Piratebay strikes back(blog.brokep.com)
blog.brokep.com
Piratebay strikes back
http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/08/fail-in-nl/
105 comments
I'm willing to bet 100 euros that Brein will get away with it.
What we really need right now is for Experian to come out and present the real report - or to publicly refute that any report was ever requested.
If Experian can testify to the tune that Brein falsified the report, then they're in for a real ride.
If Experian can testify to the tune that Brein falsified the report, then they're in for a real ride.
BREIN is the organisation that puts inane 'Downloading is theft' (which it a simple lie, as any lawyer can tell you) commercials at the start of movies in the cinema and on DVD - not possible to skip them of course! Talking down to their paying public like they do, it's like they really WANT people to stop paying for movies and pirate them.
Agreed. Not being able to skip that (and other) crap on DVDs is infuriating! It's really one of my pet peeves.
If you don't mind using a PC as a DVD player, AnyDvd strips all that stuff out (along with region coding and most other DRM)
and then you burn the stripped video back and put it in your home theater.
Good point.
I've actually got an old Thinkpad hooked up to my TV. It works better than you might think. The dock has HDMI and it puts out a full 1080.
I've actually got an old Thinkpad hooked up to my TV. It works better than you might think. The dock has HDMI and it puts out a full 1080.
Would you please elaborate: which Thinkpad and dock models are those? I was not aware that there is such thing as dock with HDMI.
Apologies! I meant DVI (along with a DVI->HDMI cable). But as far as I can tell, that's just as good. All digital signal and it looks crisp on my HD TV.
It's a T43/p. I believe the /p is important since the regular T43 had a crap graphics card. And I think it's a ThinkPad Port Replicator II (like $20 on ebay).
Getting the drivers for the DVI port just right under Linux took some work though.
It's a T43/p. I believe the /p is important since the regular T43 had a crap graphics card. And I think it's a ThinkPad Port Replicator II (like $20 on ebay).
Getting the drivers for the DVI port just right under Linux took some work though.
A program which is itself illegal...?
It might be illegal in the US thanks to the DMCA (I'm not sure, and I'm not a lawyer), but it really shouldn't be. It's an unjust law.
The DMCA is, itself, a racket and was designed right from the start to be.
It's misguided like most things in the "War against Piracy". The people who really suffer are the ones who legally purchased the DVD. Most DVDs you download have those things stripped out. Same with games and applications.
All that "you can't skip these previews" crap at the beginning of DVDs were be there regardless of pirates. It's all about companies treating customers as an inexhaustible resource to mine as they see fit.
as any lawyer can tell you
As a point of order they would almost certainly tell you it a) depends on the country, b) has been untested in the majority of countries so it is neither right nor wrong and anyway it probably would count as theft in a civil case sense.
However I agree BREIN are a bit crazy - and the video they add to DVD's is inane.
On the other hand better that than suing individuals I suppose :D (even though that happens too :()
As a point of order they would almost certainly tell you it a) depends on the country, b) has been untested in the majority of countries so it is neither right nor wrong and anyway it probably would count as theft in a civil case sense.
However I agree BREIN are a bit crazy - and the video they add to DVD's is inane.
On the other hand better that than suing individuals I suppose :D (even though that happens too :()
[deleted]
It agree with a), but I would expect 'copyright infringement' covers the situation in most countries with IP laws.
As to b), isn't that mainly applicable to common law systems like the US, UK and its ex-colonies? Most of the rest of the world uses the civil law system which gives much less power to precedents.
No, the crime is copyright infringement. Almost all countries have signed the Berne Convention treaty, and made copyright infringement illegal according to national law.
Theft is a different crime that has been illegal pretty much for as long as there has been laws.
Pirating a movie is illegal because it is copyright infringement, not because it is theft. Therefore, calling it theft is a lie, as any lawyer can tell you.
Theft is a different crime that has been illegal pretty much for as long as there has been laws.
Pirating a movie is illegal because it is copyright infringement, not because it is theft. Therefore, calling it theft is a lie, as any lawyer can tell you.
Actually the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty is the more applicable one :) (it's an extension to the Berne treaty to make it cover software). Unfortunately whilst both treaties are very specific in some aspects they are unchallenged very unspecific in other important areas.
Also; they establish a civil crime not a criminal one. Theft laws may still apply here in the UK, as it is I know the only massive obstacle to infringement as theft (here in the UK) is the final article - all about the intention to deprive permanently. There are movements by certain pressure groups to get it clarified where the line is drawn.
