Now Published: Study Showing Pirate Bay Blockade Has No Effect

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Now Published: Study Showing Pirate Bay Blockade Has No Effect

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 4, 2014 @02:45AM from the what-they-don't-tell-you-about-on-the-e-channel dept.

First time accepted submitter Neelix21 writes "Last week a Dutch court decided that the blockade of the Pirate Bay website was ineffective and disproportionate. The academic study that measured this effect has now been published: 'This paper studies the effectiveness of this approach towards online copyright enforcement, using both a consumer survey and a newly developed non-infringing technology for BitTorrent monitoring. While a small group of respondents download less from illegal sources or claim to have stopped doing so, no impact is found on the percentage of the Dutch population downloading from illegal sources.' The torrent monitoring technique also shows that if you are downloading a public torrent, anyone can find out." Happily, the linked paper is not paywalled.

87 of 127 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Non News by tomkost · 2014-02-04 02:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

it doesn't take a study to know that you can't block these activities. When you have mirrors in multiple countries it's nearly impossible to shut them all down. Even then there can be backups that are not online, so the service can be recovered and restarted easily. But that won't stop the controlling financial interests like R$AA, MP$$ and others from continuing to bang their heads, buy off politicians, and rattle the chains.
1. Re:Non News by smooth+wombat · 2014-02-04 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, the real non news is when people believe they are entitled to something, they will continue to find ways to steal it.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Re:Non News by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 03:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, the real non news is when people believe they are entitled to something, they will continue to find ways to steal it.
  Agreed. I'm sure the RIAA/MIAA, who feel entitled to private profits gained via artificial scarcity and government backed monopolies, will continue to look for other ways to steal from the public.
3. Re:Non News by geekoid · 2014-02-04 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you do. Without the study, all you have is some belief you are correct. That goes for both sides of the discussion.
  I know you have a little box you have put the RIAA and MPAA, but ultimately business will learn and adapt.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Non News by geekoid · 2014-02-04 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not theft, please stop.
  It is a violation of copyright law. i.e. infringement.
  Nothing was taken from anyone. You are buying into the PR of organization that are well known for abusing the law.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-04 03:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Ripping off some lone artist that's self publishing - that's pretty low.
  Ripping off a multinational media company that has used lobbying to extend copyright periods and penalties to ridiculous proportions, and uses to DMCA to take down videos from YouTube that they don't even own the rights to - no sympathy.
6. Re:Non News by Sockatume · 2014-02-04 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, but it's nice to have confirmation, Mr. Smartass.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
7. Re:Non News by Joce640k · 2014-02-04 03:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  But something was taken. A copy was taken.
  No, something was *created*. A copy was *made*.
  
  --
  No sig today...
8. Re:Non News by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-04 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  A copy was taken
  Copies are made, not taken.
  
  But something IS taken when copying a copyrighted work.
  The only thing that can be said to be lost is the sale's potential for existence (which was probably already quite doubtful), but isn't that like saying you lose a baby every time you use a condom?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
9. Re:Non News by oneandoneis2 · 2014-02-04 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't. Something is *created* when copying something. Nothing is *taken*
  
