TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

And When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying — What Then?

This week has seen some disturbing news. British Telecom has been sued into censoring Newzbin2, and domain seizures in the United States were motivated and justified by the flabbergasting “they can have free speech in another country if they like”. In the United Kingdom, it appears that legislation to deny people basic communication and fundamental rights still move ahead. In France, the first innocent victims of such schemes are just appearing.

I remember the first time a proposed law in Sweden said that people should be cut off from the Internet and sent into social exile for unauthorized copying. It was a proposal written by Cecilia Renfors in close cooperation with the copyright industry.

“A very balanced proposal,” said the copyright monopolists in an entitled tone of voice. “Shameless mail-order legislation,” said everybody else.

On arriving in parliament, the proposal was thrown unceremoniously into the wastepaper basket, sponsored by no one.

The copyright industry just wants more, more, and more, and they don’t think twice about ruining our hard-won fundamental civil liberties to prop up their crumbling monopoly and control. When one tough measure doesn’t work — and they never do — the copyright industry keeps demanding more.

A few centuries ago, the penalty for unauthorized copying was breaking on the wheel. It is a term we’re not very familiar with these days, but it was a form of prolonged torturous death penalty where the convict first had every bone in his body broken, and then was weaved into the spokes of a wagon wheel and set up on public display. The cause of death was usually thirst, a couple of days later.


Breaking the Wheel

breaking

The copy monopoly in those days concerned fabric patterns. It was in France, prior to the revolution. Some patterns were more popular than others, and to get some additional revenue to the crown’s tax coffers, the King sold a monopoly on these patterns to selected members of the nobility, who in turn could charge an arm and a leg for them (and did so).

But the peasants and commoners could produce these patterns themselves. They could produce pirated copies of the fabrics, outside of the nobility’s monopoly. So the nobility went to the King and demanded that the monopoly they had bought with good money should be upheld by the King’s force.

The King responded by introducing penalties for pirating these fabrics. Light punishments at first, then gradually tougher. Towards the end, the penalty was death by public torture, drawn out over several days. And it wasn’t just a few poor sods who were made into public examples: sixteen thousand people, almost entirely common folk, died by execution or in the violent clashes that surrounded the monopoly. In practice, everybody knew somebody who had been horribly executed for pirating.

Here’s the fascinating part:

Capital punishment didn’t even make a dent in the pirating of the fabrics. Despite the fact that some villages had been so ravaged that everybody knew somebody personally who had been executed by public torture, the copying continued unabated at the same level.

So the question that needs asking is this:

When will the copyright industry stop demanding harsher punishments for copying, since we learn from history that no punishment that mankind is capable of inventing has the ability to deter people from sharing and copying things they like?

— — —

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at http://falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.

Follow Rick Falkvinge on Twitter as @Falkvinge and on Facebook as /rickfalkvinge.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • DocGerbil100

    Rick’s a politician (or these days, at least a political pundit) – and as such, inclined to be disingenuous from time to time – but on the face of it, I’d say that was an absolutely excellent question. :D

    If death isn’t a deterrent, what is? Death by torture for the whole family? Having the entire town crucified? What can the copyright brigade possibly achieve in the face of such intransigence?

    • Tosser

      God doesn’t exist. So shut up already.

      • Guest

        Citation needed. jk

      • Anonymous

        Prove it.

        Incoming response of “no u” in 3..2..1..

        • Johnnyboy7

          There is no way to prove something does not exist!
          But do you have prove he does exist?? No way!

        • Anonymous

          Just leave your imaginary friends at home ok…

        • Maxi

          “The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

        • Anonymous

          @Johnnyboy7

          Called it.

          @Maxi

          I believe the burden of proof lies upon the person who makes the claim of fact, which in this case is Tosser.

          And because I made zero “scientifically unfalsifiable” (questionable applicability) claims, or any claims to begin with, all of these imaginary burdens you’ve decided to wrongly place upon me are magically lifted by the same logic you’ve subscribed to.

        • firgorn

          Actually you’re wrong – lets check this example:
          I assert that there’s an entity called The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now YOU have to prove it’s non-existance. That does sound stupid, doesn’t it?

          Replace The Flying Spaghetti Monster for an unicorn, a bigfoot, a faerie, etc…

        • Anonymous

          @firgorn

          You’re missing the point. I haven’t claimed that anything exists, or that anything doesn’t exist.

          I’m not going to agree that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but I damn well won’t say something as arrogant as “He doesn’t exist,” which is what began this pointless argument.

          Morons tend to believe that if a person doesn’t claim outright that God doesn’t exist, then they are claiming he does exist. Don’t be a moron.

      • God

        You don’t exist.

      • DocGerbil100

        Just to clarify, I do not mean to imply the existence (or otherwise) of any god – it would be off-topic. The only reason I mentioned God is because pre-revolutionary France would presumably have contained a very high percentage of people who absolutely believed that God existed and that his power and authority was invested in the king – and these people weren’t deterred from piracy, despite the king’s commandment not to do it, even under threat of horrible death for non-compliance.

      • Antonio

        dork

      • Asds

        Humans didn’t miraculously appear out of nowhere, God created us. You dumb fuck

        • TrollFeed

          Cool story bro

    • http://www.facebook.com/chronoss.uha1 Chronoss Uha

      hallowed are the ori

      • Danny

        Yeah but the Ori did exist, At least until SG-1 kicked their asses!

        • Anonymous

          Wow, that’s like the 5th SG-1 reference I’ve seen today. And in such random places and over such random things. Copyright. Ancient architecture. Etc. As a Stargate fan I am so enjoying the references.

        • Caleb

          It makes me sad SG-1 was canceled…

  • Jeff Bekcer

    “A few centuries ago, the penalty for unauthorized copying was breaking on the wheel.”

    [Citation needed]

    • Keep reading…

      He goes on to explain it. Reading more than the first few lines would help tremendously.

      • http://www.facebook.com/frakkingcylon Mike Rees

        Think you missed the point. He wants proof that this happened, not an explanation of what it is.

        • http://www.20b.org/rickroll.html Lauren?iu Roman

          I want to say that at least one lord in what was to become my country was famous for applying this punishment for pretty much everything. We know him as Vlad Tepes, the world has come to know him, thanks to a crappy writer, as Dracula!

        • Jeff Bekcer

          exactly this, such a claim should have a citation to a source. since the entire article rests on that one statement i think that it would be proper to directly cite a source and not leave it as an unverified statement.

        • Jeff Bekcer

          exactly this, such a claim should have a citation to a source. since the entire article rests on that one statement i think that it would be proper to directly cite a source and not leave it as an unverified statement.

        • Thinker

          The thing is Mr. Falvinge doesn’t have any proof. So you can just forget about citation. In all his articles, in case you haven’t noticed, he loves to make up a lot of stuff to get the pirates riles up since they will blindy support any guy who is anti-copyright. There are always severe inconsistencies in Falvinge’s articles (just like the last one and this one) which are often exposed by commenters here but he never bothers to answer to any of them. Why? Because he doesn’t have an answer.

        • http://www.facebook.com/chronoss.uha1 Chronoss Uha

          vlad was an impaller not a wheeler….:P

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Jeff Bekcer

          Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism. London: George Allen and Unwin, revised, second edition, edited by Ernst F. Söderlund, 1955, 2 volumes. (Originally published as Merkantilisment: Ett led i den ekonomiska politikens historia. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt and Söner, 1931.)

          Given that that Falkvinge is citing historical fact from books used as standard university literature in economics…

          @Thinker (deliberate misnomer assumed)

          “The thing is Mr. Falvinge doesn’t have any proof. So you can just forget about citation.”

          No, the thing is Falkvinge does have proof since what he’s claiming is part and parcel of standard university-level history. What we probably should forget is some idiot who’s decided that Mr. Falkvinge and recorded history are both wrong.

      • Anon2

        He explains nothing. He spins a pseudo-historical tale with no sources quoted. Citation indeed needed.

        Even if such a tale proves to be true, the not-so-subtle suggestion that a death penalty might soon be the punishment for the crime of stealing artworks and creative work is yet another desperate attempt to gain some sort of moral higher ground and turn freetards into victims and protect the pirates’ sources of revenue (ad-supported websites with links to stolen software, art works and content).

        No creative professional or anyone who agrees with protecting creative professional’s rights could possibly come up with suggestion of a death penalty for a misdemeanor as simple as digital piracy.

        It IS a crime and it IS harmful to the economy, to creative industries and to art and society in an indirect and broader sense – but you would have to be a psycho, or an idiot, or both, to actually wish to sentence someone to death for stealing a copying a movie or mp3.

        Now Falkvinge, of course, knows this perfectly – but acknowledging that would not allow him to write something with this amount of cheap and infantile shock value.

        This is an adolescent, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and morally bankrupt article.
        One could expect no less, since Falkvinge is a politician and a business man – to maintain his carefully constructed pseudo-libertarian persona and to protect his own selfish and self-centered interests, he could not possibly resort to reasonable argumentation.

        Disgusting. And pathetic.

        • McCrow

          So, when you go and find as many ways to say “this is a bad person” as you can, get that ol’ thesaurus out, does that actually make your point stronger? It really seems like it is just the verbal equivalent of: “MY OPINION IS THE LOUDEST YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME!”

          Or, to phrase this a different way: Gee, that’s an awful lot of name-calling you have there. The person who acts the most hurt and disgusted “wins,” I guess. Your comment is no less of an attempt at sensationalism; the delicious hypocrisy is probably lost on you.

        • Anon

          Once Falkvinge rose into public prominence, we’ve all known he will have to grow up, get over the childish hyperbole and join the real world or become a significant liability for the pirate cause to be evenhandedly heard.

          I think we all see the bs he brings by now.
          Think of his silly rants as immature entertainment while the adults sort things out.

        • No

          I take serious issue with one part of your statement;

          >>It IS a crime and it IS harmful to the economy, to creative industries and to art and society in an indirect and broader sense – but you would have to be a psycho, or an idiot, or both, to actually wish to sentence someone to death for stealing a copying a movie or mp3.

          Considering that current punishments result in million dollar fines that can not be cleared through bankruptcy the current punishments are at least indentured servitude. Hence why it has trouble passing constitutional muster.
          That aside it still remains to be proven if copyright infringement is a net gain or a net loss to the economy (Most studies indicate that it depends on which economy and what types of works, with most leaning towards a net loss to the economy), since the money that is not spent on copyrighted works is spent on other things instead.

          Now for piracy it’s a bit different, it’s a boon to the economy of Somalia, but it is a significant drag on the world economy.

          Now I should really cite sources, but it’s late and I have better things to do.

        • No

          I take serious issue with one part of your statement;

          >>It IS a crime and it IS harmful to the economy, to creative industries and to art and society in an indirect and broader sense – but you would have to be a psycho, or an idiot, or both, to actually wish to sentence someone to death for stealing a copying a movie or mp3.

          Considering that current punishments result in million dollar fines that can not be cleared through bankruptcy the current punishments are at least indentured servitude. Hence why it has trouble passing constitutional muster.
          That aside it still remains to be proven if copyright infringement is a net gain or a net loss to the economy (Most studies indicate that it depends on which economy and what types of works, with most leaning towards a net loss to the economy), since the money that is not spent on copyrighted works is spent on other things instead.

          Now for piracy it’s a bit different, it’s a boon to the economy of Somalia, but it is a significant drag on the world economy.

          Now I should really cite sources, but it’s late and I have better things to do.

        • Anonymous

          >It IS a crime and it IS harmful to the economy, to creative industries and to art >and society in an indirect and broader sense

          Nice citation of sources there, Mr. Cite Your Sources. Do you have any non-bias proof that non-commercial file-sharing hurts the economy? It’s amazing that these huge, ever-growing corporations that make more and more money year after year still haven’t found any proof that this piracy is an issue, especially considering how many are going bankrupt from it. I mean, just yesterday I heard that a millionaire’s hamster had to downgrade to a manual hamster wheel instead of his automatic one because his stock options in the company his owner works for had to be cut. What’s next, newspaper cage lining instead of paper money? File-sharing is evil!

          I’ll be eagerly awaiting your proof.

          All these lawsuits, lobbying, new government security programs, social conditioning, and wild goose chases do, however, hurt the economy by simply being a waste of tax dollars or taking money out of the pockets of people and then dumping it straight into more lawsuits.

          Give me a better option than file-sharing, and I’ll stop file-sharing. Nowhere in the constitution, any law books or any official medium does it say it is the government’s duty to halt innovation or protect outdated business models.

        • Anon2

          @grawss

          There you go. Sources. Citations.

          http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/business/la-fi-ct-cinemacon-20110330

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/28/global-recorded-music-sales-fall

          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html

          Do note that the fact that movie quality has dropped is directly linked to lack of investment in new talent. Why should a studio or producer invest in an independent, creative movie if no financial returns are expected (i.e. everyone steals the movie).

          Because some of us do work for a living, I’ll leave you with these links for now. Enjoy.

        • Anonymous

          Haha, your sources make me laugh.

          That’s not research, those are claims by the industry that has it’s own agenda.
          It’s like: “We from Ford, recommend Ford engines”. Dropped sales in an economical crisis? Who would have thought… On top of that, those are only the numbers on physical media and digital sales are left out.

        • Friend of the People

          Well, you guys seem to think that torrenting can, will and does help the economy. Can we see you cite your sources?

        • Danny

          Also even if those figures are correct you have to realise that we are still seeing the effects of the recession. People have less money to spend on music and entertainment as their are trying to feed themselves. Its only right to see every industry taking a fall, countless electronics companies have had to lay off thousands of people where as the entertainment industry hasn’t.

          I personally stopped buying music because I don’t like all the shite that’s out these days. I am stuck with 90s music as its what I like and I have enough CD’s to last me! With films I tend to buy DVD’s from the £2 – £3 bin in Sainsbury’s which always have some great films for a reasonable price!

        • Anon2

          @Anonymous

          “Haha, your sources make me laugh.

          That’s not research, those are claims by the industry that has it’s own agenda.”

          Translation: “I don’t like your numbers and they make me look bad, so they’re not true.”

          OK, here’s more data for you.

          http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/

          Yes the data comes from RIAA. Yes, they do have an agenda (i.e. they consistently fail to mention how much artists are ripped off by record companies). That doesn’t make the statistics any less true.

          And yes, there is has been an economic crisis since 2008 – obviously that caused an even bigger drop. But the downward trend, as the data shows, started with Pandora’s box, Napster.

          And doesn’t the Pirate Party have an agenda? Why do freetards get off so easily? Where are your data sources showing that piracy has helped artists survive and thrive? We’re waiting for your links and research.

        • Danny

          @Anon2

          From your figures it looks like the industry is just seeing the effects of the economic downturn. I hate to have to point this out to you but people prefer to feed themselves and heat their homes than buy shitty music and watch crappy films.

        • Joseph Whittaker

          Proof or not, Rick has a point. A lot of places still impose the death penalty, yet that has never deterred crime. So I think the question being asked, which is the whole point of the article, is still valid.