And anyway - the point the video is trying to make is that it is a "moral" theft. I think it's fair to say the copyright holder has the right to say they feel that morally a "pirate" is "stealing" from them :)
(Im not defending them or the video - or trying to suggest it should be theft)
Also; they establish a civil crime not a criminal one. Theft laws may still apply here in the UK, as it is I know the only massive obstacle to infringement as theft (here in the UK) is the final article - all about the intention to deprive permanently. There are movements by certain pressure groups to get it clarified where the line is drawn.
And anyway - the point the video is trying to make is that it is a "moral" theft. I think it's fair to say the copyright holder has the right to say they feel that morally a "pirate" is "stealing" from them :)
(Im not defending them or the video - or trying to suggest it should be theft)
> And anyway - the point the video is trying to make is that it is a "moral" theft. I think it's fair to say the copyright holder has the right to say they feel that morally a "pirate" is "stealing" from them :)
The actual problem being that they don't state it that way. They don't state that it's a 'moral' theft and not a legal theft. They just state it as 'theft.' It's a PR campaign, plain and simple. They want to influence people to see stealing a car, or stealing 'candy from a baby' as the exact same thing as downloading a movie without paying for it.
The actual problem being that they don't state it that way. They don't state that it's a 'moral' theft and not a legal theft. They just state it as 'theft.' It's a PR campaign, plain and simple. They want to influence people to see stealing a car, or stealing 'candy from a baby' as the exact same thing as downloading a movie without paying for it.
> Theft is a different crime that has been illegal pretty much for as long as there has been laws.
No, it hasn't. Copyright law was pretty much invented with the Statute of Anne which was passed in the UK in 1710. Before that some countries had printing monopolies, but no copyright.
No, it hasn't. Copyright law was pretty much invented with the Statute of Anne which was passed in the UK in 1710. Before that some countries had printing monopolies, but no copyright.
Oh shit! Have fun with those forgery charges..
This is so hilarious, I'm absoutely loving it.
The amount of raw, undistilled incompetence boggles the mind.
Fighting a lost case and losing the case is one thing. Forging court documents and losing everything: PRICELESS.
It also speaks volumes about the mental capabilities of the individuals at work here. How absurdly stupid do you have to be to forge a document that can be trivially cross-checked with a phone-call at the issuing agency? This is not something where you can weasel out later with an "oops, didn't mean to". It's plain out fraud and I don't think judges have much humor in that regard.
Anyways, I think I'm gonna forge me a nice tax-return statement now and sue my state over it...
The amount of raw, undistilled incompetence boggles the mind.
Fighting a lost case and losing the case is one thing. Forging court documents and losing everything: PRICELESS.
It also speaks volumes about the mental capabilities of the individuals at work here. How absurdly stupid do you have to be to forge a document that can be trivially cross-checked with a phone-call at the issuing agency? This is not something where you can weasel out later with an "oops, didn't mean to". It's plain out fraud and I don't think judges have much humor in that regard.
Anyways, I think I'm gonna forge me a nice tax-return statement now and sue my state over it...
Hilarious! This is worthy of a movie. Or a soap opera at the minimum.
I'm happy for the guys behind pirate bay they are making a killing, every time an article like this crops up on pages like this or digg/reddit its more marketing.
start-ups take note- controversial is king!
start-ups take note- controversial is king!
Software start-ups should in particular note: If you're selling B2C and your target market is technically savvy, the folks who will pirate and distribute your work are considered heroes by many you've hoped to sell to.
They provide a better product for less money. That's called capitalism.
The fact that it's my product is unfortunate, but ultimately, I have to compete with them. I can only do that if I can make it easier to deal with my company than with the Pirate Bay. (Which is exactly how iTunes and Spotify work, for instance. You can compete with free: you do it by being convenient, and by finding ways to add value where it wouldn't otherwise exist.)
I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff from various torrent sites, but you know what's funny? I've never downloaded anything that I could have purchased from the copyright holder instead. Whose fault is that?
The fact that it's my product is unfortunate, but ultimately, I have to compete with them. I can only do that if I can make it easier to deal with my company than with the Pirate Bay. (Which is exactly how iTunes and Spotify work, for instance. You can compete with free: you do it by being convenient, and by finding ways to add value where it wouldn't otherwise exist.)
I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff from various torrent sites, but you know what's funny? I've never downloaded anything that I could have purchased from the copyright holder instead. Whose fault is that?
Is there actually controversy here? I thought that the anti-piracy boys had more or less entrenched themselves as antagonists in the public mindset.
look at it from both sides- wouldnt be in court if it wasnt controversial
lol, yes it would
Why do you think they are making a killing?
