Freedom of the internet, or the end of it.

[acerba]

And I disagree. How can you separate one from the other in this case, when the specific site in question is the most famous criminal file-sharing operation since Napster? That's like saying that you can't blame the owner of a crackhouse for all the crack smoking going on in his house.

I don't see how their being (in)famous is an issue. Are you saying that you wouldn't have a problem with them, if they were less well known? As far as I'm concerned, piratebay and other file sharing websites aren't responsible for how people make use of their websites' services. They provide a service and there is nothing at all criminal about the service they provide. A motel owner isn't responsible for all the prostitution that happens inside his rooms, because, at the end of the day, the motel is providing a legitimate service. The number of prostitutes who make use of the motel doesn't matter; it doesn't make the actions of the prostitutes any more illegal, and neither does it make the actions of the motel owner any less legitimate.

As far as I'm concerned, the most you can ask of any filesharing website is that they take down illegal files when another user reports to the website that said download contains illegal content. I think it's a waste of time. It's not going to actually curb illegal file sharing (at most it'll make things a little obnoxious for the people doing it), but, for some reason, people seem to feel better when you do that sort of thing.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't see how their being (in)famous is an issue. Are you saying that you wouldn't have a problem with them, if they were less well known? As far as I'm concerned, piratebay and other file sharing websites aren't responsible for how people make use of their websites' services. They provide a service and there is nothing at all criminal about the service they provide. A motel owner isn't responsible for all the prostitution that happens inside his rooms, because, at the end of the day, the motel is providing a legitimate service. The number of prostitutes who make use of the motel doesn't matter; it doesn't make the actions of the prostitutes any more illegal, and neither does it make the actions of the motel owner any less legitimate.

As far as I'm concerned, the most you can ask of any filesharing website is that they take down illegal files when another user reports to the website that said download contains illegal content. I think it's a waste of time. It's not going to actually curb illegal file sharing (at most it'll make things a little obnoxious for the people doing it), but, for some reason, people seem to feel better when you do that sort of thing.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. And your argument doesn't hold any water. Your motel analogy doesn't work because it presumes an ignorance of the illegal use of the Pirate Bay website that is fucking impossible. In reality, your "motel" is a brothel where the owner is renting rooms by the hour, providing free condoms and lube, and sounding an alarm when the cops show up... in other words, it is a whorehouse plain and simple. Pirate Bay was/is a facilitator and participant in a criminal enterprise, also pretty plain and simple. If it were a few files slipping through the cracks it would be one thing. When it is a rarity for Pirate Bay to have a file that ISN'T illegally pirated, that's a whole other giant ball of rubber bands.

Further, what kind of bankrupt ethics drives you to excuse criminal behavior because it is hard to enforce the laws? We can't prevent all or even most assaults, but that doesn't mean we don't lock up the people we can catch.

 

[acerba]

providing free condoms and lube, and sounding an alarm when the cops show up

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of piratebay's services. The piratebay can't be said to provide condoms and lube as it doesn't provide any user support for files downloaded. As for the cops thing... there's nothing to stop a copyright holder from perusing the website for materials they own the copyright for and taking action. They can jump in on the torrent, pick up the IP addresses of those involved, and then turn to complain at the internet service provider associated with the IP address. In fact, this is exactly what companies like MediaDefender do.

The piratebay simply provides a room, and not a very secure one at that.

Further, what kind of bankrupt ethics drives you to excuse criminal behavior because it is hard to enforce the laws? We can't prevent all or even most assaults, but that doesn't mean we don't lock up the people we can catch.

I simply feel that the government's limited resources should be spent on doing things that will actually accomplish something. If the government is realistically capable of doing something to curb illegal file sharing, I'd like to hear what that is, and I would support that course of action; however, until such time, I think it would be wiser if the government focused its attention on more realistic goals. It's not like there is a shortage of issues for the government to address.

 

[Marcus]

Actually, a better analogy for TPB is providing a noticeboard on which hookers can pin their cards. The cards, in and of themselves, are not illegal - just as the torrent hashes are in no way copyrighted. TPB are facilitating copyright theft only to the extent that they are putting people wanting to share copyrighted material in contact with each other, but they are not directly engaged in any way beyond facilitating that initial contact.

