Pirate Bay Founder Could Be Prosecuted For Hacking “Within a Month”(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Pirate Bay Founder Could Be Prosecuted For Hacking “Within a Month”
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-could-be-prosecuted-for-hacking-within-a-month-130129/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29
8 comments
in mainland Europe, of all places?
Not just that, in Sweden of all places, beacon of pacifism, social justice and social-democratic workers' paradise.
Mainland Europe, in general, is kinda shitty on this sort of thing anyway (French and Italian police have horrendous human-rights records, in Italy a trial can last 15 years or more...), but Sweden lost a lot of credibility on these matters very quickly in the last few years. The trend is worrying to say the least.
Not just that, in Sweden of all places, beacon of pacifism, social justice and social-democratic workers' paradise.
Mainland Europe, in general, is kinda shitty on this sort of thing anyway (French and Italian police have horrendous human-rights records, in Italy a trial can last 15 years or more...), but Sweden lost a lot of credibility on these matters very quickly in the last few years. The trend is worrying to say the least.
Great social justice only tend to pop up after some sad horrendous event has occurred. Sadly, History has a tendency to be forgotten so event has to repeat itself.
Most of swedish laws protecting civilians rights was created around 1935-1940 after the 1931 event in Ådalen. The laws protecting journalists was invented after a large number issues around censorship and prosecution against sources during the WW2 (mostly regarding criticism against Germany). The time during the cold war also had some prominent abuses cases, which resulting outcry pushed for more protection.
Most of swedish laws protecting civilians rights was created around 1935-1940 after the 1931 event in Ådalen. The laws protecting journalists was invented after a large number issues around censorship and prosecution against sources during the WW2 (mostly regarding criticism against Germany). The time during the cold war also had some prominent abuses cases, which resulting outcry pushed for more protection.
> We have seen what they have done to Assange, what they have done to Kim Dotcom, what they have done to Gottfried. All within a single year. All within our community.
Dotcom is not part of my community. I try to avoid people who have been convicted of embezzlement, insider trading, and trafficking in stolen goods, and who appear to have only ever engaged in enterprises that were not based on defrauding people when they were FORCED to keep clean because they were still on parole from their previous conviction.
Dotcom is not part of my community. I try to avoid people who have been convicted of embezzlement, insider trading, and trafficking in stolen goods, and who appear to have only ever engaged in enterprises that were not based on defrauding people when they were FORCED to keep clean because they were still on parole from their previous conviction.
Same community or not, it is a fact that in each government's view, we are all 'the citizenry' under those legal jurisdictions. That means that, while you may label Kim a Trade Unionist, a Socialist or a Jew, if you deny him rights your own are worthless.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin, 1755.
The point is that even if Kim is an asshole and a pillaging brigand, he is one of our own, the citizens. Even if he breaks the spirit of a law (and I am not sure that he does: perhaps that achievement goes to the copyright lobby), far greater criminals are the beastly, sprawling mass that is government, commercial mass media, global finance, and perhaps the science of public relations. We are all but one exploitable citizenry (or shall I say, 'human resource', 'consumer' or 'market'?) under them. And quite frankly, if Kim fights for the dissuasion of IP, it is not a great stretch to say that he fights in part for the same cause as Aaron did, albeit in different ways, and with monetary benefit. That is not necessarily stupid or evil, actually, IMHO, it's pretty damn smart: in other words, a really good hack.
After all, the law is the law. It is a system. Legal systems have been exploited since time immemorial. (I am sure there are lawyers reading this) Private citizens and large corporations exploit it regularly (a phenomenon particularly associated with modern American culture, but also multinationals). What we must not do is allow governments, the same governments raising omnipresent surveillance against us, to evade the spirit of the law, when they are supposed to be serving us... and not the other way around. For should we allow that, there is no easy way to go back... and some within this community would argue that it is almost upon us.
Remember, if the society you argue for is one in which it is not possible to break the law without being caught, then the society you are arguing for is totalitarian.
To quote Assange once more (sorry, he is far too well focused on these matters to avoid referencing): I have a view that we are dealing with really tremendously big economic and political forces, as Jérémie said, and the likely outcome is that the natural efficiencies of surveillance technologies compared to the number of human beings will mean that slowly we will end up in a global totalitarian surveillance society — by totalitarian I mean a total surveillance — and that perhaps there will just be the last free living people, those who understand how to use this cryptography to defend against this complete, total surveillance, and some people who are completely off-grid, neo-Luddites that have gone into the cave, or traditional tribes-people who have none of the efficiencies of a modern economy and so their ability to act is very small. — Julian Assange, Cypherpunks, 2012.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin, 1755.
