Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 15:25 UTC
Legal "File-sharing site The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK internet service providers, the High Court has ruled. The Swedish website hosts links to download mostly-pirated free music and video. Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site." Because, as we all know, protecting failing and outdated business models is more important than upholding stodgy old and annoying concepts like 'freedom of speech'. Repeat after me: we live in the free world, not China. Maybe if we say it often enough, we'll start believing it.
Order by: Score:
Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.
by Vanders on Mon 30th Apr 2012 15:50 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

So um, yeah, good luck with that.

Reply Score: 5

dmck Member since:
2006-11-02

Hmm,

I thought the High Court only covered England ?

The other parts of the UK have their own courts, well Scotland anyway.

Reply Score: 2

Sparrowhawk Member since:
2005-07-11

The High Court covers both England and Wales.

Scotland and NI have their own judicial systems.

However all three systems have one ultimate Supreme Court based just across the road from Parliament.

Reply Score: 3

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

They aren't rushing to block it. Still have access as of now on Vigin Media, what, 24+ hours later.

Reply Score: 3

Free speach
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 30th Apr 2012 16:20 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Uhm, China is the exact opposite of the UK, USA or any other Democratic country who's copyright laws you disapprove of. The events of this weekend could have been more clear.

China, as we all know, does not enforce copyright very much at all. They do however imprison and mistreat blind people who have different political views than them.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/world/asia/china-chen-internet/index....

I propose a milder form of Godwin's law. Comparing democracies to China due to copyright laws means you have obviously lost the ability to reasonably talk about copyright laws.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Free speach
by mahiyu on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:19 UTC in reply to "Free speach"
mahiyu Member since:
2010-08-06

I propose a milder form of Godwin's law. Comparing democracies to China due to copyright laws means you have obviously lost the ability to reasonably talk about copyright laws.


Perhaps, but I'm more concerned about the idea of a site (that doesn't involve physical harm to anyone) being blocked just because the government disapproves of it. That's the sort of thing the Chinese government does.

Reply Score: 3

Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I guess now I'll have to download NIN stuff illegally as Trent links all his new content to TPB.


(well technically downloading his new material from other sources wouldn't be illegal either as it's released under creative commons - but my point stands)

Reply Score: 5

v Pirate Bay must be blocked
by Alex Hitech on Mon 30th Apr 2012 16:23 UTC
RE: Pirate Bay must be blocked
by transami on Mon 30th Apr 2012 16:34 UTC in reply to "Pirate Bay must be blocked"
transami Member since:
2006-02-28

You go too far in the other direction. First of all, "evil" is a ridiculous word to use for an economic system. Secondly, capitalism can easily become even more "evil" (to use your word). The current U.S. patent system is a good case in point. It has been completely "bought". This happened when Bush ordered that the USPTO had to operate at a profit. The free-market is a great thing, and we need more of it. But don't tote it around like a religion. It has it's limitations too.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Pirate Bay must be blocked
by terrakotta on Mon 30th Apr 2012 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Pirate Bay must be blocked"
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

Free market is a good thing, no matter what. Patents and copyright stand in the way of free market, they surely ain't helping it and cost a forturne, making goods more expensive and stiffling innovation in the same time. It should be a governments goal to help create more free market in markets where there currently is none, due to natural monopolies(can't be helped that much), or artificially created mono/duo/tri/...polies (patents, copyright...).
Of course there's such a thing as wanting some fairness for someones' work but our economies and livestyles are currently based on exploiting cheap labour (think of clothes, cell phones and other fun gadgets that people in low cost countries have to work for to barely survive), so don't try to take the moral highground against so called freeloading pirates.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pirate Bay must be blocked
by eldarion on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:19 UTC in reply to "Pirate Bay must be blocked"
eldarion Member since:
2008-12-15

Since Pirate Bay helps users to violate existing laws, it must be blocked.

So does google.... In fact, so does 90% of TV movies and books. So we should ban those as well!

if you're not satisfied with existing laws, you must change them first. Any other activity is violation, and should be punished.