  --
  So.. it has come to this
10. Re:Non News by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2014-02-04 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not just government-backed, but government-guaranteed. The entire time they were pouring their own money into making this stuff, they were doing so under the assumption that the law saying they would get a monopoly on their particular product would be upheld.
  Of course they feel entitled to their monopolies. And, moreover, they are entitled to reparations to those of us who break the monopoly.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
11. Re:Non News by CastrTroy · 2014-02-04 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  I disagree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Most of the stuff that's pirated falls within the definition of "entertainment", and even stuff like software that doesn't fall into entertainment, like operating systems and office suites, there exist free alternatives which work just fine for personal, non-commercial use. So there aren't really many cases where you "have to" pirate something. If you don't like what the big corporations are doing with copyrights, simply refrain from using their copyrighted products at all. You don't have to play any games, you don't have to watch any movies, you don't have to read any books. There's plenty of free stuff, and plenty of non-free stuff that's released in non-encumbered formats at reasonable price such that you can be reasonable well entertained without having to pirate anything. Pirating just gives the big corporations more fuel for the fire.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
12. Re:Non News by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2014-02-04 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Is there much of a moral distinction between copyright infringement and theft? Both involve acquiring something to which you have no right, at the quantifiable detriment to the owner. Is there some other moral dimension to theft of which I'm not aware?
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
13. Re:Non News by ray-auch · 2014-02-04 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing that can be said to be lost is the sale's potential for existence (which was probably already quite doubtful), but isn't that like saying you lose a baby every time you use a condom?
  It's exactly like that, except you kill _lots_ of babies every time you use a condom, or have a partner on the pill, or have oral or...
  Unfortunately at least one major religion (over 1bn people) thinks that is a perfectly valid argument and basis to therefore ban those things.
  Need a better analogy - especially if **AA are catholic, you just reinforced their belief in their arguments.
  Cue "every sperm is sacred"....
14. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-04 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  You have odd definitions. Something that wasn't there before was created to look exactly like something else.
  Still created. :)
15. Re:Non News by lister+king+of+smeg · 2014-02-04 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Most of the stuff that's pirated falls within the definition of "entertainment", and even stuff like software that doesn't fall into entertainment, like operating systems and office suites, there exist free alternatives which work just fine for personal, non-commercial use. So there aren't really many cases where you "have to" pirate something. If you don't like what the big corporations are doing with copyrights, simply refrain from using their copyrighted products at all. You don't have to play any games, you don't have to watch any movies, you don't have to read any books. There's plenty of free stuff, and plenty of non-free stuff that's released in non-encumbered formats at reasonable price such that you can be reasonable well entertained without having to pirate anything. Pirating just gives the big corporations more fuel for the fire.
  What's good for th goose huh?
  Where is my lobiests I want to own a congressmens ear?
  Where is the law being ignored when I abuse the DMCA to takedown videos I have no rights or claim to?
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
16. Re:Non News by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2014-02-04 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Something is *created* when copying something.
  Indeed. Nothing new. Nothing helpful. Nothing that contributes to our culture or understanding of the world. Nothing that is any good to anyone, except the person who obtains it.
  
  Nothing is *taken*
  Ah, this is where you're wrong. The fact that there is a component of creation does not imply there is not a component of taking, or destruction.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
17. Re:Non News by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2014-02-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  You lose many babies, even when trying (even successfully) to conceive. That's not a problem; potential babies are a dime a dozen. We can always just manufacture more, with pleasure!
  I can't say the same for potential sales. Once a sale is lost, it's very hard to get back, and impossible to fabricate.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
18. Re:Non News by QuasiSteve · 2014-02-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's a pretty common point of view. I always like to find out what a person's actual boundaries on this are.
  How would you feel about 'ripping off' Zach Braff by pirating his "Wish I Was Here" movie, for example?
19. Re:Non News by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-02-04 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  OR, it can be a sign that someone attempting to enforce a policy is pathologically detached from the very same reality that all of us have to live in. For similar examples, see abstinence-only sex education or marijuana criminalization.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
20. Re:Non News by Neelix21 · 2014-02-04 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  It does take an academic study to get taken seriously by judges. "Common knowledge" is not encoded and therefore not always accepted. Especially if it is only common knowledge among the Internet crowd.
  