The point is that even if Kim is an asshole and a pillaging brigand, he is one of our own, the citizens. Even if he breaks the spirit of a law (and I am not sure that he does: perhaps that achievement goes to the copyright lobby), far greater criminals are the beastly, sprawling mass that is government, commercial mass media, global finance, and perhaps the science of public relations. We are all but one exploitable citizenry (or shall I say, 'human resource', 'consumer' or 'market'?) under them. And quite frankly, if Kim fights for the dissuasion of IP, it is not a great stretch to say that he fights in part for the same cause as Aaron did, albeit in different ways, and with monetary benefit. That is not necessarily stupid or evil, actually, IMHO, it's pretty damn smart: in other words, a really good hack.
After all, the law is the law. It is a system. Legal systems have been exploited since time immemorial. (I am sure there are lawyers reading this) Private citizens and large corporations exploit it regularly (a phenomenon particularly associated with modern American culture, but also multinationals). What we must not do is allow governments, the same governments raising omnipresent surveillance against us, to evade the spirit of the law, when they are supposed to be serving us... and not the other way around. For should we allow that, there is no easy way to go back... and some within this community would argue that it is almost upon us.
Remember, if the society you argue for is one in which it is not possible to break the law without being caught, then the society you are arguing for is totalitarian.
To quote Assange once more (sorry, he is far too well focused on these matters to avoid referencing): I have a view that we are dealing with really tremendously big economic and political forces, as Jérémie said, and the likely outcome is that the natural efficiencies of surveillance technologies compared to the number of human beings will mean that slowly we will end up in a global totalitarian surveillance society — by totalitarian I mean a total surveillance — and that perhaps there will just be the last free living people, those who understand how to use this cryptography to defend against this complete, total surveillance, and some people who are completely off-grid, neo-Luddites that have gone into the cave, or traditional tribes-people who have none of the efficiencies of a modern economy and so their ability to act is very small. — Julian Assange, Cypherpunks, 2012.
I must respectfully disagree.
Assuming he is innocent to the Logica hack, which I guess we should considering "innocent until proven guilty", he did flee from the country when facing a year in prison and had an outstanding international warrant so the fact that he got arrested in Cambodia is hardly without due process.
And what have we done to Assange? He has also fled the justice system and there is no proof that he would be extradited to USA. Now you might argue that the whole case is phony and that is fair, but then it would also be thrown out when it reaches the court system.
Assuming he is innocent to the Logica hack, which I guess we should considering "innocent until proven guilty", he did flee from the country when facing a year in prison and had an outstanding international warrant so the fact that he got arrested in Cambodia is hardly without due process.
And what have we done to Assange? He has also fled the justice system and there is no proof that he would be extradited to USA. Now you might argue that the whole case is phony and that is fair, but then it would also be thrown out when it reaches the court system.
He has also fled the justice system
No he hasn't. When he left, he was explicitly authorised to leave the country, his charges had been all but dropped and his arrest warrant had been cancelled.
No he hasn't. When he left, he was explicitly authorised to leave the country, his charges had been all but dropped and his arrest warrant had been cancelled.
It is true that when he left Sweden he was free to leave.
However, it is also true that he has since been wanted for questioning and a European warrant was issues for him to be taken to Sweden for questioning - which he has refused.
He is hiding in an embassy, fleeing from the justice system to this day.
So when he left Sweden, yes he did not flee the justice system but by refusing to return for questioning, skipping bail and hiding in a foreign embassy he has.
However, it is also true that he has since been wanted for questioning and a European warrant was issues for him to be taken to Sweden for questioning - which he has refused.
He is hiding in an embassy, fleeing from the justice system to this day.
So when he left Sweden, yes he did not flee the justice system but by refusing to return for questioning, skipping bail and hiding in a foreign embassy he has.
He has fled the UK justice system though, by breaking the terms of his bail and taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
He remained in the EU and fled into the embassy.
Extraditing him from a country on the other side of the world, seemingly without any official paperwork or due legal process, and locking him in an extended period of solitary confinement should put the chills through all of us. Is this what 'democracy' has come to in mainland Europe, of all places?
Sounds a lot like Europe has become USA and are following their lead with Guantanamo Bay to me... without all the beatings and waterboarding... but more evidence may surface yet!