The reality of the situation is similar to the reality of drug control. You have to start from the position that it's practically impossible to even slightly dent the extent of illegal file sharing using the current prohibition and enforcement model. The motivation for the file sharing is simply to get free stuff. Most people are ethical to a degree, but self-serving on a pragmatic level. Therefore, if you want to seriously reduce illegal file sharing, the only practical way to do so is to create legal ways to download the content that are free to the end user and that don't impinge on their experience to the extent that they'll go to an illegal download rather than (say) have to endure a five minute ad that they can't skip every time they use the downloaded content. Unfortunately, this means the distributors having to wake up to the fact that they're going to have to fire most of their staff, as the overheads and personnel requirements of online promotion and distribution are a minute fraction of those for distribution via physical media. If distributors can make these cuts, it's entirely feasible to support downloads through advertising that is sufficiently unintrusive that people will choose to use the legal downloads rather than the illegal ones.

There's a reason why the people making the biggest noise in trying to fight copyright theft aren't the creators of material but the distributors. The creators know that people want to support them, but feel they're being shafted financially by the distributors' huge markups.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Actually, a better analogy for TPB is providing a noticeboard on which hookers can pin their cards. The cards, in and of themselves, are not illegal - just as the torrent hashes are in no way copyrighted. TPB are facilitating copyright theft only to the extent that they are putting people wanting to share copyrighted material in contact with each other, but they are not directly engaged in any way beyond facilitating that initial contact.

No, it is more like a pimp, running a prostitution ring: intentionally and knowingly encouraging and taking part in criminal behavior, and making a profit for it.

The reality of the situation is similar to the reality of drug control. You have to start from the position that it's practically impossible to even slightly dent the extent of illegal file sharing using the current prohibition and enforcement model. The motivation for the file sharing is simply to get free stuff. Most people are ethical to a degree, but self-serving on a pragmatic level. Therefore, if you want to seriously reduce illegal file sharing, the only practical way to do so is to create legal ways to download the content that are free to the end user and that don't impinge on their experience to the extent that they'll go to an illegal download rather than (say) have to endure a five minute ad that they can't skip every time they use the downloaded content. Unfortunately, this means the distributors having to wake up to the fact that they're going to have to fire most of their staff, as the overheads and personnel requirements of online promotion and distribution are a minute fraction of those for distribution via physical media. If distributors can make these cuts, it's entirely feasible to support downloads through advertising that is sufficiently unintrusive that people will choose to use the legal downloads rather than the illegal ones.

There's a reason why the people making the biggest noise in trying to fight copyright theft aren't the creators of material but the distributors. The creators know that people want to support them, but feel they're being shafted financially by the distributors' huge markups.

You realize that none of that justifies stealing, right? You also understand that being a thief is legally and ethically wrong, right? Being able to get away with shitty behavior doesn't justify that behavior, or make the people involved any less wrong. It isn't the responsibility of the owners of property to make their products more attractive, or else it is OK for people to steal it.

Gosh, it is way too early for this kind of talk...

 

[Marcus]

No, it is more like a pimp, running a prostitution ring: intentionally and knowingly encouraging and taking part in criminal behavior, and making a profit for it.

To my knowledge, before it was sold the people behind TPB didn't make a direct profit from any torrent file that passed through their hands, it was all from ads and their own merchandising. Given this and the exact technical nature of how torrent file sharing works, my analogy is closer - yes, the owner of the noticeboard is intentionally and knowingly encouraging and facilitating criminal behaviour, but is not directly engaging in it or profiting therefrom.

You realize that none of that justifies stealing, right? You also understand that being a thief is legally and ethically wrong, right? Being able to get away with shitty behavior doesn't justify that behavior, or make the people involved any less wrong. It isn't the responsibility of the owners of property to make their products more attractive, or else it is OK for people to steal it.

