War on Piracy More Important Than Right To Privacy
Written by enigmax on June 04, 2009A Swiss court has ruled that an anti-piracy tracking company can continue monitoring the public on the Internet. The court said that the need to fight illicit file-sharers outweighs the need to protect an individual’s privacy on the Internet, and that the ends justified the means.
In January 2008, infamous anti-piracy tracking outfit Logistep was criticized by the Swiss data protection commissioner for helping to breach the privacy of people on file-sharing networks. Logistep, which track file-sharers all over Europe, was given 30 days to stop collecting further data, or face further action.
It’s taken a while but according to a TSR report the Federal Administrative Court (TAF) has come to a decision, one which sees it overrule the Federal Data Protection commissioner’s decision of 2008.
The court said that the monitoring and data harvesting activities conducted by Logistep raise privacy concerns, since the individuals it monitors have no idea what data is being harvested and stored about them.
However, despite these worries the court decided that privacy concerns are trumped by the needs of the anti-piracy company, noting that a legal basis is not required for them to operate, since they operate exclusively in the private sphere.
The court said that the end justifies the means, since there are few other ways to deal with this type of online piracy. It would not be acceptable to turn a blind eye and allow people engaging in Internet piracy to avoid legal action, it said.
Logistep had (or still has) a partnership with lawyers Davenport Lyons and are currently working with lawyers ACS:Law to monitor and ultimately send threatening letters to alleged file-sharers in the UK. This decision by the court has no bearing on the UK cases, since it refers only to the monitoring of the Swiss public.
The verdict can be challenged within thirty days.
Previously: European Greens Want to Legalize File-Sharing
Next: Government Intranet Packed Full of Warez
134 Responses
what the hell?
bullshit courts
BULLSHIT!
Well! There’s some bribe money well spent!
Shit like this will continue to hit the fan, vote Pirat Party.
Privacy is going down the drain no such thing any more,
Privacy is going down the drain no such thing any more.
the swiss?
another bastion of neutrality and unimpeached privacy has fallen.
They should be spying on groups that are profiting from piracy by selling copies of movies and music in black markets. I believe this is wrong, and absolutely this is stealing and harmful to the music and movie industry.
Ordinary people downloading or sharing content aren’t making a dime off of it. These people are not “stealing” money from the industries. They’re merely sharing it, just like if someone who owns a car lends it to his family member or friends. However, it is illegal and a license is required to rent out their car as a business.
Spying on people is just a form of intimidation and is counterproductive against people causing a backlash against the industries. Some people prefer to try before they buy, and they would be losing this revenue stream. Getting some profit is better than zero.
Spying is better left on those that are perpetuating crimes such as t*rrorists, p*dophiles, etc.
Oh! How is this for timing?
I just got an email from iPredator.se (owned by the guys at TPB) as i signed up for their BETA VPN program… they are now accepting payments to start using their service!
(website still shows the same crappy message tho)
For those of you who didnt sign up for the beta, its 149 Swedish crowns for 3 months (around 15euros).
Honestly, their timing is f++king impeccable!
Cheers!
eZee.se
v good point dairRIAA, this issue is when u share you car the fundimental aspect is you get the car back.
I’m all for downloading as my thoughts are i would simply not pay to see the film so they are not losing out.
The ppl that profit from this should face harsher fines.
oh god oh god oh godgodgod
what a whiny little bunch you all are. If you don’t want your privacy invaded, just stay the hell off bittorrent, there are much better ways to download stuff.
The more they push for stuff like this the more people find out what they are doing and the more people that resist them.
The backlash is growing and they will face the consequences of their actions one day.
Another judge on the payroll?
@7 : Internet piracy is MUCH bigger than physical piracy. “Sharing isn’t stealing” is bullshit. They are exchanging copyrighted material without paying, which is infringement. Period. You are wrong about the profits too. Torrent sites earn massive amounts of money from advertising.
“Spying on people is just a form of intimidation and is counterproductive against people causing a backlash against the industries. Some people prefer to try before they buy, and they would be losing this revenue stream. Getting some profit is better than zero.”
