TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Do You Prefer Copyright or the Right to Talk in Private?

Five years ago, when I founded the Swedish and first Pirate Party, we set three pillars for our policy: shared culture, free knowledge, and fundamental privacy. These were themes that were heard as ideals in the respected activist circles. I had a gut feeling that they were connected somehow, but it would take another couple months for me to connect the dots between the right to fundamental liberty of privacy and the right to share culture.

The connection was so obvious once you had made it, it’s still one of our best points:

Today’s level of copyright can’t coexist with the right to communicate in private.

If I’m sending an e-mail to you, that e-mail may contain a piece of music. If we are in a video chat, I may drop a copyrighted video clip there for both of us to watch. The only way to detect this, in order to enforce today’s level of copyright, is to eliminate the right to private correspondence. That is, to eavesdrop on all ones and zeros going to and from all computers.

There is no way to allow the right to private correspondence for some type of content, but not for other types: you must break the seal and analyze the contents to sort it into allowed and disallowed. At that point, the seal is broken. Either there is a seal on everything, or on nothing.

So we are down to a crossroads. We, as a society, can say that copyright is the most important thing we have, and give up the right to talk in private. Either that, or we say that the right to private correspondence has greater value, in which case such correspondence can be used to transfer copyrighted works. There is no middle ground.

Once you accept that copyright must be scaled back, a whole palette of advantages to that scenario become apparent. Two billion human beings would have 24/7 access to all of humanity’s collective knowledge and culture. That’s a much larger leap for civilization than when public libraries arrived in 1850. No public cost or new tax is involved. All the infrastructure is already in place. The technology has been developed, and the tools are deployed: all we have to do is lift the ban on using them.

What surprised me recently was the level of understanding of this within the copyright industry, and how they persistently try to eradicate the right to private correspondence in order to safeguard current disputed levels of copyright.

A cable leaked by WikiLeaks just before Christmas outlined a checklist given to the Swedish government with demands from the US copyright industry, IIPA. The U.S. Embassy was quite appreciative of how the Swedish justice department was “fully on board” and had made considerable progress on the demands against its own citizens, but in favor of the US copyright industry.

In those demands were pretty much every big-brother law enacted in the past several years. Data retention, IPRED, three strikes, police access to IP records for petty crimes, abolishment of the mere conduit messenger immunity, everything was in there.

It became clear that the copyright industry is actively driving a Big Brother society, as it understands that this path would be the only way to save copyright.

Myself, I think it’s more than time to throw that industry out of the legislative process.

—–

Starting today, Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other Friday. 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.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • shadow

    Good to see a new writer here at TorrentFreak.

    • Anonymous

      /agree

      great introduction

      • 5318008

        Yes, rather good show.

        • 791221-0507

          Welcome Rick, you are a hero of this movement and everything TF stands for.

          Ernesto, Enigmax and Falkvinge – awesome team!

          Down with culture imperialism and copyright capitalism!!!

        • Anonymous

          Erm, true free market capitalism = no IPR.

  • acacio

    That is the main question. And I want the right to talk in private.

  • Pistaccio

    Right on brother!

  • ytv

    WElcome Rick Falkvinge!!!!!

  • Johnny

    Welcome Rick! Nice to see you here.

    Indeed these two principles are odds when taken to their extremes. Though they can conceivably coexist if copyrights are not enforced for non-commercial copying and if commercial speech is not covered by privacy.

    I think that’s kind of the middle ground that most people had accepted as reasonable. However the copyright mafiaa is trying to move away from that and are happy to sacrifice everything else but their beloved copyrights in pursuit of their own financial benefit.

  • kz

    I’m all for torrent freak, but this whole argument is a straw man, a false dichotomy. No industry is arguing for a big brother position on private communications. There is no middle ground? The status quo is the middle ground…or is the RIAA somehow sitting on the backbone of the internet listening to all the ones and zeros currently?

    Don’t fall prey to the same fallacies that the industries use to spread lies.

    • http://torrentfreak.com Ernesto

      TorrentFreak is not an ideology, every one posting here has his own opinions (including the writers), that’s the beauty of it.

      Feel free to disagree, it’s encouraged.

    • anonymous

      You really should think before opening your mouth.

      Various countries (including the U.S.) are monitoring internet traffic on large scale. By ‘large scale’ I mean multiple-supercomputers-analyzing-emails-for-terrorist-messages-scale. The infrastructure is already in place & working, the next step is to lobby for even stronger copyright laws. Why should the industries bother with monitoring when they can have the governments do it for them? It’s only a matter of time when it happens.

      Spying on e-mails, instant messages and most types of internet traffic is relatively easy at the moment since 99.99% of people don’t encrypt their messages. However, if we realised we’re being spied on and began sealing all our messages, the copyright industry would have three options:

      1) Give up (Yeah, right! If that ever happens, I’ll one-handedly write a move movie script and make it into a blockbuster movie.)

      2) Try to ‘break the seal’ with pure force (Very unlikely to succeed with strong encryption: the computers required wouldn’t fit on the planet).

      3) Criminalize encryption and force people to hand over their passwords and encryption keys (complete loss of privacy, no more free porn; end of the world).

      • dusanmal

        Laws with option (3) are already afoot, though not by criminalizing encryption itself, at least not directly. Legislation is in process in the USA to require any encryption provider (be it software you get for free or buy or company that encrypts traffic for the customer for any reason) to create backdoor. Worse, no court order but just law enforcing request to the provider is required to force access to the backdoor. We are almost there (all under the guise to help FBI catch terrorist communications).

        • Frank

          The back-door system is well tested by the Echelon project.

          Back then the civil rights movement prevented use in the USA.

        • EveryoneIsAnonymous

          What alot of people today don’t realize is that way back in the day, when telephones were just becoming popular around the world. The good old US government got together with all your other governments and set up a communications monitoring system that covered all
          phones everywhere.
          Does anybody out there really believe that they aren’t still monitoring everything we say, and by plain default everything we do online……they don’t need new laws, its all in place and already active.
          Big Brother? HA! Alot bigger than you can imagine.
          I suggest to anyone whom has not read 1984 to go buy, steal, borrow a copy and take the time to really read it…….we are damn near there people!
          Back doors, front doors, side doors……..you never had private conversations in the first place!

    • Anonymous

      Nice big words bro, but you should get yourself informed better. That would be much more impressive.

    • Victor Hugo

      “No industry is arguing for a big brother position on private communications.”