I never once claimed it justified stealing or made it ethical. That's why I consistently used "practical" as a modifier. Regardless of the ethical standpoint, we have to live in the real world. I do claim that IP owners need to make their property more attractive, but not because it's "OK" for people to steal it otherwise, just because they will steal it otherwise. They can spend huge amounts of money constantly stamping out piracy only to see it pop up again elsewhere, or they can change their business model to make piracy less attractive than legitimate acquisition and make a (reduced) profit from legal downloads. The business decision lies in determining whether the reduction in profit from the change in model is more or less than the costs of continuing with the regulate and enforce model currently in place. I completely agree with you that piracy is akin to stealing on an ethical level, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the practical decision that the entertainment distribution industry needs to make.

 

[Don-Sama]

You realize that none of that justifies stealing, right? You also understand that being a thief is legally and ethically wrong, right? Being able to get away with shitty behavior doesn't justify that behavior, or make the people involved any less wrong. It isn't the responsibility of the owners of property to make their products more attractive, or else it is OK for people to steal it.

Downloading for own use in holland is legal, and therefor the judge has no authority over why this site has to be blocked.
also technically speaking it is ''copying'' and therefor not stealing. it is only because of the copyright that is it actually illigal to publish it. Should it be illigal for a painter to try to copy the other copy, and then selling it is a copy?

Also, I guess this is like cracking houses because they won't get used. it is here (I think) the situation that should judge the if it is illigal or legal. the corperates who make the biggest amount of money of the media (and not the actual creators), have in years did nothing at all to go along with the time, and with new technologies. they completely ignored the internet, and now they suddenly wish to have the dough that they for years have ignored? new corperates do have taken over most of the stuff now, new online ones such as youtube and such. but still the corperates must first bring alternatives that the customers want.

sites like spotify, which I heard of yesterday are still un-usable, other sites like the official site of family guy also has his media blocked for any foran country exept america. this leaves me to download family guy, since I want good quality and not some advertised crappy site on which u can watch it. Or watch it on the telly on which i can't pauze the episode, and have to be there at a surtain moment long after the episode came out. also watching top gear online (I do search for alternatives) also has its media blocked in the netherlands, while i do can watch bbc on the telly here.

they still want to keep the old shit, while I don't want some stupid disc and the other plastic crap with it, I don't want to go somewhere to buy it, or borrow it, while I can download it. I don't want to be at the telly at a surtain moment to see a tv show. and many more don't want it.

Also joe, do u actually listen to music on youtube? isn't that stealing as well?

Oh yea, and about the phr33 st0ff part, as u could have read the people who download, actually pay the most. and if they ask a reasonable amount of money ( that also younger people without a 40 hour a day working week can afford without having to miss to much) then I offcourse would be willing to pay.

Ohyea, one other thing, I do can borrow a DVD from a friend, but not sent to dvd to another friend?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Downloading for own use in holland is legal, and therefor the judge has no authority over why this site has to be blocked.
also technically speaking it is ''copying'' and therefor not stealing. it is only because of the copyright that is it actually illigal to publish it. Should it be illigal for a painter to try to copy the other copy, and then selling it is a copy?

Copying is stealing. That's why the word "copy" is in "copyright."

Also, I guess this is like cracking houses because they won't get used. it is here (I think) the situation that should judge the if it is illigal or legal. the corperates who make the biggest amount of money of the media (and not the actual creators), have in years did nothing at all to go along with the time, and with new technologies. they completely ignored the internet, and now they suddenly wish to have the dough that they for years have ignored? new corperates do have taken over most of the stuff now, new online ones such as youtube and such. but still the corperates must first bring alternatives that the customers want.

sites like spotify, which I heard of yesterday are still un-usable, other sites like the official site of family guy also has his media blocked for any foran country exept america. this leaves me to download family guy, since I want good quality and not some advertised crappy site on which u can watch it. Or watch it on the telly on which i can't pauze the episode, and have to be there at a surtain moment long after the episode came out. also watching top gear online (I do search for alternatives) also has its media blocked in the netherlands, while i do can watch bbc on the telly here.

they still want to keep the old shit, while I don't want some stupid disc and the other plastic crap with it, I don't want to go somewhere to buy it, or borrow it, while I can download it. I don't want to be at the telly at a surtain moment to see a tv show. and many more don't want it.