That is not how it works. People don’t get to define what try before buy means, and it certainly doesn’t and will never mean using the full product. People need to understand that they aren’t entitled. If people can get unrestricted access, they un fortunately will not pay for anything, and this is evidently the case as hollywood and the music industry are reporting huge losses. If most people who “shared” also cared and payed for a legit copy, there would be negligible losses. The internet’s anonymity is often abused and trust is always exploited. Piracy thrives on the indulgence of society’s apathy and sympathy.
That said, privacy has limits. Privacy should not empower you to commit crimes. If two people are in their house planning the next crime they will commˆt (say, armed robbery), their privacy should not come at the expense of others. A violation of that privacy is justified because it will benefit the majority.
The courts are giving law enforcement the tools it needs to track down criminals. Pirates can no longer abuse people’s trust. We gave them their privacy and they proceeded to abuse it for the last decade.
They should rename Logistep to Overstep.
In a democracy you vote based on your information. Therefore information must be free.
Hollywood and the music companies add nothing of value to our culture and if they go out of business the world will be a better place.
@neostyles
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? EVERY single person is a potential criminal. EVERY SINGLE ONE! NO EXCEPTIONS! ANYONE could be preparing to commit a crime right now, in this very moment as I write this. By your logic we all have no right to privacy and should be monitored 24/7 because we MIGHT be planning to commit a crime. Brilliant!
I suppose more people will move onto http dowloading.
I suppose more people will move onto http dowloading.
downloading movies, games, apps are a way of life for most of us filesharer so screw their lobbyist and their selfish interest. the rich just want more control of everything so we have less , the poor will stay poor thats the way they like it… how can anyone put up with this capitalist,communist system where the few own everything.
the fat cat would like us all to live in the street by keeping us in a bad spending habit on useless stuff like movies, apps, music. useless because we don’t need it, its not a necessity or important at all. these ppl who make the law on copyright are corrupt, selfish, naive and want to bully anyone who oppose it. they deserve to be spit on by most of us especially homeless ppl. copyrights is bs… a rights is an ownership, its not a rights at all.. this is a war on freedom, a war on the ppl who don’t want to be treated like a farm animal.
@ 14 Neostyles
You seem to forget the corruption that these industries are so infested with..
Your thinking and speaking in theory.. its not a matter of ‘Oh if nobody pirated anything than everything would be fair’.. Quite the opposite in fact, if it weren’t for pirates things would be way worse.
Your logic makes sense, but your blind to the fact that these industries need to change, and forcing people to do it ‘there way’ has never worked for all of history.
People want it there way, it doesnt matter if its wrong or right in your book. A company is nothing without its customers, yet they abuse there customers and treat them like criminals, using money and corruption to force there will.
Over reaching copyrights they made up has caused the problem we have today, but instead of trying to come up with a fair solution that everyone can SOMEWHAT agree on (the extremists never will, but they are few compared to mass amounts of people wanting a product fairly) they choose to make matters worst.
@14
This is well known knowledge (that the RIAA/MPAA would never talk about but) here’s a link for you:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1184533/p2p-users-music-movie-industries-friends
I for one would never have bought the DVD’s that I now own if I had never downloaded them in the first place. The movies that I really liked I ran out and bought. I’ve made the mistake before of believing trailers on Youtube, and running out and buying movies. Big mistake because they turned out to be crap.
This is “Try before you buy”. This is what I want as a consumer. I will only pay for something that is worth buying instead of being tricked in to buying crap and never being able to get my money back.
There are people like me out there that do exactly the same thing. If it wasn’t for filesharing and people like me, the movie industry would’ve profitted zero dollars from people like me.
People like me have lots of money to spend on state of the art computers, flatscreen TV’s, sound systems and leather sofa’s to enjoy our entertainment after we sweat and break our backs 5 days a week, but we hate wasting money on crap, and we hate being labeled criminals just because they say we’re criminals but in reality we are only trying to do what’s fairer for ourselves and rewarding the movie industry when we feel that they deserve to be rewarded.
This is why car dealers let you take a car out for a spin, and it’s up to you if you like the car or not. If you don’t like it you won’t buy it. Now if the car dealers said “well you have to buy the car without at least trying it and you can not get your money back”, no one would buy from them except for the truly foolish.