          I don’t think it is far fetched to say that, for a business, monetary profit is everything. Over the past few decades, the copyright industry in particular has shown that they care about money way more than civil liberties. I’m not 100% sure which is more shameful, a “pirate” who downloads a file or an industry that is constantly bribing government officials through lobbying and “gifts” in an attempt to make sharing as unlawful as possible, with severe punishments to match, even when that means destroying many of the basic freedoms we enjoy. I have to go with the latter.

          The actions of file sharers may indeed be wrong, but what the copyright industry and governments around the world have been doing is infinitely worse. Only a fool with an agenda would claim otherwise. What I find particularly offensive is the body count its taken to protect those freedoms, and how their sacrifice for our way of life is being pissed on by those who continually ask for such sacrifices to be made. For example, what was the point of fighting World War II when our collective governments just end up adopting the way of life everyone was fighting against? Why should anyone be expected to sacrifice their life for that? It is horrifying shameful when you really take the time to think hard about it. Hopefully those in charge will wake up one day to the damage their doing and realize the price we’re all paying in the mad quest for ever more profit is way too high.

        • Anonymous

          1) Copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime. Well, it *was* until the lock-down jack-boots bought the governments

          2) Considering that folks were artistically creating LONG before copyright ever existed, I can only assume that they will continue to do so even if it were to disappear entirely.

          I agree copyright is a Good Thing but *only* in the sense it was presented in the US Constitution: that it exist for a *limited* time. Lifetime+70 years, or lifetime+90 years if you make it for a corporation, is effectively unlimited in the sense that the society that helped in the creation never gets the benefits of their work.

        • Anonymous

          @Anon2

          From the LATimes article:

          >>Michael Lynton, chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment, agreed: “So far there is just nothing terribly compelling about what we’re delivering as an industry.”

          Nothing in the article linked lower sales or even mentioned piracy; it was mostly about lower quality movies being the cause of fewer sales.

          From the NYTimes article:

          >>First, piracy punched a big hole in it. Now music streaming — music available on demand over the Internet, free and legal — is poised to seal the deal.

          Followed by:

          >>And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question/Music Ally and released last month, found that the percentage of 14- to 18-year-olds who regularly share files dropped by nearly a third from December 2007 to January 2009. On the other hand, two-thirds of those teens now listen to streaming music “regularly” and nearly a third listen to it every day.

          If file-sharing is down 30%, then how can piracy be “punching a big hole in it?” After all, he clearly says the streaming these kids are doing is free and legal. The person writing this article seems to contradict himself at every new paragraph.

          The Guardian article uses “because of piracy” a hell of a lot, but then they claim digital sales are growing while physical sales are dropping, which is to be expected by anyone with a brain. The writer even goes to say that several major markets have grown substantially while others have dropped only slightly.

          The Guardian article actually hurts your argument. Trying to spin “digital sales up by 20%, physical sales down by less than 15%” as a bad thing is just retarded. You’re clearly addled if you are arguing against piracy, but agreeing with those numbers.

          Your CNN article seems incredibly short-sighted, the biggest glaring problem being how much money it costs to run a music company now. How much does it cost the company to put out a digital sale? The answer: next to nothing.

          People are all spending far less on music, but more on concert sales (which is money the industry doesn’t get). Less on music simply because they can pick the songs they enjoy rather than wade through a bunch of filler music to get to the good stuff on a one-hit-wonder’s album.

          On top of that, it has been getting easier and easier to get your product out there over the years; more and more artists are going independent or creating their own labels due to the absurdly low amount they get per sale. Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Beyonce, etc. are all pretty much on their own riding their previous popularity.

          I speculate that the “marketability” threshold that the major labels place in the way of potential artists is what has been pushing more people to either start on an indie label or even start their own. Now that it’s as easy as chucking your crap onto iTunes or any one of the many other music services out there, people are rejecting the very idea of a major music label taking 80% of their profits for something they can do on their own.

          I appreciate the actual effort you put in to defending your argument. I tend to expect nothing from Anons and Murdocks. I realize actual non-bias and real numbers are hard to come by (I can’t find any current articles), so I don’t fault anyone for providing the type of sources you’ve provided, but if you do stumble across something that indeed proves or disproves the “for piracy” or “against piracy” arguments, I’d love to take a look. :)

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism. London: George Allen and Unwin, revised, second edition, edited by Ernst F. Söderlund, 1955, 2 volumes. (Originally published as Merkantilisment: Ett led i den ekonomiska politikens historia. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt and Söner, 1931.)

          Citation hereby provided.

          “This is an adolescent, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and morally bankrupt article.”

          Ah, you mean that since it’s based on historical fact your personal opinion is that recorded history is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and morally bankrupt?

          Give it a rest, troll. Or at least back up your bile with one or two real facts first.

        • Anon2

          @Anonymous and @Scary Devil Monastery

          Hello again, trolls (this IS a freetard trolling propaganda website, so you should expect some grilling).

          http://theunderstatement.com/post/3362645556/the-real-death-of-the-music-industry

          And no, “Scary” Devil, you’re not allowed to rest. Do bend over.

          Have a nice day.

        • Anon2

          @”Scary” Devil

          Thanks for the citation. So rich merchants banded into guilds to crush competition. Cute. There’s the Middle Ages for you.

          “Ah, you mean that since it’s based on historical fact your personal opinion is that recorded history is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and morally bankrupt?”

          No. As I said in my original comment (do take time to read things through)
          “Even if such a tale proves to be true, the not-so-subtle suggestion that a death penalty might soon be the punishment for the crime of stealing artworks and creative work is yet another desperate attempt to gain some sort of moral higher ground and turn freetards into victims and protect the pirates’ sources of revenue (ad-supported websites with links to stolen software, art works and content).”

          Such a tale apparently proves to be at least partially true. Fine. It still doesn’t erase the fact that Falkvinge’s article is dishonest.
          Thing is, in case you haven’t noticed, we no longer live in the Middle Ages (or at least we’re not back in the Middle Ages yet). So unless you live in Afghanistan, you won’ get a death penalty for petty theft (i.e. pirating and stealing multimedia content). It’s because of bothersome things such as democracy and rule of law that content creators rights are protected and people can’t just walk into your house and take your laptop away and kill your dog.

          And it’s also because of those bothersome things that different crimes usually have different, relatively proportional penalties.
          Extorting a fine from a 13 year old kid who downloaded a few dozen albums is not unfair – unless you go the RIAA way and the fine happens to go up to a 4 zero figure. I do have a problem with that.

          It is still not comparable to hanging or shooting said 13 year old kid.

          Falkvinge, through a contorted article full of not-so-subtle innuendo would have us believe that this sort of punishment is just around the corner.

          And that’s why it is an an adolescent, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and morally bankrupt article.

          Got it now? Happy to be of service.

          If you want to keep pushing for your childish pseudo-anarchist dream, go right ahead. Just be prepared to make your own movies and TV shows, create and play your own music and write your own books, novels and technical manuals. You appear to be an intelligent person, I’m sure you’ll do fine.

          Happy trolling.

        • Max Power

          http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/12/us-music-sales-up/

          It makes me laugh when people think the sky is falling. According to your sources, you could’ve also claimed that the music industry was “dying” when cassette tapes were in their infancy. This attitude makes me think of global warming advocates. “It’s getting warmer so it must be because we’re burning fuel!” According to your sources, we can see we’re at the end of the cd era which means a dip before a rise. The music industry isn’t dying. The movie industry isn’t dying. Why would technical manuals go away? You’re retarded. I also have another source for you.

          http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/93bbeb16-0e4d-4b7e-b085-3f41c459f9ac.pdf

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          So as a result of not having facts at your fingertips you decide to throw cute one-liners?

          Here’s a hint. Arguing like a five-year old in a sandbox doesn’t get you any points for credibility. Here or in the real world.

          Your main problem is that you argue like Locke’s madman. Falkvinge’s article points out that if there is the option of disregarding IP then such IP will be disregarded by a sufficient amount of people as to render the monopoly worthless.

          It’s not a prediction that governments will execute filesharers or that western society will embrace afghani tribal culture. It’s simply a cold historical statement which shows, bluntly and to the point, that it isn’t possible to make people in general respect a concept such as “intellectual property”. No matter the enforcement policies or current protective legislation.

          Whether the music industry or the movie industry will live or die under such a paradigm is quite beside the point. People will keep on filesharing for as long as there is an internet. Closing it down completely may change that. Nothing else will. Legislation – or whatever harebrained enforcement schemes may be considered, up to and including the paradigm used in the 16th century – won’t affect this.

          Building a wordwall around factual errors doesn’t help you prop up your suppositions. Nor does any irrelevant claim regarding what “should” be or “ought” to be. Copyright in the real world only works in very limited ways in much the same way communism does.

          And to be quite honest, I take it as complimentary when someone whose chief “contribution” to the debate is trying to obfuscate the real issues with ideology and dogma decides to start throwing slurs and insults. It just tells me and everyone else around here what level you are standing at.

        • Anon2

          @Max “Power”

          http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/12/us-music-sales-up/

          Not much of an “upswing” at this stage considering how much the industry has lost over the past few years.

          Losses over the past 15 years or so
          http://theunderstatement.com/post/3362645556/the-real-death-of-the-music-industry

          Plus, it would be nice to know what sort of margins are being attained. A small rise in sales does not mean profit (i.e. survival of the business).
          Business has fallen 64% since 2000. If music sales are up 1.6% on the past few months, it still means next to nothing. You cannot draw the conclusion that the current status quo is changing because of a slight variation.

          http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/93bbeb16-0e4d-4b7e-b085-3f41c459f9ac.pdf

          page 6: movie attendance is going DOWN (i.e. number of people actually watching the movies). Sales are up but so is inflation. Everything is more expensive (including movie production costs), so obviously ticket prices go up (page 12), especially considering the 3D gimmick.
          Plus, the study does not consider what kind of movies are being marketed and if there is more or less genre variety and independent production (i.e. films that are not rom-coms, gross-out comedies, shoot’em up festivals or 3D remakes of 70′s TV series and comic books).

          My advice: take some time to study economics. I’m sure it’s not a problem for you, since you are not “retarded”.

          PS – “This attitude makes me think of global warming advocates.”
          Yes Max, it IS getting warmer because we’re burning fuel, but let’s not get into that. Reality is apparently a bit too much for you, and you need your rest.

        • Anon2

          @ Scary “Devil”

          1) I have the right to “insult” people who write dishonest articles and who promote an ideology to which I am completely opposed against. And I do it while clearly stating my arguments. Not very PC, I know. Cry me a river.

          2) I explained my point clearly and rationally on my last post, even if I was aggressive and “insulting”.
          Since you continue to selectively disregard parts of my comments in order to further your own argument, then there is nothing left to talk about.

          You probably think that googling for Locke’s or anyone else’s philosophical metaphors make you appear more intelligent. It doesn’t. It just exposes your arrogance.

          Again, happy trolling. I’ve said my piece and I’m out of here.

          You can have your sandbox back.

    • hikaricore

      Reading is hard.

    • Jeff

      I would like some sources, too. It’s an interesting article, but I can’t seem to find any more info on the topic.

    • Jeff

      I would like some sources, too. It’s an interesting article, but I can’t seem to find any more info on the topic.

    • Geeker
    • Jef13131

      It is described in the book Mercantilism by the respected Swedish economist Eli Heckscher. Chapter Five – The Inner Economic Regulations in France (from Swedish)

    • Momo

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

      “The medieval guild was established by charters or letters patent or similar authority by the city or the ruler and normally held a monopoly on trade in its craft within the city in which it operated: handicraft workers were forbidden by law to run any business if they were not members of a guild, and only masters were allowed to be members of a guild.”

      “The guilds were identified with organizations enjoying certain privileges (letters patent), usually issued by the king or state and overseen by local town business authorities (some kind of chamber of commerce). These were the predecessors of the modern patent and trademark system.”

      “In many German and Italian cities, the more powerful guilds often had considerable political influence, and sometimes attempted to control the city authorities. In the 14th century, this led to numerous bloody uprisings, during which the guilds dissolved town councils and detained patricians in an attempt to increase their influence”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciompi

      “The Revolt of the Ciompi was a popular revolt in late medieval Florence by wool carders known as ciompi, who rose up in 1378 to demand a voice in the commune’s ordering. In late medieval Florence, the disenfranchised ciompi (“wool carders”) were a class of labourers in the textile industry who were not represented by any guild. The ciompi were among the most radical of the lower-class groups, vegetable sellers and crockery vendors and the like, and resented the controlling power that was centred in the Arte della Lana, the textile-manufacturing establishment which guided the economic engine of Florence’s prosperity, and was supported by the other major Guilds of Florence, the Arti maggiori.”

    • Momo

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

      “The medieval guild was established by charters or letters patent or similar authority by the city or the ruler and normally held a monopoly on trade in its craft within the city in which it operated: handicraft workers were forbidden by law to run any business if they were not members of a guild, and only masters were allowed to be members of a guild.”

      “The guilds were identified with organizations enjoying certain privileges (letters patent), usually issued by the king or state and overseen by local town business authorities (some kind of chamber of commerce). These were the predecessors of the modern patent and trademark system.”

      “In many German and Italian cities, the more powerful guilds often had considerable political influence, and sometimes attempted to control the city authorities. In the 14th century, this led to numerous bloody uprisings, during which the guilds dissolved town councils and detained patricians in an attempt to increase their influence”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciompi

      “The Revolt of the Ciompi was a popular revolt in late medieval Florence by wool carders known as ciompi, who rose up in 1378 to demand a voice in the commune’s ordering. In late medieval Florence, the disenfranchised ciompi (“wool carders”) were a class of labourers in the textile industry who were not represented by any guild. The ciompi were among the most radical of the lower-class groups, vegetable sellers and crockery vendors and the like, and resented the controlling power that was centred in the Arte della Lana, the textile-manufacturing establishment which guided the economic engine of Florence’s prosperity, and was supported by the other major Guilds of Florence, the Arti maggiori.”

    • Tyler

      I just googled “breaking wheel fabrics” and there didn’t seem to be anything written about this historic occurrence that I could find (this article itself was one of the top results). Could you provide citations so that we can read more about this?

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Google it. I found the needed citations, can you find them?

  • Anon

    Well, since history supports this we should at least try breaking pirates bones and weaving them into the wheel to die of thirst before we give up on digital content ownership entirely. :-)

    Rick keeps willfully ignoring a very important point. It’s not just the industries today and increasingly the artists and creators themselves. Artists watched in silent fear for a decade, waiting to see if the piracy model really would support a living as the “pay for what you take model” historically has. Turns out if the industry hadn’t helped you get famous first on their cash investments, like RadioHead or Reznor, the model doesn’t work. After all, you can always pass and not pay but pirates copied and THEN didn’t pay.

    So piracy hasn’t even come close to delivering the kind of return on investment simple commerce of merchandise has in the past, and now it’s the artists groups themselves asking for the higher and harsher punishments. And why shouldn’t they? They work their ass off and you take their stuff without compensation for copying it. Didn’t anyone take note of the pathetic financial returns after a million downloads of a Lonely place for Dying?