      You just commented without reading the article didn’t you? Come on, admit it. If you *had* read the article you’d have known that the ‘copyright industries’ (or at least, mainly US-owners of copyrighted works) are arguing precisely for this. They may not *call* it a big brother position and may not even have thought it to be such, but that doesn’t change the nature of what it is.

      • Turtle

        Victor Hugo said: “If you *had* read the article you’d have known that the ‘copyright industries’ (or at least, mainly US-owners of copyrighted works) are arguing precisely for this.”

        Which article did you read? This article says nothing along those lines, and the included links are about peer-to-peer file sharing software, which has nothing to do with private e-mail correspondence.

        KZ is right, this piece is a straw man designed to get people hysterical over an imagined threat. Just as no one’s going through your snail mail to see if you’ve included a copyright protected poem in a letter to your friend, no one is going through your e-mail to see if you’ve attached a copyright protected media file to your friend. There’s no point to it anyway, since it would be unlikely to uncover infringement on a grand enough scale to warrant the cost of a lawsuit.

        • uJonesing

          Turtle, there’s two paragraphs in this article which elude to just that (paragraphs 2, 5, 7 of the main body.)

          The reality is that there are quite a few companies engaged in the monitoring of private internet traffic for the purpose of finding leaks of trade-secrets, and exploiting them (in the case of competitors) or plugging them (in the case of self-preservation.) It’s an essential component of any Competitive Intelligence strategy, and can be done legally and at the comparatively low cost of salary. If there weren’t, companies like Facebook would have no one to sell user data to.

          As for a copyrighted file being attached to a single e-mail, you’re mostly right in stating that that alone isn’t enough to warrant a lawsuit. It really depends what that file is- a single music file probably won’t get someone a lawsuit. But it will get that person a lot of attention and scrutiny which is very a very cheap thing to do in terms of cost, and then that cost is easily recouped by the one of out a thousand users who end up being an RIAA gold mine.

        • uJonesing

          “Turtle, there’s two paragraphs in this article which elude to just that (paragraphs 2, 5, 7 of the main body.)”

          Ha! I can’t do math apparently.

          /facepalm

    • Anonymous

      >There is no middle ground?

      There is none. You can’t have selective justice, because that is hypocrisy. Why someone must be judged for copyright infringement, while other cases are being ignored? Either you try to judge them all, or none at all.

      There is no real law if it is not enforced by force, and there is only one way enforce it in case of a potential copyright breaker – that is to listen to all of his private communications. Since we can’t have selective justice, then we must apply this to absolutely every single person in such society, effectively baning any private communication.

      Comparisons to normal crimes are not valid, since such crimes can be prevented without private communication breach and most of such crimes actually offend society, so it will be reported to police by most society members (unlike copyright infringement – which won’t be reported by like 99.999..% of normal users).

  • james

    welcome Rick Falkvinge, keep fighting the good fight!

  • Anonymous

    greetings Rick.
    Nice start.
    Privacy V protection.

    Serious topic and a relative argument that is ongoing.

    Of course, most here (except the paid troll’s) will agree that privacy to is more important than corperate interests.

    Any law that allows corperations to evesdrop on our comunications is an unjust.
    All they care about is money.
    All we care about is privacy and access to information that used to be the preserve of the rich.

    anyways..

    i prefer .. the RiGHT to talk/share privatly.

    hence.. private trackers , full of friends are perfectly ok

  • nox

    i think free culture and sharing is fundamentally not compatible with capitalism, and that is the main problem. the only reason these copyright firms and the government are bothering to go after piracy is because of lost revenue, not because it’s illegal. i think free and open shared culture is much better, but the reality is a lot of big budget movies would not be possible to make anymore. very few people would invest 1 million or more in a movie with no revenue in a capitalist society, and today most movies worth watching have at least 5 million in budget.

    music is a little bit different because nowadays it can be made only with a computer and maybe some instruments, so it doesn’t take all that much money. but to press an album on CD it does take quite a bit of money, and paying for cover art too, so it’s limited to those artists who have more resources than most others.

    if all copyright was lifted, i don’t think there would ever be any big movie companies who invest many millions anymore. nobody does work for free at those scales, and that’s what makes society limited.

    • chaos

      I don’t really think that anyone is claiming there should be free access to cinemas etc. – people would still be going there, if not for the content, then for the service provided (big screen, good audio, etc.) and the social aspect. I don’t see all that disappearing. Even today, there’s enough filesharers out there at the moment who enjoy going to the cinema with friends etc., as well as having a nice evening watching a (mostly downloaded) movie at home.

      But it IS necessary to stop this useless pursuit of copyrights – because that’s really not beneficial to anyone. I honestly doubt that paid media consumption (and thus also the revenue) would go down if they (big media companies, especially movies in this case) stopped suing/whining/whatever they’re doing currently.

      As for the music, we all know the trend is going more and more towards the internet, so pressing CDs will lose a lot more importance in the following years than it already has. They won’t disappear completely though, much like vinyls didn’t, so there’ll always be a (small?) demand for some form of content distributor unless a new model is found, but these distributors should accept and adapt to their role as a “minor” entity and stop bitching around.

      And cover art? Please, there’s so many (good) aspiring artists that would like to get their names out there and would do such a job for a comparatively low fee. If someone really produces a quality album, the investment for good cover art is pretty much pocket change.

  • Conzar

    In a capitalist society, corporations and individuals MUST protect their ability to make money. If they do not, they will starve.

    Thats the reality we live in. The abhorrent behavior exhibited by the movie and music industry is logical given the system that we live in. In an every man for himself society, people continue to behave badly.

    So the question you pose about private communication, its impossible to have private communication in the current system. In fact, all governments currently spy on you and will continue to do so no matter how many laws are written. The passage of laws do not remove the motivation for bad behavior.

    In order to solve the problems of private communication, we must analyse the fundamental problems of the system: which is scarcity and money.

    The Venus Project proposes a new system that provides all human needs such as clean water, food, clothing, housing, and a relevant education all for free to everyone in the world. The name of the new system is called a Resource Based Economy and aims to eliminate war, poverty, crime, and starvation via the most up2date technology and automated systems.

    • Copyright ? Capitalism

      In a Capitalist society copyright only needs to protect the individual’s work from unauthorised copying/use for monetary gain. Allowing the free flow of information does not remove the individual’s ability to make money.

      I can write a piece of music and release it under a Creative Commons license, yet still make money from it. Indeed I’ve done this several times already – the music is freely available to anyone for any non-commercial use, but I have sold the rights to use those same pieces of music in adverts (monetising the ‘product’ because it is used in a commercial situation where the advertiser will gain financially from the use of my music).