The present tactics by the movie industry are a major turn off for me. They make me want to download movies forever and never buy another DVD. Their tactics are counterproductive by attempting to control people like me that have money to spend and are willing to spend. I’m not out to harm them and I want to go to movies and spend money, but I have the power to choose to never go to another movie or buy another movie again.
This is all moot anyways. They’re still raking in record profits in box office sales even though the world is going through a very difficult recession, and yet they still want to earn even MORE money when people are losing their jobs, homes and are relying on welfare and food banks.
I hope this makes sense.
“The court said that the end justifies the means, since there are few other ways to deal with this type of online piracy.”
Um, how about legalizing it, as it should be?
“another bastion of neutrality and unimpeached privacy has fallen.”
WTF? They never really were! And certainly aren’t anymore!
They collaborated with Nazi Germans during II World War, making $ with them, sending Jews back.
Tell me, how the f* else would they be the richest country in the world? (per citizen)
Open your eyes. Look how they treat all immigrants and especially ex-Yugoslavian.
Nazi Swiss.
They help the superich to evade there taxes by keeping there bank records private and yet they belive a privite company can breach an indiviuals privacy “for the greater good”.
Winner of the 2009 Inconsistency Awards is the Swiss court system.
@neostyles
Obviously you believe that the interests of the privileged few outweigh the interests of the public. I am now going to pull apart your post and plane the statements that need it most.
“Internet piracy is MUCH bigger than physical piracy.”
Is it? Stealing someone else’s [insert object here] has the immediate effect of depriving them of that object. Copying files has no such effect; the original still has his or her copy. If you claim that I’m stealing from the industry by not buying it, then you’ll have to prove that I would have bought it if I hadn’t downloaded it.
“They are exchanging copyrighted material without paying, which is infringement. Period.”
This is true, but why are you acting like copyright laws are absolute and must be obeyed? The “piracy problem” is clearly demonstrating that enforcing current copyright online is both inefficient and ineffective. Can you understand the concept that the laws need to change?
“You are wrong about the profits too. Torrent sites earn massive amounts of money from advertising.”
[citation needed]
“People don’t get to define what try before buy means, and it certainly doesn’t and will never mean using the full product.”
Sorry, but no business can, nor will it ever be able to, dictate how people live their lives. People define what they want to define and you can’t arbitrarily force such things onto people.
“People need to understand that they aren’t entitled.”
Yawn, more controlling BS.
“If people can get unrestricted access, they un fortunately will not pay for anything, and this is evidently the case as hollywood and the music industry are reporting huge losses.”
There’s a difference between “reporting” and “suffering.” The RIAA and the MPAA are not exactly the most honest or honorable organizations around- look at their lawsuit record.
“If most people who “shared” also cared and payed for a legit copy, there would be negligible losses.”
Funny, because this is, in fact, what happens. I’m amazed that you actually managed to get something right.
“That said, privacy has limits.”
Screw you. No government (and ESPECIALLY not businesses) have any right to dictate how others live their lives. If I deem a law to be just, I will follow it. If I deem a law to be unjust, I will stand my moral ground and fight against it. My own morality comes before any law.
“Privacy should not empower you to commit crimes.”
Copyright infringement is not a crime. Next.
“The courts are giving law enforcement the tools it needs to track down criminals.”
Which makes me wonder why they’re targeting teenagers in their bedrooms. Instead of, you know, going after kidnappers, rapists, scammers, killers, corrupt politicians, and anyone who actually presents a threat to anyone else. Show me a news article that proves (not just says) that Internet piracy is linked to an actual, harmful crime, and I’ll reconsider my standpoint.
“Pirates can no longer abuse people’s trust.”
Whose trust is being abused here? This doesn’t make any sense.
“We gave them their privacy and they proceeded to abuse it for the last decade.”
Nothing is being abused, sorry. People are being people. It is human nature to copy; that’s how we got the advancements we have today. Businesses that attempt to restrict that are doing so wrongly and they need to be ignored.
In retrospect, I probably should have simply ignored your post as well, much as I would ignore the MAFIAA. But I couldn’t take the chance that some young, impressionable child would see your drivel and actually believe it. Young, impressionable children everywhere: FIGHT!