But it's a sorry state of affairs and just adds weight to the reason why Julian Assange does not want to go to Sweden for questioning! I agree with your words though, we're all pretty much f*ed unless we stand up and fight!
Sounds a lot like Europe has become USA and are following their lead with Guantanamo Bay to me... without all the beatings and waterboarding... but more evidence may surface yet!
But it's a sorry state of affairs and just adds weight to the reason why Julian Assange does not want to go to Sweden for questioning! I agree with your words though, we're all pretty much f*ed unless we stand up and fight!
Please do not disparage the memory of a thoughtful activist by linking him with a fat clown.
From pathy, who appears to be hellbanned:
Just a reminder: This case is not related to his Pirate Bay involvement. He is accused of hacking Logica, who handles data for the Swedish Tax Authority.
How much empathy would you have if someone, not involved in TPB, 'stole' information about you from your local tax authority? Especially Americans who seem to be paranoid about their tax stuff (For example Romney). At least in Sweden your tax data is pretty much public - when requested from the Tax Authority.
As a side note: This is also true for privately held companies in Sweden, all annual reports are pretty much public. You can for example view Mojang's (Minecraft) figures here: http://www.allabolag.se/5568192388/Mojang_AB
Just a reminder: This case is not related to his Pirate Bay involvement. He is accused of hacking Logica, who handles data for the Swedish Tax Authority.
How much empathy would you have if someone, not involved in TPB, 'stole' information about you from your local tax authority? Especially Americans who seem to be paranoid about their tax stuff (For example Romney). At least in Sweden your tax data is pretty much public - when requested from the Tax Authority.
As a side note: This is also true for privately held companies in Sweden, all annual reports are pretty much public. You can for example view Mojang's (Minecraft) figures here: http://www.allabolag.se/5568192388/Mojang_AB
From what I can tell, he's never been officially accused of this crime (yet), but it seems to have been enough to deport him, and hold him for five months without charges, with him being held for at least a month in solitary.
That's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
(Assuming I am actually not hellbanned - if I am, interesting...)
It is how the Swedish justice system works, you don't get officially accused, in the American sense, until you actually go to court. He is being held during investigation due to him being at risk of fleeing and such.
For more information on what he is going through see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4ktning#H.C3.A4ktning_.28...
I seem to recall him being held on probable cause but I am not sure.
Edit: hm, I think accidental double post caused the my original comment to be flagged as dead?
It is how the Swedish justice system works, you don't get officially accused, in the American sense, until you actually go to court. He is being held during investigation due to him being at risk of fleeing and such.
For more information on what he is going through see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4ktning#H.C3.A4ktning_.28...
I seem to recall him being held on probable cause but I am not sure.
Edit: hm, I think accidental double post caused the my original comment to be flagged as dead?
Yes, I am aware of this, but read your link:
A person may be held in custody for a period of normally not more than 14 days (seven days if only the degree of suspicion "reasonable suspicion" exists)
In order to hold him for 5 months, they would need to file an extension every two weeks... and at 5 months, you're obviously just abusing the law.
If they didn't have enough evidence 5 months ago, surely they don't seem to have it now.
A person may be held in custody for a period of normally not more than 14 days (seven days if only the degree of suspicion "reasonable suspicion" exists)
In order to hold him for 5 months, they would need to file an extension every two weeks... and at 5 months, you're obviously just abusing the law.
If they didn't have enough evidence 5 months ago, surely they don't seem to have it now.
AFAIK it has to be extended every 14 days by a judge.
But yes, I agree with you on that, it can easily be abused and Sweden has been criticized for that in the past. That said, he has fled the country before and he could tamper with evidence if he had access to a computer (probably) so in that sense it makes sense to keep him confined - and he still has to serve his 1 year sentence from the TPB trial. The time he has spent now will be deducted from his TPB sentence so he will probably only have to serve very little additional time for that.
That said: It does not justify prolonged solitary confinement. He did get some access to others so it wasn't true solitary confinement but probably almost as taxing.
But yes, I agree with you on that, it can easily be abused and Sweden has been criticized for that in the past. That said, he has fled the country before and he could tamper with evidence if he had access to a computer (probably) so in that sense it makes sense to keep him confined - and he still has to serve his 1 year sentence from the TPB trial. The time he has spent now will be deducted from his TPB sentence so he will probably only have to serve very little additional time for that.
