Pirate Bay Co-founder Arrested In Northeastern Thailand

That's what you get by evil+crash · 2014-11-04 01:56 · Score: 5, Funny

For wearing the same shirt. If only he had changed, they never would have noticed him.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-THG

Re:That's what you get by drinkypoo · 2014-11-04 02:51 · Score: 1

For wearing the same shirt. If only he had changed, they never would have noticed him.
Sadly, this is probably true. How can someone be clever enough to go on the run and dumb enough not to buy some new clothes? Just one outfit would suffice, authorities aren't on the lookout for a man who smells

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:That's what you get by 0100010001010011 · 2014-11-04 03:00 · Score: 1

I think after doing something that dumb you should probably sit in time out for a while and think about it.
Re:That's what you get by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 03:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

that's quite probable, is Thai authorities we are talking about anyways and it's.. well. let's just say that I would be very surprised if they fucking knew who was in the country or if there's an actual database of people with visas.
you see, it's lucrative business to sell visas, for the personnel who have access to them, since the rules about how to get legit visas to stay without doing stupid border runs every 3 months is scarce and they're doing a terrible job of communicating how to do it. of course, now with the "new administration" they're doing a crackdown on corruption(that is, a crackdown that is done by a multimillionaire general) - so they arrested some guy few months back who had been selling visas.
I think he was doing this as a visa run because he had done it multiple times before? but that is, if he had been doing it multiple times, there's a crackdown on that too. they'll even sell you a visa(at the consulate in laos) and then tell you at the border no. should have gone to some other country that wasn't in a police related international debacle at the moment.
(disclaimer, I've spent the last year in northeast Thailand, working as a programmer for a foreign owned company that sells consulting, programming etc to the country of our origin and just keeps few devs here and pays us less but on the other hand it's fucking snowing in my home country now and comfy 30C here and you can buy lunch for a dollar - and yes I'm quite sure the local police would be so petty as to look for some international case "to do good" to turn away attention from Koh Tao. yes, they are that naive). just posting as anon because uh, who the fuck knows, the fucks even fucked up by instructing an isp to ban facebook few months back and then trying to backpedal that they didn't. the ban lasted all of one afternoon before hasty reversal, apparently they had instructed them to ban a specific PAGE on facebook without FUCKING UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING ABOUT HTTPS. the current dictator is also seriously off his rocker, and believes in ghosts and spells.. the economy is in the shitter too but "future feeling" index is 90% happy. it's good that our company isn't in any way dependent on the local economy.
Re:That's what you get by cdrudge · 2014-11-04 03:01 · Score: 1

I doubt the shirt had anything to do with him being caught other than just a coincidence. His name matching that of someone wanted and thought to be in the area probably had more to do with it.
Re:That's what you get by Sporkinum · 2014-11-04 04:59 · Score: 1

Foul bachelor frog... http://www.mtnevan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/not-so-foul-bachelor-frog-0.jpg

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:That's what you get by X0563511 · 2014-11-04 09:32 · Score: 1

Watch TPB AFK. (it's free)
They are not stupid, but incredibly arrogant. At least that's my opinion from their behavior in and around court.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:That's what you get by mjwx · 2014-11-04 12:25 · Score: 2

that's quite probable, is Thai authorities we are talking about anyways and it's.. well. let's just say that I would be very surprised if they fucking knew who was in the country or if there's an actual database of people with visas.
There would definitely be a database and it would be up to date...

"Fines" for visa overstays are very lucrative.

Thailand is still under military rule at the moment (yeah I can tell you're shocked given how uncommon coups are in Thailand) so there has been a tightening of immigration controls as well as a crackdown on organised crime and government graft.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re: That's what you get by omnipotens · 2014-11-04 20:29 · Score: 2

Sorry, but I beg to differ, strongly. TPB has evolved into one of the great repositories of human knowledge. If a meatspace protest could save a web site, I would be in for it. Copyright is a poison. This man is a hero of the 21st Century, and in his shoes, I simply hope that I'd display the same level of ballsiness. His arrest illustrates the power of the MAFIAA.

Yarr, a dark day for all we sea dogs by GameboyRMH · 2014-11-04 01:56 · Score: 4, Funny

A swig of grog for our mateys who are rotting in the brig! :-(

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

um yea by Charliemopps · 2014-11-04 01:57 · Score: 1, Troll

Yea, so if you guys haven't figured it out yet, they've cracked however it is you're communicating. Time to ditch the laptops/cellphones and I hope you have a fail over channel.

Re:um yea by Zocalo · 2014-11-04 02:03 · Score: 5, Informative

I doubt very much that his method of communication with others had anything to do with things. He was arrested at a border checkpoint, so I suspect all that happened was they checked his ID as a matter of routine and got a red flag because of the arrest warrant. I doubt very much that a Thai/Loatian border guard would even know who Fredrik Neij was, let alone recognise his shirt as being the one in his arrest photo. What's more surprising to me is that Neij was attempting border crossings with an outstanding international arrest warrant - unless he wasn't aware of the warrant or the Thailand-Laos border control isn't particularly robust.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:um yea by ruir · 2014-11-04 02:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe he is used to do it, and this time forgot to bring money to bribe someone.
Re: um yea by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-04 06:20 · Score: 1

Here is the thing, I've read a lot of the comments by the TPB founders and saw a video of a few of them talking before; they seem too smart for something this dumb.
Just because they show smarts in one area doesn't mean they're street smart. Like that one time that guy hacked Marriott's systems and then demanded a $150,000 a year job along with free hotel stays and flights to anywhere he wants in exchange for revealing everything he did to their systems. His "interview" was done by the secret service who then arrested him and sent him to prison.

I just don't get it by Jonifico · 2014-11-04 02:00 · Score: 1

This is just a shame, a real shame.

What a shame by metrix007 · 2014-11-04 02:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

ALl this man did was help build a search enging allowing people to share.

This only benefits society.

There is no stealing, despite what some ignorant people unable to think for themselves claim.