Well, I’m from Switzerland, and for us it isn’t really a problem. The ISPs already received hundreds of thousands mails from the copyrights holders to forward to their customers.
But all the ISPs simply refused and didn’t redirect the mails, because the law forbids it because of privacy.
Anyways, the verdict is fucked up, the judge clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.
Im in the USA I wish I could vote =/ Although the US news agencies stay clear of anything happening in Europe I keep a close eye on these matters. The choices that everyone makes there will be a framework for the rest of the world. Open Source is a perfect example of this. I think the Pirate Party has the right goals in mind. Copyrights on the net will push us back 200 years. Copyright to the net is like education/reading during the dark ages. Don’t let history repeat itself.
I had to throw in my two cents, once and for all…
The purpose of Copyright is to allow the holder of such a *limited* time frame by which they can expect exclusivity to their works. This is the original intent of Copyright, after which the works are to pass into public domain in order to allow furtherance of the applicable industry overall and to avoid stalling innovation.
Original Copyright wording set this limited time frame to around 14 years at most, after which such works would be passed into public domain and fall under fair use.
As Copyright laws exist now, they are counterintuitive and represent the opposite of what the original intent was meant for. 120 years from date of creation or 95 years is a far cry from allowing innovation and public domain to take over.
What Bittorrent and such file sharing systems are providing is a method by which to circumvent counterintuitive copyright laws which have been manipulated grossly in favor of corporate interests at the expense of the public which the copyright process was meant to preserve.
Under original intent, Copyright is meant to be a limited time frame, after which such works would fall into public domain. This limitation was put into place solely for the purpose of avoiding persons or entities from creating a single work and benefiting from such into perpetuity, and in many cases benefiting an entity holder well past the lifespan of the original creator.
In short, while you may be entitled to some forms of limited protection with Copyrights of your work, it was meant to give you a time frame by which to benefit as well as produce new works under the looming threat of losing proprietary holdings of your prior works. Thus spurs innovation and continuance of creation of new works.
In the instance which Copyright has been manipulated today, such looming threat of proprietary loss no long exists, and as such there exists no reason to continue innovating if one can collect on proprietary rights for their entire lives or beyond.
The only time there exists a reason to produce more works today is if the prior works no longer produce the intended income as enjoyed originally. Hence we see bands such as AC/DC coming out of the woodwork to produce a new album. The back catalog no longer was producing enough money, thanks to “piracy”.
Bittorrent in this aspect is enforcing the Copyright Law as it were originally intended, and producing the same results as the original intentions of the Copyright Law. By forcing works into public domain in complete disregard for the copyright laws as they exist today, and in favor of how it was originally worded and for the same reasons.
In the end, I see no problem with Piracy as it exists today. Yes it is “illegal”, but the laws themselves which are cited do not accurately represent the will of the public majority, worldwide. As far as I am concerned, any law which fails to uphold the will of the majority should be stricken from law and rewritten to represent the will of the majority. That is what it means to uphold a Democratic institution, in that the will of the majority is law.
Piracy today is this generation’s version of Prohibition. A worldwide defiance of a law or laws which do not reflect the will of the majority, and as we now know, Prohibition – no matter how much money or influence was pressured to uphold it by individuals, did not outweigh the interest of the majority which opposed it.
To be a digital pirate in this day and age is merely to participate in the worldwide civil disobedience and disagreement with a law or set of laws which no longer represent the will of the majority.
And for that, I gladly and openly choose the side of a democratic process, or in this day and age, our Mobocracy – a true and unfiltered Democracy of the Masses.
So yes, the Music and Movie industries are losing money to Piracy. That is the entire point of this worldwide civil disobedience. As a majority, we’re settling the issue with our wallets and with a worldwide revolt. The masses are the ones who make the laws, not the powerful individuals.
Case closed, and no court in any country will ever overrule the majority. They just think they do.
Okay…here’s my take on this.
A court has just said that it is okay for a COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE (I think that’s what Logistep is, if it isn’t please correct me) to spy on hundreds of thousands of people, to catch copyright infringers.
