TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly

When working for reform or abolition of the copyright or patent monopolies, things can sometimes feel a bit uphill, even though the eventual abolition of these protectionist monopolies seems inevitable. To get energy for activism each day, it helps to understand the Overton Window.

Nobody ever changed the world without making enemies. If you’re not pissing anybody off, you’re probably not doing anything useful to make the world a better place to live in.

There’s an important corollary to that observation, and that is that when participating in activism, nobody should fear criticism from the privileged. Those people like things the way they are, with them in the seat of the privileged, thank you very much. Therefore, changing the world with a passion for justice has always drawn opposition from the powerful.

But powerful ideas, such as the immense benefit to society of having freedom of knowledge and culture, have a tendency to take on a life on their own. Once they gain enough momentum, they tend to snowball.

It’s quite a bit like when you’re riding a rollercoaster in the rearmost car in the train. You know when the train climbs a steep slope, and it’s all uphill, uphill, uphill? Then, the first car in the train passes the crest, and the whole train starts going a little bit easier. Shortly thereafter, the train’s center of gravity passes the crest, and pulls the rest of the train past the crest along with it. At that point, you’re still in the rear car, you’re still going uphill, but the built-up momentum of the train as a whole is enough to take you past the crest and into the realm of the downhill.

There’s an observation that when powerful ideas like the idea of free knowledge and culture hit 10% of a population, they snowball and become reality in short order. You just need to make sure they spread to one in ten people. As we all know, that’s completely doable. It’s not the Tim Kuiks, the Chris Dodds, the Jack Valentis, and the Henrik Ponténs we need to convince. Heck, they’re paid well to not understand a word we’re saying. Never mind the copyright industry lobby. Our goal is talking to everybody else.

There’s a guy named Joseph Overton who worded this as the Overton Window. It describes how the range of politically acceptable ideas in a society is a fairly narrow window, and that what’s considered sensible or acceptable can slide in both directions in and out of this window.

In short, an idea can move along a scale of unthinkable, impossible, heretical, radical, possible, acceptable, plausible, sensible, popular, and policy. Removing these inhumanly unjust monopolies – monopolies that keep medicines out of bloodstreams of the poor, education out of the hands of the needy, food away from the bellies of the hungry, songs away from the singers, and technology away from the supposedly subservient – doesn’t need to be taken all the way to “policy” to succeed as an activist.

(I saw somebody calling these monopolies today’s economic equivalent of the 16th century slave trade. I don’t think that’s particularly far off the mark, to illustrate just how harshly I think the future will judge these protectionist monopolies.)

It’s enough to push the train of the rollercoaster to get its center of gravity past the crest. It’s enough to take the idea from “unthinkable” – which was the case just a decade ago – to somewhere between possible and sensible, and it will happen.

That’s why working as an activist is always uphill, figuratively pushing that rollercoaster train from behind. Once the idea snowballs under its own power, the activist’s work is practically done – at that point, the effort goes into maintenance mode from its previous startup mode.

For myself, I founded the world’s first Pirate Party on January 1, 2006. It was unthinkable that a self-declared pirate could get elected legislator. Absolutely impossible. Under my leadership, the party showed the world in 2009 that it was possible as we put two people in the European Parliament – a huge move on the Overton Window.

As an activist, you will always get flak and harsh words for trying to make the world a better place. Challenging the status quo in unthinkable ways is always met with hostility. But frequently, it’s enough to argue well enough to take a reform from “unthinkable” to “possible” – and we all know that’s in our power.

The reward is in the results.

Change the world.

And have fun. Have fun making defenders of the status quo angry. That’s important. Having fun is reward in itself, too.

(I write a lot more about this in my upcoming book, Swarmwise – The tactical manual to changing the world. You can read the first chapter here. Do let me know if you think the book sounds interesting, as that will make the book get published faster.)

About The Author

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

Book Falkvinge as speaker?

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Ignas

    Our world is filled with things what are considered to be ok and are part of our daily lives. But when you actually stop passively living through them and ask yourself: Why they exist? Do I need them? Do I get anything good out of them? Some things start to look silly or even damaging.