I completely agree! Because obviously the voting system works.

I think sharing is evil and wrong, while copyrighting and IP protection are good and needed

Exactly! Why would anyone share a book with a friend? Let him buy a copy, so he can help the economy.

Free data sharing will destroy existing economics

I wish you are saying the truth... I really wish this "economy" would end once and for all. Let's be serious here, the "economy" system that we are living on is not that economic, right? I mean, everything that we buy today is built to last only the time until the guaranty expires. How this relates to economy? Our "economy" is based on selling more and more, so that we keep growing economically. That's impossible, like the reality shows us.

Edited 2012-04-30 17:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pirate Bay must be blocked
by BluenoseJake on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:16 UTC in reply to "Pirate Bay must be blocked"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The only way to change them is to break them.

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Aye.

Reply Score: 2

The two extremes
by transami on Mon 30th Apr 2012 16:28 UTC
transami
Member since:
2006-02-28

Clearly content companies have a right to protect their assets, and thus they do everything they can to deter piracy. No one can blame them for that, and people that support out-right illegal distribution of copyrighted material are in the wrong. On the other hand, the content companies are too narrow minded to realize that pirating exists for very simple market-principled reasons --not simply b/c their are "thieves" out there that must be stopped. People want the content, but can't get access to it, either b/c it is not available or not for a price that people can afford. Case in point, I watch Project Runway. But last season I missed the first four episodes. I could not find any legitimate means to catch-up. I had to resort to illegal distributions. I can tell you that if I was not able to catch-up, I would not have watched any of that season at all.

So the real cause of piracy lies with content provider's own short-sightedness. There will alwasy be some piracy, of course, but if the content providers would simple make all their content available at reasonable cost, then it wouldn't be enough to fuss about.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:06 UTC in reply to "The two extremes"
RE[2]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

theft.


You just ruined your perfectly valid point.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[3]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The two extremes"
RE[4]: The two extremes
by kwan_e on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Depriving somebody the profit of their work is theft.


And this is why more and more companies are moving to abolish the practice of resale. Anything can be argued to be "depriving somebody the profit of their work". If I buy a game second hand, it's depriving the game company of the profit they may have had if I bought a new one.

What about the actions of companies who deprive themselves of their own profit? Many media companies don't distribute overseas even though there is almost no cost for them to do so. Research clearly shows people would be willing to pay if something was available.

What about research that shows "piracy" actually increases sales, and that "pirates" tend to buy more than the average person? Should they then be compensated by the media companies for doing the opposite of depriving them of profit?

Reply Score: 11

RE[5]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

If a company does it to themselves, that's their responsibility.

Ends don't justify the means. Never have, never will.

"The wrong thing done for the 'right' reasons is still the wrong thing." (attribution unknown).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: The two extremes
by kwan_e on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The two extremes"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Ends don't justify the means. Never have, never will.


And you can say the exact same thing about this whole copyright nonsense.

This is why, when principles fail (as they invariably do), we must stick to scientifically verifiable facts. Fact is, small time piracy does not affect profits, and in many cases contributes to profits.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Depriving somebody the profit of their work is theft. I don't care if legally it's a civil matter, it is still theft.


Not giving me money for OSNews [by becoming a subscriber] is theft. I don't care if that dun' makes any sense whatsoever, it is still theft.

Edited 2012-04-30 17:27 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

It's not theft if your business model includes releasing content openly for no cost. It would be theft if you charged, I paid, and I redistributed everything you wrote for anyone to read, contributing nothing back to you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not theft if your business model includes releasing content openly for no cost. It would be theft if you charged, I paid, and I redistributed everything you wrote for anyone to read, contributing nothing back to you.


Well, you get to make up your own definitions, so why can't I?

So, pay up, you thief.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

What would you call it, then, if it's not theft? "Copying without permission"? "Depriving them of profit for your own gain" (Sounds a lot like theft to me)?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What would you call it, then, if it's not theft? "Copying without permission"? "Depriving them of profit for your own gain" (Sounds a lot like theft to me)?