      This more altruistic approach to copyright and our shared culture is the only way for a networked planet to move forwards and away from pure corporate rule/greed. That Capitalism has descended into the purest form of fascism is unfortunate, but if we changed the current system to a model similar to that chosen by myself (which only really requires a change in attitude, not societal structure) we may actually save Capitalism and democracy.

      • Geheris

        Except that by ‘free flow’ you actually mean ‘getting stuff for free.’

        Everytime a person downloads/shares/p2p a song/album/movie instead of buying it, the artists lose money.

        If the filesharing community continues to grow at the rate its growing major producers of movies, music and games are going to start going under, and that that there won’t be anything left worth sharing.

    • Anonymous

      There are plenty of films worth watching that were made outside of the capitalist system.

      Primarily:
      1) Budget films made by enthusiasts who cannot get funding.

      2) Third world films.

      3) The USSR made some hundreds of truly great films and thousands and thousands of other films. Not “propaganda” as some would say. But drama, sci-fi etc!

      4) Even….North Korea… for goodness sake… has made plenty of pretty great martial arts films!

      Between the budget films, avantgarde, independent films… there is plenty!

      I’d be laughing at Hollywood’s funeral!!!!

    • xentar

      As a Venus project advocate, I would still suggest working on these 2 things in parallel.

  • Anonymous

    Not only are these 2 ideas at odds with each other, another one that is at odds with the idea of copyright is the right to speak anonymously. Which is another freedom of speech issue. You can use that in another article if you want.

  • Encrypted

    Encryption is a (probably temporary) solution.

    But then The Powers That Be really don’t like the idea that we might be able to communicate in private, do they?

    “I should be able to whisper something in your ear, even if your ear is 1,000 miles away, and the government disagrees with that.” — Philip Zimmermann

    • Anonymous

      Yeah but on the scale of the internet that could mean people organizing themselves. No seriously, all this deep packet inspection and filtering would even give Hitler a hard on. Pardon my godwin, but you wouldn’t let them in your house without a search warrant would you..?

  • Anon Need Be

    Welcome to TorrentFreak Falkvinge. It’s truly an honor to meet you.

  • andrew romania

    an excelent article, rick !
    greets from romania. great to hear that there are some people that are sane in this world. The US would like to overtake every law in the world regarding copyright and change it in such way that it would be easy to monitor the internet and send me, a private citizen of romania, a letter citing me in an case in the US, regarding copyright enforcement.
    hope this article relly opens some eyes on the true nature of copyright claims. the true artists are those that allow people to use and share their works, and the make more money from live concerts than from 10 years of copyright fight.
    this is the true artist, the real and the talented.

    romania and other countries must not heal to the US lobbying groups ! fight, because that is the way the human being responds to a thread!
    let us think what we can do for the humanity, not what the humanity cam do for the US !

    god bless romania !
    andrei V

  • JeeeBus

    The more laws you make, the more criminals you create!

    • Common Man

      ‘The more laws, the less justice.’ – Cicero

  • Anon

    “low-altitude motorcycle pilot” uhh… wtf?

    I think somethings wrong there…

    • ArmoRus

      what?

    • Anonymous

      Exactly the point I was about to make

      • Rider

        what twat?

  • prof

    nice platitudes bro

  • cryptoanarchist

    Don’t believe in political parties – they reproduce domination – but wish you good luck!

  • kuru

    a very good and sadly a very true article, rick.
    the arrogance of the neo-capitalist economy, everybodys (yes, mine, and yours, …, and yours too) subservient attitude toward the oh so fantastic attainments of the modern society and our freedom (to communicate is only one facet) are in the long run NOT fitting together.

    • Anonymous

      Yet you and Mr Falkvinge seem perfectly happy to hinge a false right such as “privacy” on a nation state!!!

      We say no. We say anonymity. Get real…

      This is not neo-capitalism. It is capitalism, period. It has always been like this. Capitalism will obviously protect its own interests always. Now, look here, AT&T and Comcast have been fighting for yeeeears not to be forced to have net neutrality.

      Despite the fact that Verizon and god knows who manage to present a god knows how modern telephone at a conference in god knows where I hear the infrastructure in the vast majority of the US is at considerably worse states than that of countries I’d consider technologically underdeveloped in Europe. GOOD ON YOU.

      They have a much larger interest in restricting traffic than the record industry ever had. The fact that the record industry /also/ want to restrict is just an excuse for them to actually do it. Also refer the stupidity of Spanish and British ISPs who are basically overselling their capacity on crap networks and now – lo and behold! – suddenly get self-regulation with respect to copyright!! Also ref. Eircom, if anyone kknows their caselaw properly.

      • Geheris

        You do realize that without Capitalism, the movies and music you so desperately want to ‘share’ don’t exist, right?

        • Common Man

          Movies and music will exist so long as there are people willing to make them, with access to the necessary technology. Capitalism is not a necessary, let alone sufficient, condition for either.

  • pyc

    Very well said. This may be the fundamental point in our fight. Along with the basic human right for people to act freely in their browser. We can push ANY button there!

  • johnson

    so what suggestions are there to change how the entertainment industries want things and how to get the various governments to listen to the people instead of giant corporations with endless amounts of cash?

  • Dr. Anon

    Capitalism is not at fault here. Companies should be allowed to sell their work in a competitive way, they just shouldn’t be able to exploit the public and manipulate the Government to do so. Copyright and privacy are not inherently mutually exclusive, we just need to get rid of the current system of abusive copyrights.

    Copyright should only serve a limited and specific purpose – to protect people from profiting off of something they did not create.

    I have no problem with preventing people from selling bootlegged DVDs or unauthorized payed downloads. But people who aren’t making any appreciable profits from piracy should be exempt, and the Government should only go after the people selling pirated/counterfeit goods, not those buying them.

    • nox

      well, as of today it’s not that simple. many torrent tracker owners make very good money on their torrent sites, good money can be made in seedbox services too, and ftp sites can sell access to their scene ftps.

      • chaos

        Yeah well that’s your problem right there – where there is a demand for something, there will inevitably be someone building a business filling that demand.

        What your argument shows us is actually, that people ARE willing to pay for content, because they pay for seedboxes, ftp access, servers, etc. But since there is no official (or “legal”, if you wish) alternative to this, people are bound to get their content this way.

        I really wouldn’t blame it on the torrent/ftp site owners and seedbox services, because they are just filling a demand which has been artificially created by the content distributors themselves, by failing to see and adapting to the inevitable developments of the future.

