has a technical solution.

Don't ask for permission to do what you know you have the right to do.

PIRACY

[Anonymous Coward]

gosgog:

Aah, I have books I bought, books that were given & books swapped & loaned. I bought a laptop years back in the U.S. , came with windows (damn sure MSN & GATES made a bunch off it).
Now I live in Asia & bet 90+ folks here with their own computers & a good many net cafes all have MSN, pirated! Big Deal, MSN & Gates sold all Gov'ts, & tons of non gov't businesses throughout the countries.
I now spend tons of time (retired) on my CPU, don't need to steal any more. 'cause I found Ubuntu & Linux & Opensource.
If folks bought Movies, books, programs & don't mind companies like Pirate providing links to people who want a copy getting 'em....why in hell should "Net Providers" give a damn? If this pricks a conscience then provide a donation! And keep Gov'ts out of Net Control!!

Or FRAND-license others to distribute copies

[tepples]

If you want to do a play, and do it once. Should you be forced to do it everynight forever? Should you be forced to film it and give it away?

That or license others to distribute copies of the script and perform it publicly at a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory royalty.

If you paint a painting, should you be forced to paint copies for anyone who wants one?

That or license others to distribute photographic reproductions of the painting. My point is that expanding compulsory licensing to other media would satisfy the economic goal of copyright "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" without adding a privilege to make a work disappear, which runs counter to promoting this progress.