Is there a loss in profit for original work? No doubt, but I would argue this is superseded by a) the increase in sales that piracy has been shown to affect, and b) the huge benefit to society by allowing information to be more freely accessible, to inspire and educate.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:What a shame by jones_supa · 2014-11-04 02:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

There is no stealing, despite what some ignorant people unable to think for themselves claim.
Well, you are still taking the copy without paying for it. That copy still carries a value even when the plain act of copying does not involve any manufacturing costs. I can't believe how tough concept this often is for slashdotters.
In an extreme scenario, one guy could just buy 1 piece of the authentic music album and then copy it for his 1,000,000 buddies for free. In this example, 1,000,001 people receive the album, but the artist gets money from just 1 copy. How is that fair?
Re:What a shame by CaseCrash · 2014-11-04 02:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, you are still taking the copy without paying for it. That copy still carries a value even when the plain act of copying does not involve any manufacturing costs. I can't believe how tough concept this often is for slashdotters.
I can't believe you still don't get it. Taking that copy causes NO loss of resources to the artist, the resources being used are by the sharer and the downloader. The artist didn't lose anything.

That the artist didn't get paid for that copy is irrelevant. That's just a failure in their business model. I can't charge you for every time you download and read this comment, even if I wanted to.

The thing you keep missing is that the artist (or record company, or estate or whatever) DOES NOT deserve to get paid for every single copy of their song, forever and ever. If you aren't making enough money doing what you are doing, then do something else.

--
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
Re:What a shame by halivar · 2014-11-04 02:33 · Score: 1

Calling it The "Pirate" Bay does some damage to that argument. I am sympathetic to your point of view, but this was a seriously deleterious branding decision.
Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

We have, for society as a whole", created a value or 1.000.001 times what we otherwise would have acheived. This is a enourmous benefit for us all. When it comes to music this might be filed under the "doesn't really matter", but when it comes to other stuff such as medicines or inventions that could be as important as survival for individuals or for society as a whole...
If, because of restrictive copyright/patent issues, or economic or social development is held back, lets say 5% of what it would otherwise be, this has an ENORMOUS impact over 50 or 100 years.
The whole raison d'être behind copyright is to stimulate more inventions/music to be produced not to make copyright lawyers and the media mafiaa rich. I would argue that today it works against what it was DESIGNED for.
Despite the by Hollywood bought "justice" in this case inovation is powefull. Do you think Spotify would exist if the piratebay (and similar services) didn't? That is also a benifit to society. Fredrik Neij and his colleagues has done more for the music industry and for humanity as a whole than 99.9% of people, certainly more than me or you or anyone in the media conglomerate.
Re:What a shame by jones_supa · 2014-11-04 02:42 · Score: 1

I can't believe you still don't get it. Taking that copy causes NO loss of resources to the artist, the resources being used are by the sharer and the downloader. The artist didn't lose anything.
Duhh. Neither does the artist make any money.
Re:What a shame by Richard_at_work · 2014-11-04 02:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

The thing you keep missing is that the artist (or record company, or estate or whatever) DOES NOT deserve to get paid for every single copy of their song, forever and ever.
That's an opinion, not a fact that can be "missed". And its your opinion - don't assume anyone else holds the same opinion.
There already exists a means by which the complete rights to a work can be bought, eliminating re-occurring sales in the process - but typically that puts the work well outside the purchase ability of a normal person.
Re:What a shame by chuckugly · 2014-11-04 03:07 · Score: 1

The purpose of copyright is to ensure the public can continue to enjoy the creative work of artists. Probably good not to forget that. Artists (or their agents) getting paid is an implementation detail. That implementation has been working pretty well but it's not the actual goal.
Re:What a shame by fafaforza · 2014-11-04 03:11 · Score: 3

I've found many many links to torrents, and even direct downloads, using Google. Why aren't the founders of Google on trial? If TPB pointed to copyrighted material, it's up to the owners to request removal, no? Do you expect a search engine to have a legal team researching copyright and trademark data?
Re:What a shame by CaseCrash · 2014-11-04 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Duhh. Neither does the artist make any money.
So? The copy doesn't mean that downloader would have ever given any money to the artist if that was the only way to obtain the file, they might (probably) would have just gotten something else for free instead (or be willing to pay a lower, but not offered in the marketplace, rate). That's why we have all these new methods of paying artists like donations (pay what you want), kickstarter (like for the latest Zach Braff movie), indiegogo, etc. (as well as the traditional methods like t-shirts and swag and concerts, seeing the movie in the theater for the theater experience)

These are inherently ephemeral goods; there is no real world resource loss. Whether they get paid once or a billion times, the amount of work has not changed. Even if they never get paid, like plenty of artists who work their whole lives at their craft and never even make rent money.

If you can't make money doing what you are doing, then do something else.

--
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
Re:What a shame by jones_supa · 2014-11-04 03:26 · Score: 1

Whether they get paid once or a billion times, the amount of work has not changed.
Yes, but then it might not be a good investment for them anymore. The production houses usually plan to recoup the production costs in sales. And those sales allow them to make new projects too.
Re:What a shame by jones_supa · 2014-11-04 03:29 · Score: 1

That is because Google does not explicitly specialize in pirated material. It mirrors the whole web.
Re:What a shame by IamTheRealMike · 2014-11-04 03:40 · Score: 1

Is there a loss in profit for original work? No doubt, but I would argue .....
The failure occurs at this point. You can argue all you want, and if you can convince content creators you are right they might go along with your suggestions to (presumably) give away all their work for free. After all, open source software developers often do.
However, what the Pirate Bay does is simply ignore the wishes of the people who created things, and profit off it. That's not winning arguments, hearts or minds. That's not even ethical. It's selfish exploitation of what could otherwise be a pretty reasonable and flexible framework.
Re:What a shame by metrix007 · 2014-11-04 04:05 · Score: 1

Yes, I am taking the copy without paying for it, and I do so proudly.
When I was broke, I couldn't afford to see most movies, TV shows etc. I pirated them. Having access to this stuff has only helped me, and certainly has not helped the content creators as I could not have paid for it anyway.
It's not a sense of entitlement, but since it is freely available and I don't see it as hurting anyone, I don't see what the problem is in taking advantage of an opportunity.
More to your point, art shouldn't need this ridiculous protection. Throughout most of history artists made a living because of their performance, or their execution. No one could paint like Dali or Picaso, write like Shakespeare or compose like Mozart.
If you are good, people will pay for it. To protect every single idea as precious and to limit sharing is ridiculous, and not a sustainable model as we advance as a society.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:What a shame by metrix007 · 2014-11-04 04:11 · Score: 1