“noting that a legal basis is not required for them to operate, since they operate exclusively in the private sphere”. So if someone spies on me, breaking the law and my right to privacy, its okay if they’re a business.
“There are few other ways”. Sounds to me as if the courts are contemplating shutting down the internet.
I hereby urge all Swiss people on this site to challenge this law. Commercial interests should not be allowed to spy on people. There was a big uproar recently in Ireland and the UK over a market research company that was willing to record net-users browsing habits: there were secret trials done that noone had the option of backing out of.
Just in case I get flamers from people who say “Oooh…pirates hurt the entertainment industry” heres a few points.
1. The entertainment industry has not and most likely will not have any losses any time soon. Consider oh…the Dark Knight. Grossed over 1 billion dollars. That’s one movie. Despite record levels of downloads.
2. There is a true case of people “trying before buying”. I downloaded the Sims 3 that leaked a few weeks ago. Alright, it was a beta, but it did the trick. I preordered it at my nearest Gamestop AFTER I downloaded it and tried it. Hmmm…makes me think that EA leaked the game on purpose.
3. I have two 1TB hard-drives. One is for games, and the other is for movies. Both are nearly full. I share with a select group of a few people, and do not sell anything I have copied. I have copied mostly everything I have on disc, for personal backup. Roughly half of each is pure download, some mainly because I couldn’t get it legally (e.g. shows that aren’t on DVD anymore e.g. a CGI cartoon called Shadow Raiders. Anyone know where I can get DVD 1 of that, the first twelve shows?).
4. I have a HUGE collection of legally purchased media. One of my bedroom walls is completely filled with games and movies. I have quite a few boxsets…Heroes, Evangelion, Smallville to name a few. At the same time, I do download. I prefer Rapidshare and the like. I think it better to pay for the right to download off their site, at fast speeds, rather than for each individual thing. Sounds like something the entertainment industry should try. I would go for them if they did do it. continued
And lastly, all I have heard recently is that anti-piracy groups want to bring “copyright infringers” to court.
1. They do not attempt to change themselves or their business model.
2. They winge about having massive losses due to piracy, when in fact 2008 was recorded as the best year in terms of profits yet.
3. They bully and harass customers and potential customers. Gatecrashing weddings, taking charities to court.
4. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but true pirates, those who sell pirated DVD’s on the street, haven’t really been targeted by the industry.
5. Let’s take a historical example. E.g. the introduction of the motor vehicle. Before the car, most people travelled by train or by horse over land. When more and more people turned to cars, did the train and horse owners bring in draconian laws, to force people to use their service? Did they bring people to court over it? So why is the entertainment industry allowed to do it?
Sorry for the long post, but I had to get my point across. Thanks if you read all the way to the bottom.
Wolfy
One last thing to mention to anti-pirate lobbyists.
You whinge about pirates causing losses to the industry, of destroying your industry and destroying jobs and destroying progress. Let’s take a look at what you have done.
You gatecrash weddings. You demand money from charities. You use inefficient and often incorrect forms of evidence gathering to charge grannies, elderly couples, teenagers etc. You use extortion tactics “Pay us 500 pounds, or we will take you to court”. The last time I checked, the Mafia asked for protection money in a similar manner.
You deliberately gather evidence in a way that is difficult for the defendant to refute e.g. I have heard Davenport Lyons letters say the infringement occurred a year before the letter was sent! And even recently, there were court cases where you said the other side didn’t have to say anything i.e. you said they were automatically guilty. If YOU BELIEVE SO STRONGLY IN PEOPLE OBEYING THE LAW, THEN OBEY IT YOURSELVES!!!!!
Hahahaaa, we the all seeing eye at the top of the pyramid, are slowly assimilating all the power and control we can get to be as close to god-like as possible. Power is our drug of choice and we want MORE MORE MORE!
As we know all crime ultimately starts as a decision in the mind, and is more likely to be committed by people with certain genes, we are fighting crime at the genetic and cognitive level.
We follow your browsing habits and are mapping your thought processes from the data gathered.
The internet is already like an extension of your brain, a vast pool of knowledge you can tap into at any time; it is our bridge to total domination of your mind.
Soon we will be monitoring your every thought through downloads from your brain.