Uh... What about, I don't know, the actual correct term: "copyright infringement"?

Of course, that doesn't has that nice ring to it that "stealing" does.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: The two extremes
by Alfman on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The two extremes"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

It must be similar to what teachers feel like each year: "How am I supposed to cover complex subject matters when students don't even understand the basic fundamentals?"

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: The two extremes
by Delgarde on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

What would you call it, then, if it's not theft? "Copying without permission"? "Depriving them of profit for your own gain" (Sounds a lot like theft to me)?


We call it copyright infringement, because that's the body of law it comes under. "Theft" is *not* the right word, because that's from the body of law dealing with physical property.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: The two extremes
by dylansmrjones on Tue 1st May 2012 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

License violation, contract violation (depending on the exact letter of the law).

But theft it is not. You haven't lost anything. You may have lost a possible income, but one cannot steal something you don't have. They may prevent you from getting some you might have had otherise, but that does not equal theft.

If anything is theft it is "intellectual property".

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Tue 1st May 2012 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

As I had mentioned in my first reply, the letter of the law makes it a civil issue. But, since people around here take license with using the "spirit" instead of the "letter", I chose to use the "spirit" of the law and the act, and in that spirit I do consider it theft. Saying it's simply the "loss of potential revenue" isn't enough. If you say they "may have, but may not have" purchased it instead of committing the copyright infringement, you can only use the "may have", and use it to mean "would have". Saying "may not have" shows they had no intention of purchasing it or even viewing/listening to it, except for the fact that it was available for download. But if there is no interest in the material, why download it? The only reason to download is because there _is_ an interest in the material, of some degree. Therefore, drawing the conclusion that the sale _was_ lost.

Of course, I may be the only one on this site who believes that copyright violation of a commercial work is theft (loss of potential profit due to infringement of work is always loss of actual profit in this view).

My issue with Thom is that he makes copyright infringement appear benign, which it is not. Of course, in engaging in such disagreement, I have joined the special olympics of arguing on the internet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: The two extremes
by dylansmrjones on Tue 1st May 2012 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The two extremes"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You can only steal something if it is material. If it is not material you cannot take it and therefore cannot steal it. The entire concept of "immaterial property" is broken.

If violating copyright is theft, then copyright itself is theft.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Wed 2nd May 2012 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

How is ownership of one's own creation theft? Copyright is legal acknowledgment of one's own creation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The two extremes
by _xmv on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE: The two extremes"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

A movie is 1h30.
You may watch about 5-10 a month. If you include tv shows, those are about 3-4 a week (so up to 16 a month).
You'd like to watch all this in 1080p cause, u know, its 2012, 1080p have been around for years.

Price is about $30 for movies and $10 for shows (those are the low prices for recent content i generally find)

10*30 = $300
16*10 = $160

Is $460 reasonable? No. It just isn't. It doesn't even include music.

Then again if that was the only issue! In general you just _cannot_ even buy the said media.

So yeah, there's a problem, unless you're ok with watching year old or more movies, and one or two a month, zero tv show.

Reply Score: 5

Perhaps better if we were China
by haploR1a on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:03 UTC
haploR1a
Member since:
2012-04-30

Simply becase Chineese don't give a damn about copyrights

Reply Score: 1

Stupid analogy
by Gullible Jones on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:48 UTC
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

In the UK, you're free to criticize the government. Try that in China and you will probably get tortured and/or executed.

I don't like the slipper slope that much of the world seems to be on... But we've got a long, long, long way to fall yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Stupid analogy
by kwan_e on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:04 UTC in reply to "Stupid analogy"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

In the UK, you're free to criticize the government. Try that in China and you will probably get tortured and/or executed.

I don't like the slipper slope that much of the world seems to be on... But we've got a long, long, long way to fall yet.