Any US citizens use Pirate Bay less? I applaud them for forcing media's hand which prompted great sites like Hulu and Justin.TV(lol - best of the bunch). It maybe time to throw in the towel; downloading no longer cuts it for me, prefer streaming.
To be honest, I hope these guys are going to jail.
You must be a fool to believe that they don't own the pirate bay anymore, or are not associated with the keyman islands shell company running the company.
Alone mininova disclosed making > 1 million of profit a year, piratebay's profit must be much bigger, all from the copyrighted works of others.
Most of you wouldn't support piratebay anymore if your program/source code showed up there, except if it's opensource.
You must be a fool to believe that they don't own the pirate bay anymore, or are not associated with the keyman islands shell company running the company.
Alone mininova disclosed making > 1 million of profit a year, piratebay's profit must be much bigger, all from the copyrighted works of others.
Most of you wouldn't support piratebay anymore if your program/source code showed up there, except if it's opensource.
I understand your position, but the thing is that there is no proof for either of the claims you are making:
* Not that they own TPB (the Swedish IRS have even concluded that they do not.)
* Not that TPB are making any money. While they must have some revenue (from banner clicks), it is not at all certain that it exceeds the costs of running the website.
It's possible for both claims to be true, but it's not proven. I, for one, do not wish people who haven't been proven guilty to go to jail. I certainly don't think that your hunch that they probably do own it should suffice.
As a bonus, keep in mind that the crime they're charged with is is something as flimsy as "aiding" unspecified crimes against copyright — that's right, the copyright crimes that they are supposed to have aided are unspecified, and nobody has been accused of committing those.
* Not that they own TPB (the Swedish IRS have even concluded that they do not.)
* Not that TPB are making any money. While they must have some revenue (from banner clicks), it is not at all certain that it exceeds the costs of running the website.
It's possible for both claims to be true, but it's not proven. I, for one, do not wish people who haven't been proven guilty to go to jail. I certainly don't think that your hunch that they probably do own it should suffice.
As a bonus, keep in mind that the crime they're charged with is is something as flimsy as "aiding" unspecified crimes against copyright — that's right, the copyright crimes that they are supposed to have aided are unspecified, and nobody has been accused of committing those.
- The Swedish IRS can claim whatever they want. They don't have access to the bank accounts on these islands, so how should they know if some of them are affilated to that company.
- It is completely irrelevant if the TPB is making money or not.
And I bet it does a hell lot, or otherwise they wouldn't been so keen to go to jail.
> And I bet it does a hell lot, or otherwise they wouldn't been so keen to go to jail.
No offense, but sometimes people are willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in. Just because what they believe in is something that you disagree with doesn't make them any less willing to possibly sacrifice themselves for their cause.
I don't believe that the Middle East should be ruled over by Muslim 'overlords' that use the religion as a form of governance, but that doesn't mean that there are no suicide bombers out there willing to further that cause.
No offense, but sometimes people are willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in. Just because what they believe in is something that you disagree with doesn't make them any less willing to possibly sacrifice themselves for their cause.
I don't believe that the Middle East should be ruled over by Muslim 'overlords' that use the religion as a form of governance, but that doesn't mean that there are no suicide bombers out there willing to further that cause.
The Swedish IRS aren't making any claim. They just can't find any proof that the TPB has anything to do with the accused. And without proof, they don't.
What? That makes no sense what so ever. How does TPB's hypothetical revenue increase the chance that the accused own TPB?
What? That makes no sense what so ever. How does TPB's hypothetical revenue increase the chance that the accused own TPB?
I'm disappointed they are gone. I used the Pirate Bay as my primary tracker for distributing my music free of charge.
I think you wouldn't find many "coders" that give a shit if their code is "pirated". For most of them, it's a day job.
except that source code couldn't possibly show on piratebay.
With source code the major economic benefit is understanding and being able to modify that code, less so the code itself.
Source code available on pirate bay is useless unless someone spends a lot of time / money on figuring out how it works. This is why people can write in scripting languages without worrying about the "openness" of the source.
Source code available on pirate bay is useless unless someone spends a lot of time / money on figuring out how it works. This is why people can write in scripting languages without worrying about the "openness" of the source.
I think it would more apt if both sides go to jail, neither is the answer to the future of artistic works. On one side a bunch of cartels that IMO should be investigated by the monopolies and mergers commission and on the other freetards that don't provide a realistic revenue model for artists.
I can't resist. I'm a freetard and here is my proposal:
* Artists(haha, really? is Spears and "artist"?) perform live to earn income
I know... it's earth shattering.
