Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Now Published: Study Showing Pirate Bay Blockade Has No Effect

Posted by timothy on 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.

18 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Non News by tomkost · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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
    4. Re:Non News by BasilBrush · · 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.

    5. Re:Non News by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      But something was taken. A copy was taken.

      No, something was *created*. A copy was *made*.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Non News by wonkey_monkey · · 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.
    7. Re:Non News by CastrTroy · · 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.
    8. Re:Non News by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:Non News by mcgrew · · 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!
    10. Re:Non News by ultranova · · 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.

    11. Re:Non News by ultranova · · 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.

    12. Re:Non News by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · 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.

  2. Who would have guessed that? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. It's not stealing by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Euphemisms by dcollins117 · · 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 · · 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...
  5. If Sapir-Whorf is true, you must be Swedish by srussia · · 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"!