    Pirates live a daily lie just like Mr. Falkvinge’s article. And the artists are watching the “pay what you want” returns too. There’s no guarantee if you build it and nobody comes. But if you come and take of what they’ve worked on, expect the creators who have worked on this to be quite pissed, with their legislators on speed dial. And I back them 1000%.

    • Zzzz

      There’s a mental disorder that causes people to repeat the same things over and over and over.

      • Farkwad

        I could troll here and point out that the only disorder with that symptom, onomatomania, doesn’t apply to something like this, but I’m more mature than that.

        • Anonymous

          I’ll bite…..this OP is a loser.

          Taking w/o compensating means something was taken, not copied. Get yer verbs straight before being a public clown w/o a handle even. :P

          Sharing is caring people!!!

          Powers used religion brainwash back in the day if you wanted to learn English…you’d be using THEIR bible to do it…..

          …but now everyone has unlimited info and access to the world’s goods. Mainstream pushed their junk and some watch, not all HAVE to anymore.

          If I can’t test drive the car 1st, yer not getting my money. If I replicate a car and you still got yers, don’t be hating on me for copying it and driving away in MINE.

          Love that before replying I had a queue of 2 people already hammering this guy tho. Calling BS when they see it. :)

          Live for the swarm!
          OSG4LIFE!

        • Zzzz

          You missed Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, OCD

        • Farkwad

          No, I didn’t. OCD very rarely has that symptom. It’s usually a physical action that’s repeated, not a phrase.

        • Zzzz

          @Farkwad
          “No, I didn’t. OCD very rarely has that symptom. It’s usually a physical action that’s repeated, not a phrase. ”

          Yes, you did.
          I suggest you learn more about OCD before assuring me you were correct even when you are forced to use the word usually, as in not always, to defend your flawed argument.
          Why is the internet filled with people who refuse to accept being wrong.

        • Farkwad

          No, you just don’t understand how OCD works. Let me educate you. I’ll begin by quoting from the National Institute of Health

          “Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, OCD, is an anxiety disorder and is characterized by recurrent, unwanted thoughts (obsessions) and/or repetitive behaviors (compulsions). Repetitive behaviors such as handwashing, counting, checking, or cleaning are often performed with the hope of preventing obsessive thoughts or making them go away. Performing these so-called “rituals,” however, provides only temporary relief, and not performing them markedly increases anxiety.”

          The centerpiece of OCD is repetitive behavior and rituals. Because it is an anxiety disorder, the afflicted individual feels that they must preform this ritual in order to remove an impure thought, which commonly include a feeling of uncleanliness or a desire to harm their friends or family. The key to this is the physical nature of the ritual. It requires action on their part, not repetition of words. It is technically possible for the ritual to be a repetition of words, but you won’t find it in any list of common symptoms

          If you want me to go into even more depth on this, I’m perfectly capable of doing that. In the meantime though, I’d just like you to reflect on how funny it was for YOU to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about.

          I’ll refer you to this website if you want to learn more about OCD.
          http://helpguide.org/mental/obsessive_compulsive_disorder_ocd.htm

        • Farkwad

          Yes, no reply! Looks like the psych troll won this round!

    • Anon

      @freescv

      Your comment will only have meaning when technology facilitates a one-mouse-click perfectly copied automobile AND the firm that designed and invested in that r&d has no problem with you making that free copy.

      If they invested the kind of cash historically required for automotive design, expect to be surveilled and punished harshly because that’s simple common sense. The fact remains that Rick’s favorite political Party is a single digit afterthought all over the globe, with the rest of humanity wondering wtf is wrong with people like you.

      • Azalin

        http://www.theoscarproject.org/ – eventually someone will get there… so what are you talking about ????

        Heard about 3D printers….. It’s gonna be so much fun using a kinect to build a 3d mesh of your car and then run it into my 3d car printer…. whatever…

    • Anon

      @freescv

      Your comment will only have meaning when technology facilitates a one-mouse-click perfectly copied automobile AND the firm that designed and invested in that r&d has no problem with you making that free copy.

      If they invested the kind of cash historically required for automotive design, expect to be surveilled and punished harshly because that’s simple common sense. The fact remains that Rick’s favorite political Party is a single digit afterthought all over the globe, with the rest of humanity wondering wtf is wrong with people like you.

    • John

      you’ve got it all wrong.for a start,NO-ONE and I mean NO-ONE should be payed MILLIONS to be part of a film/making a music album,etc…these people work…let say…2 weeks on a music project/ a few months on a film,and they should get paid millions for that? what about the one who works in a coal mine,risking his life every day and gaining barely enough to feed his family ( or take them out for dinner/cinema,etc…) BECAUSE to be able to pay these fat cats MILLIONS for a ( most of the time rubbish) film,the big companies have to charge you an arm and a leg for dvd’s/cd’s/cinema tickets.
      this is just extortion and I do not understand people supporting ( and defending )that ideology at all.Either these people have a share in that business or they have enough money to afford going to the cinema spending £25 per head to watch a film that you won’t like in the end ( meaning that you would have had wasted your hard earned money ).No-one should prone and defend these companies.They are making record profits year after year and still complain against ” piracy” because they think they would have made more money if you had bought the dvd/cd you downloaded.Sure they would have made more money:they would have taken YOUR/OUR money.But what if you don’t like the film? can you get your money back?NO.Basically you should buy ANY of their products without knowing if it’s good or not,without getting a refund if you don’t like it,and most annoyingly: WITHOUT THEM GIVING A S**T ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO THEM IS TAKING YOUR MONEY .
      Now YOU ( personnally ) go to a supermarket and buy a product,let say a television.YOU get home, try the tv and realise it’s not working properly…you would like to get a refund…what if we were telling you:” f**k off you bought it’s yours,you won’t get your money back,faulty or not.” you would be pretty pissed and you would be right! this is why we have introduced the customer satisfaction guarantee: to make sure our customers are happy with their product!!Why would it be different with the music and film industries??? because what they want is MONEY not HAPPY CUSTOMERS.
      I work in the retail industry,and I know how much money these companies are making on the back of poor ( and not so poor ) customers.I don’t think it’s fair and never will.I download films a lot…try them and delete the ones I don’t like ( 95.5% ) and burn and keep the ones I like ( 3%, the other 1.5% are the ones I’m not sure if I like or not…:)). THEN if it’s a good film I promote it to my customers which in return buy it to watch it,something they wouldn’t have done should I had not promoted it.So in fact I am boosting the sales of these companies which in return are suing us for not BUYING the film in the first place? they should pay us for what we do for them…ingrates!!I’m not saying that everyone is doing the same thing as me,but some are actualy BUYING the product after downloading it ( if it’s a good one).
      to finish with it I would say that the actors/musicians are getting too much money for what they contribute to the society . What would you prefer to have: a rubbish film to watch with an empty stomach, or food on the shelves to feed yourself? I know what I would prefer…and I think I know who contributes more to society between the actors/musicians or the people who make sure you get your food when you want it/get your equipment ( to watch/listen ) your products/etc…
      these people do more work than the actors/musicians will EVER do, get paid LESS than them,and still are asked to pay far too much for what the product is worth.Bear in mind that a shelf filler ( for example ) will have to do that ( filling shelves ) EVERY DAY ( and it’s hard work,I know I’ve been through this…).But an actor ( still as an example ) will make a film ONCE ONLY,and will expect revenues from it for years and get paid 1000 times more an hour than the average Joe working 1000 times harder.Fairness?NO.Should I feel sorry for the actors/musicians?NO.For their greedy companies?NO.For the average Joe?HELL YES.He works harder,get less money,and is expected to pay their wages buy buying over-priced products which are not very good ones ( bad films/music ).
      peace…

      • Anon

        You poor baby. Cry me a retail river.

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        JESUS, SPACEBAR

        But I agree with the greed part when I stopped reading.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Oh, I can see how it’s about the artists. After all they are the owners of the copyright, always. Oh wait…

    • The Lord

      You can’t replicate a live performance. Make your money there like every other fucker. That’s hard work.

      • Friend of the People

        Except that many forms current culture have no form of live performance. Plays are always live performance, music can benefit from live preformance, movies only have their crappy cinemas that cost more while providing no benefit besides coming out first, and videogames have no live service at all. Don’t champion live service as the be-all and end-all of cultural moneymaking and a good solution to the copyright dilemma. It won’t work.

  • MAFIAAFire

    Rick,
    please check your email, we will be writing to you later today.

    • MAFIAAFire

      Email sent.

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Got it. You guys rock. Will respond tomorrow.

      Cheers,
      Rick

  • Pingback: And When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying — What Then? | Links Daily

  • Anonymous

    In the United States the entertainment industry see that copyright is solely a matter between themselves and Congress. They believe that the public has no place in this debate when copyright laws were solely made for them to make money. So if they don’t believe they’re getting the money they deserve then they just run to Congress.

    The truth of the matter is that copyright laws were NOT created for them to make money when copyright laws exist to give artists an incentive to create. They say you can make money here but they do not say that you will make money or that profit is guaranteed.

    So why did they want artists to create? To benefit and enrich society and the public.

    It is therefore a shame that the once limited copyright span has been increased to life plus 70 years. All through the entertainment industry running to Congress to lobby, bribe and lie to politicians. If anything in this modern world, where you can send media around the world in seconds, the copyright span should be less…5 to 10 years.

    We should also ask do we need such a copyright incentive at all? I do not need to look around far to see that very many artists do create and distribute their creations for free under Creative Commons. They did so often without profit in mind when they simply want to release what they had created for others to enjoy.

    Naturally if someone else wants to make money from their creation, freely distributed or not, then the artists should be allowed a share of this profit should they desire.

  • Anonymous

    In the United States the entertainment industry see that copyright is solely a matter between themselves and Congress. They believe that the public has no place in this debate when copyright laws were solely made for them to make money. So if they don’t believe they’re getting the money they deserve then they just run to Congress.

    The truth of the matter is that copyright laws were NOT created for them to make money when copyright laws exist to give artists an incentive to create. They say you can make money here but they do not say that you will make money or that profit is guaranteed.

    So why did they want artists to create? To benefit and enrich society and the public.

    It is therefore a shame that the once limited copyright span has been increased to life plus 70 years. All through the entertainment industry running to Congress to lobby, bribe and lie to politicians. If anything in this modern world, where you can send media around the world in seconds, the copyright span should be less…5 to 10 years.

    We should also ask do we need such a copyright incentive at all? I do not need to look around far to see that very many artists do create and distribute their creations for free under Creative Commons. They did so often without profit in mind when they simply want to release what they had created for others to enjoy.

    Naturally if someone else wants to make money from their creation, freely distributed or not, then the artists should be allowed a share of this profit should they desire.

  • https://thepiratebay.org/user/manOtor/ manOtor

    Thank you Mr. Falkvinge – as always – for the good read.

    Actually it scares me a little.
    Because as we know history tends to repeat itself, and we are by far not yet at the point equivalent to the conditions Rick describes.
    Let’s just hope that in our time of knowledge and education it won’t come to this… ;)

  • https://thepiratebay.org/user/manOtor/ manOtor

    Thank you Mr. Falkvinge – as always – for the good read.

    Actually it scares me a little.
    Because as we know history tends to repeat itself, and we are by far not yet at the point equivalent to the conditions Rick describes.
    Let’s just hope that in our time of knowledge and education it won’t come to this… ;)

  • Flinty

    Sources please Rick. Would love to know more about this subject.

    • Geeker
      • Flinty

        We don’t need proof that the Breaking Wheel existed…we need need proof that it was used for something as trivial as copyright infringement…

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism. London: George Allen and Unwin, revised, second edition, edited by Ernst F. Söderlund, 1955, 2 volumes. (Originally published as Merkantilisment: Ett led i den ekonomiska politikens historia. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt and Söner, 1931.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

    Rick, the fear mongering is amusing, I’l give you that. Granted, pirates seem to believe anything they hear as long as it makes the copyrights holders look the antichrist. But may I remind people that this is not in fact the middle ages but in fact 2011.

    It’s very easy to loose perspective, to sit back and presume that you are entitled to the work of rights holders when you aren’t the one who is trying to make a living off your work. What do you do for a living, rick? What if your employers decided that paying you for your work was optional?

    • Anonymous

      I hate how reasonable you try to sound, because you yourself are unreasonable. And while you point out things about others, you fail to realize they apply to yourself as well. Basically, you’re an idiot and a hypocrite. Both things disgust me.

      You also fail to make appropriate distinctions. For instance, if you want to use the “how would you like to not get paid for your work” example, look at it IN PERSPECTIVE (as you want to point out). We’ll assume Rick has a 9 to 5 job. He gets paid hourly for working. If he does not work, he doesn’t get paid. But in this example, Rick works consistently and as per standards dictated to him by his employer, thus he works 9 to 5 and gets paid appropriately per hour he’s working. You can’t say artists aren’t getting paid because they do. They get paid upfront for what, a week or a month of work. Then they have to do absolutely nothing. In comparison, what they get up front (their advance) tends to be more than most people make in a year (I’d even wager, 5 years, but let’s go with 1 for this example). Thus they are getting more than compensated for the bit of work they actually do. Everything after the fact is a bonus. And there’s no guarantee they WILL make money. To assume otherwise is to be stupid, same as saying ” 1 dl = 1 lost sale”, that’s an assumption and can’t be counted as fact. What is fact is artists works, creates something, gets paid up front for their work. Everything after shouldn’t be counted as a sure thing, which is the first error in your line of thinking (but not the last/only one).

      What you’re crying about is after the fact. Oh boohoo they don’t get money after they worked and already got an advance. Which shoots down the let’s compare Rick not getting paid suddenly. It’s not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination (besides the ludicrous and you’re imagination falls into the type that could be described as ludicrous).

      And it’s further amusing that while you essentially b*tch about Rick’s “fear mongering”, the entertainment industries are doing the same thing. But, as is quite obvious, you have no problem with them doing it. Which is why I called you a hypocrite. “We’re dying!” “Thieves are killing us!” “We won’t survive if we aren’t protected!” That’s fear mongering. Pot meet kettle. You’re both black.

      Also, you say rightsholders, so let’s be clear, rightsholders ARE NOT content creators. They are not the artists making music, the guy writing scripts/novels, the guy actually acting, etc. Rightsholders are the guys who sit back and collect a paycheck for work that someone else does. They’re not making a living off their work, they’re making a living off the work of others. Sorry to break it to you, but that is the truth. It is easy to LOSE (note the proper spelling of the word you meant to use) perspective when you’re sitting on a high horse. So we’ll forgive the slip up, just this once, but rest assured you’ll get called out on it time and time again.

      So yeah. I think I shot down everything you said or put it in a reasonable perspective. Which means I’m done here. Look forward to doing it again. Because I know you’ll give me the opportunity.