If people don't think it's worth the trouble of recording, then they shouldn't do it. See how many people come to your live performance without the free advertising that recordings provide.
Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Should I give up my rights so "recording artists" can be filthy rich? I think not. And also, I don't give two shits about all the administrative ppl in the recording industry. They can all live in the streets for all I care. The current system is worse then welfare.
* Artists(haha, really? is Spears and "artist"?) perform live to earn income
I know... it's earth shattering.
If people don't think it's worth the trouble of recording, then they shouldn't do it. See how many people come to your live performance without the free advertising that recordings provide.
Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Should I give up my rights so "recording artists" can be filthy rich? I think not. And also, I don't give two shits about all the administrative ppl in the recording industry. They can all live in the streets for all I care. The current system is worse then welfare.
How about authors? How much money have you spent, lifetime, to hear an author read his books to you?
Books are horrible about copyright. There are many books tied up in copyright that are completely out of print, and if I wanted to buy a copy I would have to buy a used copy at an exorbitant price (due to scarcity).
At this point the author (or the publisher) is seeing NO money. Is there a real reason why I can't just take a copy of the book, put it to PDF and distribute it for free? The people that were involved in the production of the book have essentially abandoned it, but they will definitely jump out of the woodwork to try and cash in on it if someone were to 'make it profitable again' (which includes suing a person for distributing it).
I see these as the moral equivalent of submarine patents. (Patents where you wait until something becomes popular, and then pop out of the woodwork to sue the biggest companies that you can find for millions or billions of dollars)
At this point the author (or the publisher) is seeing NO money. Is there a real reason why I can't just take a copy of the book, put it to PDF and distribute it for free? The people that were involved in the production of the book have essentially abandoned it, but they will definitely jump out of the woodwork to try and cash in on it if someone were to 'make it profitable again' (which includes suing a person for distributing it).
I see these as the moral equivalent of submarine patents. (Patents where you wait until something becomes popular, and then pop out of the woodwork to sue the biggest companies that you can find for millions or billions of dollars)
You've got a point, but the e-book market is vanishingly small compared to the regular paper-book market. Paper-books don't get pirated. You can pretty much write that off as advertising.
Of course, their market will implode once we get thin and light screens that can deliver the crisp of type printed on paper.
Of course, their market will implode once we get thin and light screens that can deliver the crisp of type printed on paper.
I just go to the library.
(Interlibrary Loan is awesome.)
(Interlibrary Loan is awesome.)
By selling their services to others. Musicians can sell live performances. Authors can ghost write, edit, etc. This isn't a big leap of imagination.
>> Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Should I give up my rights so "recording artists" can be filthy rich?
It's a fallacy that most recording artists are "filthy rich", not mention how much they make is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What "right" are you giving up?
It's a fallacy that most recording artists are "filthy rich", not mention how much they make is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What "right" are you giving up?
The follow rights:
* The right to share * The right to modify * The right to use in anyway I want
* The right to share * The right to modify * The right to use in anyway I want
The pirates aren't freetards. I resent your accusation.
The current model isn't working if it's so easily subverted. The solution is to figure out a model that's pirate-proof. They exist.
The current model isn't working if it's so easily subverted. The solution is to figure out a model that's pirate-proof. They exist.
Spotify is huge in Sweden, TPB's home. According to a survey, [the vast majority] of Spotify users have stopped pirating. I think this proves you are right.
Pirate-proof in the sense that works can't be pirated? Or pirate-proof in the sense that piracy is unnecessary because works are already free? I'm pretty sure the former is impossible.
The former's impossible in the paradigm where the only way to make money off music is to sell songs. That's not true, though.
A few of the models I'm going to be experimenting with: Raising money before you release an album, with certain perks given to people that pay the money for release. Offering special exclusives that people can choose to pay for, that most people interested in just music won't bother pirating. That's why I'm excited for the iTunes LP: It's an idea that's worth money even after you own the music, that appeals to fans and less to casual criminals.
I'm currently thinking of launching an ARG with a future music project. I think that launching a video game through an album distribution would be really fun and potentially really profitable.
A few of the models I'm going to be experimenting with: Raising money before you release an album, with certain perks given to people that pay the money for release. Offering special exclusives that people can choose to pay for, that most people interested in just music won't bother pirating. That's why I'm excited for the iTunes LP: It's an idea that's worth money even after you own the music, that appeals to fans and less to casual criminals.
I'm currently thinking of launching an ARG with a future music project. I think that launching a video game through an album distribution would be really fun and potentially really profitable.
Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear there.