    • Anonymous

      This is a false dichotomy. Privacy and copyright are both essentially liberal values and cannot be weighed against one another. Who is to say that one value stemmed from the introduction of liberalism is better than the other? That kind of debate can never be closed.

      Also, bear in mind the privacy that people themselves give up on a large scale in order to interact with friends, family and unknown people on IRC, social networks or online forums. This is not a small amount of information we are talking about, and well enough for any state official to make a very thorough mapping of almost any person. Which has, in fact, already happened at a number of occasions.

      The problem for people (I dislike the word “citizen” because it implies that the online environment somehow has nation state based borders within which there are nation state authorized citizens – the internet is not like that – we are one) is that restraining themselves from this interaction is not desirable either. It is practical, instead, to be able to distinguish between those situations where we are completely open, and those in which we act more anonymously. Sometimes an emailing list can have an open archive, and accept any members. Sometimes the number of members is restricted, and the archives are closed. Same for IRC, XMPP or even Skype.

      Making a distinction between the public, informative environment, and the private, anonymous environment is, in this case, a lot better and I think, quite frankly, that copyright is one of the least concerns in the dismantling of anonymity.

      Anonymity goes beyond borders. Anonymity does not require citizenship. Anonymity places us outside the reach of markets. In anonymity, we are one, and we are legion.

      Great to see that Torrentfreak now has a columnist who apparently does not understand this, and from what we see on his blog, never has.

  • ChurchHatesTucker

    I always thought of it in terms of free speech (as in, the ability to repeat something) but privacy is a great concern as well.

    So, we have an industry that is steadily undermining two pillars of the American Bill of Rights. That’s disturbing at best.

    • Eloh

      Oh, I always thought free speech meant we could talk without getting taxed for it. :\

  • oh no

    The MPAA/RIAA are going to start showing up at yard sales.

  • frostygotchilled

    There is a strong desire for change and the sharing of wealth that this world has to offer.

    Strength in numbers because there are already forces at work against those that want change. I think if any one person had the perfect solution, for anyone to listen, he’d have to be someone who was a prominent member, or members of society. No one is listening to Al Gore on his ideas on climate change. So we trudge on feeding the machine, except the machine is not working in our advantage. It’s taking away our jobs making greedy people rich and destroying our environment.

    We always come back to the money aspect.

    I don’t see a quick fix myself but with cooperation from both side and a system that works well for everyone. That, is the ultimate answer.

  • Drag0nflamez

    Welcome on TF.
    I agree with you totally. I want the right to talk in private, instead of suck ass copyright).

    If the entertainment industry got what it wants, the US Government isn’t called Uncle Sam – it’s Uncle Rupert :)

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

  • Bill B

    You mentioned public library. I can go get a copy of a movie donated to a library bring it home and return it. I assume no infringement is taking place. Now my question is, if an electronic library was set up, where owned electronic material is donated to the e-library, to be shared to other library users but only one person at a time can check things out until the material is returned. Wouldn’t that be the same thing. I check out a song for 5 minutes, and return it for someone else to hear it. I check out a movie for 2 hours and return it for someone else to see it. Just like the rentals now being pushed on itunes and others but for free. I could check out books, movies, music, etc… and no one else will be able to check them out until I return them at the prescribed time. Libraries have the right to archive their works for protection from loss.

    I look at this as a compromise, I should have all the knowledge available to me and others, but limit my time in the access to that material so others may enjoy. BTW, I regularly donate my DVD purchases to the local library so others may also enjoy the movie for free (well almost free). It costs two dollars for a library card. If the RIAA or MPAA wants to stop that then there is a bigger issue. (Greed). I would much rather donate that DVD to a world wide library that everyone could enjoy.

    And if the library is big enough, their would be no purpose in copying or sharing the material with others, just recheck it out or tell others to go to the library.

    • Anonymous

      Good plan, starting right now.

      World Wide Library

      Yeah, don’t worry you dirty playing greedy sons of b*tches i will break you.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you, Mr. Falkvinge. Really.

  • Ninja

    Blasting arrival here man, awesome start. As it was when you went Pirate Party!

    I agree with that. We are witnessing a heavy movement from governments against privacy and freedom. Free people are dangerous in their eyes and don’t act as money giving mindless cows as they should. They actually question decisions and make governing harder.

    In the end, Governments are made of human beings. And unfortunately human beings have a great problem: while they will cooperate with each other when they are in need, they’ll try to suppress other humans if it means losing status. Sad truth but in the end humans are just egoistical beings. Many manage to get rid of this during their lives, other remain incomplete children forever wanting their own toys better than the others just to brag about how cool their toys are…

  • wtf

    wait wtf, why do I need add a song or a video to every email?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t want/like Big Brother… say no to Illuminati.

  • George

    There is only one way for the movie industry to survive without destroying the internet :

    They should create the best movie database server in existence and charge their subscribers a small fee per month for streaming (or downloading) DRM free content. The server should contain _everything_ including the latest TV shows and movies, with _subtitles_ in HD. No excuses, no cuts.

    Competing with “free” is tough. They should charge for their services not for the content. A small fee every month from hundreds of millions of users should be more than enough for them.

    • Eloh

      Yes, but they want money! Money! Oh, sweet Money! Not just enough to run the service and servers, but even ‘more than enough for them’.

      Great idea, however, I doubt it’ll ever happen.

  • Rick Falkvinge

    Thank y’all for the very warm welcome. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to contribute to TorrentFreak.

  • Krow

    Welcome Rick, I’ve been considering this thought for a long time and you nailed it.

    If 0% privacy were to happen. Would it be illegal for Average Joe to spy on some high end figure? Seeing as there is to be no privacy, you could argue you were looking into their Copyright compliance?

    Even so, it wouldn’t become a problem for government officials until their bubbles started bursting due to it backfiring.

  • George Riddick

    Any of you little bastards trying to rip off my copyrighted works are going to be on the receiving end of a can of whoop ass.

    If you google my name, you’ll see I’m on the forefront of the copyright lobby, and I’m just getting started. The politicians know it’s the right thing to do.

    Don’t try one of your cute DDoS attacks on my websites like imageline2.com, I have Netgear routers and Linksys equipment set up to stop it.

    My clipart is worth $15,000 per image.

    • toonda

      you are amazing

      not

    • illunatic

      SPAM

      • illunatic

        really tho… i lol’d :D

  • Winston

    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER

  • Anonymous

    (3)is already here in the uk
    The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has had a clause activated which allows a person to be compelled to reveal a decryption key. Refusal can earn someone a five-year jail term.

  • MAFIAA

    Do You Prefer Copyright,
    the Right to Talk in Private
    or Rampage Me Anally?