Also joe, do u actually listen to music on youtube? isn't that stealing as well?

Oh yea, and about the phr33 st0ff part, as u could have read the people who download, actually pay the most. and if they ask a reasonable amount of money ( that also younger people without a 40 hour a day working week can afford without having to miss to much) then I offcourse would be willing to pay.

Ohyea, one other thing, I do can borrow a DVD from a friend, but not sent to dvd to another friend?

Lots of rationalization for shitty behavior, lots of hand-waving and attacking The Man for making money.

If you aren't willing to pay for things that the owner expects you to pay for, you don't deserve to have access, period. Any other claim is bullshit unethical nonsense.

What the fuck went wrong with people, that they feel entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want it, and screw ethics, the law, and actually paying for things?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

BTW, I listen to music on iTunes, not YouTube. I have 4500 or so songs on my hard drive. I paid for every last one of them too, or got them as legal and free downloads.

 

[JacobEvans]

"got them as legal and free downloads."

How?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

How?

Creative Commons. Free samples from band websites. Free songs with purchase of subscriptions to various legal paid download sites.

Were you hoping I was going to say "fairy dust and pixies" or something? :lol:

I also listen to music on my TV, I use Pandora on and off, stuff like that.

I can't say that I've never ever downloaded anything illegally, but I don't make any excuses for it,or try to dress it up as some "freedom of speech" issue... I was cheap and selfish, and I stole stuff. I think that's what bugs me about these sorts of threads: all the rationalizations and excuses. If you want to steal songs, fine... I'm not going to come to your house and make a citizens's arrest. Probably. :evil: But for the love of Satan, don't pretend it is some noble stance against profiteering record executives, or making a stand for free speech.

 

[e2iPi]

I can't say that I've never ever downloaded anything illegally, but I don't make any excuses for it,or try to dress it up as some "freedom of speech" issue... I was cheap and selfish, and I stole stuff. I think that's what bugs me about these sorts of threads: all the rationalizations and excuses. If you want to steal songs, fine... I'm not going to come to your house and make a citizens's arrest. Probably. :evil: But for the love of Satan, don't pretend it is some noble stance against profiteering record executives, or making a stand for free speech.

Wow, Joe, I never thought it would happen, but it appears that we are in complete agreement on at least one issue

 

[IrBubble]

I pirate because I'm poor and can't afford to buy the shit, so to be entirely fair to me I'm not actually removing any of the proffit (I never seed :lol: ) anyone would have as I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't free to download. If I end up enjoying the things I pirate I often save up to buy it.

Now, I'm not defending even my pirating, it's not the right thing to do, but I would like to throw in that it isn't theft as in beating and old lady down on the street, stealing her car and burning her pension on booze.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I pirate because I'm poor and can't afford to buy the shit, so to be entirely fair to me I'm not actually removing any of the proffit (I never seed :lol: ) anyone would have as I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't free to download. If I end up enjoying the things I pirate I often save up to buy it.

Now, I'm not defending even my pirating, it's not the right thing to do, but I would like to throw in that it isn't theft as in beating and old lady down on the street, stealing her car and burning her pension on booze.

Yeah... but if someone punched you in the face really hard, you wouldn't forget about it if they claimed that it wasn't as bad as punching you in the face and then stabbing you in the groin sixteen times... would you?

I know about being poor... but we live in a time where there is free AND LEGAL entertainment, so it seems sort of crass to claim that you had to steal entertainment when there is so much available for free. I would compare it to someone claiming that they JUST HAD TO STEAL apples and bagels, when there were tons of free oranges and muffins being given away.

And that example is food. You need food to live. You don't need a fully-stocked iPod hard drive to survive.

 

[IrBubble]

Well, pirating music would just be cheap as I can use spotify to listen to good music for free. The only thing I really do pirate is games and if I do end up playing them on a regular basis I do buy them.