  --
  Don't worry, it's all just 1's and 0's anyway...
21. Re:Non News by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You lose many babies, even when trying (even successfully) to conceive. That's not a problem; potential babies are a dime a dozen. We can always just manufacture more, with pleasure!
  I can't say the same for potential sales. Once a sale is lost, it's very hard to get back, and impossible to fabricate.
  No, you can say the same for sales. Potential pop stars are a dime a dozen. There's an American Idol every year, and tens of thousands audition for a few spots to a contract. They can always manufacture more pop stars, with pleasure (the kids would rather be a pop star than some blue or white collared job, the studios are more than happy to turn their efforts into the most profitable show on TV)
  When you have the capital that the studios and labels have, it's actually easy to bring back sales: just manufacture more new pop stars. Again, look at American Idol. The show itself is profitable. You're making money just by TRYING to make a pop star, let alone succeeding in making one. Can't say the same for making babies, where failure usually means a lot of money down the drain in fertility treatment.
  Contrast that to the little guys, who have to stick to their day jobs (again, those boring blue and white collared jobs), and music and art are merely hobbies that they can't live off of.
22. Re:Non News by mcgrew · 2014-02-04 05:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Stealing? Are you a MAFIAA shill, or just someone stupid enough to swallow their "truthy" nonsense? Let me attempt to get you to understand the difference.
  Stealing: You walk into Barnes and Noble and shoplift a copy of my book. I've lost nothing, but B&N have, they're out the cost of that stolen book. If you're caught and convicted, it's a misdemeanor and a few hundred dollars fine.
  Copyright infringement: You buy an ebook version of my novel, and give a copy to your friend, who may have never heard of me, like the book, and buy a different one of my books. I am out nothing; nobody is, except perhaps the "thief" who received the copy, since he may be later out the cost of my other book. If caught, you will be out thousands of dollars, no conviction necessary.
  Do you call rapists "murderers?" Do you call burglars "dope dealers?"
  You MAFIAA whores are using a word about a bad thing, theft, and trying to apply it to a good thing, sharing, to make the good thing look bad. Sorry, shill, to twist Shakespear's words, calling a rose "shit" doesn't make it stink. The evil-doers are liars like you who insist roses stink, not those who would do me the favor of sharing my work and helping get my name out.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
23. Re:Non News by ultranova · 2014-02-04 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  The entire time they were pouring their own money into making this stuff, they were doing so under the assumption that the law saying they would get a monopoly on their particular product would be upheld.
  
  Really? Because I seem to recall the deal being limited monopoly for a limited time in exchange for the work entering public domain afterwards. So... when was the last time something did?
  Why is Mickey Mouse not in public domain yet, Velvet? Did someone alter the deal? Did one party do so yet expect the other to still honour it?
  
  And, moreover, they are entitled to reparations to those of us who break the monopoly.
  
  I think you meant to say "obligated".
  I agree. So what do you suggest? I'm personally of the mind that officially declaring the deal copyright holders broke non-binding on any entity except for commercial redistribution - meaning selling copies - would be fair, and solve this problem nicely.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
24. Re:Non News by Luckyo · 2014-02-04 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Because rape is about power over someone through direct violent sexual assault.
  Copyright infringement that commonly happens without copyright holder ever knowing that it happened is about as analogous here as holocaust, AIDS, space flight, sunshine, tractor driving over near a beautiful field of sunflowers and you receiving payment for services rendered from copyright organisations.
  How are these things analogous you ask? They are not, at all. Just like rape and copyright infringement.
25. Re:Non News by Luckyo · 2014-02-04 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Are you aware that answering your own sockpuppet is kinda silly and obvious, mr. "copyright infringement is rape"?
26. Re:Non News by ultranova · 2014-02-04 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  Is there much of a moral distinction between copyright infringement and theft?
  
  Yes: thieft involves taking something from someone while copyright infringement involves passing on information between third parties.
  
  Both involve acquiring something to which you have no right, at the quantifiable detriment to the owner.
  