      • Anon

        You are so, so lost, you poor man. :-)

        • Anonymous

          Back at you, sweetheart. I think the lost ones are the ones who see things from only one irrational perspective. I can step back and look at things from both sides and acknowledge each side’s errors in thinking and in their actions. You and Jack fall into the category of “see things from only one irrational perspective”. I’m not against/for piracy, but I am against some of the actions taken to stop it. When the solutions are worse than the problem, you’ve started down a bad path. Or as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

          The fact that you openly advocate for the government to hunt and track down people using any means necessary, says more about you than me. It says you’re the type of person for whom “the ends justify the means”. If solving piracy today could be achieved by chipping people (to better monitor them), literally doing away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and executing anyone who has no problem with copyright infringement (to be clear: they aren’t doing it themselves, they just don’t care if it happens) in addition to executing actual infringers, you would have no problem with any of that. Which in my book, makes you an awful human being. More so than any infringer.

          You say I’m lost. I beg to differ. The man who thinks like you do is way more lost than myself. I am but a reasonable guy with an opinion, I put things into perspective in regards to other problems the world and we as a country face. You don’t.

          And I still find it sad that whoever you are, you aren’t the original “Anon”. You’re writing style gave you away awhile back, and while you’re a better adversary as far as making arguments goes, you still fall back on rhetoric and extremist viewpoints and actions (or actions you want to happen). You’re no one to judge me, I won’t say you’re not worthy, because IMO no one is worthy enough to judge another, but psh… you’re one to f*cking talk, basically.

        • Anon

          @ electric

          “literally doing away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights”

          Rights consistently abused are rights lost.
          That’s not my opinion, that’s a fact of human history.
          Read up, get off your high moral horse and take your piss to your Senator.
          That’s EXACTLY what we are doing.
          And it’s working, sweetheart. One step at a time, one abused right at a time.

          Artists who take action to protect their work from infringement are your worst nightmare come true. :-) When all you’ve got is self righteousness and stealth, electric, you should wake up and see where this is actually going. If you aren’t trying to curtail piracy, you are part of the problem.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon

          I’m not on a moral high horse, if anyone is it’s you. As is evidenced by your comment history Anon. And sorry, but taking away EVERYONE’S rights because of a few people is not justifiable, I don’t care what the situation. To say otherwise is just further showing how out of touch you are with reality and with reason.

          And I don’t have a problem with artists who want to protect their work, I’ve never said anything to that effect. So no, it is not my worst nightmare come true. Yet again, I’d like to point out, what you say doesn’t apply to me. This “self righteousness and stealth” nonsense nor the rest of your mini rant. I have nothing to hide, as I’ve said before. What others do is their thing, not mine.

          To that end, that last sentence of yours “if you aren’t trying to curtail piracy, you are part of the problem” is a load of bull. I’m not out there single handedly fighting the war on drugs, doesn’t make me part of the problem. There are law enforcement agencies and officers and courts and laws dealing with that. Ditto murder, rape, etc. I acknowledge the law, what others do be it legal or illegal, it is not my place to tell them “you’re being bad, stop it”. Nope, they can think for themselves and make choices on their own. You are part of the problem though. You’re the guy who gets a lil scared about something and hands over his rights, and says take everyone else’s too. That is the problem. You might think you’re on the right side, but what you want is wrong. Like I said, punishing everyone for the actions of a few is in no way right nor justified, nor excusable. They can make punishments fit the crime, by all means, but the ridiculous “settlements”, the attempted extradition and trials of citizens from other countries who are not bound by U.S. law is excessive and heavy handed. It’s tactics and actions like that, that hurt the corporations and industry. Situations similar to this have happened repeatedly in U.S. history. Prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. All have met with failure. There is no way to completely eradicate the problem, to think otherwise is a fantasy. Better to attempt to curtail it by beating the “pirates” at their own game. iTunes and Netflix are successes. Make something similar and at just as reasonable prices, make it simple to use and readily accessible and that’ll get rid of casual piracy. Which’ll more than likely eliminate most of the problem. But try and stamp it out and don’t be surprised when it meets with the same level of success as the things I just mentioned. Heck, we’ve already been here before. VHS. Cassette tapes. And others. Those were going to the kill the industries too. Yet here we are, still going strong.

          And please don’t use sweetheart again. I used it, don’t try and turn it around. It seems petty and childish when you do. Got that, dear?

        • Anon

          @ electric

          “taking away EVERYONE’S rights because of a few people is not justifiable, I don’t care what the situation. ”

          You mean like everyone staying after school until the perp comes clean?
          You mean like EVERYONE subject to retail store surveillance and their costs added to the goods because a few asswipes shoplift?
          Maybe you think speed traps and DWI stops are unfair, too, because you don’t speed or drink. What planet do you actually live on?

          You know what sweetheart?
          You have your head so far up your own ass you aren’t even thinking straight anymore.

          Read your history, electric, especially that of the development of law from about 1215 forward and then try to tell us all again that “taking away EVERYONE’S rights because of a few people is not justifiable, I don’t care what the situation. ”

          Really. I thought we’d wiped out this kind of institutionalized ignorance by now.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon

          We’ve been here before.

          No one’s ever had to stay after school in the area I live for what you said. They get looked at and lectured, but they can’t be held there against their will. Contrary to the threats. And after school detention is a separate matter entirely, so don’t think about bringing that up.

          Retail store surveillance doesn’t count. Guess what? That’s a public place. So your right to privacy is already relatively gone.

          Speed traps/DWI stops, ditto. Public roads/places. You’re reasonable expectation to privacy is diminished in those situations and places.

          I live on planet earth, where I can pause and think things through before I make a fool of myself by giving extreme examples that are irrelevant and not actually fitting to the discussion at hand. How ’bout you?

          As for the “you have your head…” comment, back at you. You don’t see the hypocrisy in saying that do you? Much like Jack. Same thing for that “I thought we’d wiped…” comment of yours. Your ignorance is astounding. I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that about you. I mean, again, look at what you write. And you want me and others here to think I’m the ignorant/unreasonable one? Sorry, but you come off as way worse an offender in that regard than myself.

          Now what else do you have? That’s not an extreme/irrelevant example. I mean, you didn’t really say anything. Threw a few things out there hoping to make a point, but they don’t apply. I don’t even know why you mentioned them at all. Maybe you should call it quits for the day, take a chill pill, focus your thoughts and come back tomorrow and try again. I’m not feeling up to playing or debating with you. Especially if you aren’t going to actually say anything. Sound good to you, sweet thang? ; )

        • Anon

          @ electric

          Electric, I chose those examples because they cover a wide range of legal situations, each one illustrating precisely my point. Entire classes are, in fact, held after school until somebody gives it up. School can be public or it can be private and in both cases my illustration stands. That’s so classic it’s practically legend and you’ve offered nothing to dispel it. “In your area” is so weak.

          Retail is actually private property 99% of the time, and until shoplifting grew rampant we certainly did have a reasonable expectation that our closed bag was none of their business. Laws changed because people stole, rights of the many were lost to a few and I suspect you know that and you just enjoy being condescendingly pissy.

          The DWI stop is also very specifically applicable, precisely because for a long time the courts held a reasonable expectation of privacy within a closed and private automobile. At one time “reasonable cause” had to be shown, cross-lane weaving or a headlight out, but that too has been lost to a few, those majority rights were lost to a minority of DWI and now you can be stopped and required to open up to a cop and a flashlight anytime they want. Get out and walk the line while they videotape you. Anytime. Anywhere. No reasonable cause needed anymore because some people won’t stop drinking and driving and reasonable people call for these laws in response. Same with speeding. They can pull you over for a mere document check now, no reasonable cause required at all and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. This trend goes on and on, electric. Why is this seachange occurring in heretofore “rights”? Because they were abused, because the few jerks spoiled it for the many, just as my point was earlier. And now pirates are eroding our rights on the internet with unlawful behavior. This trend is as plain as day and you’ve got nothing.

          The fact is, electric, you are over your head, you don’t know law, you don’t know your legal history at all and you are winging it on a holier than thou attitude to try and compensate for your ignorance.

          And now this trend is on the internet, because a few jerks can’t stop infringing on content that doesn’t belong to them. Do you think you have a “right” to use the privacy of your home to cover you while you break the law over an internet connection? Oh, really? lol

          You’d better read a bit more about this and think again, electric. Or just tell it to the judge. Your ignorance is as big as your hot-air ego, but it’s no substitute for education.

        • Anonymous

          No sir, you are over your head. You keep trying to paint me as a criminal when I am not. I do have a right to privacy in my home. Why? Because I am in my home and am doing nothing wrong. I’ve repeatedly stated that with the exception of books and comics I prefer to do without. I don’t buy movies, I catch them on satellite and DVR the random one or two per month that I do like. As for music, I have the radio and Pandora. I purchase maybe 1 cd a year (if that). Instead I support artists I like by going to their concerts. So yeah, I have a right to privacy in my home because I’m not a criminal nor engaging in any illegal activities, offline or online.

          And regardless of what a few jerks do, it does not give anyone the right to take away my rights. I am a law abiding citizen. I can’t be stopped by a police officer nor searched without probably cause. I can be asked by a store employee to stay where I am, but since I worked in retail previously, I know that I have the right to walk off. (We were constantly told, you can ask people to stop but you can’t forcibly stop them. Call the cops if you must, but don’t touch them yourselves.)

          So, I won’t have to say anything to a judge, because I won’t be in any situation where I will wind up in a court of law (especially not for copyright infringement). You can repeat yourself over and over and call me a criminal all you like, doesn’t make it so.

          You should heed your own words. You’re full of hot air, you’ve got an ego and you’re just as ignorant about some things as anyone else on here. You’re all talk. And you’re probably annoyed that I won’t back down from you. Why should I? You’re stance is idiotic. If you were just supporting copyright I’d have no problem with that. I’ve said that to Friend of the People and Ven and Guest123 on plenty of occasions. I respect their opinions and they respect mine. And we do more often than not find ourselves meeting halfway on some things, but you I don’t agree with. Your extremist stance is not something I like. That you condone and support the invasive monitoring on everyone and the loss of rights for everyone is beyond stupid.

          And sorry to say, but citing examples as you do doesn’t make it okay to have my privacy invaded. Copyright infringement is not as serious an issue as driving under the influence. Pay attention, I didn’t say it’s not serious (because I know you’ll spin what I said that way), I said it’s not as serious. Sure, it may cost some people monetary losses, but there is no risk of physically harming someone (as is the case and a possibility if driving while under the influence). Ditto your school stance. You say “in my area” is a weak argument, present me evidence and articles showing that what you say is true. Because around here, that doesn’t happen. I’ve been in classes where something went missing and they said they’d keep us til someone coughed it up. Guess what? When the bell rang, we left. No one held us in place. And I dare a person to lay a hand on me in any situation where it is not warranted. I will defend myself if need be, or get an attorney to protect me also if need be. I mean you yourself just said “it’s practically legend”. Legend as far as I’m aware DOES NOT equal fact. Legend is fiction. So by your own words, it’s not true and does not take place.

          Just be quiet already please, I’m bored with you and you’re not going to “win”. You don’t get a prize for repeating yourself over and over again on TF. You don’t enrapture people with your words and get them to suddenly convert to your way of thinking. You might, but it’s not likely. There’s no point going back and forth. And I can tell I’ve pushed your buttons quite a bit already. You trying to throw “sweetheart” back at me and saying I’m “pissy” or whatnot is testament to that. You’re not keeping your composure. You could’ve been eloquent and explained yourself and used examples very early on, instead you just went off. I respond, you bumble with words and come up with examples later on, without explaining them. I respond. You suddenly explain yourself. WRE WRE WRE. Just let it go. Find someone else to play with. Anon2 perhaps. Or lakawak. Or Jack Murdock. Someone who thinks like you do, because I don’t. Nor will I ever. And going off over and over won’t make me give a sh*t. It just makes me think even more how ridiculous you’re being. Feel the same way about me if you want, I don’t care. But just stop already. Use your time in a more constructive way por favor.

        • Guest77

          “Rights consistently abused are rights lost”?

          Well, Copy”right monopoly is consistently abused, for starters. More seriously though, no they aren’t. You’re wrong there. Rights are intrinsic. A legal system may fail to respect your rights, but a legal system doesn’t grant rights. You can’t really lose a right, it can only be denied to you by injustice

          Your vacuous legalism is infantile. Illegal and wrong are different things, as people generally learn as part of their moral development in their teens at the latest. Everyone here who isn’t a shill knows and understands copyright infringement isn’t wrong, it’s merely presently illegal. Rick is part of a party that will change that in the near future.

        • Anon

          @ electric

          “And regardless of what a few jerks do, it does not give anyone the right to take away my rights.”

          Factually and historically incorrect, electric, you are simply uninformed, with several legal examples cited, both public and private. You, just like me and everyone else are already losing our online rights to the pirates who infringe. Your statement is simply false and you know it, governments are already legally taking these rights as pirates abuse them and none of your blah blah will change that now.

        • Anon

          @Guest77

          “Rick is part of a party that will change that in the near future.”

          Allow me to fix that for you. Fact: Rick is part of a party so infinitesimally small and lacking it has about the same ethical authority and political leverage as a pimple on Mitch Bainwol’s ass. Near future?

          Hold your breath, Guestt77, everyone likes the color blue. :-)

        • http://tinyurl.com/ANoiXioNA-personal-info ANoiXioNA

          @Anon /

          Go troll some PRO-Copyright site……

          OH… forgot….. free speech doesn’t exist on those sites…..
          Only comments that fit with the agenda are allowed…..
          Which begs the question’s………..

          1. Why come to torrent based news site ? ( just to argue )

          2. How much are you getting paid to troll ?

          [ : CITATION NEEDED : }

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon

          I got one last thing to say, which I know I’ve said to you a few times before in other articles. But you conveniently forget or something.

          You’re b*tching and pissing and moaning about online rights, when after the previous comments you clearly advocate the loss of said rights. You clearly said “rights abused are rights taken away” or something to that effect, in reply to me saying “You’d be totally fine with it if they ripped up the Constituion/Bill of rights”. You said that. You support that. That’s your stance as you have made abundantly clear. So why are you suddenly caring about your online rights? You can’t even argue without contradicting yourself. One moment you want them to spy on everyone and you’re happy about it and you write your congressman about it and brag about it, here in these articles. The next you are worried. Which is it?

          I mean wow, you’re concerned about online rights. Really? In this day and age, where the cops can knock on your door say they hear a noise and then kick it in, without a warrant mind you, and get away with it. In these times where you can be labeled a terrorist and held indefinitely without trial in secret prisons. In this time where everything you say and do can and more than likely already is being monitored. Etc etc. You’re suddenly making a splash about a few “infringers” ruining it for people and losing your online rights. L M F A O. You’re such a goddamn hypocrite. Governments are taking more rights and have been doing so for over a decade now (and even longer in other countries that aren’t America), and you don’t care about any of that. You don’t even care that they may and will (if the industries have their way) monitor your every movement/action online by your own admission. But when you run out of things to say, suddenly you’re saying “our rights online wre wre wre”. Please just stop man. I try and just let it go, I tell you to just drop it, walk away, etc. And you come back with that? Which as I said and will repeat, contradicts other things you’ve said. Come on.