And about the punching and groinstabbing, I never said what I did was okay, I just said it's more okay than stabbing somebody in the groin sixteen times.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, pirating music would just be cheap as I can use spotify to listen to good music for free. The only thing I really do pirate is games and if I do end up playing them on a regular basis I do buy them.

Why do you think you deserve a free trial period to demo a new game?

And about the punching and groinstabbing, I never said what I did was okay, I just said it's more okay than stabbing somebody in the groin sixteen times.

You didn't say it was OK, but you WERE trying to rationalize it by saying it wasn't as bad as other things you could do. It is a big deal for me, one of the biggest issues I have with other people, when people try to lessen the import of their actions by citing worse possible actions.

IT IS ALWAYS WRONG TO DO WHAT YOU DID.

Was that loud enough, or do I need to find a new font? :lol:

This is more general philosophy, but claiming that your wrong IS wrong, but minimizing it by citing a worse wrong? Always a bad move, because it in practice leads to a breakdown of decency.

For instance, American citizens have been torturing non-Americans for years now. The common excuse? "Well, at least we aren't beheading them and setting them on fire, like they do to us!!"

Sure, I guess... but isn't torture wrong and something to be avoided, even if other people are getting away with doing worse?

To be fair, I'm not saying that downloading illegal files is equivalent to torture, but it does play into an overall cultural mindset that allows people to violate all sorts of rules, for all sorts of really bad reasons.

 

[IrBubble]

IT IS ALWAYS WRONG TO DO WHAT YOU DID.

yap

Was that loud enough, or do I need to find a new font? :lol:

Go for a new font.

This is more general philosophy, but claiming that your wrong IS wrong, but minimizing it by citing a worse wrong? Always a bad move, because it in practice leads to a breakdown of decency.

I did not attempt to lessen it, I was trying to put it into porportion. My crimes are mine even if somebody did something worse, and I am guilty of them even if somebody did something worse, meaning that I should take the penalty for it, even if somebody did something worse.

For instance, American citizens have been torturing non-Americans for years now. The common excuse? "Well, at least we aren't beheading them and setting them on fire, like they do to us!!"

Yes, and that put things in to perspective, however, people should still have to own up to the fact that they tortured people.

Sure, I guess... but isn't torture wrong and something to be avoided, even if other people are getting away with doing worse?

To be fair, I'm not saying that downloading illegal files is equivalent to torture, but it does play into an overall cultural mindset that allows people to violate all sorts of rules, for all sorts of really bad reasons.

I agree fully, but that was not the reason I said that. I tried to put it into perspective to show that piracy in some cases is not as bad as other forms of stealing. If I put it in a way that seemed to try and rationalize it I'm sorry, but as I said, I stand by that what I have done is wrong equally much as it would be even if everyone else were saints.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I was sure I had done service to the idea of proportionate punishment and judgment earlier.

Nevertheless, there is something wrong in justifying wrong behavior, for whatever reasons, that might actually be worse than the initial criminal behavior.

After all, once you start saying that it is sometimes OK to be a thief and a criminal, how much does that degrade your ethics, so that you start hurting other people, some possibly close to you?

 

[Don-Sama]

Hmm ah well, no way how i can talk me way outta this.

I'm not saying downloading is something good, but I am rationalising it due to the ciscumstances. ( u know the ones u just ignored by saying it is just trying to justify downloading)

It is wrong, I admit. but it also gives a clear message that the corps are doing something wrong, one that they are fixing now though..

also I do teh same as bubble, if a like a movie, song or game, and enjoyed it a long time, then I buy it.

however, why I made this thread it because the the judge blocked it with no valit reason. since no reason for it is against the law. (in the books)


(this is how to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqX-tkDXEk

 

[Aluman]

Actually Netherlands has signed the international copyright agreement, which stipulates the copyright holders country is the one that matters when it comes to the legality of the act.

Since most movie studios are based in the US, this means that US Copyright applies to most movies.
Music Studios are Germany, Japan, US, UK, France (For the big three I can never remember where Sony/BMG's home nation is but its either Japan or Germany) which have similar laws as the US as well. All of which doesn't permit the copying of copyrighted material for personal use.