That said: It does not justify prolonged solitary confinement. He did get some access to others so it wasn't true solitary confinement but probably almost as taxing.
I wonder if, by pure coincidence of course, he'll end up being released right about the end of his TPB-related sentence, and this "hacking" charge will simply be dropped.
An expensive international manhunt for copyright infringers looks a bit overzealous in the press, but for a "dangerous computer hacker targeting tax records"? Much more politically acceptable.
An expensive international manhunt for copyright infringers looks a bit overzealous in the press, but for a "dangerous computer hacker targeting tax records"? Much more politically acceptable.
It is not probable. He would not remain in jail this long unless a judge determined that the "probable cause" that the prosecutor brings forward every 2 weeks is strong enough for him to remain jailed. Despite what some people seem to believe, this is not part of a plot to keep him behind bars "just because".
How does it work in the US? The police catches you, you enter trial - how múch time is allowed to pass in between?
Yeah, but he is now serving his 1 year prison sentence.
We will have to wait and see how long he is kept in prison before being actually charged and brought before a judge. If it stretches to more than 6 months then the people of Sweden need to concern themselves with their general loss of Habeas Corpus. Right now it seems things are still developing and maybe we should give the prosecutors a bit more time.
I just checked to be sure, but as far as I can tell he was transferred to a regular prison on the 7th of December to serve the rest of his TPB sentence (1 year minus the time he has been detained)
The actual court case for the Logica hack is probably going to start in February.
source: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svartholm-warg-fors-till-f...
The actual court case for the Logica hack is probably going to start in February.
source: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svartholm-warg-fors-till-f...
"1 year minus the time he has been detained"
I'm not sure that's true since he was detained for another crime than the one he went to jail for. Sweden do have automatic release on parole after 2/3 of the sentence has been served.
I'm not sure that's true since he was detained for another crime than the one he went to jail for. Sweden do have automatic release on parole after 2/3 of the sentence has been served.
You may be right, I can't say for sure - I guess time will tell?
[deleted]
This is the case of anti-piracy champions nailing a pro-piracy person, who they claim to have broken their laws, by breaking his rights and their own laws.
I remember the famous saying of Winston Churchill:
Good things can only be achieved by good ways.
I remember the famous saying of Winston Churchill:
Good things can only be achieved by good ways.
[deleted]
*Guy who stole from artists everywhere.
It's much more accurate that way.
It's much more accurate that way.
Not all artists would agree. He did verifiably found the Pirate Bay. It is doubtful that he stole from artists "everywhere". So, um, less accurate.
What about: "guy who started a popular, light-speed, peer-to-peer library"?
Think about libraries and why they exist. Think about the way libraries work. Then compare with modern filesharing. It seems that the only difference is that online, we can trade things so fast that the old guard in big media can't think of a way to keep monetization intact.
Anyone who accepts the value of a library system (i.e., a big building that holds various kinds of "intellectual property" for members to peruse for free and/or a nominal one-time fee) should logically conclude that The Pirate Bay and its ilk are a public service, not a criminal engagement.
Think about libraries and why they exist. Think about the way libraries work. Then compare with modern filesharing. It seems that the only difference is that online, we can trade things so fast that the old guard in big media can't think of a way to keep monetization intact.
Anyone who accepts the value of a library system (i.e., a big building that holds various kinds of "intellectual property" for members to peruse for free and/or a nominal one-time fee) should logically conclude that The Pirate Bay and its ilk are a public service, not a criminal engagement.
You might have an argument if all uploads to TPB were purchased (or otherwise legally licensed) copies and people sharing materials in this peer to peer library could only share as many simultaneous copies as were purchased. There are a few companies who are trying to adopt such a legal peer-to-peer lending network.
However, there's a great example of a modern library where you can find works produced by small and big media alike, and monetization is effortless for the consumer via nominal, one-time fees: Apple's App Store. Yet still people find ways to circumvent the new guard just to avoid paying 99 cents for apps.
However, there's a great example of a modern library where you can find works produced by small and big media alike, and monetization is effortless for the consumer via nominal, one-time fees: Apple's App Store. Yet still people find ways to circumvent the new guard just to avoid paying 99 cents for apps.
I wasn't aware that the pirate accepted any uploads other than torrent-files, which do not contain copyrighted information.
This is a good semantic distinction for legal considerations, but in this primarily philosophical discussion on the implications of filesharing, I think "donating" a torrent which serves as a proxy to the actual content to TPB and "donating" an actual copyrighted work to a library are decent analogs.
