Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Apr 2009 12:26 UTC, submitted by zegenie
Legal The verdict in the Pirate Bay trial surprised many people, seeing as how many errors the entertainment industry's lawyers had made, and how little understanding they seemed to have of how BitTorrent works. The height of the sentence also surprised many; for aiding in sharing just 33 copyrighted items, the four founders were sentenced to one year in jail, and a massive fine of 3.6 million USD. Well, as it turns out, we now know why we were all relatively surprised: the judge in the case, Thomas Norstrom, is member of the same pro-copyright groups as many of the people representing the entertainment industry in the case.
Thread beginning with comment 360289
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Business models
by Gregory Isaacs on Fri 24th Apr 2009 07:04 UTC
Gregory Isaacs
Member since:
2006-06-30

Of course piratng movies, software etc. is wrong. On the other hand big companies try to press as much money out of one product as possible. If they could i believe we would end up buying a song several times for every device you want to use it on and the whole thing tied to one person so that nobody else can use it.
I really believe that with the internet a new time has come and new business models have to be implemented because the old ones don't work anymore. Perhaps the new idea is more like sharing knowledge, music, movies, software and all that stuff for a fair amount of money. The idea of literally sitting on your property and this whole ownership stuff maybe not so up to date any longer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Business models
by inaneframe on Fri 24th Apr 2009 09:54 in reply to "Business models"
inaneframe Member since:
2008-10-29

How is it wrong? It's information, when you release information, whatever the format, it is as free as air. If you have a text file of a book on your computer and you somehow share that folder when I'm on your network, if I download that file, are you made any less for that exchange? It's non-competitive and non-rivalrous. Were one to try to regulate information, the amount of force, enforcement and information gathering on citizens necessary would cause nothing short of the collapse of civilization. . . THAT is wrong.

Movies, music, and other forms of information are all still information. Great, authors can make money from the information they create, awesome but should we enforce the ultimate right to ownership, that they receive compensation for EVERY use of that information at the cost of privacy and freedom in society?

Copyright was created as a simple stimulant to creation, not as a protection for creators, not as a promise of compensation either. It was a simple compromise, a short time monopoly for publishing rights in exchange for the benefit to society of more printed works being available. The funny thing is that when such a compromise is LEAST needed, we are attempting to enforce it the MOST. Absurd. Authors used to be rare and consumers of information were odd but there were still many more than authors. Now authors of works are a dime a dozen but the thing people don't realize is that the market has kept pace, at least. There are millions of ways to capitalize on one's creation today. We needn't suck every artist's and author's proverbial authorial meatcicle, when it comes to the natural rights of the general population, F' the artists and "intellectual 'property'" owners. F' em hard.

Edited 2009-04-24 09:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2