Sorry, but the loss of profit is negligible and irrelevant. Aside from the fact that piracy results in a net profit to make up for any loss, that how it's been for the last 12 years or so, and that's how it's going to continue to be.
More importantly, that's how it *should* be.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:What a shame by jones_supa · 2014-11-04 04:20 · Score: 1

Ok, that sounds fair to me. If the band has actually determined that they can make enough money with gigs and voluntarily puts their album free on their own website, I am fine with that kind of business model.
Albums are nice though, as they allow you to "bring the band" into any location and moment. I would still like to see recorded music being made.
Re:What a shame by LordLimecat · 2014-11-04 04:32 · Score: 1

The thing you keep missing is that the artist (or record company, or estate or whatever) DOES NOT deserve to get paid for every single copy of their song,
Society disagrees. Wanting to live by your own ethic is great and all, but eventually you need to square with the fact that society has a say.
Re:What a shame by LordLimecat · 2014-11-04 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually yes, they are.
Intent is pretty important in law, as is whether the crime was willful or not.
Re:What a shame by CrankyFool · 2014-11-04 04:34 · Score: 2

What I love about this is that when people on this thread post about the crappy quality of content produced by the entertainment industry -- as a way to explain why it's obscene that they're trying to charge for it -- they get modded up. And when people describe that content as something that sharing of which creates a "huge benefit to soceity by allowing information to ... inspire and educate" they get modded up.
"Guardians of the Galaxy is Grade-B superhero trash! That will inspire and educate future generations!"
The abstract case, of course, is "comments critical of the entertainment industry and efforts to control unpaid distribution of their work get modded up."
Re:What a shame by metrix007 · 2014-11-04 04:42 · Score: 1

Guardians of the Galaxy features many colorful characters, that may well inspire ideas for a new franchise or universe.
It may not benefit society, but like all works it has potential.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:What a shame by clarkkent09 · 2014-11-04 05:26 · Score: 1

Taking that copy causes NO loss of resources to the artist, the resources being used are by the sharer and the downloader. The artist didn't lose anything.

"Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution, usually for a limited time, with the intention of enabling the creator to receive compensation for their intellectual effort." So what the fuck are you talking about? It is not about artist 'losing resources' it is about granting the artist "exclusive" right to sell their work in order to provide them with fair compensation for their work.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:What a shame by clarkkent09 · 2014-11-04 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

How does a book author make money from touring? He spends years writing a book and some jackass puts it on a website for free and makes money off advertising and buys a house in Phuket.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 06:03 · Score: 1

"Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution, usually for a limited time, with the intention of promoting the Arts and Sciences" The whole 'granting the artist "exclusive" right to sell their work in order to provide them with fair compensation for their work' is obviously bullshit because if that were true we wouldn't have work for hire laws, exclusionary contracts would be generally ilegally, and you wouldn't be able to otherwise sell your copyright to someone else, as all the above has consistently proven in our current society to create organizes like the MPAA and RIAA which are basically unions of oligarchies that strive to own the copyright of the actual artists. That, btw, may be the best step to "promoting the Arts and Sciences" as few individual artists could hope to produce multi-million dollar movies,games, or ad campaigns for music*. The people who bitch most about the lack of sales due to piracy? Right, the distributors which are rarely the actual artists and for whom often an additional sale means little to nothing for the artist monetarily.
Not that I'm endorsing piracy. But you obviously know dick about the origin of copyright in the US. And clearly as much as Europe treats copyright as a "natural right", they clearly subscribe more to the US approach or they wouldn't have the same structures in place there that subsume the actual "natural right(s)" of the artist.
* The real joke of it all is how much music costs. A single song that lasts 5 minutes represents ~5% the length of a movie and for which actual entertainment value (let alone cost to produce) obviously don't begin to approach even the $1/song for the vast majority of music. Consider if we had a similar situation with paintings. Of course we don't because in part music has more value to us. But the vast majority of the actual cost is the ridiculous markup that comes as a byproduct of "exclusive rights" that have little to do with "fair compensation" and more to do with ad marketing driven demand. But, then, it's obviously absurd to believe that one can ever produce a definition of fair that people would agree upon; the obvious truth is that the general presumed constraints of a free market to set the price of a good don't work when you have a government monopoly on the sale of a good (aka copyright), so we're simply left with opinion.
Re:What a shame by Zeromous · 2014-11-04 06:08 · Score: 2

Well he certainly didn't put it on a website.
Person A writes book and publishes it for sale.
Person B writes software engine for searching
Person B decide to use their search engine for sharing of torrent file data.
Person C enjoys person A's book and creates and uploads torrent of Person A's book, (which is just a pointer to Person Cs computer at this time) to search engine and begins seeding. Person C has nothing to do with Person B. They don't know each other, have never spoken, or implicitly communicated for any purpose.
Person D .. Z download torrent, complete dowloading the file, and then seed to others who have not yet completed downloading.
Person B notices a lot of traffic to his search engine and puts advertising on it to recoup costs, ends up making profit.
Please explain to me how Person B profited off of Person A's work and not his own? If anyone is responsible it is Person C, and possibly D through Z (but it's definitely Person C who performed the infringement).