  First, you don't own a piece of information you have copyright to, you own the copyright to it. Second, you have no way to even know if a third party A makes a copy of said information and passes it to third party B, much less quantify any detriment this might have on you. Third, asserting that said A and B don't have a right to pass each other information just because you were previously involved with its production does not make it true.
  You do not have a right to profit, and you do not have a right to forbid others to act in ways that reduce your potential to profit - otherwise every restaurant in my area could sue me every time I eat at home. Copyright law is not an attempt to approximate human nature, like property law is, but an entirely artificial construct intended to incentivize creation through a temporal monopoly. It has become corrupted to the point of turning against its purpose, was contrary to human nature in the first place, and is consequently immoral and utterly disrespected. Attempts to enforce compliance through draconian punishments simply serve to bring this fact into sharper focus.
  Copyright law won't be respected because it's not respectable. Creators's wishes are not listened to because they ask for too much (total control). That's all there is to it.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
27. Re:Non News by davester666 · 2014-02-04 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I believe his main idea is that she shouldn't be able to say no forever. That there should be a time limit, and that it should be a fairly short limit.
  At least, that is what it seems like his point is.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
28. Re:Non News by Mashiki · 2014-02-04 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, the real non news is when people believe they are entitled to something, they will continue to find ways to steal it.
  If I have a levy being smashed against my face when buying *insert whatever item(s) it may be* I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel entitled to do whatever the hell I want. After all, the government has already decided I'm infringing with no proof.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
29. Re:Non News by kesuki · 2014-02-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  unfortunately there is a word which describes what happens when someone broadcasts data they don't hold a piece of paper saying they have a right to distribute. it is called 'piracy' before the nets evolved and after radio was invented something called 'pirate radio' became real, because some people were charging fees to play music over radio, but that signal was able to be recorded and rebroadcast by pirate radio. there is still a thriving pirate radio, despite the cost of equipment and powering it with 150 stations today in the uk alone.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kingdom
  internet piracy is similar using equipment that is legal. while 'piracy' had a negative connotation it is not the same as theft and hasn't meant theft since pre radio era when nautical piracy was widespread. to some the branding of piracy makes the whole thing worth it. i make copies of files every day, the fundamental ability to copy files is essential for so many things if i spent $120 on dvds wouldn't i want to make some form of backup and store it at a friends in case my house burned to the ground? never mind if insurance can be purchased, what if it is simply impossible to replace the media at all as i purchased the last copy off amazon and it had been sitting in their warehouse for 6 years before they sold the last copy to me? there clearly isn't a market for pressing a new physical run. so why should someone tell me i can't make a copy (drm) or that i am 'stealing' because i mitigated the potential event of my house burning down, doing so with affordable real world tools.
  furthermore isn't the whole point of existence to share the good times with others? what kind of backwards system is it that the 'good' things in the world are considered wholly by their value to make unlimited profits? piracy is a good thing it means there are people enjoying and sharing the best parts of life regardless of how miserable others are trying to make it.
  
  --
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
30. Re:Non News by fatphil · 2014-02-04 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  > Did someone alter the deal?
  
  5 times significantly at last count. Always in the favour of content producers, never back in the direction of what was considered perfectly acceptable by all parties in when the concept of intellectual property was first concretised.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
31. Re:Non News by fatphil · 2014-02-04 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  OK, let's put that to the test. I may or may not have just infringed the copyright on something.
  
  Please tell me what method you or the combined effort of all copyright owners in the world could use to decide which of the two situations has occured.
  
  If you can't distinguish between the two, then there is no difference between the two.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
32. Re:Non News by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-02-04 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  You mean people who feel they're entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon real private property rights and free speech rights? Yeah, those people are incredibly entitled.
33. Re:Non News by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-02-04 11:16 · Score: 2
  
  Well the net effect of "infringement" is extremely similar to theft.
  Only if you're dumb enough to believe that 'losing' the opportunity to gain is the same as a loss, which it isn't.
  Even the law doesn't recognize it as theft, by the way.
  
  The copyright owner has had his property used without his permission even though in nearly ALL cases access to the copyrighted work was available tor a fee.
  No. Someone else used their own private property (as in, their real property, not imaginary property) to send you some data. The copyright owner didn't have any of his property used for anything.
  
  Your last statement "Nothing was taken from anyone" is simply not true. You used a copyrighted work without permission, that's taking something that doesn't belong to you and not paying for it.
  Nothing was taken. Using a copyrighted work does not take anything from anyone.
  
  This "but nothing physical was taken" does not excuse the act or make it right.
  