Isn't seeding the equivalent of the donation to the library, and torrenting just filling out the catalog index card?
Didn't the "original" seeder, pay for the copy?
Seems to be that rather than pay taxes to buy content for the library, one can just contribute directly to that library.
Seems to be that rather than pay taxes to buy content for the library, one can just contribute directly to that library.
Not necessarily, though no doubt some have paid. Leaked copies of movies and software are sometimes uploaded prior to the media being made available for sale. Theater employees have been caught camming movies and uploading them without having paid for a license. Others upload rentals or media captured from broadcast TV, not purchases.
Public libraries welcome donations of books. And as I mentioned in my parent comment, startups are trying to work within copyright law to allow people to upload their movies/music and loan it out to others with the caveat that the number of simultaneous consumers of the media cannot exceed the number of licensed copies. I'd like to see such services take off, though they face an uphill battle to prove that loaning format shifted media isn't a copyright violation.
Public libraries welcome donations of books. And as I mentioned in my parent comment, startups are trying to work within copyright law to allow people to upload their movies/music and loan it out to others with the caveat that the number of simultaneous consumers of the media cannot exceed the number of licensed copies. I'd like to see such services take off, though they face an uphill battle to prove that loaning format shifted media isn't a copyright violation.
The uphill battle of libraries trying to deal with the technicalities of copyright law and its whimsical interpretation by the courts (format-shifting, etc.) is a minor battle, I think.
The real uphill battle is convincing content creators and distributors to focus on new and interesting ways to persuade people to pay for content, rather than trying to mandate that everyone pay for the content and mandating punishment for those who don't and are caught.
The real uphill battle is convincing content creators and distributors to focus on new and interesting ways to persuade people to pay for content, rather than trying to mandate that everyone pay for the content and mandating punishment for those who don't and are caught.
You're basically arguing against digitization of media. The whole point of digital stuff is that we can make nearly-instantaneous, perfect replicas with negligent overhead. That's why we convert and encode stuff as strings of repeatable digits. Attempting to limit the number of copies of mass-produced, digitized media in circulation is not only silly but totally futile. They simply must accept that the old monetization model based on artificially controlled scarcity is no longer tenable. As Bruce Schneier says, trying to make digital bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet. It's an inextricable property of the medium.
Your example of the app store is actually good, and shows a good monetization path that actually benefits from the inherent properties of the digital medium. You're right that some people still try to pirate 99 cent apps, but in my experience those people aren't part of the audience in the first place, because they don't have the 99 cents to spend, or they wouldn't be wasting hours and days to save themselves a few dollars. The time of anyone with a job is significantly more valuable than that. While there are always going to be a few penny wise and pound foolish irrational actors in the mix, you can't cripple your business based on that kind of rabid obsession. You have to let it go at some point.
It's time to give up the archaic, draconian copyright regime that demands total control of a PC before it allows it to display a movie and reasonably embrace our digitized future, including building monetization models that aren't "sue filesharers".
Your example of the app store is actually good, and shows a good monetization path that actually benefits from the inherent properties of the digital medium. You're right that some people still try to pirate 99 cent apps, but in my experience those people aren't part of the audience in the first place, because they don't have the 99 cents to spend, or they wouldn't be wasting hours and days to save themselves a few dollars. The time of anyone with a job is significantly more valuable than that. While there are always going to be a few penny wise and pound foolish irrational actors in the mix, you can't cripple your business based on that kind of rabid obsession. You have to let it go at some point.
It's time to give up the archaic, draconian copyright regime that demands total control of a PC before it allows it to display a movie and reasonably embrace our digitized future, including building monetization models that aren't "sue filesharers".
My philosophy on this is simple: I ask myself what the right thing to do is. I saw Prometheus in the theater and liked it enough that I wanted to have it at home. When it was released on Bluray, I could have found a torrent and easily downloaded a ripped copy. Instead, in my mind the right thing to do was to vote with my wallet and reward those who made it by paying the asking price. I do this for digital bits delivered via Netflix, iTunes, and physical media whether purchased or rented via Redbox and such. I guess that makes me archaic.
The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?
Src: Eben Moglen
Src: Eben Moglen
Even if I did buy a blu-ray of it, I would torrent it because:
a) I don't want to muck about with disks to watch things on my computer
b) I don't know how to rip it myself (and doing so is no less illegal than torrenting afaik)
I purchase the media I consume too. That's not the part that's archaic, necessarily. It is no longer possible to artificially constrain supply of desired intellectual property, and business plans that refuse to consider this are archaic. It doesn't necessarily mean that no one will be paying money for intellectual property anymore.