  • Who

    the biggest problem isn’t patent’s, its copyright’s and the way they are addressed. patent’s run out after about 5 to say 30 years, but copy rights are held for almost 80 years. also you shouldn’t confuse the 2. and when a patent runs out you are NOT allowed to renew it like you can with copyright’s. and like I stated above, the way they are addressed is usually outside of the law so the holder can do as they please and collect cash from so called infringes. the point is that the copyright monopoly is a much bigger problem than dealing with patent;s. hell if you think about it, you CAN make a change on ANY product design and attain a patent for it, wile you can’t redo a song/movie/game and attain a copyright for it as that’s considered infringing when in reality it isn’t. the only ones that can do that is the RIAA/MPAA and the gaming industry.

    • xenu

      Yes and no. Patents for say, drugs, make sense because of the enourmous expense involving in developing them. Software patents though, cause an enourmous amount of problems in a fast moving industry where 5-30 years is essentially eternity, and the innovation needed to acquire them is dirt cheap and handled by people with no expertise in the field.

      • Who

        “enourmous expense involving in developing them”

        so your saying it cost’s more to develop a $1 bottle of aspirin then it does to develop a $10.000 piece of software?

        and you are also stating that software is developed @ a much faster pace than drugs?

        so in other words you are stating that because the cost of making drugs is more than making software so patents should only be used for drugs? and you have also pointed out that its only about the money.

        you also think that the software developers are dumber than the people controlling the drug market?

        IMO there all the same “greedy”.

        • Caleb

          Yes, software can be developed faster than drugs. He’s referring to new drugs, which take years to invent, more years to test, and potentially billions of dollars in non recoverable fees before the first bottle is put on the market. There are potentially better ways than the patent system to address the problem of developing new drugs, but compared to software, drugs are created more slowly, and cost more to create.

        • Who

          are you *or any of you* aware that inventing and development are 2 different things?

          inventing is starting from scratch and creating something.

          develop is building something that already exists.

          in many cases it does take a lot longer to invent drugs.
          for example ones that are needed to relieve stuff like cancer. but stuff like just simple pain killers don’t take nothing to come up with.

          as far as software, IF software was much faster to make then the stuff that we have now would have been ready 50 years ago if not prier to that.

        • Triz

          Patents for medicines is stupid, xenu must be doped.
          That’s a way to let some persons can earn money,
          and only riches can afford those medicines.

          Jonas Edward Salk found first vaccine for polio
          and he didn’t patent that, it was free,
          that doesn’t prevented the cure was produced.
          Salk probably would have earned millions,
          he preferred to give that for free.

        • Guest

          Patents for medicine should IMO be less durable, but I have trouble seeing a world without them. Abusable as they may be, they are the driving factor for companies to innovate. Innovation is a requirement for the health industry (and recommendation for other industries). If a company doesn’t feel motivated (rewarded with exclusive ownership via patents, for example), how would you convice such company to innovate in new medicine? As broken as the system may be, it’s the health of people we’re talking about. This is also reason why revolution in the health industry may be very important, though.

        • Zumzum

          Patents are NEVER a driving factor for innovation. They’re a protectionist system to ensure the innovation that will happen anyway is protected from exploitation by someone other than the innovator. As humans we are inherently inquisitive and prone to innovate and our incentive to do so is usually a societal or personal ‘need’ for something that does not exist, or could be better. Do not confuse the legal protections with human nature. ;)

        • Carlton

          The way it works is quite simple. Intellectual property protection means an innovator can recover a greater portion of the costs of innovation. Without such protection, innovation carries a greater net cost, so there is less of it.

          Without intellectual property protection, only the costs remain for the innovator. The innovation’s profits, on the other hand, are not the private property of the “greedy” innovator but are public, i.e. they are socialized.

      • BuddhaFacePalmed

        I disagree. R&D for drugs are already paid for by taxpayers. And drugs aren’t developed for the sole purpose of funding Big Pharma, its Big Pharma’s responsibility to ensure that the funding and revenue they receive goes back into R&D, not the fat paychecks of corporate goons. Which isn’t the case with drug patents today. Explain to me why Big Pharma need to patent the genes of mice capable of curing cancer when spreading the knowledge is more important??

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Yes and then again, no. In some western nations, taxpayer subsidy accounts for 80% of basic drug research.