  • Adam

    Agreed! now if only we actually had some ability to affect society. As it stands money talks and the copyright industries have that to spare. the average person does not

  • E

    I think you’re forgetting about something called “double standards”.

  • xentar

    Of course, another alternative would be to ban the technology that copyright infringement by individuals.

    • xentar

      *allows

    • EvgenijM86

      Yep, remove ability to copy data on PC, remove Internet, remove typography, forbid writing, drawing, singing and imagination since those can be used for copying data physically or reproducing it mentally. Copyright must be preserved, no matter the cost!

  • Anonymous

    Sure.

    BTW, do you know any good ressources where to get suck movies?

    I know freakyflicks for non-mainstream “classical” movies ( https://thepiratebay.org/tag/freakyflicks / https://board.freakyflicks.org ) but would like to discover more “actual” underground / unknown stuff…

    Any good URL?

    Thanks!

    • Anonymous

      (71 was an answer to 26, didn’t go at the right place, can be deleted admin :)

  • webcrawler

    i prefer to talk and copyright.

    yeah i know i talk nonsense hheeeeehi…

  • Anonymous

    THE “” @n “” method doesn’t work anymore.

    Everytime a “”reply”" is posted above.. the “”comment”" number is bumped down.

    The “comment” number should NEVER change.
    The “reply” should have it’s own subset number/name.
    eg.. [ #5 , R1 ] = [ comment 5 , reply 1 ]

    Also , we should be able to hide all replys..
    Stop commentors jumping the posting queue.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Also “BLOCKQUOTE” doesn’t work anymore.

    So you can’t reply directly to an extract from a persons comment.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Reading the comments , and understanding what reply is for what comment is all over the place.
    very confusing.

    QUESTION… for Ernesto .

    What am I doing now ?
    writing a comment ?
    or
    writing a reply ? ( if so , to whom ? )

    • Anonymous

      The older post coment was better to use. The user should come first. The coments section belong to the users. That’s what makes torrentFreak a daily visit for most people. The news and the staffs time can not be overlooked. They make the site what it is. But the users are a massive part of this site.

      The coment section needs to be designed for the USERS , NOT an ego massage for a web designer or site owner.

      BRING BACK THE OLD COMMENT FORMAT & FUNCTIONALITY

      • Anonymous

        I agree + if you disable javascript you can’t do the reply stuff. Crap…

  • Anonymous

    IPR paves the way to global governance.

    It has taken this long for people to start to realise…

    • Realist

      Oh go stuff yourself. What makes global governance is essentially monopolisation of infrastructure which, essentially, they had in the US with radio and railways. Then they got the T-Ford which was successful not because of IPR but because of the production method. Then they were beaten down by the Japanese who got there not by IPR but because of even better production methods.

      In Europe, granted, we’ve had monopolies on almost everything but as long as they were driven by the nation states, and therefore outside the realm of profit making, it actually didn’t work all bad – new technology investments excepted. What we have now, though, are a bizarre amount of stupidly state favoured incumbents who are running around all over the place. It’s not even different from the US, which has never had state monopolies on almost anything, because their incumbents are so large they can run around anyway.

      It’s not really like I have any constructive solutions to this problem :-/ Expropriation? Probably not doable. Better competition legislation? Probably too slow, also if you compare with chemical industry or recent Air France/KLM deal they’ll probably just make cartels that end up more profitable than adherring to the competition laws at the end of the investigation. Not so straight forward :-(

  • Pingback: Apollo » Blog Archive » Ime raje ‘copyright’ ali zasebnost?

  • EveryoneIsAnonymous

    What alot of people today don’t realize is that way back in the day, when telephones were just becoming popular around the world. The good old US government got together with all your other governments and set up a communications monitoring system that covered all
    phones everywhere.
    Does anybody out there really believe that they aren’t still monitoring everything we say, and by plain default everything we do online……they don’t need new laws, its all in place and already active.
    Big Brother? HA! Alot bigger than you can imagine.
    I suggest to anyone whom has not read 1984 to go buy, steal, borrow a copy and take the time to really read it…….we are damn near there people!
    Back doors, front doors, side doors……..you never had private conversations in the first place!

    • EvgenijM86

      Nah, it may work for telephones or any other system for which they have complete control over hardware and software, but it will fail on any system where user is allowed to execute their own custom software – as soon as users decides to use encryption government is powerless to stop them.

      Sure, most users don’t use encryption, but those terrorists (and other criminals) who wish privacy WILL use encryption. This means that government supercomputer spy will get a lot of garbage from non-criminal users and none of the useful data from actual enemies of the government.

      • Anonymous

        Enemy of all governments is the people it governs, it only seeks to enslave them unless the people keep it within check.

        • Anonymous

          Sure, and sheeps, goats, chickens and cows are enemy to farmers :)

  • Monster

    Keep up the good work!

    :)

  • hairiestpirateeever

    While the author has the right to his own opinion, TF should demand more out of their authors. You can’t just make a crazy proposition of 2 extreme scenarios at odds without any sort of factual based examples to support it. In the centuries that copyright law has exist, what individuals have been sued based upon using copyrighted material in a private communication?
    Thats the kind of info required for a good article with well-supported arguments. Can I opt out of Friday TF Emails?

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget the internet hasn’t been around that long and governments had control over existing infrastructure.

      IPR is an indirect route for governments to gain control over the internet.

  • Anonymous


    While the author has the right to his own opinion, TF should demand more out of their authors. You can’t just make a crazy proposition of 2 extreme scenarios at odds without any sort of factual based examples to support it. In the centuries that copyright law has exist, what individuals have been sued based upon using copyrighted material in a private communication?
    Thats the kind of info required for a good article with well-supported arguments. Can I opt out of Friday TF Emails?

    You don’t need the info, since the law does not distinguish private from public copyright infringement.
    Of course, enforcement of IP against private sharing is difficult, but the copyright holders surely don’t want to legalize private friend-to-friend sharing, so the law even if dormant in this regard still allows such an invasion of
    privacy.

    When the US Supreme Court struck down the Connecticut ban on private contraception in its Grisworld decision, it was precisely animated by the well founded fear that a law criminalizing intimate activities would allow the government to invade people’s privacy.

    Privacy concerns are therefore equally triggered by the *possibility* that the government may employ a seldomely enforced law against what people do in their privacy.

    Privacy is not just about what the government *does* but even more about what the government *might* do*.

    If the law is so broad or vague that it catches ordinary and innocent conduct, everyone becomes a law breaker and potentially subject to selective enforcement.