By what measure can we confidently say we're a "long long long way"? Copyright affects speech and culture in general. It would seem if someone wanted to eliminate human rights, they would do so through the back door.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Stupid analogy
by sagum on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:58 UTC in reply to "Stupid analogy"
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

In the UK, you're free to criticize the government.



I know its a nice thought and everything, but the reality is you're not.

You don't have freedom to critise the government, you don't have freedom of speech. That's just yet another americanism people seem to have picked up.

You're allowed freedom of expression and freedom of thought. That's pretty much it.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:54 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

This is completely rediculous. How can they ever rule to block the whole medium for any percentage of illegal materials? what about opensourced, royalty free, creative common materials?
This is nuts. Stand up and fight for your freedom, UK citizens. You're heading into very bad direction.
Crush this "copyright lobby" by choosing small distributors, independent artists ...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This is completely rediculous. How can they ever rule to block the whole medium for any percentage of illegal materials? what about opensourced, royalty free, creative common materials?


I am going to explain to you why, and what the difference is between sites like The Pirate Bay and Google.

In the town where I live, you see a new Asian Massage Parlor (AMP) pop up from time-to-time. Of course, you CAN get a regular massage in one of these places, but if you know the right protocol, you can get much more than a massage ;) This is why most people go to AMPs. Now, I personally think prostitution should be legal, and have visited a few of these places myself, but I am never surprised when one of these places get shut down, because prostitution IS illegal here, after all; they're just enforcing the law.

And one thing you do NOT see are the owners of these establishments crying, "Waaaaaaah! We're just like every other massage parlor in town!!!!' Why? Because they know better. It's highly likely that some of this illegal activity goes on at the legit massage parlors, but if the owners found out that one or more of the girls at the legit places were providing 'extras', those girls would be fired immediately, because the owners know they would get shut down too if the cops ever found out about it. Contrast that with the AMPs, who not only allow the illegal activity to go on, but also ENCOURAGE it, and they even advertise these services on sites like Backpage or Craigslist.

So, if you support piracy and think the laws should be changed to allow it, that's ok. But with the laws being what they are, you can't be too surprised when a site like this gets shut down, or try to play the 'they're just like Google!!!' card, because clearly they're not.

Edit: I don't support piracy myself, but do realize that technology makes piracy inevitable, and it will never be stopped. Sure, you can try to make it harder for pirates by shutting down these sites, which will ultimately be about as productive as pissing into the wind.

Edited 2012-04-30 19:12 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by Alfman on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,


"Edit: I don't support piracy myself, but do realize that technology makes piracy inevitable, and it will never be stopped. Sure, you can try to make it harder for pirates by shutting down these sites, which will ultimately be about as productive as pissing into the wind."

I don't think anyone should be entitled to copy the digital works of others without compensation. On the other-hand I don't think owners of digital works should be entitled to impose DRM on users who have compensated the owners. So I do think the pirate bay does help protect even legitimate users from abusive DRM.

The recent switch over to digital cable networks in the US is an excellent case study, all of a sudden people are faced with DRM where there previously was none. Time shifting DVRs are breaking. Even those who prepared by buying digital TVs/tuners need to rent new decryption boxes due to DRM, and even playable digital streams have "no copy" flags which consumer devices and operating systems are required to adhere to. It all serves to nullifying consumers' legally granted fair use rights. It's all possible because corporations are willing/able to buy laws, and today's governments are unwilling/unable to protect the public's interests.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Mon 30th Apr 2012 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So I do think the pirate bay does help protect even legitimate users from abusive DRM.


At the moment, there's not much DRM that can't be worked around on purchased products, so you don't need The Pirate Bay much for content. They don't put DRM on music anymore, and DVDs and blu-rays can be easily cracked, as can most ebooks. (And I believe that 'fair play' from iTunes movie/TV purchases can as well.)

The two big exceptions for this are games and software, but you're more likely than not to get some sort of malware by downloading these, so you're probably better off avoiding TPB anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by Sauron on Tue 1st May 2012 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

At the moment, there's not much DRM that can't be worked around on purchased products, so you don't need The Pirate Bay much for content. They don't put DRM on music anymore, and DVDs and blu-rays can be easily cracked, as can most ebooks.