        And major pharmaceutical companies readily admit they spend far more on marketing than they do on research. What actually happens is, they fund most steps by helping to subsidize postdoc studies in interesting fields where the majority of the cost is already paid for.

        Patents for drugs may indeed remain, but I’d say those patents need to be regionalized and provided with exceptions.

        As a foot note on this more people have died in the third world to easily cured diseases than both world wars can claim in modern times. Because the medicine is far too expensive for an AIDS/malaria/circiasis/neisseria-stricken bushman in africa or a child on a bangladesh street can bear.

        • Triz

          Regional patents? That’s like visiting a site
          which tells you: “sorry, this movie
          is not available on your region”.

          And you’re talking about people dying
          because the cure is expensive
          and it’s not available in X country?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Regional” as in “You only get a protection on your patent by clearing it with the nation you want it protected in”.

          Meaning there will have to be a substantial investment in protecting your patent where you see a market.

          African has dire need for vaccines, for instance, but there is no market as most can not afford to pay. In such a place, the medication would be unlicensed, simply because no one sees it as a good investment to apply for patent protection there. As long as the trademark is not abused, the africans can then manufacture and use as much vaccine as they wish.

          In a wealthy western nation you might go through the hassle of patenting the medication because there, after all, is a market.

          After that you’ll be competing with your brand name against the “knockoffs” being imported. Big Pharma has proven for a long time this is very viable, competing with generics.

        • Triz

          That has more sense, the problem is:
          if a nation is wealthy, that doesn’t mean
          every person in that nation can afford
          expensive medicines and treatments.

          I was in a clinic the last year,
          that was for some complications
          from a bad surgery,
          that I needed for health.

          If it wasn’t that my economic situation
          it’s 5 times better than other years,
          I’d probably haven’t been able
          to pay for it.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          At which point, you just import the unbranded “generic” from abroad.

          Meaning everyone who needs access to medicine can have it, but as is the case with bottled water and luxury cars, the access is less convenient and carries less status than the branded option.

          This, by the way, is status quo for true generics which today still stand as major cash cows for brand labels. There are hundreds of generic cheap NSAIDS out there and yet the main sellers are still the more expensive brands.

      • Guest321

        Because of drug patents branded drugs are being sold for 10-20 times the price of their generic counterparts. Many life saving drugs are prohibitively expensive even though retailers obtain them cheaply. Think again before you say drug parents are doing us any good.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The estimated death toll alone resulting from the lack of AIDS-drugs in africa beggars the imagination. And not in a good way.

          Merck/Pfizer had to be forced to the negotiating table before they could grudgingly allow a certain amount of self-manufacture to take place.

          In India similar negotiations broke down as lifesaving anticancer treatments which monthly dosage tallied a market price of 40+ times the monthly earnings of the average worker. The indian government immediately implemented “compulsory licensing”.

          Now an indian company is churning out the same medicine at 1/1000 of Merck’s price (because that’s how cheap it is to make), and the patent owner gets 6% of the sales price.

          Of course they whine about this – for a drug which saves lives they had set the price at the very limit of what a modern US medical insurance would tolerate.

    • Guest321

      Patents are also a problem. Edison, the biggest patent thief, abused it back in his day and even today Apple is carrying on the trend by exploiting it. Patents and copyrights are both very damaging and are a massive barrier for creativity to truly flourish.

    • Rekrul

      the biggest problem isn’t patent’s, its copyright’s and the way they are
      addressed. patent’s run out after about 5 to say 30 years, but copy
      rights are held for almost 80 years.

      Copyright lasts for 80+ years, for now. Expect the entertainment industry, Disney in particular, to be back begging for longer copyright terms in the very near future. And with the way the courts and government work in the US, they’ll probably get it. Life + 100 years! Actually, I keep expecting them to ask for permanent copyright that never expires. They’ll ask for it sooner or later, the only question is when…

  • do iT

    Inspirational

    Have nothing else of value to say

    • One-Eyed Willie

      That is really deep man! Really deep. Sob Sob.

  • Pingback: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly | Best Seedbox

  • One-Eyed Willie

    If you are content to do nothing everyday on this problem that is fine but I want you to admit out loud, everyday that the privileged have beat you and you are willing to peacefully conform to their every whim and desire without question and do it with a smile!