    How would you feel if the law forbade someone from telling lies in any private communication?

    While such a law would not be enforced very often, even the *possibility* that it might someday be enforced is an invasion of privacy and liberty.

    • Realist

      Amen.

    • hairiestpirateeever

      Its true that copyright infringement can exist on a private scale, SHOW ME 1 american prosecuted for this activity before a sane person can legitimately consider a cause for concern. Here’s why my fellow americans need not worry about this:
      1. Billions of emails, ims, facebook messages, etc. are sent everyday and nobody has or uses the massive resources necessary to scan through these to identify and confirm that copyrighted material is being transmitted without the permission of the copyright holder.
      2. Americans have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their phone calls, mail, and email. Unless you’ve given up this freedom (prisoners, gov employees) or are a suspected terrorist or something to qualify for a Patriot Act exception, the government requires information that it is more probable than not that you are comitting copyright infringement (aka probable cause) before obtaining a warrant to inspect these materials. And this is something that the american gov’t has rarely, if ever, wasted its time and resources on. Copyright holders are likely to try to go after this option, but they must first subpoena your email provider with some degree of evidence, and you have the right to fight this subpoena in court before the copyright holder can start looking.
      3. Given the logistical and legal obstacles I just detailed, as well as the immense financial implications of prosecuting each individual offender, NOBODY is trying to do this. The RIAA has even said that they are done trying to prosecute individual copyright violators.

      So yes, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, prosecuting copyright infringement in private communication is possible, but given the lack of organizations attempting to do this and the reasons why that is, give me 1 good reason why anyone should worry about this other than its “possible.”

      And when legitimate threats like COICA exist, why waste any time reporting about the myriad of possible threats that nobody is pursuing. Its bad article writing to speak of a threat without any factual examples of its existence, and its bad form for a publication to report on baseless possibilities over real news. Can someone please answer my question of how to opt out of the friday email?

  • piraat

    tenzij rick falkvinge een codewoord is voor samir allioui dan is dit een gegarandeerd slecht idee. samir doet tenminste het shockblog ding beter dan rick lijkt te hebben gedaan

  • velvetfog

    The worldwide digital commons that has been enabled by the Internet is a driving force for the 21st century. It has also given rise to a legal world war between the forces supporting copyright restrictions and the forces supporting free communication.

    On the side of the forces of copyright one can find the music publishers and the movie companies, along with many older judges and politicians who don’t yet grasp the permanent changes in human culture that the development of the Internet has given rise to.

    On the side of the digital commons one can find practically the entire iPod generation, all the large telephone companies and ISPs, and most thinking adults who do not want to see the implementation of the type of totalitarian surveillance society that George Orwell warned us about in his book “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

    This war will continue for many more years, giving rise to legal battles in many nations, and causing an ongoing technological escalation and sophistication by the digital commons community. Only the truly ignorant will be able to remain neutral and stay on the sidelines. You ought to know which side you are on, and why.

  • anonymous

    they can make all the copyright laws they want. as long as I can transfer my files in private I’m happy

    • Anonymous


      So your argument essentially boils down to

      1) “Either people can continue getting music and movies for free,” or 2) “We all get taken over by Big Brother.”

      Yeah, I don’t think so. The people ‘sharing clips’ over IMs are not the problem, and I haven’t read anywhere that they are.

      If you dont think so, please state what *legally workable* distinction separates friend-to-friend sharing from wholesale copyright infringement.

      According to the law, even private sharing is illegal, and you can’t both have your cake and eat it by denying that copyright law does not invade privacy, and at the same time call for effective enforcement of copyright against private sharing.
      If all pirates switched from p2p and cyber lockers to encrypted friend-to-friend communication, the rights holders and their apologists would either have to give up or call for copyright law to override the right of private communication.

      Either private sharing is illegal or it isn’t.
      You are engaging in a dishonest bait and switch argumentation.


      The problem are the sites that enable the wholesale theft of movies and music by allowing people access to products that they would otherwise have to pay
      for.

      Aside from the fallacious claim that copyright infringement is theft, which I don’t want to address for now, illegal infringement of copyright is not dependent on whether the transaction is private or public, so either admit that *effective* enforcement of copyright law against noncommercial file sharing permits if not requires deprivation of people’s right to privacy or explain how the law should distinguish between innocent and noninnocent sharing.

      You can’t, because your concern is not only with public copyright infringement but equally with any sharing causing diminished sales.

  • Geheris

    So your argument essentially boils down to

    1) “Either people can continue getting music and movies for free,” or 2) “We all get taken over by Big Brother.”

    Yeah, I don’t think so. The people ‘sharing clips’ over IMs are not the problem, and I haven’t read anywhere that they are.

    The problem are the sites that enable the wholesale theft of movies and music by allowing people access to products that they would otherwise have to pay for.

    I’m sorry, but the reality is that movies, music, and literature, are products. If the products can’t generate revenue, the companies go out of business and stop producing the products.

  • Anonymous


    So your argument essentially boils down to

    1) “Either people can continue getting music and movies for free,” or 2) “We all get taken over by Big Brother.”

    Yeah, I don’t think so. The people ‘sharing clips’ over IMs are not the problem, and I haven’t read anywhere that they are.

    If you dont think so, please state what *legally workable* distinction separates friend-to-friend sharing from wholesale copyright infringement.

    According to the law, even private sharing is illegal, and you can’t both have your cake and eat it by denying that copyright law does not invade privacy, and at the same time call for effective enforcement of copyright against private sharing.
    If all pirates switched from p2p and cyber lockers to encrypted friend-to-friend communication, the rights holders and their apologists would either have to give up or call for copyright law to override the right of private communication.

    Either private sharing is illegal or it isn’t.
    You are engaging in a dishonest bait and switch argumentation.


    The problem are the sites that enable the wholesale theft of movies and music by allowing people access to products that they would otherwise have to pay
    for.

    Aside from the fallacious claim that copyright infringement is theft, which I don’t want to address for now, illegal infringement of copyright is not dependent on whether the transaction is private or public, so either admit that *effective* enforcement of copyright law against noncommercial file sharing permits if not requires deprivation of people’s right to privacy or explain how the law should distinguish between innocent and noninnocent sharing.

    You can’t, because your concern is not only with public copyright infringement but equally with any sharing causing diminished sales.

    • Geheris

      All of what you wrote is premissed on the claim that law enforcement is focused on your private IMs, when that simply isn’t the case.

      The targets have been places like Pirate Bay and other various pirating circles that focus on enabling people to download/share files such as music and movies for free, and whose services extend to people by the millions.