          And before you say, “they were taking our rights because of Napster” just stop. Think. Your online rights. Instead of focusing on the important issues at hand, losing our ACTUAL FREAKING RIGHTS (real ones, not online ones), you focus on that. Instead of worrying or caring about the drug problem in this country, the financial situation we’re in (with debt up the ying yang, because of two “wars” which don’t seem to be ending any time soon), terrorism being a constant (if not necessarily, actually gonna happen) threat, unemployment being at a level it hasn’t been in years, etc. all you care about is a few people downloading a f*cking song or movie. Wow. You got some pretty f*cked up priorities and you need to get some perspective real quick.

          We’re done here. I’m tapping out. That is not saying “you win”. That’s me saying, f*ck it, you’re not worth the time. Do me a favor, from now on ignore all my comments. And I’ll do the same. You don’t reply to me, I don’t reply to you. (If anyone else wants to tag in and deal with this dude, feel free. I think I’ve done my part.)

      • Anon2

        “You can’t say artists aren’t getting paid because they do. They get paid upfront for what, a week or a month of work. Then they have to do absolutely nothing. In comparison, what they get up front (their advance) tends to be more than most people make in a year (I’d even wager, 5 years, but let’s go with 1 for this example). ”

        @electric_worry
        You lost me at that point. You’ve clearly never done one day of professional creative work (software, games, music, art, movies, etc.) and have no idea of what it means.

        And you are you still peddling the freetard myth that all creative professionals are fat cats that work for a couple of days and then scratch their balls with a 5-zero paycheck?

        Do you honestly expect people to keep buying into your argument that creative professionals who are against stealing and digital piracy – and who wish to protect their right to be paid when their product is acquired – are all “whiners” and / or “corporate fear-mongers” and “MAFIAA trolls”?

        Do grow up.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon2

          I don’t care if I lost you or not. I wasn’t speaking to you. Much like I ignore some people’s comments on here, feel free to do the same. You don’t agree with it, f*ck it, I don’t care.

          I’ve written, if that’s what you mean by creative work. I do so because I like doing so, I don’t need a paycheck for it. If I make a few bucks off it, great. But I seldom do, not because of lack of talent, but lack of time. I have a few jobs I do work at that cover my bills.

          And sorry, but you can’t call one thing a “freetard myth” when you’re rooting for the guys who say “1 download = 1 lost sale” and “the industries are losing money like crazy” when their own data shows on the contrary, they’re making record breaking profits, for several consecutive years in a row. The “losses” are just as much a myth. Also, I didn’t say creative professionals are fat cats, don’t put words in my mouth. I said they work, they get paid. You work, you earn a paycheck. Read what I wrote. Then read it again. Then a third time so you can comprehend it. And not make up things I DID NOT say. I don’t go to work, do a few things then expect to get a continuous paycheck for the one thing I did do. I work consistently, to get paid. That’s what I said they do. Work, get paid. Keep doing that over and over. And so on and so forth.

          Nor did I say they are all “whiners” or “corporate fear-mongers” or “MAFIAA trolls”. Again, DO NOT put words in my mouth, you put all those words in quotes, as if to make it seem I said that, I did not. Nor did I say all people who are against copyright infringement (because as has been repeated over and over again, it is not theft, by the courts and legal definitions) are anything like that. Some are members of corporations (and yes, shouting that “the sky is falling” would be considered fear mongering), but some are Average Joes/Janes. And no one said they can’t protect their products nor their rights to be paid. Again, don’t put words in my mouth. Address what I did say, not what you wish I said or what others have said and then make it seem like I did.

        • Guest106

          Labor theory of value fallacy. You’re committing it.

          Remember, copying is not theft. Until you acknowledge that, you’re being so completely unreasonable there’s little point debating with you – we’re right, you’re wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

        Yeah, im gonna have to go with anon here. Please step off your moral high horse. You’re defending piracy. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it.

        I dont think it has anything to do with appropriate distinctions. I think what’s really at work is creating excuses for problems. Look at how you diminish artists. You are practically calling them lazy.

        “They get paid upfront for what, a week or a month of work. Then they have to do absolutely nothing.”
        Please drop the self righteous attitude. Are you an artist? Atleast I did my homework and from what I can see, it takes several months to record an album. They get paid per album the number of albums they sell. Furthermore, they are the ones who have to pay the record label. They don’t get paid to record, einstein.

        Also, what do you do that gives you the right to call artists lazy? Hm? Do you have a full time job? Do you do anything? Apparantly you never heard of touring.

        “In comparison, what they get up front (their advance) tends to be more than most people make in a year (I’d even wager, 5 years, but let’s go with 1 for this example). ”
        Where the fuck are you getting any of this? Are you simply making it up as you go along? So you think an indie band that just got a deal with a record label gets paid as much as the average person makes in a year.. in a week? You ARE lost.

        “Thus they are getting more than compensated for the bit of work they actually do. Everything after the fact is a bonus. And there’s no guarantee they WILL make money. To assume otherwise is to be stupid, same as saying ” 1 dl = 1 lost sale”, that’s an assumption and can’t be counted as fact. What is fact is artists works, creates something, gets paid up front for their work. Everything after shouldn’t be counted as a sure thing, which is the first error in your line of thinking (but not the last/only one).”
        Is that what you tell yourself when decide you are above paying the artist? Have you even thought about what you’re saying? It doesn’t make one damn bit of sense. So, they get paid a magic upfront fee which somehow knows how many albums they will ever sell? So you think the record label would just pay them upfront without even knowing how successful their work would be? You’ve created a very cushy little fantasy to shield yourself from reality.

        “Which shoots down the let’s compare Rick not getting paid suddenly. It’s not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination (besides the ludicrous and you’re imagination falls into the type that could be described as ludicrous). ”
        Uhm, no it doesn’t. Because for all Rick’s bombastic claims, he gets paid for every hour of work he does. Not half of them. Not 3/4 of them. Thanks to people like you, however, artists don’t get paid for all their albums.

        “And it’s further amusing that while you essentially b*tch about Rick’s “fear mongering”, the entertainment industries are doing the same thing. But, as is quite obvious, you have no problem with them doing it. Which is why I called you a hypocrite. “We’re dying!” “Thieves are killing us!” “We…
        show more”
        Except that entertainment industry is not fear mongering. They are simply stating the obvious. That piracy is out of control. What Rick is doing is trying to get people to think that the entertainment industry will institute capitol punishment for piracy. Not even anywhere near the vicinity of rational.

        • Anonymous

          Sorry Jack, but you and Anon here are both on a more “holier than thou” trip than anyone on this site.

          I’m not defending piracy, I’m against the extreme things being done to combat it. That isn’t defending it however, it’s taking a stance against people that are trying to defend their rights (and only theirs, and better said profits, not rights) while taking away others (even innocent people who are doing nothing wrong).

          I did not call artists lazy. I may have the amount of time wrong on how long it takes to record an album, but regardless, it’s well known that artists do get an advance when they sign a contract. I’m sure sales get them more money, but when you sign up with a label you get a paycheck for doing so. The amounts vary, but I’m sure by the average person’s yearly wages, they are at minimum equal or higher. And they pay the labels, but only from what the label puts in, and even then the artists get the shaft. So you’re saying, it’s okay to legally (essentially) steal form them as long as you’re a “suit” (for lack of a better term) and shortchange them and screw them in every way possible, but hearing their song for free is the bad and terrible action?

          As I just said, I did not call artists lazy. I have 2 part time jobs that total equal a bit more than full time work. Over 40 hours per week total at both (which constitutes full time by traditional standards). I also have a side gig which further adds to that (but I don’t count because I don’t get paid hourly for it, I set the fees). And I have heard of touring, some of my favorite bands do nothing but tour. But I left touring out because I wanted to focus solely on the advance for signing with a label. Everything else is extra. Thus I didn’t include it.

          Again, to the second part, I did it off the top of my head, it might not be a week, it could be a month or half a year’s effort into making an album, but they sign with a label and get a very nice advance. If they blow it on stupid things, that’s their problem, not mine. But they get one. And when compared to what some people make, it’s nice. There are tons of people who survive (barely, but they do) on minimum wage and make around $20,000 a year (and I’m basing that on the average income per person locally, cost of living where I do is less and as such pay is less). You’re telling me that an indie band won’t get that?

          And no, that isn’t what I tell myself when I’m above paying an artist. Why? Because as I’ve said, I don’t really buy albums. The bands I like put out maybe 1 every 2-3 years. Total bands out there who I will gladly buy albums from are under 5. So that’s maybe 5 albums (tops) a year I buy (if that). I support them by going to their concerts, which is much more preferable to me, like that they get all the proceeds, as opposed to a tiny percentage of an album sale. Because, sorry to burst your bubble, but me buying an album does not really support a band. That’s me supporting a label. And I don’t like doing so, not when they screw the artists. If the $10-15 I pay per album went entirely to a band, maybe I’d buy a few more cds, but til then, I’ll stick with the handful I do and only for those artists I really really dig. So no, I’m not making up a cushy fantasy world to live in. I’m being a realist, I’m not thief, contrary to what you may think.

          Again, artists get paid up front an advance. How much it is is debatable. But they get it. Everything after the fact is gravy. If they have to work more (create more albums) to earn more pay, that’s normal. You can’t expect to live off the one thing you do forever. Hence the example I gave about Rick.

          And sorry to say, the industry is fear mongering. They aren’t dying, they are making record breaking profits, they state things that aren’t true to get people on their side or create fear to get politicians to change laws in their favor. If piracy were as out of control as they say it is, they wouldn’t make record breaking profits. They wouldn’t have funds to lobby as they do, or sue people, or whatnot. Money doesn’t magically appear, so they must get it from somewhere. I.e. album/digital sales, which means as bad as piracy is (and it’s debatable how bad it is), it isn’t as bad as they make it out to be.

          And no Rick isn’t trying to make it out to be what you stated, he’s merely making a comparison. Is it a bit much? Sure, to some. But so’s saying industries are dying and suffering heavy losses when they clearly aren’t. He presented what happened to the day and made a comparison. The comparison was, to protect a monopoly/copyright death was used on people who violated said monopoly/copyright. And even then, that didn’t stop them from doing it. So if things are taken to such extremes, and still people don’t stop, what then? It’s only mind blowing to guys like you. Everyone else gets it.

          As for that last line of yours, back at you. You can go off and say what you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Look at half the things you write. Haven’t I called you out on them before? I believe I have. I ask you to cite sources and you conveniently and suddenly state everything you say is your own opinion. Odd. One moment it’s gospel and true, the next it’s your understanding of the situation and opinion. Sounds not very rational to me. Saying one moment it’s true, being asked to cite sources and saying it’s opinion after that.

          Don’t try and act big because of Anon’s comments towards me. You still haven’t said anything beyond basically going “you’re wrong”. Show me some proof. Show me some facts. I might change my views. If all you’ve got is your opinion though, don’t b*tch about mine being any less rational than yours. And yes, you do stand on a high horse. You preach in a manner of speaking and berate what others do just because you don’t do it or approve of it. That means you’re judging others, which means you’re sitting pretty on a high horse. If you can’t see that you are, climb down off it. You might get better perspective at ground level.

        • Anon2

          @electric_worry
          You force me to throw your own quote back at you again.

          First you say:
          “”You can’t say artists aren’t getting paid because they do. They get paid upfront for what, a week or a month of work. Then they have to do absolutely nothing.”"

          Then you say:
          “I did not call artists lazy.”

          Again – do grow up.

        • Anon2

          “Again, to the second part, I did it off the top of my head, it might not be a week, it could be a month or half a year’s effort into making an album, but they sign with a label and get a very nice advance. ”

          Not anymore. Since everyone steals records, there is no incentive for the few remaining record companies to sign new artists and invest in them. Large media corporations who also own radios, TV channels and Internet ventures can still afford to manufacture new acts (hello, Lady Gaga!), but independent labels are dead. Most professional musicians I know – and by professional I mean people who play at least one concert a week – have had to record their work out of their own pockets, and some of them are forced to take jobs, even though they might play to packed venues every month.

        • Anonymous

          Murdock (it seems more like Murdoch to me though).. You’re back!!!!!!!

          anyway, f-off.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon2

          God, I hate stupidity. I did not call artists lazy.

          Reread what you did quote. I even said I may have had the time wrong, either way they work and get paid for it. At which point (going again, off the assumption they make a decent advance) if they don’t want to do anything, they can. They’ve made an advance. Unless there’s a catch, like record 5 albums in 10 years or something, they can relax. They don’t have to tour if they don’t want to. They don’t have to record unless they have to after the first album. But me saying “Then they have to do absolutely nothing” is NOT calling them lazy. Get your f*cking sh*t straight, and like Anon and Jack, DO NOT put words in my mouth. You say “do grow up”, back at you. An adult doesn’t resort to having to put a spin on the word’s of others to further their own agenda.

          And since you’re an expert, I’ll need a source where I can determine for myself that I am wrong about “advances”. You say there’s no incentive to sign new artists and invest in them, let me see that. Man I have to be real specific with you guys, or you all grasp at straws. I had large labels in mind, not independent ones. Do I have to call out Sony and Warner Bros and etc by name? K, I will from now on.

          And as for people being in bands and having to take jobs? Boo f*cking hoo. There are plenty of musicians out there who do just that, more power to them. What? Is that wrong? No. There are people out there who work multiple jobs (non-musicians) to support themselves, do you play the world’s saddest song on the world’s smallest violin for them? (Because they struggle as well.) I bet you don’t.

          I mean OMG they play in packed venues?! Geez. No way?! And they still can’t make it?! Oh whoa is me. /s WTF is a “packed venue” by your expertise of these people you know? (We’ll pretend you’re being honest and not just making it up, which you could be doing.) A bar I like going to has bands play in it every weekend. There’s room in it for maybe 75 people (if that, to be honest). It gets jam packed every weekend, which by default means whoever’s playing is playing a “packed venue”. But you aren’t going to make much playing to 75 people a week. I apparently have to be uber specific, maybe it should apply all around. What’s good for the goose and all that.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon2

          God, I hate stupidity. I did not call artists lazy.

          Reread what you did quote. I even said I may have had the time wrong, either way they work and get paid for it. At which point (going again, off the assumption they make a decent advance) if they don’t want to do anything, they can. They’ve made an advance. Unless there’s a catch, like record 5 albums in 10 years or something, they can relax. They don’t have to tour if they don’t want to. They don’t have to record unless they have to after the first album. But me saying “Then they have to do absolutely nothing” is NOT calling them lazy. Get your f*cking sh*t straight, and like Anon and Jack, DO NOT put words in my mouth. You say “do grow up”, back at you. An adult doesn’t resort to having to put a spin on the word’s of others to further their own agenda.

          And since you’re an expert, I’ll need a source where I can determine for myself that I am wrong about “advances”. You say there’s no incentive to sign new artists and invest in them, let me see that. Man I have to be real specific with you guys, or you all grasp at straws. I had large labels in mind, not independent ones. Do I have to call out Sony and Warner Bros and etc by name? K, I will from now on.