  • Arkzad

    The “Overton Window” concept has its roots in the climate of the harsh US-politics of the 60ties and 70ties. Information was controlled and scarce, people could be quickly swayed by “public outcry”. The US political culture is much more complex now, as is the European.

    Is it really the case, that people don’t “know” about copyright problems? Yes, they want answers, they want modifications. But they really want the abolition? When social topics where introduced by an “Overton Window” method, people immediately saw some Win-Win(-Win) proposition which they found remarkably interesting. Can you explain the Win-Win concept which would “sway the interest” of the public? (Maybe in a own article?).

    Explaining the hard problems of the current system isn’t really explaining “the other one” which will solve the current systems failures.

    With patents, its a different topic. I don’t want to sit in an airplane with knockoff bolts because its legal to do so and if you can’t control the corruption you have to accept that some planes will fall. If you have a solution to that I would also like to hear it. I asked scholars and they said that this is a very complex topic that can’t just be solved by fiddling on one screw.

    • schwarz

      You are talking about cheap knockoffs but what if we could make them stronger and cheaper ?? You know what if I took a medication made a cheap version that worked for these poor who can’t afford it in third world.contries ?? What if I made an Iphone twice as powerful. Why restrain the world for money. Why restrain medical research to only those in power. Why restrain technology because we haven’t milked enough people with the current one ? Imagine leaving money aside for a second how we could evolve twice as fast and even faster. What we are doing right now is a scare campaign. How ridiculous can you get when you sue someone because the swipe to unlock looks a bit the same. Patents if you look at it is made for greed because most of the times the aren’t registered by honest people but monopolise and patent trolls.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Patents especially do not make any sense in the electronics business. If you are the first to launch an invention the competition needs six months to even understand how it can be used – which you already do. By the time they’ve figured it out that platform is obsolete and it’s time to launch the next line.

        That, and the lockout effect is staggering. Does anyone even realize what the average PC today would look like if AMD and Intel could use one another’s proprietary designs?

        Dual-channel RAM on a genuine multicore setup? Yes please. AMD cooling on nvidia GPU’s? Oh my…

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “I don’t want to sit in an airplane with knockoff bolts…”

      Odds are, you already do.

      The knockoff bolts are generally speaking built and manufactured by the same company which created the “real” ones. From a leftover production run. Why not, if they’ve filled their purchased quota but have the machines configured and material to spare?

      All that happens is they leave the logo off and run a few more batches of shoes/bolts/handbags/iPods using spillovers.

      And that’s the real threat of knockoffs today. When some cheap factory in india tried to emulate what a german plant churned out, the result was a shoddy product whose main advantage was the cost.

      Today, thanks to manufacturing being pushed to Asia, the knockoffs, more often than not, are identical.

  • ringo_ring

    Copyright defenders are clearly pissing everyone off. Are they doing anything useful?

    • copywrong

      Yes. Providing you’re a bloodsucking corporate parasite. For the average man on the street? Hell no.

  • Pingback: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly | The Illuminati

  • Pingback: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly | We R Pirates

  • Typhoid Mary

    The greatest part about this fight is we’re in the middle of it. And like it or not, the change is here to stay. It really is incredible what technology has enable us to do. All you have to do now is think it, type it in and there it is. Never before has information and media been shared like today. I love it.

    I have a feeling it might get worse before it gets better. It might take another generation before laws change, I don’t know, maybe longer, we have a very powerful and wealthy opposition, but the tech is stronger and the people are stronger.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “It might take another generation before laws change…”

      I doubt it.

      Every time technology takes another step, copyright enforcement becomes that much more ridiculous. Already today it’s very very hard to use the internet at all – or even an ordinary desktop PC/smartphone/laptop – without casually violating copyright.

      Technology makes it so very easy and convenient asking people not to infringe on copyright is in many cases comparable to asking car owners to never drive that vehicle faster than a man can walk.

      When the printing press happened to medieval europe, the church lost it’s monopoly on distributing and interpreting the bible. This was given and the change happened within the span of a very few years right after Martin Luther put his questions up for public perusal.