Not all pirates are freetards, i'm talking about the two ends of the spectrum here. I am a pirate for example but I also subscribe to EMusic and make a point of buying direct from artists when I can and seeing bands live. Some people however are loathe to do this as well and believe that content should always be free.
As it stands both models are somewhat flawed and neither are the way forward in their present state.
Not all pirates are freetards, i'm talking about the two ends of the spectrum here. I am a pirate for example but I also subscribe to EMusic and make a point of buying direct from artists when I can and seeing bands live. Some people however are loathe to do this as well and believe that content should always be free.
As it stands both models are somewhat flawed and neither are the way forward in their present state.
Okay, that makes sense. :-)
My policy is, I buy from artists who I feel aren't big. I bought Joanna Newsom's album for a friend of mine after I downloaded it, and I just got a song from Pomplamoose, which is a crazy duo I found on Youtube. When I feel like my money's going to a good cause, then I pay.
My policy is, I buy from artists who I feel aren't big. I bought Joanna Newsom's album for a friend of mine after I downloaded it, and I just got a song from Pomplamoose, which is a crazy duo I found on Youtube. When I feel like my money's going to a good cause, then I pay.
> ... and on the other freetards that don't provide a realistic revenue model for artists.
Gee, I didn't know this "intellectual property" war has gone this far! Is it now a crime not to provide a realistic revenue model for artists?
Just in case it's actually true (I haven't been following the news recently) I am hereby providing a realistic revenue model for artists: get a job.
No, really. I don't believe that being an artist (or an author in general) entitles you to anything. Copyright is a privilege, not a god-given right. Its original purpose was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", a social contract designed to provide fair compensation for contributing to the public pool of ideas.
Then the suits came and fucked this up with their concept of intellectual "property" and perpetual copyright term extensions. Copyright doesn't serve its original purpose anymore, we should just drop it. If you don't like it, don't publish. It had been this way for most of human history and it worked fine.
Gee, I didn't know this "intellectual property" war has gone this far! Is it now a crime not to provide a realistic revenue model for artists?
Just in case it's actually true (I haven't been following the news recently) I am hereby providing a realistic revenue model for artists: get a job.
No, really. I don't believe that being an artist (or an author in general) entitles you to anything. Copyright is a privilege, not a god-given right. Its original purpose was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", a social contract designed to provide fair compensation for contributing to the public pool of ideas.
Then the suits came and fucked this up with their concept of intellectual "property" and perpetual copyright term extensions. Copyright doesn't serve its original purpose anymore, we should just drop it. If you don't like it, don't publish. It had been this way for most of human history and it worked fine.
well, it's good to believe Reservella is not connected to TPB, but it must be run and owned by someone. TPB claims that the ownership was transferred to this company in 2006. Now how they can be continually discussing a sale of TPB if they don't own it? Anonymous offshore companies are useless under the scrutiny they get. Sooner or latter it will be known who controls it and in this case, I believe, to our major disappointment.
> Now how they can be continually discussing a sale of TPB if they don't own it?
So far as I know none of the people that are being charged here stand to gain any money from the sale of ThePirateBay. The company that owns it is the one that stands to profit. This was my impression ever since I heard about the possible sale.
So far as I know none of the people that are being charged here stand to gain any money from the sale of ThePirateBay. The company that owns it is the one that stands to profit. This was my impression ever since I heard about the possible sale.
" it's good to believe Reservella is not connected to TPB, but it must be run and owned by someone. "
That's true in most European countries, but in the U.S. and certain other areas, it is in fact possible to have a company with not just anonymous ownership, but NO owner.
You can structure a company such that all stock works something like a bearer bond: whoever happens to hold the piece of paper is the owner.
That's true in most European countries, but in the U.S. and certain other areas, it is in fact possible to have a company with not just anonymous ownership, but NO owner.
You can structure a company such that all stock works something like a bearer bond: whoever happens to hold the piece of paper is the owner.
You don't have to own something to discuss a sale of it.
This war is already lost for copyrights protectors, the question is when they stop bother us.
By us, people who steal stuff?
The tactics involved in "defending" copyright do more to inconvenience legitimate consumers than pirates.
Indeed. I would not mind paying for movies, but the studios won't let me. My computer runs the wrong operating system, my HDMI cable is not the right kind, the movie isn't for sale in my country, etc., etc. OK fine, I will just download it instead. All that anti-piracy protection gave me no option but to pirate the movie.
Oh, the irony.
(I could "just do without", but why should I suffer for the studio's mistakes?)
Oh, the irony.
(I could "just do without", but why should I suffer for the studio's mistakes?)