          And as for people being in bands and having to take jobs? Boo f*cking hoo. There are plenty of musicians out there who do just that, more power to them. What? Is that wrong? No. There are people out there who work multiple jobs (non-musicians) to support themselves, do you play the world’s saddest song on the world’s smallest violin for them? (Because they struggle as well.) I bet you don’t.

          I mean OMG they play in packed venues?! Geez. No way?! And they still can’t make it?! Oh whoa is me. /s WTF is a “packed venue” by your expertise of these people you know? (We’ll pretend you’re being honest and not just making it up, which you could be doing.) A bar I like going to has bands play in it every weekend. There’s room in it for maybe 75 people (if that, to be honest). It gets jam packed every weekend, which by default means whoever’s playing is playing a “packed venue”. But you aren’t going to make much playing to 75 people a week. I apparently have to be uber specific, maybe it should apply all around. What’s good for the goose and all that.

        • Anon2

          @electric_worry

          “And as for people being in bands and having to take jobs? Boo f*cking hoo. There are plenty of musicians out there who do just that, more power to them. What? Is that wrong? No.”

          Now who’s putting words in other people’s mouths? Never said that was wrong.

          “I mean OMG they play in packed venues?! Geez. No way?! And they still can’t make it?! Oh whoa is me. /s WTF is a “packed venue” by your expertise of these people you know? (We’ll pretend you’re being honest and not just making it up, which you could be doing.)”

          Very mature.
          You want a number, I’ll give numbers from one of the examples I know personally – the problem is that when you play for roughly 1000 people a month and still can’t pay your bills, then something is wrong with the current model.
          And no, I’m not making this up, but since I value my privacy (and other people’s privacy) I will refrain from naming names.

          “There are people out there who work multiple jobs (non-musicians) to support themselves, do you play the world’s saddest song on the world’s smallest violin for them? (Because they struggle as well.) I bet you don’t.”

          What the hell was that all about? OK, so now you resort to fantasizing about how “evil” and uncaring I am and how I know nothing about the current economic crisis and about struggling multi-employed people. that’s a straw man argument and a ridiculous one at that (this forum is full of those). We’re talking about a specific segment of society here (creative professionals) but if you want to keep mixing apples with oranges, be my guest. I won’t deign that with further replies.

          “So you’re saying, it’s okay to legally (essentially) steal form them as long as you’re a “suit” (for lack of a better term) and shortchange them and screw them in every way possible, but hearing their song for free is the bad and terrible action?”

          Hearing a song for free still means you are acquiring a product which someone made and you’re not paying for it. A very basic principle. Should the right to charge for that song last forever? Obviously not.
          And yes, I was expecting the “suits” to make an appearance. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not an RIAA troll and I do not work for a label. I care about the rights of authors and creative professionals and whatever business model comes up next, if it means the end of labels and distributors, fine – I couldn’t care less.

          “I left touring out because I wanted to focus solely on the advance for signing with a label. ”

          Good luck with that. Most labels I know of do not invest upfront on bands anymore. Artists are expected to pay for all recording and production costs, and labels might jump in with printing and promotion. And that’s pretty much it. Why risk your ever-decreasing capital in this economic climate in a product that people are increasingly stealing? Digital sales and services could cover that hole (and also help do away with parasitic intermediaries and distributors), but competing with “free” is next to impossible unless some heads roll as examples. Sad but true.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon2

          No one put words in your mouth. Don’t twist what I said. I asked a question. “Is that wrong? No.” That’s not me saying you said that. Or putting words in your mouth or anything. That’s me asking a question and answering it.

          And you say “very mature” after telling me to “grow up”. What did you expect? I didn’t want a number specifically, but being vague doesn’t help. The example I gave and the one you gave both constitute “packed venues”. I don’t care to or wish to know the names of the bands you refer to or your own.

          Nor did I say you were evil and uncaring, nor imply it. But I’m making a comparison. You were going off about these people unable to make it financially, guess what, there’s plenty of other people in that same boat. That’s what I was pointing out. It’s sort of wrong to just say “oh the artists” when there are plenty of other people in this country and in the world in general who have difficulty finding work or making ends meat. I get this site doesn’t focus on them, but try and put things into perspective.

          And no, hearing a song for free doesn’t mean you didn’t pay for it. Guess what? I hear songs on the radio and Pandora all the time for free. That’s not me stealing it. It’s paid for through advertising. Nor did I call YOU a “suit”. I mean suits as in the guys who work at the labels, not you. If I want to call you something I will, I don’t beat around the bush or do subtle. It’s pointless and a waste of my time.

          And you can compete with free, it’s not next to impossible. Netflix is doing fine. Amazon sales are great, ditto Barnes and Noble. iTunes same thing. They all sell digital products. This “it’s impossible to beat free” argument won’t fly anymore. Because those companies offer things that can be had for free and they turn a profit. Great profits. I can’t cite exact figures, but I know Apple made a killing with iTunes alone this past year (there was an article on Engadget about it I believe last week). If you present people a reasonably priced, easily accessible alternative you can beat free any day. I know plenty of people who can’t figure out torrents, or find them to be a hassle. But they can figure out how to purchase stuff on iTunes easily enough. And they do. Why? Because it’s easier to use and the prices aren’t bad. They could get the same thing for free, but they choose to pay due to convenience.

    • superjesus

      Your statement would be valid if it were the people who were losing dollars from someone losing their dollars because of copied product, who complained. And yes some artists have complained and asked for their work not to be copied, but by in large it is suits who sit around desks inflating the prices of the product created by obscene amounts who complain. You don’t hear random struggling bar bands who want to make it big complain when a bunch of people download their music. Why? because it gives them exposure so they can make money from their shows. Instead You hear people like Lars Ulrich and Columbia Records executives complain. Do you really care if these assholes lose another dollar because you don’t help them extort up and coming artists. I don’t.

      • Anon

        Murdock, save your breath. This guy superjesus knows as much about the entertainment industries as a rock.

        • ForFreedom

          You’re being totally unreasonable being unconditional apologist for the copyright industry. Have you seen the laws being passed recently and the heavy handed tactics?

          Is it really worth it to be constantly surveyed, monitored, censored and harshly punished for sharing with your fellow man just because you want to see Yoda hovering on his stick in Star Wars? Or to listen to Lady Gaga?

          I tell you what … I wouldn’t miss that kind of “creative industry” one iota! It really isn’t worth to me to loose my rights and freedom to see Depp chasing octopus-man or whatever. If anything, the world would be a better place without that kind of profit driven garbage of the likes of Gaga and we could enjoy quality artists who are driven by passion instead.

          To hell with copyright and the cultural noise and distortion of values that it produces!

        • Anon

          @ ForFreedom

          ForFreedom is so certain in his own superiority that he gets to decide what people can think of as “good and bad”, and he gets to decide who gets paid for what. And he ALSO gets to determine that Gaga and Depp aren’t actually driven by passion. It’s all him! The pirate seer!

          Self-important twat, the local expert on “distortion of values”.

        • Anon

          @ ForFreedom

          ForFreedom is so certain in his own superiority that he gets to decide what people can think of as “good and bad”, and he gets to decide who gets paid for what. And he ALSO gets to determine that Gaga and Depp aren’t actually driven by passion. It’s all him! The pirate seer!

          Self-important twat, the local expert on “distortion of values”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

          I will defer to your advice here. That would hold true for many people on TF though. Their only recourse is seems to be depicting the entire entertainment industry as evil goons rolling in money. I suspect the vast majority of people here don’t know anything about hard work or for that matter the outside world.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          It seems our friendly trolls have a lot of breath to spend with their bs. Electric is my new idol for his persistence heh. At least the trolls (Anon up there, Jackie Murdoch etc) are amusing. The clueless comments are priceless.

          As for the article, Rick points us to a very interesting question. Regardless of whether the historic example given is true or some sort of legend passed down to our current generation one has to ask what is gonna happen if MAFIAA has their ways in the governments. I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw MAFIAA advocating death penalty for copyright violations by common file sharers once they find out that 2-strikes and all this bs doesn’t deter sharing.

    • Guest102

      Eric, that’s not the situation and you know it. In the complete absence of copyright monopoly when it is finally and inevitably abolished, people will easily work on commission. Artists get paid. Parasitic lawyers and distribution companies, not so much.

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

        When asked for viable alternatives to copyright, pirates dream up the most ludicrous ideas. Comission? Small difference. This isn’t the 17th century anymore. Wealthy noblemen are not who artists are catering too. It’s usually the public masses. Movies aren’t made for one person. They are made for millions. It is an artists right to be compensated according to how widely their work is enjoyed.

        You just keep telling yourself that pirates are going to somehow make copyright magically go away. Pirates have long ruined and chances of looking legit in the eyes of lawmakers.. Probably due to all the computer crime that is committed in the name of defrauding artists.

        • Guest107

          Eric, it isn’t the 17th century anymore, the internet exists to crowdsource commissions. People who aren’t luddite idiots are doing it right now. Pirates are becoming lawmakers now, a trend that will only increase in future as young people who actually understand the internet grow up. Then, goodbye copyright monopoly law. It’s unenforceable as it is, only brings more worthwhile laws into disrepute by association, which is unfortunate.

          > their work is enjoyed.

          Their work is THEIR copy. That the physical thing that they produced, and all that actually exists. If they don’t want copies copied further, they shouldn’t publish copies in the first place.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      And as usual you failed to read the article. What it points out is simple – even the threat of death penalty didn’t stop “filesharing” way back then.

      You think there are any methods which can be used today which will?

      Which is Rick’s original point. That’s not fear mongering except possibly for the pro-copyright crowd who should realize that what they call “piracy” came around to stay as soon as we started building mass communications infrastructure.

      Nothing you can do will change that.

  • Pingback: And When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying — What Then? | We R Pirates

  • Anon
    • Anonymous

      no they don’t you asshole. piracy actually helps spreading it. (originally, it wasn’t distributed via BT. Some people downloaded it and put it on BT. Some pirated it, some who bought downloaded it via BT for the speed)

      • Friend of the People

        Downloading via bittorrent isn’t piracy, it’s just downloading via bittorrent. There is a difference between a legitimate use for bittorrent and piracy. Piracy hasn’t helped it. If you’re going to claim it has, offer some proof.

        • Anonymous

          Actually didn’t intend to claim that.

          Verstuurd vanaf mijn HTC Wildfire
          Op 8 aug. 2011 14:17 schreef “Disqus”
          het volgende:

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          And with all the piracy they made over 1 million in a few months after the info took momentum. If memory serves TF had one or two articles concerning that. Use the search function and you’ll find your proof.

        • Friend of the People

          I’m not saying they were unsuccessful Ninja. I know exactly how successful they were, but he made (or appeared to make) the claim that piracy aided them, without actually backing up that claim.

          Searching for “humble indie bundle” produces 3 results, one of which appears to be unrelated and the other one is just reporting that they are using bittorrent. The third one offers no evidence or claim for piracy benefiting the humble indie bundle, it only offers explanations for why 25% of the tracked downloaders (tracked, not total), wouldn’t pay even a penny.

          The bundle was successful, but I’ve seen no evidence that piracy aided in that success even slightly.

          And what do you mean by “after the info took momentum”? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

          As for you dragon, I’m afraid that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, so I’ll just leave that alone.

  • http://twitter.com/tueksta Andreas Beer

    I don’t see the logical connection that is implied in “So the question that needs asking is this”. Another question that could be asked is: Are we creative enough to invent effective punishments – i think there’s much to explore in that area. Punishment and creativity are cherished by many a people.

  • http://twitter.com/tueksta Andreas Beer

    I don’t see the logical connection that is implied in “So the question that needs asking is this”. Another question that could be asked is: Are we creative enough to invent effective punishments – i think there’s much to explore in that area. Punishment and creativity are cherished by many a people.

  • Rick Falkvinge

    Sources

    You’re right to ask for sources. One of the primary sources is a book in Swedish on the era of mercantilism on the Continent (meaning Europe).

    The original article in Swedish is here and there are lots of sources in the comments.

    Notably, there’s this quote from Merkantilismen by Eli Heckscher, fifth chapter, regulation of trade in France:

    “Of course, the attempt to stop a development supported by a violent fashion trend, carried by the… influential female kin, could impossibly succeed. The policy is considered to have cost 16,000 people their lives, through executions and armed clashes, plus the yet uncounted who were sentenced to slavery on galleys and other punishments; in Valence, on one single occasion, 77 people were sentenced to hang, 58 to be broken on the wheel and 631 to the galleys, one was acquitted, and none were pardoned. But this was so far from effective, that the use of printed kattuner (English?) spread through all social groups during this period, in France and elsewhere.”

    • Rick Falkvinge

      “Galley” is probably correctly translated as “Galleon”. A slave rowing a boat. Mea culpa.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      You, sir, just owned all the trolls and they won’t be replying ;)

      I’ve seen some stuff regarding other monopolies but I didn’t like the sources and I lack confirmations (ie: a second and even third source for the same material).

      Books! I wish I had more time to check them.

  • http://profiles.google.com/chaz.broam Charles Broam

    A history lesson learned here, now how fast can the copyright police learn it?

    • Anonymous

      can’t. their minds are currently somewhere in the 1970′s and are very slowly progressing. (they probably progress as fast as Jupiter time or something)

  • Anonymous

    more bullshit from torrentfreak. No one EVER had “Free speech” to break laws. Period. IT is not free speech to take other people’s property.

    Doesn’t anyone at torrentfreak wonder why this site makes NO money and you are all on welfare? No wonder you are against paying for things. You can’t stretch your welfare checks THAT far.

    • Anonymous

      “Hi, my name is lakawak, I fail at reading comprehension.” That’s you.

      This article had nothing to do with “free speech” or “breaking laws”. It had to do with a previous example in history of copyright (or monopolies on certain goods as per the example) being infringed on by the people. With the copyright holders taking extreme measures to stop that, as per the example, actually putting people to a slow and torturous death. In the end, not even death deterred the people from their actions. So the article is basically saying “If even death doesn’t work, what are you going to do then?” That’s all.

      I mean geez man, at least go on a rant as it relates to the article. Welfare? Really? How irrelevant and off topic. Then a rant about the site not making money. Do you know that for a fact? Can you cite your sources? Because we’d love to see them. You’re as ignorant as they come aren’t you? I get tired of telling you to chill the heck out, or be on topic. It disheartens me to see my efforts and words are having no effect, you make me worry that ignorance is spreading faster than was previously thought. [shudders] A truly horrifying thought.

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

        Oh but I seriously doubt pirates are hardened criminals. I guess you don’t remember what happened awhile back (or actually on several occasions) with admins voluntarily shutting down their sites when faced with the prospect of jail time.