  Says you. I don't share your idiotic opinion.
  The real entitled ones are those who believe the government should continue to say they are entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon people's rights by their very existence. A truly entitled bunch, those people.
34. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-05 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've never heard of him or the film. But from a quick look at wikipedia, it looks like an independent film funded (at least in part) by kickstarter. So for me that would come under the first category - pretty low.
35. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  You have odd definitions. Something that wasn't there before was created to look exactly like something else.
  There's nothing wrong with pointing out what you describe is the definition of copying, not creating.
36. Re:Non News by QuasiSteve · 2014-02-05 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but the guy himself has plenty of money (he is one of the lead actors from the TV hit series Scrubs), was indeed in part funded through additions from the usual big wigs, and has opted not to offer downloads / DVDs as part of the kickstarter perks because otherwise the established distributors would be leery and may not pick it up to be shown on big screens around the world, thus creating artificial scarcity.
37. Re:Non News by mcgrew · 2014-02-05 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Your concept of "pirate radio" isn't how it was. One didn't pay to hear pirate radio, they sold ads like legit radio. Back ten, radio stations didn't pay to play music, in fact some labels and DJs got in trouble because labels were bribing DJs to play their music.
  It was called "pirate radio" because the stations had no broadcast licenses, and most were transmitted from boats in international ocean water.
  while 'piracy' had a negative connotation it is not the same as theft and hasn't meant theft since pre radio era when nautical piracy was widespread. to some the branding of piracy makes the whole thing worth it.
  Your comment would have better fit someone complaining about the word "piracy". I was responding to someone claiming that file sharing is theft.
  I agree with the rest of your comment 100%.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
38. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-05 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Note that neither "having plenty of money" nor being "big wigs" were elements that I said made me have little sympathy.
39. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-05 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  And you Create a Copy.
  There is not really a problem there.
  Either I create something that didn't exist or I took something that did exist. And I certainly didn't take it so then it was created.
  But prove me wrong if you feel like it. Or not if you don't.
  I just find the definition odd.
40. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-05 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  And you Create a Copy.
  You don't say "I'll create a copy", you say "I'll make a copy". Create and make is not the same thing. Creation implies originality.
41. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-05 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't and create and make are synonyms.
  http://www.oxforddictionaries....
42. Re:Non News by QuasiSteve · 2014-02-05 14:56 · Score: 1
  But then is it limited to:
  multinational media company
  lobbied to extend copyright periods and penalties to ridiculous proportions
  uses to DMCA to take down videos from YouTube that they don't even own the rights to
  Or would, say, 2 out of 3 suffice?
43. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-06 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  You're looking for black and white, where there are shades of grey.
44. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-06 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it does. Hence "creators" and "creatives". They describe people who make original work. They don't describe factory workers for example. Factory workers are makers, but not creators.
  And words only have to be close in meaning to be listed as synonyms. The details do vary.
  See the example of `"The East" and "The Soviet Empire". They are listed as synonyms, yet most times "The East" is used it doesn't mean the soviet empire at all.
  http://www.oxforddictionaries....
45. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-06 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Don't find support for "The East" and "The Soviet Empire" to be synonyms. But you say they are listed as such so I'll just believe that.
  However the factory workers create the individual copies. The definition of "Creator" doesn't imply uniqueness either.
  But if you want create to be "creating the design" I can agree. Then I create my own copy from your design.
  Still not stealing though. :)
46. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-06 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I gave you a link with that exact thing on it.
  "âthe Eastâ(TM) was a synonym for the Soviet empire"
  
  However the factory workers create the individual copies.
  No, I'm sorry, but that's not not true, and no one says that.
  