I think this argument is disingenuous. We as consumers do not have any "right" to copyrighted content. If you can't watch a movie because of some distribution problem, so what? It's their loss because they've alienated a purchaser, but it still doesn't mean you are entitled to it.
I am very against DRM on content I have purchased, and I've admittedly "sampled" music that I may or may not have purchased later. But I've never violated digital rights because I felt like I had some sort of privilege to do so. I would love to see an overhaul of the industry, but until we do, we can play by their rules, or at least be genuine about it when we don’t.
I am very against DRM on content I have purchased, and I've admittedly "sampled" music that I may or may not have purchased later. But I've never violated digital rights because I felt like I had some sort of privilege to do so. I would love to see an overhaul of the industry, but until we do, we can play by their rules, or at least be genuine about it when we don’t.
Copyright is a compromise between the general public and the creators of the material. It's a construct that exists to promote the creation and distribution of works.
If you can't watch a movie, what does that serve? The public is clearly not getting anything. And the creator isn't getting anything either. Everybody loses. This isn't the same as simply not being able to pay either.
If you can't watch a movie, what does that serve? The public is clearly not getting anything. And the creator isn't getting anything either. Everybody loses. This isn't the same as simply not being able to pay either.
I agree. My main contention is with technology being bent to enforce compliance. Per definition, this only inconveniences legitimate consumers, since in order to pirate something at all, those measures must have been defeated.
Basically, I don't take issue with copyright law. I take issue with producers "managing" my rights for me. Tell me my rights, trust me to abide by them, and sue me for transgressions.
Basically, I don't take issue with copyright law. I take issue with producers "managing" my rights for me. Tell me my rights, trust me to abide by them, and sue me for transgressions.
^^This!
Bittorrent is possibly the best distribution system ever. There is no DRM, there are no checks to see if you're in the right country, there's nothing stopping you from getting exactly what you want.
Movies for example...some people hate the extra/bonus features on DVDs and just want to see the damned movie while others like them. Why don't movie companies distribute two different versions? Also, what about letting people in all sorts of countries download or watch things? This is possibly the worst thing for me because I'm Canadian.
Bittorrent is possibly the best distribution system ever. There is no DRM, there are no checks to see if you're in the right country, there's nothing stopping you from getting exactly what you want.
Movies for example...some people hate the extra/bonus features on DVDs and just want to see the damned movie while others like them. Why don't movie companies distribute two different versions? Also, what about letting people in all sorts of countries download or watch things? This is possibly the worst thing for me because I'm Canadian.
I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted. I want my "original hacker's news" back. What's next in the /. -> k5 -> hn chain?
I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted.
Because it's a lie? "Piracy" isn't theft. Abortion isn't murder. You can argue that they're wrong, but this kind of misrepresentation is the lowest possible way of discusion. In fact it's an admission that people doesn't look at copyright infringement as wrong, so it must be tagged with a stronger word.
This debate is not going away, because that's the politics of our time. So please, at least let's keep it a little more intelligent than that.
Because it's a lie? "Piracy" isn't theft. Abortion isn't murder. You can argue that they're wrong, but this kind of misrepresentation is the lowest possible way of discusion. In fact it's an admission that people doesn't look at copyright infringement as wrong, so it must be tagged with a stronger word.
This debate is not going away, because that's the politics of our time. So please, at least let's keep it a little more intelligent than that.
I get what you're after, but the connection between abortion and file sharing is a very bad one
My point is that both behaviours are misrepresented by the persons that oppose to them. Calling someone "copyright infractor" doesn't sound like an insult. "Thieve" is incorrect, but sounds more dramatic. With abortion happens the same thing.
It doesn't mean that abortion and file sharing are connected in any other way.
It doesn't mean that abortion and file sharing are connected in any other way.
Abortion is murder because it purposefully denies the baby their life. Copyright is not theft because it does not deny the creator access to and full enjoyment of their creation [though it's probably possible to construct some situation in which it does?].
Whether you believe the murder of the child is justified is a separate question. But even if you believe copyright infringement is wrong someone doing it will not stop the original creator from have access to their [original] copy.
Whether you believe the murder of the child is justified is a separate question. But even if you believe copyright infringement is wrong someone doing it will not stop the original creator from have access to their [original] copy.
Abortion is murder because...
Abortion is not murder because the law says so. Laws and beliefs are two different things. Murder and abortion (except the cirscumstances in which it's permitted) are two legal concepts. There are also "popular" meanings, but the ones that matters if you want to do something about a behaviour are the legal meanings. You can't sue people because of your beliefs.
Wrong and right are "moral" or "ethical" concepts, so different persons have different notions of right and wrong. But there is only one law (in each country, at a given moment).