        • Anonymous

          Any person will freak out at the prospect of jail time. Regular people do all the time. Hardened criminals IMO are the ones who’ve done time and long stretches of it at that. People who murder at the slightest provocation, people who rape because the idea to do so crosses their fancy. “Pirates”, while considered criminals under the eyes of the law, do not fall into the “hardened criminals” category.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          Hardened criminals. That’s a good one. It’s hardly a set of words I’d use to describe my 12 yr old lil friend that downloads music. No really, I think it might be Ms Muir (the 60-yr-old grandma MAFIAA sued a while back) or that Japanese man who was caught by the police sharing stuff. A retired firefighter if memory serves. All of them hardened criminals. Oh and there’s the poor printer…

          As delusional as you are in your comments, it’s just empty words Jackie. Laws that benefit a few while punishing socially accepted practices are bound to fail. You won’t admit, you’ll always agree that the lil 12-yr-old should be punished with death penalty. Because that’s how myopic you are. That’s how low of a human being you are =)

    • Guest

      On computers, files are represented as a large string of 0s and 1s. How, then, is this not a matter of freedom of speech? Copying a file is not the same as stealing – PERIOD. Also, I am not on “welfare”.

    • superjesus

      Who are they stealing from? The people enraged by this ‘stealing’ are copyright firms. They had no part in the creation of the product of the is being copied or stolen if you will. Thus, what right do they have to complain when it is copied? Non, if the artist has issue with then he/she/they have the authority to claim shenanigans, not some white collared suit who doesn’t even know what they are copywriting.

    • Jmorse43508

      OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS.

      Move along folks, nothing to see here.

    • Anonymous

      We have a right to communicate. Free speech is what they take away when they close websites. Don’t turn it around.

    • Anonymous

      Note how “copying” is not “taking”…

    • Anonymous

      Whose property is “taken” when copyright is infringed?!

  • Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  • Blackestnight

    wow the mafiaa dogs are out in force tonight.

  • youremother

    if i download a movie how does any one at any point lose anything ?
    this is something beyond my understanding.

    if as a lot of ‘people’ suggest somehow, me downloading a movie cuases the makers of said movie to lose money, this would be fantastic, as i could download some hollywood shit like transformers 3 millions of times causing the makers to actually be in debt, instead they seem to make millions of dollars no matter how many times their movie is downloaded. somethings not right there.

    • Anon

      “this is something beyond my understanding. ”

      Clearly.
      But imagine if pirates actually DID have what it takes to comprehend, make their case, be intelligent and influence legislation.

      That would be awesome to see. As it is, the best your’ve got is hiding, whining and stealing. Like yourmother. There’s no “e” in Your. “You’re” is a contraction of you and are.

      I get it. Beyond your understanding.

      • Guest256

        http://questioncopyright.org/
        http://www.againstmonopoly.org/

        Get back to us when you actually understand anything whatsoever about economics and copyright and patent monopoly laws.

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

          question copyright is a load of disingenuous crap. Free culture was proposed by people who are completely out of touch with reality. The level of delusion here is astounding. These people actually believe that you can just throw out all the rules without consequence. Yeah, while we’re at it, lets go ride some magical pink unicorns in candy land. Maybe we will catch us a few tooth faeries.

        • Guest256

          Haha, wow Eric (“Jack Murdock”), you’re in complete denial. Question copyright folk have already produced more artworks than you ever will.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          Except that culture was free before copyright. And we have quite a few public domain stuff to prove. Oh which reminds me that these public domain stuff are used today to make more derivative art =)

          Lost again in your arguments, Jack =))

    • superjesus

      I’m assuming you’re trolling or an 11 year old

  • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

    The last sentence kind of said it all: it’s human nature to copy what we like! It’s such a pure and beautiful concept.

  • Anonymous

    It looks like the “16,000″ is attributed to Executions and Armed Clashes.

    So think of it as the cops taking out 20 people in a drug raid. They weren’t executed, but they were killed.

  • Jesus TittyFucking Christ

    Anyone who only wants to sell you their art, is a prick, and an industry schill.
    Take it from me.

    • http://profiles.google.com/chaz.broam Charles Broam

      If the ARTIST sells it too me, fine. Nothing wrong, so much if I LIKE the art that I am buying. But I detest when I have to buy art to even see said art. That is just plain WRONG.

      BTW, Did you really have to use Jesus Christ’s name that way? That was really offensive.

  • GRxSha

    Reading some of the comments here, I realize how much the internet culture is a “dog eat god” culture.

    Rick has stuck his neck out for all of us and the only thanks he gets from some of you is to insult him for looking out for our best interest…

    While the majority mean to have a constructive discussion, some of you are also trolls, immature and jealous of the attention Rick gets from the community.

    It is not by extinguishing someone else flame that you make yours shine brighter… All that does is to plunge everyone in darkness!

    Keep up the good work Rick and forget about the trolls!

  • Sickofcontrol

    Can someone please start identifying the individuals responsible within the copyright industry. I mean it would be nice if we had a face to point at and say “that’s the bad guy”

  • Pingback: Link: When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying « Tangled Helix

  • FREEDOM4EVER

    Copyright and Patent are just so overrated, I understand that you spend your time develop things that AMAZE people, and definitely you deserved your profit for your idea and talent. But now it just goes over the Margin of Dignity to Greedy son of a BITCH.

    If the first man invent the Stone wheel, put a patent on it, I bet all your bitch ass corporate wouldn’t drive no BMW, Ferrari, Mercedes, or even a car.
    Product, invention, Entertainment was made to be share among human being, as it being share new and way better thing come out of it.
    Our Human Kind is base on these two words (INNOVATION)(ASPIRATION) everything we do and how we interact it all base on it. So before point finger and blame, have you yourself BIG CORP did you steal other people work than put Copyright on and claim it yourself??

    PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD IS SICK OF OPPRESSION!
    KEEP IT UP. AND WE WILL BRING YOU DOWN!

  • mrtee

    source http://www.bbc.co.uk
    the reintroduction of the death penalty. An internet campaign has re-ignited the debate on whether the UK government should seek Justice campaign, spearheaded by Paul Staines who writes the Guido Fawkes political blog, calls for the death penalty to be brought back for child and police officer murderers.
    He cites opinion polls which suggest about half the population would like it re-introduced for murderers. This rises to 60% when it comes to child or police officer killers.
    Mr Staines needs 100,000 people to support his e-petition on the government website to prompt a possible parliamentary debate on the issue.
    The last executions in the UK took place in 1964. The death penalty was formally abolished in Britian in 1965 and in Northern Ireland in 1973.
    Despite it rating high on public opinion polls, it was last debated in Parliament in 1998 during the passage of the Human Rights Act. It was rejected by 158 votes.
    “The majority are in favour for bringing back the death penalty everywhere except in Parliament,” said Mr Staines.
    “Politicians are complaining that there’s a disconnect and that the public aren’t engaged with them – maybe if they represented the views and the will of the voters, there wouldn’t be such a big disconnect.”
    Continue reading the main story
    “Start Quote
    The mistake MPs have made is to not trust the people and to try and ignore their concerns. We can disagree with it but we have to trust it”
    Douglas Carswell MP
    He added: “The people want the death penalty, and politicians aren’t prepared to vote for it. That’s not right.
    “What I’m trying to do is get Parliament to discuss this issue between what Parliament wants and what the people want.”
    House of Commons leader Sir George Young has warned that it would damage democracy to ignore strong opinions among members of the public “or pretend that their views do not exist”.
    Douglas Carswell MP agreed, saying, although he was firmly against the death penalty, he was in favour of Parliament debating it and would support a referendum on whether it should be brought back.
    “I’m convinced that if there was a referendum on capital punishment we could win it; we could get most people to say ‘no’ to the death penalty.
    “We need to treat people as grown-ups and have the debate and not do what we have done for half a century which is to ignore the public’s concern and treat them with contempt.
    “The important thing is we have this debate.”
    Mr Carswell added that the reason why Parliament had not debated this topic in recent years was because it was “out of touch with the public”.
    “The mistake MPs have made is to not trust the people and to try and ignore their concerns. We can disagree with it but we have to trust it.”
    But Neil Durkin from Amnesty International said it was a “waste of time and money that we as a nation cannot afford”.
    High profile murders
    In September 2010, YouGov conducted the last opinion poll to ask directly if people want the death penalty re-instated. It suggested that 51% did.
    And a Mori poll in July 2010 asked people which of a list of crimes they thought should have the death penalty.
    For child murder, 62% supported it while a YouGov poll in November 2010 found 74% of people supported the death penalty for murder in some circumstances, though only 16% supported it for all murders.
    However, when similar polls were carried out in the 1970s, support for it was far higher with 70% in favour.
    Anthony Wells, associate director of YouGov, says polls which ask about the death penalty are straightforward: “Do you support it or not?”
    “When people already know about it and have established views then it is quite simple. The hard ones [opinion polls] are when people need to have an issue explained to them.”
    He said historically opinion polls on capital punishment have been commissioned by newspapers when there has been a heinous crime such as after the Soham murders.
    Mr Wells added that such polls are not often commissioned in times when a high-profile murder is not in the news. However, the last two polls on the subject were not about a specific case, being conducted for a story about sentencing for murder and for a Channel 4 programme.
    Polls are quite accurate, plus or minus 3%, said Mr Wells, and their accuracy can be checked against real life events such as who is going to win the election or X Factor.
    “All the polls about the death penalty show similar patterns so even if it was worded differently it would still get the same result,” he added.
    “You can only tell what people think at the moment, but if it follows current trends then yes, I’d expect it to go down.”
    Mr Durkin from Amnesty International said it was important to have an informed debate, rather than a simple “yes or no” question.
    “Public opinion polls are usually conducted after a particularly horrible murder that’s had lots of publicity so you do tend to get that outcry.
    “On top of that, when we have looked at opinion polls in the US, most people tend to think that the US is firmly in terms of public opinion pro death penalty.
    “If you offer in those questions to the public alternatives to capital punishment – the lethal injections, the electrocutions, whatever it is – and talk about longer sentences then support drops away.”

    • DocGerbil100

      TorrentFreak mods: this person’s post is – apart from a slight glitch at the start – a near-complete reproduction of an entire article from the BBC’s website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195). I’m not bothered about it, but if you want to avoid legal hassle with the BBC, you may want to consider whether or not it qualifies as fair usage, wherever it is that TorrentFreak is hosted.

  • Thelolocaust

    Anon and Electric are the same person, Locke and Demosthenes…. There’s no point they are both eliciting attention for their own purposes, ignore them entirely. The author of the article makes a tired point, the comments repeat the same tired points. The only thing interesting I read here today was how both Locke and Demosthenes there happen to have the same writing style, they lay into each other with semi reasonable although drawn out, trite points and then summarize it at the end with a few childish shots, both exactly the same, it’s insulting on the same level as fox news. Fuck off you two, you aren’t serving anyone but yourselves.

    • Farkwad

      I claim bull. This was written in the same style as Jack Murdock. He’s just trying to spread chaos again.

  • Wrath of the Tyrant

    Medieval artwork provides further allegory to the masochistically violent nature of the human race: law and order, torture and war:

    The Triumph of Death
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Thetriumphofdeath.jpg

    The Blind Leading the Blind
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Pieter_Bruegel_d._%C3%84._025.jpg

    Even on a slow news day, Rick has 1000x the journalistic integrity as anybody else in our corporate-hegemonic media apparatus.

    Keep at it, mate: but once you are inevitably black-bagged, someday in the not-too-distant future, everything we’re openly discussing here about human rights and corporate tyranny will be a fond old memory… kind of like Donkey Kong.

    • Thelolocaust

      I played Donkey Kong last night at Ground Kontrol, that game is difficult, I’d rather take on all of Korea in a starcraft II tourny than 1 angry gorilla with a limitless supply of barrels and a deadly labyrinth.

      • Wrath of the Tyrant

        We can only jump over such an infinite barrage of barrels before we are, inevitably, tricked by that one errant barrel, which bounces at such an unexpected angle, and smashes headlong into us: upon which we must begin our struggle again from the very bottom.

        “Thus is the nature of life,” Quoth Donkey Kong.

  • RIAAtarded

    Copyright is seeking to exercise a level of control that shouldn’t be allowed whether your a pirate or not. It strikes me as odd that companies like Disney who made their money using story in the public domain for their movies then turns around and extends the copyright on that foolish rodent for 120 years effectively removing that option from others is a little hypocritical. Once I legally have anything the right holders control over it should end. If I buy the song I should be allowed to rip it. Same goes for movies, tv, software. It is mine. I own CDs although I can’t remember the last time I put one into a player and in all honesty I don’t own one to play it on. I do however upload them to my server so I can stream at home and load them to the wife’s ipod or my own.

    Copyright law seeks to block that though making break DRM illegal. Forcing me to buy multiple copies of things in different formats to use on different devices and why? It would be the equivalent of a car manufacture forcing you to buy a highway and city cars based on where you were driving and only allowing that specific vehicles to be used. It is honestly absurd…. If I TIVO my TV show tonight I’m fine but if I missed it because as usually the TV schedule has gone on break, preempted for sporting events or waiting to come back on the air based on some lunar cycle and I download instead then I should be disconnected from the internet, fined an outrageous amount of money and be branded a criminal. Come on…What is the difference honestly. Legally I’m allowed to have it. I pay a huge amount of money for my cable bundle which has speeds that are only needed if you pirate but that is a different discussion all together. Point is I paid for a digital copy of the aired program. So if I TIVO or download I have the same product just copyright wants to brand one illegal. Only reason that is because it is outside of their control.

    I’m all for laws but we need ones that make sense and they must protect both parties equally and in this case they are not even close. It is the corporate interests with the money pushing thing through so naturally that is the way the law is skewed. I shouldn’t be branded a criminal because I missed Falling Skies finale on tv and grabbed it online instead. Nor because I hack hardware and use it in a manor the manufacture didn’t intend even if it is more functional and I wouldn’t have purchased it otherwise. Why do I have to buy a PC with windows already on it only to blow it away in favor of a free OS. Hell I own 7 PCs all with MS Windows COA I had to pay for and only one of them runs it. I think as end users of all this crap it is time we stand up and say no more to the monopoly and the copyright crap…. They want reforms fine but it shouldn’t be at our collective expense.

  • AnarchyNow

    There is absolutely no future at all for humanity as long as we keep on repeating the same stupid errors over and over.
    - We don’t need any religion since there’s no god and all religions are all proven scams and are far worse to children than watching porn.
    - We don’t need no money since money is worth shit and there’s too many fucking billionaires who all are psychopath criminals against humanity worse than nazis, and money has never solved any problem, to the contrary. It’s complete insanity to have almost everything made in China, while China is one of the worst country ever and now the Western world is turning into slavery for Chinese and Arab billionaires.
    - We don’t need any government, especially neither the United States, nor Soviet Union in any form, any government is oppression, if vote would change anything, it’d be forbidden, as it is in most countries anyway.

    The solution is known for more than a century but morons have delayed it :
    ANARCHY NOW!

    • Anonymous

      ugh. another annoying anarchy youth.. you probably dont know what it means, do you. (racist!). I’d rather have communism in a good form, than capitalism in it’s current form (the bad form)

    • Anonymous

      ugh. another annoying anarchy youth.. you probably dont know what it means, do you. (racist!). I’d rather have communism in a good form, than capitalism in it’s current form (the bad form)

    • Johnnyboy7

      You’re an idiot!