  The definition of "Creator" doesn't imply uniqueness either.
  What professions you you believe the word "creatives" applies to?
47. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-06 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ah - Doh on the Synonyms part. Just saw you linked to the definition of synonym itself.
  But also says it "was" a synonym for it, not that it is.
  In a factory I suppose it's more likely say you assemble something. But at the same time you did create another copy.
  It seems you mistake "creative" and "create". You don't have to be creative to create something.
  Yes I agree "creative" implies inventing something "unique". Create doesn't.
  So you're not creative if you copy something but you do create a copy.
48. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-07 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you mistake "creative" and "create". You don't have to be creative to create something.
  Yes I agree "creative" implies inventing something "unique". Create doesn't.
  There's no mistake. "Creative" is a noun describing people who create. The "unique" part covers the root word "create" and it's derivatives.
  (And also an adjective, but that wasn't the sense I used it in.)
49. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-07 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  No. Creative is a noun decribing people that do creative (adjective) work. And people that do creative are people that create unique stuff.
  I've supported some kind of proof (I do in this case call the Oxford Dictionary proof) and so far you have not.
  So what supports you?
50. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-07 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not too worried if you continue to be unaware of the connotations of the word create, and how it differs from make. One can lead a horse to water, but one can't make him drink.
51. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-07 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. The problem is that you're the horse and you don't drink. :)
  You haven't shown me any water yet.
  Maybe you are right but you have yet to support it. So far you've been proven wrong.
  At the same time I can agree this is getting tiresome.
52. Re:Non News by slickepott · 2014-02-07 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  To do some work for you I find http://dictionary.reference.co... which supports your idea of the word. But it does support both our versions very well.
  So it's still correct to say "create a copy". And people use the word that way.
  You say academia doesn't use it that way, the rest of the world does.
53. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · 2014-02-07 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  OK. But it's not "for me". I know what create means. The reason I'm not digging up links is because it's not important enough to me to prove to you what it means.
  As were both finding it tiresome lets drop it. Last post from me.
Who would have guessed that? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 02:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh wait people who have brains.
Ironically the dutch organisation who asked for this is called "Brain"...
The only reason they did it is because downloading is not illegal in The Netherlands (uploading of copyrighted material is) and they signed international treaties where they promise to combat piracy.
They should cancel those treaties and tell the publishers to provide decent quality and fair prices, they will easily be able to compete with downloading illegal possible virus-infected material.
The problem is publishers get a monopoly on the content they distribute. We should have a system where the artist can license many distributers and let them compete, so the only one with a monopoly is the artist.
and if it was paywalled... by RobertLTux · 2014-02-04 02:58 · Score: 1

Do you think that there would NOT be able 200 different torrents of the study within hours??

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · 2014-02-04 02:59 · Score: 1

Those 4 tabs i see up there lined up after the slashdot one confirm that this is, in fact, most definitely true.
Talk about serendipity...
Duh, Just Duh... by Akratist · 2014-02-04 02:59 · Score: 1

TPB is one drop in a sea. If "piracy" is a diversion of unrealized profits, then the content distributors have to accept percentage of use as a ratio between legal and illegal use. It's up to them to move the needle one way or the other by creating enough value to consumers for the legit product as opposed to pirating it. Otherwise, people will determine that it's in their own best interests to bypass the distribution model and just acquire the content by what means they see fit. I cannot figure out -- thirty-plus years into the piracy debate -- why this point hasn't stuck with content distributors is beyond me.
1. Re:Duh, Just Duh... by geekoid · 2014-02-04 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  and TPB isn't even very good. I hardly can find what I want. There used to be torrent where I could get thing that aren't available through other means.
  No longer produced Music sheets, old 70's TV shows, and so on.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Duh, Just Duh... by jones_supa · 2014-02-04 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  You hit the nail in the head. I'm an anti-piracy guy, but I see that piracy will be around for a long time. The best way to fight it is to make the legal route the easier and better deal.
  It isn't even that hard, as TPB is actually a bad experience:
  - The site is badly coded and the search function is rather crusty.
  - It shoves annoying advertisements on your face to no end.
  - Setting up a torrent client might be tasking for newbies.
  - Video and audio previews are not easily available.
  - Sometimes there are fake torrents and ones that contain malware.
  - The download speeds are not stable and some content might not be available at all.
  - There is no technical quality assurance for the content.
3. Re:Duh, Just Duh... by jones_supa · 2014-02-04 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. It has to be realistically the better option. The 10 minutes of warnings and trailers have to be removed. The DRM has to be removed.
4. Re:Duh, Just Duh... by Akratist · 2014-02-04 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Those are some good points...I am really not sure why they aren't stressed by content providers. There's nothing attractive to me about piracy, one way or the other. Most of my recreational content is gaming and Steam makes it stupidly easy (and relatively cheap), to where piracy would be less convenient and less certain (older, unsupported images; no support; possibility of viruses; not supporting the studio, etc) than buying the game outright. The only valid point that is made is the possibility of Steam going away sometime down the road or whatnot, but when you can pick up a legal copy of something for half off or more, keep it up to date, and run it with no real problems, the argument then comes down to economics. I will say that I feel strongly about draconian DRM (and avoided Ubisoft's titles for that reason, among others), but that is not necessarily any worse than pirating it.
5. Re:Duh, Just Duh... by Luckyo · 2014-02-04 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Scene releases are not a guarantee of quality, though they do tend to be quite good most of the time. They're more of a guarantee of a virus-free package if you get it from a trusted source. As for actual quality of material, there are plenty of examples of both epic failures as well as resounding successes. There are several cases of them missing something causing hilarious bugs, like happened in crysis 3 where cracked version could not progress beyond certain level and so on.
  On the other hand, as parent pointed out, it also goes the other way. For example when ubisoft broke games with their crappy, malfunctioning always on DRM on single player games, it was scene that fixed the problem by building a DRM server emulator and releasing it as a working crack. It was an actual fix for many people who had huge stability problems with that game. There are several similar examples where massively dysfunctional DRM being stripped was an actual fix.
  Same goes for movies as well. Many scene releases clearly lack any kind of QC, with things like audio going out of sync, or subtitles not being properly timed and so on. And at the same time, some others actually look better because people working on original are resource constrained and likely had to skip on quality and scene guys fixed it, like subtitle editing/timing and in some cases encoding issues.
  Essentially that is why services like netflix and steam are so incredibly popular today. Even the best quality scene releases typically offer significantly less than a legit copy from those services, for a wide range of reasons ranging from quality of the actual product to various added value from additional services like steam's automatic patching and community features, or netflix's preview and streaming capability. Sure, you can get a copy off piratebay, but why bother with the annoying search, no preview, no multiplayer in games and so on when you can get legit copy that works better for reasonable sum and with no horrible strings attached?
  And as GP basically points out, it's the rampant copyright infringement that we have to thank for these services. Without it, there would be absolutely no motivation for copyright holders not to squeeze us customers for all they possibly can with their artificial scarcity business model.
It's not stealing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's people who bought something sharing that with others.
It's been shown that piracy increases sales of good quality content: http://beta.slashdot.org/story/192485
Stop falling for the lies of publishers exploding with money, because they often don't give it to the artist anyway.
Blockade has been lifted by hooiberg · 2014-02-04 03:04 · Score: 1