Natural law is a dead idea. Of course moral concepts are often the motivation for people to try to crate and change laws. But only when the ideas take the form of law, they become a common ground.
BTW, have abortion and murder the same punishment in the USA? I mean illegal abortion. Even performed against the woman's will. I can assure you that it's not the case in many other countries.
Abortion is not murder because the law says so. Laws and beliefs are two different things. Murder and abortion (except the cirscumstances in which it's permitted) are two legal concepts. There are also "popular" meanings, but the ones that matters if you want to do something about a behaviour are the legal meanings. You can't sue people because of your beliefs.
Wrong and right are "moral" or "ethical" concepts, so different persons have different notions of right and wrong. But there is only one law (in each country, at a given moment).
Natural law is a dead idea. Of course moral concepts are often the motivation for people to try to crate and change laws. But only when the ideas take the form of law, they become a common ground.
BTW, have abortion and murder the same punishment in the USA? I mean illegal abortion. Even performed against the woman's will. I can assure you that it's not the case in many other countries.
dude, this debate is not "going away" because it's grey.
abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
A separate comment to explain a little more. In my country having sex with a person younger than 13 is considered rape, even with consent. If the 13th birthday is today, is it right to do it today and not yesterday? Why?
If a barman sells tobacco to someone who's just turned 16 it's legal. Why wasn't it legal yesterday? Laws need this kind of hard limits. Abortion is legal in many countries within certain weeks of conception. Abortion is illegal (but not murder!!) simply before birth. Penalties are different, that's the law.
I'm very happy to have laws, even if I don't like all of them, because they're way better than someone's sense of morality.
If a barman sells tobacco to someone who's just turned 16 it's legal. Why wasn't it legal yesterday? Laws need this kind of hard limits. Abortion is legal in many countries within certain weeks of conception. Abortion is illegal (but not murder!!) simply before birth. Penalties are different, that's the law.
I'm very happy to have laws, even if I don't like all of them, because they're way better than someone's sense of morality.
I don't know US laws, but in my country they're separate crimes. So "undoubtedly"? Really? Try convincing a court.
As for the debate being "grey", of course. That's my point. "Piracy is theft" is black and white. And wrong.
As for the debate being "grey", of course. That's my point. "Piracy is theft" is black and white. And wrong.
That argument is a form of definition-mongering.
It's basically "because you can't provide an EXACT line that separates these things there's no separation at all!"
But that's plainly not a convincing argument.
It's basically "because you can't provide an EXACT line that separates these things there's no separation at all!"
But that's plainly not a convincing argument.
since when does grey = no separation?
what a weird comment!
what a weird comment!
So taking software, music, books, movies, and other things without paying for them isn't theft? Is anything that can be represented as binary data free from ownership? Or only the things you want? Why is taking a car theft? Because it's physical? Care to justify that metaphysical distinction?
It's a legal distinction. Laws say that they're different.
Also there's a number of material differences that justify that different treatment.
Theft removes the object from someone. Copyright infringement does not.
Theft (as tipified in my country, opposed to "hurto" or "apropiación indebida", sorry don't know how to translate those) means certain quantity, violence on persons or things.
Even if the same laws were applied to digital content, there would be impossible to convict anybody without specific laws, because taking something from someone without violence, dameges and not depriving the owner would amount as a small fine, not worth the legal costs.
There is a concept in penal law over here that's called "punibility". The idea is that certain behaviours can't be controlled using criminal law because it's impossible to keep an eye on everybody: "behaviour that's socially accepted". If you need a policeman on every citizen, that also needs to enter your home to see if you're acting bad... then it's a bad idea to criminalize. The punishment isn't uniformly applied so it's even more unjust.
Also there's a number of material differences that justify that different treatment.
Theft removes the object from someone. Copyright infringement does not.
Theft (as tipified in my country, opposed to "hurto" or "apropiación indebida", sorry don't know how to translate those) means certain quantity, violence on persons or things.
Even if the same laws were applied to digital content, there would be impossible to convict anybody without specific laws, because taking something from someone without violence, dameges and not depriving the owner would amount as a small fine, not worth the legal costs.
There is a concept in penal law over here that's called "punibility". The idea is that certain behaviours can't be controlled using criminal law because it's impossible to keep an eye on everybody: "behaviour that's socially accepted". If you need a policeman on every citizen, that also needs to enter your home to see if you're acting bad... then it's a bad idea to criminalize. The punishment isn't uniformly applied so it's even more unjust.
That "legal distinction" says stealing music is punishable by millions in fines, so...please start making sense some time soon. The very legal system you want to overthrow you're now saying justifies claiming one isn't theft.