Everyone has the potential to commit crime and therefore EVERYONE MUST BE MONITORED AT ALL TIMES.
So, our data tells us you are reading books on anarchy and not the government sponsored Religion… you are expressing opinions which advocate scepticism…
…Well we may just have to silence you before you corrupt the system.
You are all dogs and must be muzzled.
@22 (dairRIAA)
You’re a fucking douche.
Picture this…two competing shops open up.
One sells a product. The customer can sample it and the customer can do what they wish with it after they buy it. The shop places no restriction the product whatsoever. The customers enjoy the product, shares it with friends, and everyone loves the product so much that they go out and buy the product for themselves, and the cycle of consumer pleasure and company profit cycles and everyone is happy.
The other shop sells a competing product. The store tells the customer you can not sample it, you must buy it, if you don’t like the product you can never get your money back, you can not do anything at all with it except use it yourself, the store is only renting it’s enjoyment to you and that you never actually truly get to own your enjoyment of it, and that if you fail to agree with all of the above you are instantly a criminal and can be sued for everything that you’re worth. The store will also monitor you and spy on you and your family to make absolutely sure that you comply with every rule that they lay out, and the store will also even bribe politicians and corporations to make absolutely sure that you can be harassed and punished by the law if you fail to comply with the store, and that you can be harassed, sued and punished whether or not anyone can prove that you violated the rules that they lay out. You are guilty, and there is no “until proven innocent”. In addition, the shop can also place blame on everyone and spread lies about how everyone is victimizing them and robbing from them just because no one wants to abide by the rules that they’ve dictated. The shop then tries to take over the neighbourhood and tries to enslave it and create a fascist state. Throughout the entire time the shop owner is keeping 97% of the profits, is becoming very fat, richer, powerful and greedy all the while paying it’s employees and factory workers as little as possible saying that it’s the consumers fault for not buying their product and the employees of the company are suffering.
Gee, I wonder which shop I’d choose to go to? I wonder which business is going to last longer?
its amazing that government.. with all its problems.. even gives 2 shits about SHARING F*CKING FILES..
meanwhile.. a woman was raped in broad daylight.. gangs rob yet another store.. and terrorists laugh in there face after yet another attack..
ohh but.. lets all help out the multi-billion dollar industry that has absolutely nothing to do with real problems..
f*cking ridiculous..
@neostyles,
You are an idiot, a liar and a fascist…
BTW; are you the same compulsive liar and entertainment industry troll called ‘reasoned mind’?
You sounds so stupid and corrupt as him.
I see some consistent errors in a lot of posters statements, so here are the real facts regarding current copyright law:
Copyrights last the life of the author, plus 70 years…
…unless they are owned by a corporation, in which case they last 95 years if published, and 125 years if unpublished.
The now defunct Copyright Act of 1909 still applies to some works and its limitations include:
Fourteen years protection, renewable for another 14 years.
Authors have to bare copyright notice on their works otherwise they lose their rights.
Architecture was not protected, neither were recordings.
***
On a side note, perhaps TorrentFreak should write an article covering the legal protections of copyright to better inform their readers.
Picture this…two competing shops open up years later.
The first shop is still selling it’s product. Customers are still buying their product, but profits are down because of strong handed and hurtful tactics of the second shop. It is barely making enough to survive.
The competing shop has managed to threaten, scare and sue so much of it’s customers that they all fall in to line in full compliance. The customers are now in full control, and the store tells them what they can not do, and the customers even begin to parrot all of the lies that are spun up to control them. The company president is so happy that everything is exactly the way he wants it. He gets richer, fatter and now controls everything so that he can enslave everyone, and even force profits from people that had nothing to do with their profits.
However, the president of the company is not completely happy. He wants to become even more fatter, and doesn’t like his competition because it means the other company is stealing from his profits.
What can he do? He decides to buy the first company. There we have it. He now owns and controls everything including all the customers and their money.
What does the future hold? Let’s see. Thanks to technology, it becomes possible for everyone to get pleasure from the product that this ultracorporation offers. No one, not even the bribed judges and politicians can stop it. Not even the threats of imprisonment can stop people from enjoying the product.