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Re:What a shame by clarkkent09 · 2014-11-04 06:59 · Score: 1

The only problem with that argument is that we are not 5 year olds and court of law is not school playground. We all know that the purpose of pirate bay was to share copyrighted content, not peoples personal files. Try setting up an online marketplace for child porn and see how quickly you end up in jail even though all you were doing is posting "pointers" to it. and not hosting it yourself. They knew what they were doing and they made no effort to remove "pointers" to illegal materials even when notified, in fact they went out of their way to avoid removing them going as far as moving servers around and using every trick in the book to evade the law. Give me a break.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:What a shame by Zeromous · 2014-11-04 07:10 · Score: 1

> We all know that the purpose of pirate bay was to share copyrighted content
Your premise is flawed. TPB was a clearing house for torrents. Illegal and legal. TPB's problem was they felt they were not breaking the law, because they were not performing the infringement. they lost. That doesn't mean its the correct conclusion. They certainly did not profit off of person A's book, which again was the entire premise I responded to:
> How does a book author make money from touring? He spends years writing a book and some jackass puts it on a website for free and makes money off advertising and buys a house in Phuket.
They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Re:What a shame by TangoMargarine · 2014-11-04 08:40 · Score: 1

I've found many many links to torrents, and even direct downloads, using Google. Why aren't the founders of Google on trial?
*IAA would love to be able to pull that off.
Don't give them ideas.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:What a shame by metrix007 · 2014-11-04 08:42 · Score: 1

Most people agree with that, sort of.
What most are not OK with is the length (120 years after the death of the author, IIRC), and the depth. Why should this protection extend to preventing someone from downloading MP3's of a CD they have already paid for?
Can you think of any good reason? Because that is one of many examples (others being better quality products, lack of DRM, lack of availability) that justify piracy, and is something the pirate bay helped facilitate, as a service to the entire online community.
Most people are not against copyright as a principle, and agree with allowing the author some time and protection to profit. But the way things are now is ridiculous.
A man should never be in jail for something like this. It's abhorrent.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:What a shame by znrt · 2014-11-04 10:47 · Score: 1

ALl this man did was help build a search enging allowing people to share.
This only benefits society.
they did way more than that. they openly challenged (and btw totally pissed off, with unparallelled style) a greedy and indecent establishment that doesn't give a shit about benefits for society. in doing that they set an example to follow at the very beginning of an era change. sadly, society was not ready and did nothing to protect them. but that's how society evolves, slowly, often thanks to and at the expense of guys like them.
Re:What a shame by Raenex · 2014-11-04 11:12 · Score: 1

They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.
It's bullshit. You wouldn't say a dealer in child porn isn't profiting off of sexual abuse of children, and you wouldn't say a dealer in ivory isn't profiting off of elephant poachers. The Pirate Bay was not agnostic. They catered to sharing copyrighted material and were adamant about not removing links to copyrighted material. I'll give them credit for having balls, but they were parasites, nothing more.
Re:What a shame by Raenex · 2014-11-04 11:20 · Score: 1

You don't know what you're talking about. The Pirate Bay catered to sharing copyrighted material like TV shows and movies, and they gave a middle finger to anybody that told them to remove links. Google is a generic search engine and removes links to copyrighted material when notified.
Re:What a shame by xaotikdesigns · 2014-11-04 11:43 · Score: 1

How in the hell does that relate to anything?
If I want music, I either ask the artist(label/store/merch guy/whatever) for the music, or I download it illegally. Aside from Apple sending U2's new ablum to everybody (which was done for free mind you) is a musician forcing themselves on you?

--
XDInd
Re:What a shame by Raenex · 2014-11-04 14:33 · Score: 1

Interesting. I'm surprised that one, that they do that, and two, that they get away with it. I wonder if they've ever been sued over it? Maybe it's just a loophole in the law.
Re:What a shame by bzipitidoo · 2014-11-04 15:09 · Score: 1

No, you don't get it. (A child porn comparison? Really? Weak, dude, really weak. Maybe you could try for a more accurate and less loaded analogy?)
The Pirate Bay is helping the world see that copyright does not work. They aren't parasites, copyright is a bad business model. And, artists will not starve without copyright! There are other ways to earn a living from art.
The real parasites are the Big Media companies who stole works from the public domain by extending copyright again and again, despite that flying in the face of the public interest. They helped cause this backlash through their greed. Copyright might have hung on longer otherwise. Don't think for a moment that we have forgotten being forced to pay the Microsoft tax, and in the "no good deed goes unpunished" department, purchasing media like good citizens only to be rewarded by being forced to watch unskippable commercials at the start, and being told we can't format shift or time shift the media we bought, and even fed propaganda against used record stores and libraries! One of the worst offenses was Sony's CD with the rootkit. They're so damned arrogant that they think their precious copyrights are more valuable than their customers' data? Why aren't you complaining about them? Why do you pass over their far worse crimes and thefts in silence, while screaming about the supposed immoralities and thefts committed by perfectly ordinary citizens? Do you love Disney that much?
Most of all, these antiquated laws are harming us all. We should have had a real digital public library by now. Instead, the works availabe online are scattered, fragmentary, and mostly unsearchable. Good work is being overlooked and buried, for the sake of Mickey Mouse.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:What a shame by Raenex · 2014-11-04 15:56 · Score: 1

(A child porn comparison? Really? Weak, dude, really weak. Maybe you could try for a more accurate and less loaded analogy?)
Maybe you can explain why the comparison is wrong? The argument being made is that the middleman isn't profiting off of the base product.

The Pirate Bay is helping the world see that copyright does not work. They aren't parasites, copyright is a bad business model.
They helped themselves to profits off of somebody else's work. If they were doing it for free, you'd have a case. These guys aren't Aaron Swartz.

The real parasites are the Big Media companies who stole works from the public domain by extending copyright again and again, despite that flying in the face of the public interest.
They can both be parasites. It's not an either/or. You'll note that The Pirate Bay isn't about sharing old content that would have been out of copyright in saner times.

They helped cause this backlash through their greed.
Somewhat true, but that's also a convenient excuse for people who just want to pirate stuff.

And, artists will not starve without copyright! There are other ways to earn a living from art.
Perhaps. That's not an argument I was engaging in.

Why aren't you complaining about them?
Sometimes I do. In this case I'm pushing back against the false narratives surrounding The Pirate Bay.