      What is required is simply for the technology to be there. Then when someone asks the right question, the old house of cards becomes effectively irrelevant over night and collapses the day after.

      The technology is there. And the question has been asked. Copyright is already irrelevant for the most part, and all we’re really waiting for is for the dust to settle. This will not take a generation. Just as it didn’t take a generation for cassette tapes and the VCR to become used however the owners damn well pleased to use them.

      • guess who

        “Technology makes it so very easy and convenient asking people not to infringe on copyright is in many cases comparable to asking car owners to never drive that vehicle faster than a man can walk.”

        funny you should say that, here, in england, car drivers originaly had to have someone walk in front of them with a red flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts

        • SoundnuoS

          And even after more than a hundred years of cars, we’re still not allowed to drive them as fast as they can go.
          Legislation is not made at the mercy of technology.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          That’s quite true. We’re allowed to generally speaking drive them 20 times faster now.

          Not to mention it is no longer mandatory to have each vehicle operated by no less than three engineers.

          “Legislation is not made at the mercy of technology.”

          In what world do you live in? EVERY TIME technology has opened possibilities, legislation has changed, radically, to accommodate it. No exception.

          The driving factor, of course, being that humans will act in certain ways given the ability to do so.

          That statement was made in staggering ignoranc of even the most basic history. Are you by any chance channeling bobmail right now?

        • SoundnuoS

          Generally technologies have aspects of their use regulated.

          Cars aren’t allowed to drive as fast as they can.
          You’re not allowed to randomly transmit anything on just any radio frequency.
          You’re not allowed to bypass the electrical company and hook yourself up to the grid.
          Most places these days have outlawed hacking into computers and stealing information.
          There are laws in place regulating aspects of encryption.
          Fire (the first technology?) is regulated

          Most any technology you can think of has some kind of regulation in place. Laws are not written at the mercy of technology, laws are written to define the limts of what the allowable use of a technology is.
          What world do you live in where this isn’t the case?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Cars aren’t allowed to drive as fast as they can.You’re not allowed to randomly transmit anything on just any radio frequency.
          You’re not allowed to bypass the electrical company and hook yourself up to the grid.
          Most places these days have outlawed hacking into computers and stealing information.”

          And yet speeding is so endemic even asking people on a highway to abide by a steady 60 mph is futile. In reality, everyone follows the traffic flow, ignoring whatever the law states. That there is a law about this at all, the same way there is for any of your other examples is because the result of violation are life and limb, intrusion, burglary or theft.

          Your example on encryption is just…bad. To date there is only one nation in the western world limiting encryption and that one in flagrant violation of both common sense and civil rights.

          In short, your comparisons lack relevance. Especially given that technology forced all previously existing laws to change.

          “Laws are not written at the mercy of technology, laws are written to define the limts of what the allowable use of a technology is.”

          When technology changes, so does law. And when the law changes in order to “limit” the use of technology impacts ordinary behavior, the law is ignored until it is changed.

          Shall we get back on track now?

          Certain laws, such as information control (such as copyright) or a ban on encryption, can only work when technological progress is below a certain treshold. Once that treshold is passed, the law must change as it is no longer either sensible nor enforceable within reason.

          “What world do you live in where this isn’t the case?”

          Well, I don’t live in the world described by your straw manning. I DO live in a world where when technology changes to allow natural human behavior to be expressed, the law must follow suit.

        • SoundnuoS

          Still firmly on track.

          Despite people speeding every day, laws on that just remain unchanged. In fact, in the past decades, cameras have been installed on roads to make enforcement of the law easier.

          The printing press is another example of a technology that just never was de-regulated. You’re still not allowed to print someone elses writings without their permission.

          There are few laws banning encryption, but there are laws that state certain circumstances where someone is obliged to give up the key:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law

          Law is written to define acceptable limits on technology.
          And as you point out, some of those laws are written to prevent theft, (i.e to protect the property and rights of others.)