Right, OK. So today it's The Pirate Bay that gets blocked, what about tomorrow? An order that all search engine providers remove all links on how to "work around" the aforementioned DRM? Where does it stop? I think we all know the answer to that one. It doesn't and it wont!
Apart from the fact that TPB can be used for entirely legal purposes depending which country your from, I for example have downloaded countless Linux distro's and open source software from there. I have also downloaded a copy of a game from there to replace the damaged media of one I have purchased legally that wont read anymore. Although that could be considered a gray area, the law in the UK states I may have 1 backup copy for personal use, no matter what the greedy EULA states. And I will continue to do the same, from the same site, no matter what the government run court system says. These idiots couldn't block a toilet never mind a web site! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 30th Apr 2012 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

First of all - thank you for your extensive response, I appreciate it.

However, I do not think we can compare piracy to prostitution. I - myself - do not support piracy. I also do not support shutting down service with "this whole stuff is illegal" ticket. I do not support taking our freedoms away with "we need to do it, because we fight terrorism" ticket too. I think it's unreasonable, illogical, and - as you kindly mentioned - there is a more inherent and non-removable problem that lies elsewhere: piracy can not be stopped. Why? because piracy is sharing, and sharing is something we do since we evolved from apes.
Some people try to convince us that sharing is bad, where - in fact - sharing is good and constructive. It creates bonds between people, it makes helping other people possible. It widens our horizons, it makes us better people.
Marketing model ... business model ... now, that's what is flawed. That's what needs to change.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I - myself - do not support piracy .... piracy can not be stopped. Why? because piracy is sharing, and sharing is something we do since we evolved from apes.
Some people try to convince us that sharing is bad, where - in fact - sharing is good and constructive.


You say you don't support piracy, but you do support sharing, and you say that sharing is good. Sooooo.... it sounds like you DO support piracy.

But whether you do or don't, that's not really the point. The point is that as long as piracy is illegal, there is a legal justification for shutting down sites like TPB that doesn't apply to other sites like Google. (See my previous example as to why.)

If you want to come out in support for sites like TPB, you have to come out in support of piracy (which is what Thom does). If you want to set up a site for open source/legal files with strict anti-piracy rules, you can run a site like that without being shut down, but that is not what TPB was all about - they don't call it The PIRATE Bay because people are there sharing FOSS software ;)

Edited 2012-04-30 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you want to come out in support for sites like TPB, you have to come out in support of piracy (which is what Thom does).


I don't actually support piracy per se. I support a saner copyright and patent regime, and considering the vested interests have made it impossible for these to change (international treaties are embedded in things like UN/world bank/etc. membership - you can't unsign/depart those without ALSO departing those organisations), we, the people, have the right to ignore them - as we do with any bad laws.

The people have already spoken: sharing is acceptable, and not at all a moral issue. That's how laws get changed. See homosexuality in The Netherlands; it was pretty much accepted and normal for decades before the law finally caught up.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Tue 1st May 2012 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The people have already spoken: sharing is acceptable, and not at all a moral issue. That's how laws get changed. See homosexuality in The Netherlands; it was pretty much accepted and normal for decades before the law finally caught up.


So do you actually support piracy/sharing, or not? Sharing a book with a friend is one thing... sharing an ebook with a few million friends is not exactly the same thing, for similar reasons that copying is not theft. We have to make distinctions between digital and physical entities; you can't claim that they're the same when it's convenient for you, and then claim that they're not the same when it isn't. (Same holds true for the content industry.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st May 2012 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So do you actually support piracy/sharing, or not?


I support it as a means to bring about change. Once we have sane copyright laws that are not anti-consumer, there will be no more need for piracy.

Me, personally - I barely 'pirate'. Don't download movies, I buy all my music (on CDs - fcuk digital crap), and have god knows how many videogames (all legal console games). Some of those videogames were bought second hand, and some classify this as piracy.