As extra information, the blocking of TPB has been lifted, in the Netherlands. Mostly because because downloading copyrighted content is not illegal.
1. Re:Blockade has been lifted by hooiberg · 2014-02-04 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Uploading of copyrighted material is illegal though, so torrent sites are a bit of a slippery slope. However, downloading is fine, because the downloader cannot always verify the source, and hence cannot determine whether the source is uploading legally or not. What the uploader is doing, is not the downloader's problem.
They forgot the Streisand effect by Kjella · 2014-02-04 03:04 · Score: 1

Thus,though a small share of downloaders reports a decrease in their downloading activities after the blocking, this effect is not reflected in the overall numbers. A likely explanation is that there are also new consumers who have started downloading from illegal sources, since the percentage of consumers that has never downloaded decreased over the measurements.
Lots of publicity about online piracy just makes people more aware of the possibilities. That beats all the other effects (awareness, blocking, relapse etc.) they mention.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Euphemisms by dcollins117 · 2014-02-04 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is no such thing as an "illegal download". Downloading files is perfectly legal. I have no idea what the term "illegal sources" in TFS means either. No law has been passed saying it is against the law to download from a particular site.
Whenever I see terms like these being bandied about I know someone is using deliberately vague and manipulative terms in an effort to con me.
1. Re:Euphemisms by Neelix21 · 2014-02-04 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  Please note that we have deliberately not used the term "illegal download". We have used the term "downloading from illegal sources". In the Netherlands this is indeed legal, in other countries it may not be. An illegal source is something like the PirateBay, which has been convicted of illegally sharing copyrighted content in the Netherlands.
  We are not "bandying about" some terms, we have chosen them deliberately to be sure that we get taken seriously by both sides of the discussion.
  
  --
  Don't worry, it's all just 1's and 0's anyway...
Please don't... by camperdave · 2014-02-04 03:16 · Score: 1

When I see the sentence:Last week a Dutch court decided that the blockade of the Pirate Bay website was ineffective and disproportionate. , I expect the hyperlink to link to a report from the Dutch court, or to link to the actual study. Instead, I get a link to Slashdot. Um... Hello? I'm already reading Slashdot and you're linking to Slashdot? What kind of a bonehead play is that?