      The fact is, there is no logical argument to allow people to download copyrighted material for free. Why do you feel you have a right to those companies’ and artists’ products for free?

      Like it or not, a movie is a product, a cd is a product, a book is a product.

      • EvgenijM86

        And who is going to pay for copyright enforcement? Who is going to pay for lawmakers, who is going to pay for police, who is going to pay for trials, who is going to pay for monitoring traffic? Huh?

        They push government to do this, but government uses taxpayers money for this. Tell me then – how many of the taxpayer will actually agree to pay for this on their free will? The popularity of p2p suggests, that majority is against this.

        Laws are only legitimate as long as majority can agree with them and pay to enforce them, and this is not the case with copyright. With copyright – it’s more like enforcing tyranny against society.

        >The fact is, there is no logical argument to allow people to download copyrighted material for free.<

        Arguments must be made for disallowing something that is natural, not the other way around. There is no need for arguments to allow something natural, only restrictions must be justified. Otherwise we can make absurd statements like this – "The fact is, there is no logical argument to allow people to breath air for free".

  • Anonymous

    Please address my pointed questions.

    Does and should effective enforcement of copyright law permit or require invasion of privacy i.e surveillance of private communication and/or a ban on the use of encryption?

    If you can’t or won’t address this tension, I must conclude that you aren’t interested in an honest debate.

    The issue is not if one thinks that the tradeoff between *effective* copyright enforcement and privacy mandates a certain results, but narrowly speaking whether such a tradeoff is required by the inherent tension.

    On the one hand you seems to discount that the claim that *effective* copyright enforcement is only possible at the expense of privacy, but on the other hand you are implicitly approving such a sacrifice of privacy as necessary to safeguard copyright at any cost.

  • moob

    I really want to know why the governments go out there way so har to get everyone on the internet these days.. lets put copyright to one side for a minute ,i truelly think we are all being miss lead here,mybe? copyright is a fore front. mybe just mybe it’s a marketing research project whats going on all along, it’s called marketing eveolution

  • Common Man

    There’s an excellent article written a few years back that should be read alongside this one.

    Infringement Nation by John Tehranian.

    It is one of the clearest demonstrations of the absurdity of upholding outdated copyright laws in this technical age.

    I wonder if the Pirate Parties have a copy of it on their websites.

  • Ven

    Ideals and reality are two different things, and I don’t believe ideals deserve the time of day unless they can be made into realities.

    Our government in it’s current form (in the USA that is) will never turn it’s back on the powerful (and quite possibly overpowered) copyright laws we have. They are a large part of maintaining the few threads of stability our economy has left. That is, our economy can’t afford to have copyrights go away.

    Perhaps in the long run it would be better for our economy, but when the research is done on how hard it hits our country while these politicians serve out their days in office, none of them will be on board.

    The only way copyrights go away is with revolution, with overthrowing this government that seeks to not rock the economical boat.

    In this modern age of international trade however, big copyright companies would simply pick themselves up and move overseas. Paris would become the new Hollywood, London the new LA. These industries have only to look at what their worth does when their rights go to hell, and they won’t try to adapt. Adapting is more expensive.

    What happens is that the RIAA and MPAA, and everyone else like them, moves to countries that still support a copyright system. There, they become a large percentage of the GDP, and they use that to lobby their government to harass our government into respecting their copyrights.

    In the end, the USA either plays the puppet or isolates itself like China so often does. It is difficult to move towards socialistic ideals without inevitably ending up in some form of anarchy. Anarchy and socialism may be great ideals, but neither ideal works unless everyone in the population plays along.

    As long as power-play countries are not economically isolated, they will continue to protect their current forms of private sector income unless an alternative is seen as immediately more productive.

  • AnarchyNow

    We need an actual full-scale revolution, not another petty right-wing hypocrite party.
    There is absolutely no chance of survival for humanity as long as the hydra religion/capital/state still rules, only by getting to the higher level of civilization can we survive (by spreading in the solar system instead of making permanent war).
    ANARCHY NOW!

  • Anonymous

    @70 is that a dare George???

    http://george-riddick-is-an-ass.blogspot.com/

  • Trelew

    Nicely written article. Sadly Big Business could care less about the advance of society, unless they were making a profit off of it. Greed & Power our their goals, anything else is a very distant second. Who care if society stagnates as our civil liberties get trampled on, so long as the corporate elite are in control everything is fine…for them. The rest of the world can suffer for all they care.

  • gate

    “you must break the seal..” – the biblicist in me wonders how many more are to break.

  • Gav

    Going back some months now, I stumbled across a quite interesting article on copyright. I’ll probably do it no justice at all, and I wouldnt be able to find the link to it now, but in short it talked about England v Germany some 150 years ago, and what their comparitive copyright philosophies did for each country.

    Article was along the lines that England was very much pro-copyright, so the printed books were priced out of the common mans capabilities, and were very much an object for the gentry. They also enjoyed a very solid technological advantage over most countries, in this case Germany.

    Germany on the other hand, had no copyright laws, so books were readily copies, and basically made cheap enough for the average family to actually buy, and start up their own private library. Which in turn enducated the masses.

    Fast forward a relatively small time period, something like 30 years, and Germany’s technology level was nearly on par with Englands. In such a short period, Englands domination was reduced to nothing, thanks to what freedom from copyright allowed.

    It didnt hinder growth, it encouraged it.

    Such a concept is unthinkable to the RIAA etc, and they are using their not inconsiderable resources to try and make certain a similar balancing doesnt occur now, when we are at a similar crossroads.

    As several have said, they arent interested in society’s growth, they are interested in their bank balances growth. And use outdated laws and methodologies to achieve this.

  • man-o-tor

    Thank you Mr.Falkvinge – nice kick-off for your column :)!

    I am looking forward to many great articles.
    Thank you for being the one to speak for all of us who believe in freedom and that the current system needs to be fixed/reformed/revolutionized!

    I might seem a little naive here, but I believe we’ll never reach the point, where people would be forced by their personal IFPI-officer (everyone would have one assigned to him) to watch a DVD alone, because watching it with a friend would be already considered a copyright infringement – after all the friend might buy the DVD if you wouldn’t show it to him.

    Before it comes to that 1984 scenario, the problem will have itself regulated – new generations will raise and eventually overcome the hollywood-dinosaurs and their outdated version of copyright.
    More and more artists will realize they don’t have to be afraid of self distribution and that it is overall more lucrative to do so.