    • Anonymous

      Just, no. This is a democratic debate about how to better have the law serve the people. Your anarchy is as appalling as a copy monopoly dictatorship.

    • Friend of the People

      Ok, I’ll bite. What do you think the world would be like after all of the governments disappeared? What do you think people would do? How do you think it will be better? In short, what is your vision of the future? Let’s hear that.

      • Zig

        How do you think nations operate during times of an election when the incumbent party’s Government has ben officially dissolved? After the last General Election in the UK we had over a month without any form of Government because of the fallout from the hung result and the cross-party backroom dealing to form some sort of coalition.

        Did the country collapse in that time of actual anarchy? Nope. We carried on as normal and if anything the economy actually picked up a little, because there was widespread hope that we wouldn’t end up with another disastrous Tory government.

        Oh how the times have changed. Little more than a year on from then and with the Tories in power the economy is totally collapsing, with cashflow amongst businesses out there in the real world (not the financial sector) slowly but surely grinding to a halt and jobless figures going through the roof. It’s like Maggie’s farm all over again!

        • Friend of the People

          That isn’tt anarchy, that’s bureaucracy. Governments are designed to work temporarily without leaders. To put it simply, the government was still there, and it was still working. If you don’t believe me, look something up; were they prosecuting criminals in courts? Were police on the streets? If yes, then the government was still there. Political gridlock does not equal anarchy.

          Note that important functions like defense of the nation, courts, schools, etc… are run by the government. How do you think society will pick up the slack for these if the government disappears? What will the economy mean if there’s no court to enforce legal contracts? If you need an answer to that, look up Somalia and post-1994 Rwanda. That’s anarchy my friend.

    • N3M37H

      Actually, Anarchy, Communism and Democracy all work on paper. But since paper is not real life, they don’t work 100% because of people.
      The reason we have the rights we do is so the general public can rise up and tell the government what they are doing is wrong, simple as that. It’s a partial fool proof setup, the only part that contradicts this fool proof setup is “the people”.

      • Plop

        Really, the only part that contradicts the fool proof setup is that the people have had their right to rise up and challenge the government removed. Well, not exactly, but a parallel right for the authorities to brutally crush all such uprisings has been enabled, which effectively nullifies the peoples’ rights.

    • Anon2

      VERY off topic. But OK – anarchy?

      Seriously? what the *FUCK* are you talking about? Do you have any basic grasp on reality?

      Watch / read some news about events in the UK over the past few days.
      There’s your anarchy for you.

      If you live in the UK, take a stroll into one of these chaotic urban nightmares and practice what you preach.

      And we’ll see how long you’ll last.

    • Anon2

      PS – if you want a society with no money or possessions, you need some sort of organization so everyone can live decently.

      Otherwise, you’re in the land of do-as-you-please – which invariably degenerates into self-destructive riots. It happens with piracy in the Internet, and for various complex reasons (wealth distribution, economical and political instability, etc.) it’s happening now in the UK.

  • Pingback: And When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying — What Then? | Torrents & File Sharing News

  • Anonymous

    Wasn’t this one of the reasons why the French Revolution broke out (since Louis XIV was such an a-hole)?

  • http://www.bespokeusb.co.uk guesthouseparadiso

    Good article, but agree with the majority on here, sauce is needed.

  • Johnnyboy7

    The only way to prevent copying is: Make the original cheaper!

    • Anonymous

      partially. and by removing DRM (Digital Rights – or was it Restrictions Management)

  • http://profiles.google.com/chaz.broam Charles Broam

    When Rick talks, I listen. Thanks again, Rick.

  • Guest

    “The copyright industry just wants more, more, and more, and they don’t think twice about ruining our hard-won fundamental civil liberties to prop up their crumbling monopoly and control. When one tough measure doesn’t work — and they never do — the copyright industry keeps demanding more.”

    They will not stop until we kill them all.

    Let’s kill them all!

  • Guest

    “When will the copyright industry stop demanding harsher punishments for copying, . . .”

    I know! I know! When they will be all dead.

    Let’s kill them all.

  • Guest

    “When will the copyright industry stop demanding harsher punishments for copying, . . .”

    I know! I know! When they will be all dead.

    Let’s kill them all.

  • Guest

    “When will the copyright industry stop demanding harsher punishments for copying, . . .”

    I know! I know! When they will be all dead.

    Let’s kill them all.

  • N3M37H

    Telling people they can’t do something will make them want to do that particular thing more. It’s kind of like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline, it just won’t happen.
    History has proved this over and over. From drugs to pirating even hacking, During the prohibition of alcohol in the states alcohol poisoning went up something like 600% and hooch shops exploded in numbers. Since the prohibition of Cannabis there has been a 100,000% increase of “tokers” in the US (while still having 0 deaths attributed)

    Can someone legitimately say this is alright?
    I seriously think not…

  • Kari Aevarsson

    I’m with Rick on the copyright issue, but I, too, would like to see a source for the claims about France and the fabric pattern monopoly.

  • Anon

    I don’t know about anyone else but my mum always taught me to share… :/ are they saying my mum was wrong?

    • Anon

      No. Not exactly. But there’s a reasonable distinction to be made between things that have no licensing encumbrance like public domain and CC stuff, and merchandise in digital format the United Nations Human Rights doctrine acknowledges is the property of the rightsholder.

      Your mum understood that distinction.
      But she didn’t raise you very well because she failed to pass that common sense and legal distinction along and so now you think anything you want in digital format is yours for free and to do with what you want, even copy and distribute it.

      Your mum was better sorted than you’ll ever be. Previous generations had respect.

      • Guest

        Hey! Paid corporation of parasites troll:

        Tell your bosses that we are going to kill them all to stop them from fucking up with our democracy.

    • Guest123

      No, your mom’s not wrong, because in a technical sense, filesharing isn’t actually “sharing”, even if that’s what we call it.

      Better?

    • Guest123

      No, your mom’s not wrong, because in a technical sense, filesharing isn’t actually “sharing”, even if that’s what we call it.

      Better?

  • James

    hey u guys are always welcome here in Canada. the copyright fatcats won’t be taking over our internetz anytime soon.

    • N3M37H

      Why do you think ISOhunt moved their server to Canada a few years ago :-p

      • James

        i never knew they did that, but it was a wise decision. im proud to be Canadian :D

        • RIAAtarded

          Yeah you 3 need to do a little reading if you think your safe here because that is entirely inaccurate. No one is safe try reading Micheal Geist blog. The government’s bill c-62 and c-32 are trying to reform our copyright act. This all despite the fact we pay taxes on media to cover any perceived loses they might have. In fact they’ve attempted to add other taxes for things like thumb drives and ipod while trying to force these bills through which to me is double dipping.

          The blog is a worth while read it also lets you know what stage things are at whether it be local meeting to voice your opinions or writing your member of parliament. Never assume your safe. No matter what side of the argument your on you need to be heard.

  • Simple Canadian

    I think it’s worth mentioning that music is already played for free on the radio and movies are already played on television. Hell, television shows have survived for years with people merely watching them without paying for anything but cable. I get my music and videos from sharing websites where I pay a few dollars a month to download as much as I want mostly because i’d feel guilty if I got things completely for free, and I think others should do the same.

    Maybe if the industries based their business model on that of the television industry, which has survived for decades, the world would be a better place and I could sleep in comfort at night knowing that I don’t have to worry about my rights being taken away because of a corporations greed and a politician’s spinelessness.

    Ah who am I kidding, as the sex pistols once said ‘There’s no future’.

    • Zig

      “There is no future, In England’s dreaming”

      So you should be OK in Canada, presuming you aren’t LIVING in England ;)

      • Simple Canadian

        Good point, lol.

  • torgis

    [citation needed] should be used only when you can’t find any of sources yourself. I mean, it’s not like you have to go to a library and sift through stashes of microfilms to find that citation.

    You could, I don’t know, try google? or yahoo? or even bing?

    for example, try searching something like:
    “fabric monopoly france”
    or maybe
    “monopoly of silk manufacturing”

    and don’t despair if you need to click through a link or two – it’s called browsing.

    Effin’ [citation needed] usually surfaces when someone gets lazy/brainwashed.

    • Peter2018

      I find it silly that, rather than post the source, you take to moralizing others. Since you have supposedly found the citation, why not post it? Or are you too busy feeling superior to others?

      • Anon

        pirates are like that. be a content creator and sell your digital products online instead. the governments will eventually protect you.

  • Quantumlizardeffect

    Frankly, copyright should not exist. The pleasure of intellectual activities should be their own reward. Society, as it is, is built on bankers, stockholders, “singers”, corporate executives, and an endless series of people who make money without actually doing anything. I refuse to take part in it by minimizing my participating in those areas I find immoral; nonparticipating in what I believe to be evil.

    But the fact of the matter is, even if you don’t take that extreme point of view, copyright shouldn’t exist. A singer can and should make money off of singing, but there is no inherent moral right for her to make money off of a song for herself and her descendents in perpetuity, and there is absolutely no moral right nor justification for stockholders whom have never met the singer, or her descendents, to make money off of something they did not create in perpetuity; the fact that this can and does go on is an artificial legal right, having nothing to do with morality. The fact that the majority of Americans with regular internet access participate in file sharing without seeing any moral problem with it proves this is the general attitude, and this attitude will only increase with every passing year as the computer-literate portion increases as a portion of our population.

    Content-holders might not like it. Thats because they enjoy making money. But it is money they have not earned. If they want to earn money, they can do an honest days’ “bread-work” like the rest of us. The singers themselves can continue to sing. But this conception of copyright has no moral basis, and if the current trends continue, the law -will- eventually catch up with the popular sentiment, though decades it may take. And those who profit by it will find that they cannot do so anymore. If that means I need to go listen to someone physically sing music (perhaps in a pub!) so much the better. I’d rather give my local neighbor money for singing then someone I’ve never met.

    • Friend of the People

      First off, this isn’t entirely about music. Try incorporating other forms into your argument and see if it still works. You’ll find that your argument begins to break down when you begin applying these standards to things that cost money to make.

      Secondly, you don’t seem to understand that it takes money to make culture. Movies cost money. Games cost money. If you’re asking for these products for free, then you’re going to get it, but you’re going to get a huge decrease in the quality of culture available to you. If people can’t make money doing what they love That’s what copyright prevents; it doesn’t guarantee a profit to the artist

      You want the justification for stockholders profiting from music and movies, then here it is; they make it possible for the artist to create the art. They invest enough money for the director to make the movie. They invest the money to get the singer the publicity to put on a large concert. They provide the artist with the means to fully work on their message.

      You want to know why people like copyright; it provides an incentive for people to spend time and money making good culture. It helps to ensure the creation of quality culture in the future, and we see no evidence that the pirate culture will help encourage any creation, particularly not for anything more expensive than music.

      Finally, it’s really hypocritical of you to talk about moralizing when you demand that artists should create only for the joy of creation and shouldn’t try to support themselves with their work, and when you automatically dismiss any investor as evil.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Friend, what you are failing to see is that upholding a monopoly on IP is the same as upholding a paradigm such as communism – it’s a system which relies on almost everyone to behave accordingly to a very narrow set of behavioural rules.

        That’s not going to happen.

        That being the case I’m mainly pitching my tent in the pirate camp because there are god-forsaken blithering idiots who do think that now – after 4000 years of historical evidence against – we are finally going to be able to tell person A what he may or may not communicate to person B. And that these gormless bastards are now bringing their lackwit nonsense to bear in an all-out assault on general civic liberties.

        What an artist should do or how a company is supposed to support itself is egal in that debate. What matters is that both the artist and the company are going to have to look at ways of supporting themselves which doesn’t rely on copied distribution alone, since filesharing will remain a fact of life for as long as there is an internet or similar form of mass communication.

        It’s that simple. If information control could work at all in human society, communism would also have worked.

        • Friend of the People

          You make the false assumption that because it isn’t 100% effective that it needs to be thrown out. Filesharing will exist, but that doesn’t mean that we need to embrace it, particularly if embracing it will decrease the quality of our culture.

          I don’t buy your argument, mainly because in your example, person isn’t communicating his own work or thoughts; he’s communicating someone else’s. Also, no one is saying that person A can’t give person B his copy of something; we’re only saying that he can’t make a new copy and give that. Sharing is fine, but filesharing isn’t actually sharing. If you lost your digital copy when you sent it to someone else, that would be sharing. Distribution of existing copies, but actually creating new copies is the privilege of the artist.

          Again, I must ask; what services could artists and companies possibly provide? Let’s look at videogames. The only service they have is multiplayer servers, and many of the best videogames are fundamentally incompatible with multiplayer. Including it would actively decrease the quality of the product by diverting money and time from the quality. See Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 for easy examples. The only service I see is streaming games, and that’s still just paying for games, except that you don’t get a copy to keep.

          I support copyright law because if offers a mechanism for quality to be made and support itself. I have seen no evidence that a piracy based system can come anywhere close to replicating this. If you want to convince me that copyright law is unnecessary, then convince me that its purpose, furthering the progress of the arts, can be done by piracy. If it can’t, then I must remain on the side that offers quality.

        • Friend of the People

          You make the false assumption that because it isn’t 100% effective that it needs to be thrown out. Filesharing will exist, but that doesn’t mean that we need to embrace it, particularly if embracing it will decrease the quality of our culture.

          I don’t buy your argument, mainly because in your example, person isn’t communicating his own work or thoughts; he’s communicating someone else’s. Also, no one is saying that person A can’t give person B his copy of something; we’re only saying that he can’t make a new copy and give that. Sharing is fine, but filesharing isn’t actually sharing. If you lost your digital copy when you sent it to someone else, that would be sharing. Distribution of existing copies, but actually creating new copies is the privilege of the artist.

          Again, I must ask; what services could artists and companies possibly provide? Let’s look at videogames. The only service they have is multiplayer servers, and many of the best videogames are fundamentally incompatible with multiplayer. Including it would actively decrease the quality of the product by diverting money and time from the quality. See Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 for easy examples. The only service I see is streaming games, and that’s still just paying for games, except that you don’t get a copy to keep.

          I support copyright law because if offers a mechanism for quality to be made and support itself. I have seen no evidence that a piracy based system can come anywhere close to replicating this. If you want to convince me that copyright law is unnecessary, then convince me that its purpose, furthering the progress of the arts, can be done by piracy. If it can’t, then I must remain on the side that offers quality.

      • N3M37H

        Actually Copyrights does not provide an incentive, it ruins society the longer we keep the system. Sure being paid for movie/music/ect. but then you start getting sued for copyright infringement for “borrowing” a small idea and expanding on it it hampers what society can do.

        Patents and copyright should be abolished so we as a race can further advance what we can do. This isn’t saying the original creator shouldn’t get recognition, it just means the person/persons improving on the idea can without limitations. Because if you start limiting thing that people can do you are limiting the potential of the human race.

  • Pingback: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » And When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying — What Then?

  • Pingback: wilde ideeën en leesvoer (62) (25% kon u ook al lezen bij Trendbeheer kort) | Lost Painters

  • Pingback: Eleventh Linkfest

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.