Most of all, these antiquated laws are harming us all.
I would love to see copyright reform, preferably via a much shorter copyright length, increasing registration fees to maintain copyright, etc. However, I'm not going to defend parasites that do their best to thwart copyright and take advantage of the work of others.
Re:What a shame by ruir · 2014-11-04 20:10 · Score: 1

It is not the point or being good or not, this is all about content control, digital scarcity and a new age of digital feudalism. They are shitless scared you and me can get directly the goods from the actual creators on a not so very far future.
Re:What a shame by metrix007 · 2014-11-05 02:53 · Score: 1

No. not parasites.
They are people who understand who broken copyright is and how beneficial something like TPB is to society, and worked to make it available in light of numerous lawsuits and countries trying to shut it down.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:What a shame by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 06:06 · Score: 1

No, TPB was profiting from illegal torrents.
How much of their business is legal and how much is illegal? I'd bet that 90% of their traffic is looking for things that are illegal (I'm not judging morality here). In that case, 90% of their ad revenue is likely from people who came for the copyright-violating stuff, and when somebody comes looking for an illegitimate copy of the Star Wars Christmas Special TPB is profiting from something created by the Lucas media empire (as well as committing a crime against humanity by distributing it, but that's another issue).

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:What a shame by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 06:07 · Score: 1

And a very large part of society has said that artists do not deserve to get paid for every copy, illustrating it by their actions.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:What a shame by bzipitidoo · 2014-11-05 13:43 · Score: 1

Any place could be linked to child porn. Poles are often used to hold signs, for rewards for missing dogs, lawn mowing services and that sort of thing. If someone posts some kind of solicitation for child porn on a pole, is the city that owns the pole somehow liable or responsible? Of course not. If the city also puts signs up on the pole, advertising their services, does that change things? No. Why should it be any different for a web site? So it's not useful to drag child porn into the discussion. That's like saying water is wet. And applying a double standard. Person A got wet, and it's no big deal, but person B also got wet, and on the Internet, oooo!
Better is to compare the Pirate Bay to a dating site which runs ads. The site is profiting off of love, showing ads to people who are trying to find a date. Nothing immoral about that. But imagine that the dating site is trying to operate under a very prudish public and government who doubts the morality of their activities, accusing them of enabling prostitution, and constantly threatening not to go after prostitution only, but to shut the whole thing down under the thought that it's all prostitution anyway. Law enforcers are egged on by powerful interests that aren't interested in justice, but rather are interested in eliminating competition any way they can. Dirty pool.
But they are also spreading a political message, saying that they see nothing wrong with prostitution. There's nothing wrong with that either. We do have freedom of speech. If the users of the site turn towards prostitution or are already mostly prostitutes and "Johns", does that somehow change the morality? No! To shut down the site is about the same as tearing out a pole because someone advertised sexual services on it. Ripping out the pole is not going to stop anything, solve any problem, or convince anyone of the error of their ways. There are other poles. They can't all be torn out, and even if they could, people could use walls instead. Also, tearing out poles is damaging. Innocent 3rd parties, perhaps trying to find their lost doggies, will be harmed.
The Pirate Bay should be left alone. They didn't do anything wrong. We know very well that they are being made into scapegoats for what their users do. Why don't authorities go after the users, as they ought since those are the people who are actually guilty of violating the law as it stands currently? They've tried, and managed to torture a few victims, make examples of them, rather like the Inquisition used to do. But they've seen that they simply can't do it. They would have to charge half the world with piracy. If they can't scare people away from copyright infringement, or convince people it's immoral, no force available to the law can stop it. No technical measure can stop it either. They are trying very hard now to save face, refusing to admit that they can't stop it, refusing to talk about it, and still hoping that somehow the public will come around to their viewpoint. It won't happen. They are definitely refusing to admit that they are actually the ones in error. And that the law will have to change. The Inquisition discredited itself centuries ago. It was a stupid idea from the start, trying to frighten and bully people into being better Christians according to their narrow definition of what it meant to be a good Christian, which excluded Protestants. Today, Protestants enjoy the same rights and protections as Catholics, and the Inquisition is properly seen as at best a tragic mistake and at worst a vehicle for sadists and torturers to have a little fun. Now here we are, repeating that mistake but this time with copyright law.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:What a shame by Raenex · 2014-11-05 16:16 · Score: 1

Any place could be linked to child porn.
We're not talking about "any place". We're making comparisons to The Pirate Bay, which specializes in copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Now imagine there was a similar site called "The Pedophile Bay" that served the same function for child porn. Are you going to tell me the site isn't profiting off the sexual abuse of children, but merely the consumers of child porn?

The Pirate Bay should be left alone. They didn't do anything wrong. We know very well that they are being made into scapegoats for what their users do.
It's all bullshit. They're parasites making profit off the copyrighted work of others. They are not Aaron Swartz.
Re:What a shame by Zeromous · 2014-11-06 05:13 · Score: 1

Oh my god you are a moron.
>They are not Aaron Swartz.
No they are not. Aaron Swartz actually attempted to liberate the data himself. TPB amorally allowed users to break the law if they want. They are no less moral or culpable in this situation than you ISP or Google.

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Re:What a shame by Raenex · 2014-11-06 12:02 · Score: 1

Oh my god you are a moron.
Stop projecting.

No they are not. Aaron Swartz actually attempted to liberate the data himself.
He also didn't attempt to profit from it. He was acting out of noble purposes to share academic information, much of which is produced or supported by government tax money.

TPB amorally allowed users to break the law if they want. They are no less moral or culpable in this situation than you ISP or Google.
As has been made clear multiple times, their primary and advertised purpose was to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Google indexes the Web and an ISP provides access to the Internet. Those are quite generic in purpose. Learn to think critically instead of just spouting stupid shit that fits your agenda.

Thank Goodness... by Rick+in+China · 2014-11-04 02:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Welp, they got him! Don't we all feel so much safer. After all, the heinous crime of "assisting in making copyright content available" surely warrants the international manhunts. I can walk downstairs and buy a stack of any movies or games or, well, anything I wish in the open in China..good thing countries like the US use grand tools like embargos to press the Chinese government to do something about it!

It's easy to pick a famous name - or create symbols for these 'wars' and spend ridiculous amounts of money on the behalf of old-style big business with lobbyists and donations...but the solution to piracy is to change the business model employed by the companies or artists who are being hurt by piracy. Louis CK famously sold $1mil in a week worth of $5 specials on his own website, why? Because he put out a great product and said: You don't need to sign up with a bunch of information or provide me with a bunch of details, or opt into some kind of marketing scheme, you can give me $5 and get a product, and watch it anywhere on any device you want..or pirate it.. do whatever you like - but I'm trying to provide a quality product and hopefully you'll appreciate that.