I do 'pirate' television shows, but mostly those that aren't broadcast in The Netherlands. More often than not, I end up buying the box sets.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Tue 1st May 2012 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I support it as a means to bring about change.


Why don't you support boycotting then, instead of piracy? Boycotting accomplishes everything piracy does in this regard, with the added benefit of not giving the content industry an excuse to buy more copyright laws. The one thing the boycotting DOESN'T allow is for people to have free shit, which is why I'm guessing we don't hear a lot about boycotting from those who use the 'I'm sticking it to the man' excuse for pirating ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by Alfman on Tue 1st May 2012 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"If you want to come out in support for sites like TPB, you have to come out in support of piracy"

I don't object to your general opinion, but we must emphasize that TPB directory does not actually commit copyright infringement itself, and as for 3rd party infringement, TPB ought to be protected under the safe harbor provisions (unless it's actively promoting infringement). There's no doubt torrent file search tools like TPB can facilitate copyright infringement, but to my knowledge they haven't publicly endorsed or promoted it, have they?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Tue 1st May 2012 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

You say you don't support piracy, but you do support sharing, and you say that sharing is good. Sooooo.... it sounds like you DO support piracy.

Actually, no. I do support sharing of legal materials. I do not support sharing of unauthorised materials. You see, TPB shows you not only illegal, but also legal materials in your searches. And that's the whole point.

But whether you do or don't, that's not really the point. The point is that as long as piracy is illegal, there is a legal justification for shutting down sites like TPB that doesn't apply to other sites like Google.


And that's the point of view I'm usually deeply concerned about. There is no justification for shutting down the site that share legal materials. TPB shares legal and illegal materials. Why should the users who download legal materials suffer from not being able to download it? this doesn't make any sense.

If you want to come out in support for sites like TPB, you have to come out in support of piracy (which is what Thom does). If you want to set up a site for open source/legal files with strict anti-piracy rules, you can run a site like that without being shut down, but that is not what TPB was all about - they don't call it The PIRATE Bay because people are there sharing FOSS software


Well, not really. You kinda seem to see the whole problem in monochrome, while the whole thing is much more complicated. TPB is just a search engine. It doesn't store any illegal or legal materials itself, as you probobly know. It has clear rules for sharing *legal* materials, but it does not have resources to control every possible file uploaded onto it. You need to remember that the users are responsible for piracy, not the site itself. It is hugely important distinction which seems not to be observable to some people.
The name itself - The *Pirate* Bay - is merely a joke that shows enormous amount of absurd that people put into the whole thing by calling everyone who shares a "pirate" [which is highly inaccurate term: pirates are long gone. Pirates were usually hostile, pirates were interrested in ships, etc].

Best regards!

Reply Score: 3

Could be worse
by Neolander on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:58 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

So what ? One filesharing website was blocked, through means designed by technologically illiterate politics and that can as such likely be bypassed with the dumbest proxy around ?

Wake me up once they start to monitor P2P traffic and read personal emails, claiming that it is still about pirates and pedophiles.

Edited 2012-04-30 18:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Could be worse
by kwan_e on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:11 UTC in reply to "Could be worse"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Wake me up once they start to monitor P2P traffic and read personal emails, claiming that it is still about pirates and pedophiles.


So...

...you're saying your asleep NOW and oblivious to anything that's not right in front of you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Could be worse
by Neolander on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Could be worse"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

More like suggesting that people who care about the issue have probably waken up earlier, and that those still think that there is no problem probably won't be alarmed by the UK's comparatively minor actions.

At least the BPI have had the decency to take their complaints to a justice court and to target a specific website, instead of bribing their way to the ratification of vague and downright scary laws as has been done elsewhere.

Edited 2012-04-30 19:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Apparently only consumers should have rights nowadays.


That's what I was taught the free market was supposed to be about.

Long live life-long copyright. Your art is your possession. You made it, and you should be able to tell people what to do with it. If people don't agree with that, they should just find another artist or start making their own art.