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          That example is well known to me, and it’s why the comparison came easily. :)

        • MightyBlighty

          Also, here in England, the motorway network had no speed limit until The Daily Mail led a ‘public outcry’ over the news that the Shelby-engined AC Cobra had achieved close to 200mph on the M1. Which means the statement “And even after more than a hundred years of cars, we’re still not allowed to drive them as fast as they can go” was not true until legislation was brought in to limit top speeds on the motorway network here to 70mph (which is currently being reconsidered upwards thanks to the advances in technology allowing for greater passenger safety and better handling and braking).

  • PadThai2

    “I saw somebody calling these monopolies today’s economic equivalent of the 16th century slave trade.
    I don’t think that’s particularly far off the mark, to illustrate just
    how harshly I think the future will judge these protectionist
    monopolies.)”

    No offense, but one involves kidnapping people from their homes and using them as unpaid labor. The other involves companies wanting to tell people how to consume products that they had no real role in producing. Comparing the two trivializes the brutality and damage slavery did. It’s almost like comparing the RIAA to the Nazis. Other than that, I agree with the essay though I think that copyrights and patents are byproducts of the current system. They will not disappear until pirating/free culture is seen as a part of a larger fight against capital.

    • http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

      Whereas slavery takes all liberties from a few, copyright takes a few liberties from us all.

      Being arrested and sent to prison for sharing your own culture is pretty much equivalent to kidnapping and unpaid labour – unless you’re a copyright supporter, in which case it’s “justice and re-education”.

      Million dollar fines, extradition, 35 year prison terms, SWAT raids? How harsh do you think copyright persecution needs to become before it ceases to meet your definition of trivial?

      • PadThai2

        A few? Over twelve million people killed because of the Transatlantic Slave Trade alone is not a ‘few’. Do people who pirate software get whipped for doing so? Do they get told that they are genetically inferior for doing so? No one chooses their race (that’s imposed by them by society), but I choose to share. I have no sympathy for the copyright fanatics and their supporters, but comparing it to slavery trivializes the sheer terror and pain that slavery inflicted and still inflicts today. SWAT raids, extradition, 35 year prison terms, and million dollar fines? Those are the result of a state which values the protection of property more than the lives of actual people. That is their real job after all. They routinely do that in the process of fighting the so-called “War on Drugs”. In fact, I’m sure there are some parallels to how that ‘war’ fought compared to the “War on Piracy”.

        • http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

          I have heard it said that there are more descendants of slaves in US prisons doing compulsory/unpaid labour today than there were slaves in its history.

          However, those imprisoned or subject to slavery remain a minority. That there were (or are) therefore relatively few of the population subject to slavery does not trivialise slavery, nor for that matter does ‘few’ trivialise ‘torture’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’.

          That relatively few copyright infringers are singled out for draconian treatment to serve as a lesson to the population at large, does not mean copyright can be trivialised as merely telling people how to ‘consume’ artistic products.

          Copyright is an instrument of injustice, and, yes, if you’re singled out for draconian treatment, it may well mean being kidnapped and imprisoned in a labour camp (by the state, instead of a slaver).

  • sharms

    The days of the middleman are coming to an end. Only a matter of time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gear-Mentation/100003097514663 Gear Mentation

      That’s not just in culture, it’s in materials too. But that’s a long way off.

  • Pingback: Motivar a cada día para luchar contra el monopolio del Derecho de Autor-Rick Falkvinge | Partido Pirata

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    off topic, well, sort of…..it’s like a service sharing files. these files could be lost forever if it was like the old days. film studios and the BBC lost thousands of recordings and video of the greats. well, never again, share the files and keep them alive for the next generation to see, and sod the people who in the past shredded reels and reels of wonderful stuff and still harp on about digital rights and ownership and copyright and lost revenue and site take downs, and infringements and on and on and on

  • Whatever

    “opposition from the powerful.”

    They are only as powerful as an environment in which most agree they have power will allow.

    When you put a fat CEO in the middle of the Sahara with all his money and stocks but without food, water and transportation then no amount of power can save him.

  • http://twitter.com/SKHigginbotham Stephen Higginbotham

    This is exactly why I visit this site every day. No partisan bullshit. We all know that both sides are edging towards tyranny. Great post, Rick.

  • Guest

    As long the current economic system exists copyright monopoly will exist si it should be a right against monetary system (bankers) not copyright (joe bidens).

  • Pingback: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly - Soicalpost

  • 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.