The alternative is to fall into the game, music, and movie big industry problem of pushing out a massive amount of shit at high 'standardised' pricing to audiences who are tired of spending too much and getting too little, and as a result, driving people to simply pirate and try things before deciding what they really want to support. Personally I pirate most of my games, I also bought legitimate consoles and buy legitimate copies of games I *really* want, or buy authentic DVD/sets when there is something I really like out there - 100% of which I have already seen.

They'll get the hint, someday, or crumble eventually. For now, people like Gottfrid need to be admired for what they've contributed to making change happen.

He must pay for his crimes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fuck dude. Maybe you should realize that you are useless. You provide no value. You job and thousands like you can be replaced by exactly 0 people. The small niche players were never cared for or looked after by the likes of you. They provided you no money, so you were no interested. With the democratization of the internet, the small players may actually have a niche. But you can buy off your hired guns and arrest people like this. So I guess you can continue making money for a little while

Re:The long arm of the law by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The long arm of the law only extends to copyright. Stick to tax fraud and there is apparently nothing they can do.

SRT has come a long way ... by CaptainDork · 2014-11-04 02:10 · Score: 4, Funny

... SRT has been in development for several years and its success rate improved greatly after Google bought out the shirt recognition technology site, "Shirt Happens," back in 2011.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:18 · Score: 1

Bullshit.

The entertainment industry as a whole is making more money than ever.

What MAFIAA and other groups are worried about is losing their position as the gatekeepers of what is produced and distributed and what and how we consume it. This is where the real money (and power) is.

This is why they will always fight p2p regardless of it's content. P2p threatens their centralized control of entertainment.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by NotDrWho · 2014-11-04 02:20 · Score: 1

What?? You don't want to see the latest obscure Marvel comic book character get regurgitated into some shitty action movie, followed by a dozen sequels and reboots?

What are you, some kind of C O M M U N I S T ??????

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.

Re: He must pay for his crimes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:22 · Score: 1

What "democratization"? If you haven't been paying attention, Google is censoring search results related to pirated content. It's not perfect but it eventually will. The big internet companies do not want to antagonize big media, they want a share. The price for this share is cooperation. The internet will belong to the media industry whether you nerds like it or not.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by walterbyrd · 2014-11-04 02:29 · Score: 2

"Crimes?"

Maybe a technicality, but isn't copyright violation a civil matter, and not a crime?

Re:Another terrorist off the street by Thanshin · 2014-11-04 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

He committed horrible atrocities against Sony and EA's profits!!

It would be less sad if they had at least proved that.

12 years to get Osama bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:44 · Score: 1

and two years to get this guy. Nice to know where priorities stand in this world.

Re:12 years to get Osama bin Laden by halivar · 2014-11-04 02:59 · Score: 1

I suspect Thailand was looking harder for this guy than Pakistan was looking for Osama.
Re:12 years to get Osama bin Laden by Lectoid · 2014-11-04 03:01 · Score: 1

There is a slight difference in hiding in a cave or in a house where only a few people know where you are, and crossing a border where they check your passport.

--
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
Re:12 years to get Osama bin Laden by LordLimecat · 2014-11-04 04:35 · Score: 1

Osama wasnt crossing borders. We had to send in a special ops team to get him
Not sure if you're being intentionally dishonest, or are just ignorant.
Re:12 years to get Osama bin Laden by TangoMargarine · 2014-11-04 08:54 · Score: 1

Last I heard TPB didn't have a faction of violent religious extremists backing them.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:12 years to get Osama bin Laden by ruir · 2014-11-04 20:14 · Score: 1

When you are with some foreign visas, you have to get out often in a while to extend them...there is no way around it, except maybe bribing heavily local officials. Which is not difficult. Once when South Africa did not let me in with some stupid technically, someone gave me a contact of a corrupt official without even my asking. I just preferred to do it the legal way, and got a new, legal passport in the consulate in 4 hours time [granted, a record].

Re:Pffft by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2014-11-04 02:57 · Score: 2

I'm curious if you and the parent both feel very strongly about ethics in games journalism

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

the pirate bay is an excellent honeypot. by nimbius · 2014-11-04 02:58 · Score: 2

The Pirate bay is well known, high profile, and a very receptive target for litigation. the founders likely know that arresting them, imprisoning them, and litigating them will have very little impact on torrent and file sharing sites as a whole. TPB is sufficiently clustered to avoid most politically induced outages, while full outages merely drive the support and creation of new sites and technologies to avoid future outages and tracking. Magnet links and SSL were a direct result of TPB users feeling insecure.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

Don't people know by now... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:58 · Score: 1

that Thailand isn't a good place to hide out? Sure, it seems all exotic and far out to an unsophisticated pleb but the place is packed with ex-pats and tourists. It would be about the same as fleeing to Barbados or some other tourist trap Caribbean Island. They have extradition treaties with the West and love to suck up America and Europe. If you really want to get away go to Laos, Myanmar or even Russia!

Thailand by ehiris · 2014-11-04 02:59 · Score: 3, Informative

At least Thailand can now get back to what they do best. Child prostitution, human trafficking, destroying their reef, heroin production led by the elite, fake purses, and selling dvds of new movies in broad daylight. Oh, and killing poor drug users.

Maybe a routine VISA run by chuckugly · 2014-11-04 03:03 · Score: 1

It's common over there to cross a border (leave the country) in order to get your passport stamped and renew your tourist VISA. The practice is so common there are organized "VISA runs" via bus and even services that will do the legwork (exit for you - lol) every few months. It's possible he was just trying to be in Laos legally.

Re:Maybe a routine VISA run by Zocalo · 2014-11-04 08:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, I suspected that might be the case which is why I mentioned the robustness of the border controls. I've been across several borders between close allies and trading partners where the crossing is largely a formality and you are pretty unlucky if they even look at you, let alone ask for any ID - assuming you even bother using a road with a check point on it. Unless they were specifically watching out for him (a distinct possibility given how the Kim Dotcom arrest appears to have been arranged) it does indeed sound like he might have just got unlucky with a trip to get his tourist visa updated and maybe pay a visit to the in-laws.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Re:Another terrorist off the street by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2014-11-04 03:06 · Score: 2

I don't think Gitmo is where he should go, but as a guy who was co-responsible for a site that vomits malware through sketchy as fuck ads, he should have to answer for his crimes on some level.