So enlighten us: why is it artists that are signed to major labels often come out OWING those labels money despite making decent sales? How has copyright helped those artists?

Reply Score: 5

JoshuaS Member since:
2011-09-15

[q]Apparently only consumers should have rights nowadays.


That's what I was taught the free market was supposed to be about.

The free market is about a lot of things, but by no means a mechanism by which producers are denied by law the right to sell their own products under their own demands, and certainly not demanded by law to give their product away for free against their will. If consumers aren't happy with what the producer demands, they go to another producer instead of just taking what they want for free.

[q]So enlighten us: why is it artists that are signed to major labels often come out OWING those labels money despite making decent sales? How has copyright helped those artists?

Basically because they are stupid enough to agree with such contracts and give the rights to their work to a corporation who does not care for them nor the work. Just boycott major labels if you don't like what they do.

Reply Score: 1

Luke McCarthy Member since:
2005-07-06

They have posted manifesto-like material before.

Reply Score: 3

They're not the first
by bowkota on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:08 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

They're not the first country to do this and certainly won't be the last.

If I'm not mistaken the same decision was taken a few months ago in the (free)(lol) Netherlands.

Reply Score: 1

Dumb England!
by jefro on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:24 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

I guess they block drugs and guns to the UK too.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Dumb England!
by henderson101 on Mon 30th Apr 2012 21:10 UTC in reply to "Dumb England!"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Well, yeah. You can't buy a gun legally here without serious paperwork. No one has the "right" to bear arms either.

Reply Score: 2

How will the block be implemented?
by rklrkl on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:33 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm curious to see how they implement this block on thepiratebay.se, especially since my UK ISP is part of the O2 network, which one of the ISPs implementing this block.

I wonder if the ISPs will just do a simple DNS "hijack" of the domain to either make it look up to something unusable or to point to a "this is site blocked" page. These sorts of blocks are 100% ineffective because they are so simple to work around (hosts files, Google DNS, OpenDNS, ever mind proxy servers, VPNs and Tor goodies for those more advanced), but would technically obey the "blocking" court order.

If they try to block the Pirate Bay's IPs, then that would be a little more effective (rules out easy DNS workarounds), but a lot harder for the ISPs to monitor (e.g. the Pirate Bay will inevitably come up with changed/extra IPs over time, plus they already have loads of aliased names in different languages!).

Basically, this is the courts being dumb and assuming there are no workarounds to an ISP block, but this is far from the case.

Reply Score: 5

daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

Well, that's sort of how they did it in Ireland when one of our ISPs bowed to pressure from the musical rights guys here. Pirate Bay links just redirect to a page saying that it's an illegal site, and advertising their own "Music Hub". Any sort of proxy gets around the block, but simple DNS tricks don't work as they block IP addresses too.

Incidentally, they lost many, many customers over that, and had to implement their own Music Hub which allows music to be streamed for free by their customers through a website. Which I guess isn't a bad compromise I suppose...

Reply Score: 2

My take
by henderson101 on Tue 1st May 2012 23:35 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Back when Lost and Battlestar were still being broadcasted, and before Sky and Virgin made up and the Sky channels returned to the UK cable TV system, I used to pirate TV. Now, I don't. Why? Because, firstly, I don't watch as much TV anymore. Secondly, since UK launch, I can stream TV via Netflix. With a simple hack, I can watch US Netflix. It's just made stealing physical copies of TV shows completely pointless. Yes, hacking Netflix is dubious, but they still get my £6 a month so it's not like I'm getting anything I wouldnt if I was actually sitting in the US. If the world had more sane content sharing agreements, video piracy would decrease to almost nothing. It's really that simple.

Reply Score: 3

VPN
by AnthonyBell on Thu 3rd May 2012 11:16 UTC
AnthonyBell
Member since:
2012-05-03

I heard that this action of UK High Court brought 12 million more users to The Pirate Bay. Superb VPN can easy bypass this barrier.

Reply Score: 1