[deleted]
Taking a picture of a car you got from Google Streetview != theft of the car. Taking a car from the Googleplex [without the owners permission] == theft. Do you need us to explain why?
The first has zero cost to the owner of the car, they keep their car and Google keep their [Google's] picture of it, plus I get my copy.
The second denies the owner their original and any possible use of that original.
The distinction is physical, not metaphysical. The clue is in the terms property and intellectual property. One of these is ethereal and almost impossible to steal [at present], can you guess which?
The first has zero cost to the owner of the car, they keep their car and Google keep their [Google's] picture of it, plus I get my copy.
The second denies the owner their original and any possible use of that original.
The distinction is physical, not metaphysical. The clue is in the terms property and intellectual property. One of these is ethereal and almost impossible to steal [at present], can you guess which?
What's next in the /. -> k5 -> hn chain?
Sorry, but k5 was never in that chain. reddit, perhaps, is/was the next step after Slashdot.
Sorry, but k5 was never in that chain. reddit, perhaps, is/was the next step after Slashdot.
I think it was downvoted for its tone -- it's very easy to interpret as name-calling.
There is a rational basis for opposing copyright controls without simultaneously supporting piracy, but sadly, most people seem to advocate from the latter camp.
There is a rational basis for opposing copyright controls without simultaneously supporting piracy, but sadly, most people seem to advocate from the latter camp.
It doesn't matter. The war is lost anyway. You're not going to change anyone's mind; people simply don't place value on files.
Charging people in courts far away... the defendants not even knowing about it (or even two courts with hearings at the same time!)
Isn't that what the Scientology church do?
Isn't that what the Scientology church do?
It happens. You can even serve legal notice "by publication". So if you can't track someone down and the judge approves it, it's perfectly legal to serve notice by posting an ad in the local newspaper (which of course the recipient will never see).
If this weren't the case, screening your mail judiciously would be the ultimate legal defense against all civil litigation.
If this weren't the case, screening your mail judiciously would be the ultimate legal defense against all civil litigation.
Isn't that why there is a business to serving subpoenas? Couldn't this be utilized in the same way?
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/63922/pirate-bay-doet-aangifte-te...
(dutch) Update 22.03 uur: Joris van Manen, advocaat voor de stichting Brein, laat in een reactie weten dat het Experian-rapport voor Brein "geen enkele rol" speelt in de zaak tegen de beheerders. Het was destijds bij een brief aan de rechtbank toegevoegd in de zaak tegen Reservella. "We doen helemaal geen beroep meer op dat rapport. Het is ons bekend dat de gegevens erin niet kloppen."
Update 22.25 uur: Tim Kuik zegt in een reactie dat Brein zich inderdaad niet beroept op dat rapport in de zaak tegen de beheerders. Volgens hem is het rapport wel degelijk authentiek en afkomstig van Experian, maar bleek het niet te kloppen.
"Dit is afleiding, het zoveelste rookgordijn. Deze jongens blijven verstoppertje spelen. We hebben genoeg bewijs dat de beheerders verantwoordelijk zijn voor The Pirate Bay," aldus Kuik.
Persoonlijk doet de aangifte hem weinig. "Sunde zégt dat hij aangifte doet. We weten het nog niet. Ach, ik merk het wel. Van die vorige aangifte is in elk geval ook nooit meer iets vernomen."
Translation:
Update 22:03: Joris van Manan, legal council for Brein respons that the Experian report is no longer playing "any role" in the case against the owners [of tpb]. The report was added with a letter to the court in the case against Reservella. "We don't base anything on that report. We know that the data in there isn't correct"
Update 22:25: Tim Kuik responds that Brein indeed doesn't base anything on that report. According to him the report is authentic and it came from Experian, but it turned out not to be correct.
"This is just a distraction, the nth smokecurtain. These boys continue to play hide and seek. We have enough proof that as administrators they are responsible for The Pirate Bay", according to Kuik.
He's not bothered personally by the filing of charges. "Sunde says he's going to file. We don't know that yet. I'll fin out about it. That previous filing was never heard from.".
--
That may all be true, but I can't believe that the court is going to be happy with a party that has apparently not retracted a report that it knew to contain false information.
Also, if Experian says they didn't make that report and Brein says they did, where did it really come from ? If it can be pinned on Brein that they did falsify information it is going to hurt them tremendously. One thing they do is continuously harping on being on the right side of the law, if they falsify evidence then that veil is pierced once and for all.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over time, but I don't think 'we're not using that report' is going to make this go away.