(Saying that people who don't run adblock deserve the shit they get is victim blaming, so don't be an asshole)

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by Mark19960 · 2014-11-04 03:08 · Score: 1

Funny? I can't tell.
What I can see is that you came to Slashdot with MAFIAA dribble and your message got lost down in the troll section.

Thanks for playing!

Re:Another terrorist off the street by fibonacci8 · 2014-11-04 03:10 · Score: 4, Funny

To be fair, EA has committed far more horrible atrocities against EA's profits.

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.

Re:Another terrorist off the street by fafaforza · 2014-11-04 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Devil's advocate, but shady "finance" people that rip off unsuspecting moms with investment ideas and pyramid schemes. No violent crime. No one dead. Should they be given a pass?

He should have... by CimmerianX · 2014-11-04 03:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just think that if he had sold billions of bad mortgages and defrauded both investors and the public sending the entire world economy to the brink of collapse, he would have gotten no jail time and a multi-billion dollar bailout.

Instead he built a web page that lets people find trackers, and he must be put away for life.

'Merica!!!!!

Re:He should have... by LordLimecat · 2014-11-04 04:36 · Score: 1

Pretty sure its spelled "S-w-e-d-e-n", not "Murica"-- unless Stockholm was recently relocated to the USA?
Re:He should have... by CurryCamel · 2014-11-04 09:08 · Score: 1

Seems it actually was:
http://here.com/usa/stockholm/map=41.08509,-74.51112,13/title=Stockholm
http://here.com/usa/stockholm/map=47.02584,-68.16322,13/title=Stockholm
Or could Stockholm http://here.com/59.333685,18.1037361,11,0,0,normal.day sue them for pirating?

Re:He must pay for his crimes by rioki · 2014-11-04 03:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

If I recall correctly, they where convicted of criminal copyright infringement. If I post an image on my website that is normal copyright infringement, but if print that same image on cards and sell them I am criminal copyright infringement. The difference is that I do it in a "commercial way" and with "significant damage". The really important difference is that copyright holders can get the police involved and serve jail sentences in criminal copyright infringement.

But your assertion is correct, copyright is a civil matter, how they got criminal copyright infringement is a mystery to me. This is especially perverse, since the maximum jail sentence for criminal copyright infringement is 3 years and rape is 2 years.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by rioki · 2014-11-04 03:46 · Score: 1

jail sentences are for German law...

Re:The long arm of the law by LordLimecat · 2014-11-04 04:12 · Score: 2

Tell that to Al Capone.

Note to self by sootman · 2014-11-04 04:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Discard the shirts I'm wearing in all my mugshots.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Re:Note to self by zwarte+piet · 2014-11-04 11:58 · Score: 1

Throw out all your mugs, then they can't shoot them in the first place.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by gtall · 2014-11-04 04:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Try this, leave your home and car unlocked so that others can have free access to your stuff. Your stuff wants to be free, let it go.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by clarkkent09 · 2014-11-04 05:14 · Score: 1

They are not gatekeepers. You are free to produce your movie, music or whatever the fuck you want and distribute it all by yourself and keep all the money. Who is stopping you?

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.

Re:Another terrorist off the street by MozeeToby · 2014-11-04 05:35 · Score: 1

Theft is inherently violent, taken to an extreme it deprives others of shelter, healthcare, food, etc. Whether copyright infringement is theft or not is a different argument. On the one had, "the artist lost nothing" rings hollow to me. On the other, it's patently obvious that you can't just claim they "lost a sale" either.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by fnj · 2014-11-04 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Try this, leave your home and car unlocked so that others can have free access to your stuff. Your stuff wants to be free, let it go.

Do you have any conception whatsoever of how lame that rhetoric is? I'd like to think you do, and that it is just cynical misdirection, but I have my doubts. I think possibly you are so brainwashed or you have an axe to grind in terms of personal livelihood that you really don't have any conception of the issues.

Anyway, I'll spell it out. Your parallel is blatantly false. If you take stuff out of my car and home and into yours or somebody else's, you deprive me of the use of my property. You can't readily "copy" my car or my car radio or living room sofa in a magic replicator, while still leaving me the original. If you could do that, more power to you. Of course I wouldn't mind in the least. Some day, when the Star Trek universe becomes reality, such replication might become possible.

Copying movies and songs does not involve any theft. Nobody loses access to the movie or the song. Only somebody else now enjoys the same access, and has in no way inconvenienced anyone thereby. Yes, the guys with the thoroughly obsolete business model will be annoyed at its disruption. But they should be annoyed at reality, the harsh undeniable universe, and the march of progress, not people whose only sin is that they actually understand reality and progress. I don't get my kicks from seeing people facing a hardship making their livelihood because of progress, but I am in contempt of the viewpoint that they are entitled.

You can make a stand against the electrophotographic copier, digital computing and copying equipment, and communications infrastructure like the internet. I prefer to use them and marvel at the benefits they provide.

Disclaimer: I don't try to profit or make a living by violating copyright. A sufficient reason - I won't claim the only reason - is because I am a sniveling coward and have no wish to rot in jail. I have the common decency to neither condemn nor praise such activity.

Re:The long arm of the law by Zeromous · 2014-11-04 05:59 · Score: 2

I don't recall Al Capone leaving the country.

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START

Re:Pffft by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-04 06:04 · Score: 2

While games are among the things you can pirate on TPB, there isn't much to do with games here. Though with regard to his wife...I'm pretty sure that's a mail order bride situation, only due to the circumstances of avoiding incarceration he came to live in her native country. You can see the details of their marriage arrangement in that documentary called TPB AFK, and it's apparent that he paid a sum of money to be able to marry her, and she doesn't really seem *that* fond of him in any of the shots that she's in.