    If Hollywood dies and people still want hollywood-like movies, they will listen to a screenwriters idea, look at a directors storyboard, and donate a producer the money to realize the project. This will happen via the appropriate platforms in the world wide web.
    This way we will finally get truly amazing movies again, with a story that tells something, pictures that really move us, special effects that mean something, and a score that touches ones soul without using special frequencies to trigger emotions.

    The current situation is just the last struggle of a dying breed we’ll have to sit through.
    And they know it – that’s why they become more and more ruthless with every attack and every step they take.

    Unfortunatly the beast might take another 50 years or so to die completely, so we should pull ourselves together, be realistic and focus on developing the infrastructure for the time after – and maybe we’ll even help the beast to let go easier in the end…

    • ReasonAnybody?

      “If Hollywood dies and people still want hollywood-like movies, they will listen to a screenwriters idea, look at a directors storyboard, and donate a producer the money to realize the project.”

      People aren’t prepared to pay for the product AFTER it has been made nowadays – you’re living in a fantasy if you think people would be willing to pay up front. At best, that’s such a naive way of looking at things. It would make me laugh if I didn’t know people were serious when I read suggestions that because you share, people who spend months if not years of their lives creating something will all of a sudden decide to do it for free, or for whatever breadcrumbs you decide to throw their way. Anyone who is already doing it, well, very noble and good luck; but if you manage to carve out a big enough piece of of the pie to support yourselves and your family for the rest of your days in this world we live in, I’d like to know how you’re doing it. I don’t think things should stay as they are but you can’t have everything for free (or for “small donations”) either, anybody with an ounce of sense can see it would be utterly unsustainable long-term. Compromise is what is needed and neither side seems to be willing to go to the table.

      As for the article, I agree with a few others here – inflammatory stuff based on a dichotomy of extremes with little basis in actual reality (yes, it’s *possible*, but it’s not *probable*. What’s next, an article about how national defense computers are going to become self-aware and nuke us all?). Just what I’ve come to expect of TF lately. You’re becoming as extreme and propagandist in your writing as the hard pro-copyright types – two wrongs don’t make a right kids

      • man-o-tor

        People aren’t prepared to pay for the product AFTER it has been made nowadays[...]

        Two average popular movies in 2010:

        Kick Ass
        (Budget: $28 million)
        Gross revenue $96,130,462

        Red
        (Budget: $58 million)
        Gross revenue $164,672,051

        Here are the top 10 of the highest grossing films in 2010 (Worldwide):

        1 Toy Story 3 Disney·Pixar
        (Budget: $200 million)
        $1,063,161,943
        2 Alice in Wonderland Walt Disney Pictures
        (Budget: $150-200 million)
        $1,024,299,722
        3 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Warner Bros.
        (Budget: Less than $250 million )
        $938,377,000
        4 Inception Warner Bros.
        (Budget: $160 million)
        $823,576,195
        5 Shrek Forever After Paramount/DreamWorks
        (Budget: $135–$165 million)
        $759,952,787
        6 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Summit Entertainment
        (Budget: $170-200 million)
        $693,579,566
        7 Iron Man 2 Paramount Pictures
        (Budget: $69 million)
        $622,056,974
        8 Despicable Me Universal Pictures
        (Budget: $69 million)
        $542,009,840
        9 How to Train Your Dragon DreamWorks Animation
        (Budget: $165 million)
        $494,878,759
        10 Clash of the Titans Warner Bros.
        (Budget: $125 million)
        $493,214,993

        Apart from the fact that everytime I look at these numbers i think they’re insane, it looks to me like there must have been a few people who still were willing to pay a small buck AFTER it has been made…

        The great six of Hollywood’s movie industry earned 2010 about 10% more than 2009.
        American movies played in 2010 had revenues of € 23.6 billion,
        in 2009 there were 21.3 billion U.S. dollars.

        Everyone shaking his head right now thinking “it’s not that simple” – you are wrong!
        It is.
        This whole copyright-farce is rediculous and makes you want to a see a mushroom above Hollywood!

        • ReasonAnybody?

          No, it makes YOU want to see a mushroom above Hollywood. To me its some encouraging statistics that prove not everyone out there is like you, and there are people who are willing to support a creative industry rather than sit behind their keyboards wailing about how they are revolutionaries and how they should have the right to decide what to do with something they did not have an hand in making.

  • ViceroyMadman

    hmm a very interesting way to frame the situation. although there are many solutions for taking those institutions out of the picture by getting users to be in charge of how their data moves in using ad-hoc communication systems… that the internet was meant to be ( a system for sharing information) buy only using the ISPs as a conduit of data they can’t see. VPNs have been around for a while but they still have a weakness in having a server to provide connectivity so there is an easy target to attack or tamper with the code…

    more community ad-hoc networks with multiple node gateways that are also routing some traffic through vpns and other non-critical traffic packets through TOR or these new torrent streaming protocols being demonstrated now.

    so.. more end-user generated public ad-hoc networks? with isolated machines on the system (where though connected to the network they do not get to view other machines in the local area unless they have vpns running that link them together..)

    …how to move forward?

  • dg100

    Hmm… As much as I want to give a warmer welcome to the famous Rick Falkvinge, I can’t really agree with the gist of this article. Whatever one thinks of them, the bulk of the pro-copyright lobby seems to me to be pushing towards automated scanning for copyrighted signatures at the ISP level – presumably with accompanying controls on technology to render encrypted communications transparent to those same scans.

    While that’s not without real dangers – and still something very objectionable – it’s a very long way from the total dismantling of all privacy and anonymity rights. It seems unlikely to me that they would go as far as Falkvinge implies – apart from anything else, it’s hard to see more than a vanishingly tiny minority of even the copyright nutters wanting to sell off their own families’ privacy.

    If anything – and I’m really not trying to bait anyone here, there’s no disrespect intended – if the destruction of the means of anonymity does ever happen, it’s more likely to be from something terrifyingly clever aimed at our email or telephony providers – and conceived and carried out by a few members of the massed ranks of Anonymous, in the ultimate expression of ironic, self-referential, world-wide trolling. :S

  • Pingback: Nyhetsbrev 2011-01-25 | Anna Troberg

  • Pingback: Online Global Week in Review 28 January 2011 from IP Think Tank

  • Pingback: NSFW: Top PureTNA and Empornium Alternatives | PornDL News

  • Pingback: Could you tax the rain? | LifeScienTology

  • http://twitter.com/chasinBeagle Chris Storvold

    “You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law”

    http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html

  • Logicalsecurity123

    Yes! I prefer
     http://www.logicalsecurity.com/store/security-training.html

  • Bestbundle

    I totally agree

  • 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.