[deleted]
How about we come back to this when libraries are monetized by billions of ad impressions a month and don't even pay for what they hand out?
Libraries today are monetized by many millions of tax dollars, money which is extracted compulsorily from everyone within a certain geographic area. imo this is more lucrative than banner ad sales.
Libraries already often don't pay for everything that they hand out; they welcome and indeed rely upon donations.
Libraries already often don't pay for everything that they hand out; they welcome and indeed rely upon donations.
Which library are you talking about?
*Guy who stole from artists IS everywhere.
It's much more accurate that way.
corrected, that's how the torrent work :p
It's much more accurate that way.
corrected, that's how the torrent work :p
What is your homeaddress? I'll send you 10 random CD's that I own.
Am I now stealing from the artists? Are you?
Am I now stealing from the artists? Are you?
Depends if you made a copy of the CDs first.
Does it though?
One could argue that even without making the copy I am depriving artists from income. Perhaps one or two of those CDs you would actually have bought yourself had you not received them from me for free.
Follow that line of thought and pretty soon no gifts could ever be exchanged as it could potentially be considered theft.
Now, what if there were a website that you could post something like: "Man, I'd really love to have that latest Rihanna CD. Here's my address." And some do-gooder would be able to send you his copy, since he doesn't want it any longer.
No copies made. No money exchanged hands. Just a gift from one fan to another.
Yet you are still depriving Rihanna her 2cts. Someone is still stealing. I mean, Rihanna is still a few cents short, isn't she?
I don't know, man. This whole thing is too grey. Far too grey to simply say that TPB is depriving income simply by providing a platform for downloading .torrent files that could potentially be used to download copyrighted materials, which could possibly sometimes deprive some artist of some income.
One could argue that even without making the copy I am depriving artists from income. Perhaps one or two of those CDs you would actually have bought yourself had you not received them from me for free.
Follow that line of thought and pretty soon no gifts could ever be exchanged as it could potentially be considered theft.
Now, what if there were a website that you could post something like: "Man, I'd really love to have that latest Rihanna CD. Here's my address." And some do-gooder would be able to send you his copy, since he doesn't want it any longer.
No copies made. No money exchanged hands. Just a gift from one fan to another.
Yet you are still depriving Rihanna her 2cts. Someone is still stealing. I mean, Rihanna is still a few cents short, isn't she?
I don't know, man. This whole thing is too grey. Far too grey to simply say that TPB is depriving income simply by providing a platform for downloading .torrent files that could potentially be used to download copyrighted materials, which could possibly sometimes deprive some artist of some income.
I don't see what is so grey about it. Regifting property to one other person without retaining it, OK. Regifting property to multiple people or while retaining it, not OK. You could argue that regifting is depriving artists, but it is terrible argument because property is generally allowed to be redistributed without the original creator's consent.
If digital files are property, why can't I resell them?
I don't see how my comment says you can't. I just don't think you can resell them to multiple people or resell them while keeping the property.
My intention was to point out a current difficulty with digital files, which is that they are legally stuck half way between property and license. You used the word property as if it was assumed, which struck me as odd, because to me they don't feel like property.
My comment was trying to point out that if we really tried to view digital files as property we get into problematic territory. For example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842851
A lot of the language around digital rights issues seems to me to be loaded. The use of theft to refer to copyright or even the words Intellectual Property, begs the question of an argument not yet proven. Eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Intellectual_Prope...
My comment was trying to point out that if we really tried to view digital files as property we get into problematic territory. For example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842851
A lot of the language around digital rights issues seems to me to be loaded. The use of theft to refer to copyright or even the words Intellectual Property, begs the question of an argument not yet proven. Eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Intellectual_Prope...
Sweden should be hung out to trial by the EU, Cambodia by the UN.
Remember the words:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Our human rights are being denied by our own governments, who see no limit to their political power in breaking legal process and crossing global borders.
We have seen what they have done to Assange, what they have done to Kim Dotcom, what they have done to Gottfried. All within a single year. All within our community. All flouting international law. Not to mention Aaron.
As states merge with the internet and the future of our civilization becomes the future of the internet, we must redefine force relations. If we do not, the universality of the internet will merge global humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control. We must raise an alarm. Julian Assange, 'Cypherpunks': http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/cypherpunks/