PLEASE DON'T LINK TO SLASHDOT...

... unless you're making it specific, like "Slashdot reported last week that ...". Context is key, people! Either link to the relevant information, or don't bother.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
1. Re:Please don't... by Neelix21 · 2014-02-04 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  This was inserted by the Slashdot editors.
  
  --
  Don't worry, it's all just 1's and 0's anyway...
2. Re:Please don't... by camperdave · 2014-02-04 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  This was inserted by the Slashdot editors.
  That explains a lot.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
shock....and....awe by Infestedkudzu · 2014-02-04 03:30 · Score: 1

and sarcasm
copying is creation. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 03:58 · Score: 1

That copy did not exist before, it does now. Therefore it was created.
Privacy by StripedCow · 2014-02-04 03:58 · Score: 1

The torrent monitoring technique also shows that if you are downloading a public torrent, anyone can find out
That's why I run a bittorrent client that downloads torrents at random, even illegal ones.
If anybody has a problem with that, I just mention privacy is the reason I'm downloading them.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:Privacy by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2014-02-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I run a bittorrent client that downloads torrents at random
  That's a helluvan algorithm when you want something specific!
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
2. Re:Privacy by TangoMargarine · 2014-02-04 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to see how a judge would react to that.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
If Sapir-Whorf is true, you must be Swedish by srussia · 2014-02-04 04:05 · Score: 2

Bad analogy. Consider rape. The thing that is taken is the right to say no. Not to say I'm equating the degree of the two. Rape is always wrong, but the legal right to say no because of bad copyright law, not always.
The literal translation of "copyright infringement" in Swedish is "brainchild rape".

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:If Sapir-Whorf is true, you must be Swedish by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-04 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  The literal translation of "copyright infringement" in Swedish is "brainchild rape".
  Yeesh. Mod parent down so the MPAA doesn't see it and work it into their next caes.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It IS legal in most of EU by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 04:19 · Score: 1

Actually downloading copyrighted content is LEGAL in most of EU. But only for personal/family use and for a small circle of friends. Uploading for mass consumption is not allowed.
This is made possible by the so called "cassette fee" in many a blank media, hard disks, etc. which theoretically gets delivered to artists through many copyright organization middlemen each taking their cut.
It is precisely this payment which allows people who, for example, bought a harddisk to download as fast as their network connection allows.
1. Re:It IS legal in most of EU by hooiberg · 2014-02-04 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  And that is why Dutch customers prefer foreign hard disks, which do not have the movie-industry-fee on it. I have bought hundreds of empty CDroms in Germany, in bygone years. That was 20% to 30% cheaper, without the music/movietax :)
Please let it not be true by houghi · 2014-02-04 04:42 · Score: 1

Because next they will prove that the war on drugs doesn't reduce any drug usage. What then would we do with all those that are put in prison?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Now hear this by GeekWithAKnife · 2014-02-04 05:01 · Score: 1

Pirate bay shows blockades have no effect. After all, what's a blockade that cannot block anything?

They can take it down, another one will come back. Since the days of the Lycos MP3 search engine file sharing has only increased...it's practically a miracle that the RIAA & MPAA have survived all those lost billions of dollars. After all they are constantly losing money to so called "piracy".

http://mafiaa.org/

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Re:Internet interprets censorship as damage ... by Luckyo · 2014-02-04 06:26 · Score: 1

Unable?
How about "unwilling"?
official court report by hooiberg · 2014-02-04 21:57 · Score: 1

Very low quality pdf, and in Dutch... but it is what you asked for. :) https://blog.xs4all.nl/wp-cont...
1. Re:official court report by camperdave · 2014-02-05 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Very low quality pdf, and in Dutch... but it is what you asked for. :) https://blog.xs4all.nl/wp-cont...
  
  Um... not really. I asked not to link to slashdot inappropriately. Turns out it was the fine folks at slashdot doing it. Thanks for the link though.
  
  Now, to learn me some Dutch...
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Quantifiable detriment by camperdave · 2014-02-05 16:16 · Score: 1

In that case, there is no 'quantifiable detriment to the owner'.
Um... Zero is a quantity.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!