I don't think mail order bride situations are all bad mind you. I've met a few of the women in such a situation, and they seem to prefer their present situation WAY more than what they had prior to the arrangement. One of the ones I knew used to live in the Philippines, and she told me how she almost died there when some Islamic activist ended up suicide bombing a bus that she luckily happened to be late for. That, and she was dirt poor there.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-04 06:27 · Score: 1

In my experience, "niche" content producers usually can't survive because their "art" really is crap. They don't make money because nobody actually values what they produce. In their mind they've got themselves and everybody around them convinced that they're some sort of genius, but they really aren't. Nobody buys anything they make to begin with because they'd never spend the time of day to watch it anyways, and they have much better things they'd rather spend their time money on.

BTW, I get annoyed with beatnik types who sit there and talk shit about how the quality of art is declining. The reality is far from it. They're just a bunch of smug snobs who need to get over themselves.

Re:Another terrorist off the street by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 06:29 · Score: 1

Far more malware and pirated software come from CNET.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by F.Ultra · 2014-11-04 06:39 · Score: 1

You got that kind of backwards. The _minimum_ jail sentence for rape is 2 years, the maximum is 10.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by F.Ultra · 2014-11-04 06:41 · Score: 1

And the maximum for copyright infringement is 2 years.

Terribly biased article - prejudiced and insulting by mmell · 2014-11-04 07:37 · Score: 1

I never made it past the first paragraph:

One of the men responsible for all of the movies, games and porn you are illegally torrenting at this very moment was arrested on Monday afternoon in northern Thailand.

.

Re:Another terrorist off the street by o_ferguson · 2014-11-04 07:53 · Score: 1

Yes. This. WTF happened to CNET? It used to be great, now it's a total garbage hole. Why do so many small coding houses use them to distribute shareware/freeware/demo versions now? Their website is total crap!

--
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.

Re:Another terrorist off the street by TangoMargarine · 2014-11-04 08:52 · Score: 1

(Saying that people who don't run adblock deserve the shit they get is victim blaming, so don't be an asshole)

Because every site that helps you download stuff for free illegally should be squeaky clean, sure. Why would criminals ever be dishonest?

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:Pffft by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2014-11-04 10:37 · Score: 1

Whoosh.

here's the root post:

Pathetic beta white boy can't even get a white woman, had to settle with some dirty chink.

A lot of this misogynistic and racist language is showing up inside of GamerGate spheres.

I was joking and suggesting that the person was involved with GamerGate.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

Re:The long arm of the law by xaotikdesigns · 2014-11-04 10:50 · Score: 1

Or pedophilia, but only so long as you have a successful film career

--
XDInd

Re:The long arm of the law by xaotikdesigns · 2014-11-04 10:51 · Score: 1

Well, technically, he did break the tax law as well since he never reported all his income. They got him for one of his crimes, just not all of them.

Of course, the government probably thinks that they did get him for the worst of his crimes.

--
XDInd

Re:He must pay for his crimes by Zynder · 2014-11-04 11:04 · Score: 1

I do this regularly and nothing of mine has ever been stolen. Perhaps it's because I don't live in a shithole.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by ultranova · 2014-11-04 11:40 · Score: 1

Try this, leave your home and car unlocked so that others can have free access to your stuff. Your stuff wants to be free, let it go.

Someone takes my car, I won't have a car anymore. Someone copies this message and reposts it on another site, chances are I'll never even know.

But guess what? The company who built my car didn't get paid the price equivalent to the value of all the use I'll derive from it over its lifetime. If they did, there would by definition be no reason for me to buy it. The same goes for the baker who made my bread, the constructors who built my house, the textile workers who made my clothes, the scientists who figured out how to use the electricity that powers my computer, etc. Every single person gets paid less than their work is worth, otherwise hiring them was pointless at best. Yet it's only the artists who go to conniptions over the idea that someone might hear a song or see a film or play a game they produced without them getting a cut.

Lots of artist types think they're special little snowlakes and entitled to be treated like that, and to some extent the world obliges as part of their payment. But only to some extent. MAFIAA has been paid their fair share for their content, and no one's going to feel sorry for them just because they think they deserve more.

--

Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by bzipitidoo · 2014-11-04 14:34 · Score: 1

Regurgitated? If they made a superhero movie featuring Captain Copyright, I'd pirate it in a heartbeat!

Or, maybe, I'll watch it for free by checking it out from the library some day, if they have it and I'm that bored.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Re:He must pay for his crimes by ruir · 2014-11-04 20:06 · Score: 1

Do not contradict the guy, he is right. The problem since the invention of the printed press has always been creating a artificial scarcity AND controlling the distribution chain AND controlling content. Media consumption is a very strong method of brainwashing you subjects.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by ruir · 2014-11-04 21:45 · Score: 1

GIGO. I did that on purpose to an obvious shill/troll from the media cartels. And a poor one at that. Discussions about media rights are always full of them.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by rioki · 2014-11-04 22:27 · Score: 1

Sorry, only mentioned that I meant German in a follow up post, but yes, 107 UrhG grants up to 3 years, (And rape is minimum 2 ... )

Re:He must pay for his crimes by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 05:55 · Score: 1

The entertainment industry isn't the good guys here. They've pushed copyright to ridiculous durations, and inflicted malware in the form of DRM all over the place. If we punished entertainment industry executives for this, I'd be much more sympathetic to punishing Pirate Bay people. (The first time I went to TPB was to get a playable version of a computer game I'd just legitimately bought.)

Consider the Sony CD-ROM DRM fiasco. They did a tremendous amount of harm, and any of us would be spending years behind bars for doing a small fraction of that. The Sony people involved deserve no mercy, by your principles, and should be punished as harshly as possible. Exactly who served hard time for that?

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:Another terrorist off the street by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 06:15 · Score: 1

Shady finance person rips off unsuspecting mom of $100K, unsuspecting mom is $100K poorer. Shady computer person gets an illicit copy of a movie, nobody notices.

There is a very real difference between natural and artificial scarcity, and I take no pro-copyright argument seriously unless it recognizes the difference.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

so long as you have a successful film career by beastofburdon · 2014-11-06 03:43 · Score: 1

Or you are a leader in a christian church of some type.

Re:He must pay for his crimes by F.Ultra · 2014-11-08 02:11 · Score: 1

Ah, that makes sense. I was referring to Swedish law since it was about the Pirate Bay case.

Slashdot Mirror

Pirate Bay Co-founder Arrested In Northeastern Thailand

117 of 189 comments (clear)