I, for one, am not sure if the prosecutors actually understand the technology. Is torrent technology that difficult to understand? Or are these Swedish cowboys really just tearing the ring out of the system?
Disclaimer: This just seems like an interesting topic; I do not (en/dis)courage use of Pirate Bay.
I was reading their legal page yesterday, the letters sent by lawyers and their comical responses!
I think the lawyers do understand the legal loophole and how torrent systems work, they just want to stop the spread of copyrighted material, especially new releases, which is understandable.
The hub allows the sharing of copyrighted materials. Its like the authorities confiscating the computer equipment of someone caught making counterfeit CDs and selling them on as professional looking ones. The Computers didn't commit the crime, they were just used to cause the end result, namely copyright infringement. The end result of Pirate Bay is copyright infringement too.
Just because the copyrighted material is not on the torrent server, that doesn't mean the torrent server shouldn't be shut down.
At the end of the day, it is plain old theft.
Now, personally, I don't see a problem with people sharing concert recordings of concerts as it is a fun past-time and engages the audience in a deeper way than the commercial model of the recording industry currently does. But torrenting official CDs is not very nice for artists. It ought to stop.
Keith Jordan wrote:At the end of the day, it is plain old theft.
But are these particular Swedes the actual baddies
One analogy is: They are like a motorway. Just because some people who buy a souped up Volvo want to exceed the speed limit, does this mean that the motorway people are to blame. Ultimately, most sensible people choose not to drive souped up Volvos.
If Pirate Bay has 1,000,000 torrents and 900,000 of them are copyrighted material, then the overwhelming purpose of the site is to distribute copyrighted material. The site is not just there to exist, but to serve the function of distributing copyrighted material.
The technical fact that the Pirate Bay server does not physically host the copyrighted material ought to be irrelevant. The simple fact is that the site's purpose is to distribute copyrighted material for free against the wishes of the copyright owners. How it does that should not matter.
If I killed someone by battering their skull with a hammer, and not using my actual body in the case of punching or strangling to death, then just because my body didn't technically touch the skull of the deceased, does that mean I was not responsible for causing the death? Was it the hammer's fault? Just because Pirate Bay doesn't actually touch the file fragments, does that mean they are not responsible for causing the distribution of copyrighted material? One could argue that the result of an action is what matters, not the technical mechanism for how the result is achieved.
EDIT: I disagree with me.... er.... I guess the Pirate Bay people are providing the hammer for use, but it is the user's free will that causes the sharing of copyrighted material (assuming Pirate Bay doesn't also start torrenting material itself) and not the technology itself. Therefore I conclude my opinion is that Pirate Bay is not in breach of copyright law, but the users who use the technology to share copyrighted material are! Just as ISPs are not responsible for the sharing of copyrighted material either, as their system is just a system, it's the users free will that is to be held to account!!
Keith Jordan wrote:At the end of the day, it is plain old theft.
But are these particular Swedes the actual baddies
One analogy is: They are like a motorway. Just because some people who buy a souped up Volvo want to exceed the speed limit, does this mean that the motorway people are to blame. Ultimately, most sensible people choose not to drive souped up Volvos.
because Volvos are not what sensible people think of when they think about going for a hoon on the motorway.
My God thats an old picture. Haven't used them in years.
If home taping is killing music. I'm all for it considdering most of todays stuff is such crap it should never be heard in the first place. Last year I must have dowloaded over 2,000 cd's never paid a penny. The same with films I have a sizeable collection all free.
I tend not to download films because the quality is usually unbearable unless it is a VOB rip, which takes far too much time to download and takes up too much space. Downloading music is fine, of course.
Edit: The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect that of the administrators of this forum
I never believed the first. Yes, the quality gets worse. But since I don't have even half the money to pay for legal copies, why would I not hometape or get a torrent!? Perhaps legal distributors should stop thieving us first.
The latter, it's just an instrument to make us fear.
Anyway, what happens to TPB uploaders and downloaders, I mean what would be the punishment?
Tomorrow, it will be illegal to describe a movie you've just seen to a friend because then you will be creating an "unauthorized reproduction" of that movie in the other person's mind.
I understand that there's a difference, but I do believe this whole issue is stupid.
People are going to pirate copyrighted material for as long as there is copyrighted material to pirate.
It's NEVER going to stop.
Deal with it.
These huge corporations need to understand that they are NOT going to own every single dollar ever minted. They are not even going to own every single dollar that they THINK they should.
Their only motivation is greed. They've become savages and, imo, need to be exterminated as such.
Kill 'em all...from the CEO of Sony down to about 10,000 people underneath him.
They've devolved to a point where they are no longer useful human beings. If they didn't hold "high-ranking" poisitions in a huge corporation, they'd be serial killers.
It's pretty much the same sort of psychosis, if you ask me.
DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF THE CORPORATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The funny thing is that internet/torrent/download technology has made possible for me, and millions of users, to know obscure/old/independent music that otherwise would have never been reached with the normal distribution channels (radio, local stores, TV, libraries etc), and after getting to know the music, being interested into making a major investment, searching, finding and buying the actual records by those artist. But where the hell am I supposed to buy a Gentle Giant record in the middle of a forgotten town in South America? Am I supposed to pay a penalty of 40 dollars of import and posting just for having the disgrace of living in a undeveloped county outside of the market of the big record companies? Shouldn't I listen to prog rock but instead to Rihana and Coldplay because that's what is available in my local record stores?
To be able to know, listen and study them how much money would cost to a 20 year old guy to own the discographies of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, King Crimson, Frank Zappa, Velvet Underground and all the other seminal rock bands? Should the guy wait until he is 50 and have enough money to buy them, finding out that most of the records are now out of print? Only millionaires have the right to be "well educated" in music?
Artists should focus on other strategies in order to lure the consumer into buying their products, like say really cool packaging like those Tool albums, which by the way they don't release them the same way in third world countries, only a regular CD case and a two page insert!!!! F_CK YOU!!!! GREEDY RECORD COMPANIES!!!
Last edited by danielcaux on Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PublicImage wrote:I tend not to download films because the quality is usually unbearable unless it is a VOB rip, which takes far too much time to download and takes up too much space. Downloading music is fine, of course.
Edit: The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect that of the administrators of this forum