The fat and greedy president of the ultracorporation is noticing his sales are going down. He’s so used to doing things a certain way and always having his way that he resorts to his old tactics to try to stop everything. He lies, bribes, sues, threatens, but nothing seems to be working.
The new world is over the horizon. The president of the ultracorporation can’t do a thing about the way things are changing. He can not evolve, he can not change the way he thinks, he loses money and starts to lose weight. Awww…so very sad isn’t it?
Well, the previous owner of company one opens up a new shop selling a completely brand new shop and using his previous business model he starts getting new customers, and the cycle of pleasure and profits repeat for him
The president of the ultracorporation has become so fat that he can’t even get out of bed. He lay their dying, his arteries start becoming more and more clogged, he’s all sweaty, and smelly, and his trillions of dollars are just keeping him artificially alive and prolonging his misery.
Alas, his misery is going to end someday. The ultracorporation is doomed to go down, because the original business man had a great idea and is still around today and is flourishing.
The end…maybe.
@33
Excellent Post Mate, Excellent! :)
@Trollstyles
“Sharing isn’t stealing” is bullshit. They are exchanging copyrighted material without paying, which is infringement. Period.”
Hahahahah.
Filesharing is stealing! Oh, wait… No, it’s copyright infringement!
Your comments are embarassing enough already, but now you can’t even write two sentences without contradicting yourself?
I think it’s high time to hang up your hat and turn in the ‘ole troll badge.
@Trollstyles
“You are wrong about the profits too. Torrent sites earn massive amounts of money from advertising.”
Oh yeah? So why don’t you prove it?
…Oh, I forgot. You’re lying. So you can’t prove it. I’m sorry, that was a very unfair question :(
I’m almost waiting to see what happens in the very end. ;)
Oooh…I love cliffhangers!
BIRN TEM! BURRRRRN TEEEEM!!!
When I was younger I used to go to my friends house and record his records on to cassette tape. EVERYONE did this.. everyone!
The percentage of people who download music is less than the percentage of people that recorded records to cassette.
I have no proof of this, its entirely an opinion but.. I wonder how far off I am.
The point is, how is downloading music for personal use any different than recording records to cassette. If its the same then why we’re artists or AA’s crying about it then. We’re they happy with their profits.
who knows.
I know.. the artists and the AA’s were also recording records to cassettes.. Aaaahhh..
Pirate Party FTW!
Jailtime for corrupt judges, police and politicians!
ya trollstyles time to turn it in. theres no room here for trolls. sharing is not stealing. commericial piracy is. end of story.
it what it is rip uncle jhon
Sounds like the US. Though its never been put so bluntly.
Basically Corporations have more right than individuals…
Hell in a handbasket… At least the US wont be the only ones there.
Swiss courts are now part of the cancer.
@11 – americans_are_fat_and_stupid
You’re an idiot.
@14 – neostyles.
You’re an idiot. I deserve to have my rights invaded because of what I download for MYSELF only? I should allow any government to tap my phone, internet, or walk through my door as they please? Get the hell out of here. If they very well did it to you you’d go ball shit over it. Acting like downloading is a crime. Music industry is not needed, and if they believe they are, they don’t need to make what ridiculous amounts they do from other peoples work. You busted ass for an album, you deserve every dime. The same goes for anything you contribute towards.
So many people against file-sharing, since when did sharing entertainment bring harm to someone? Get the hell out of here. There’s a whole lot of other shit in life going on right now that is far worse than someone downloading entertainment for him or herself. I realized long ago that the industry wants to monitor and control the distribution of entertainment, but they act like they built all forms of entertainment.
I can’t imagine how much the value in music and movies I’ve downloaded in the past 10 years would be worth. Probably more than that Spanish dude that made headlines but there are people sharing far worse than us. I’ll never give a dime back to the industry for the shit that came on discs or for the crap movies that are released every week to the big screen.
I’ve realized how many better artists there are in music. I’m not wasting money on a disc for a song. Would you pay $10-$20 for a song you enjoyed while the rest was complete ass? No, not one person would so don’t try slinging your shit on here. I’ve touched better work in open source software than what people offer for a cost. I’ve seen better movies that unknown people did than what’s put on the big screen. All thanks to p2p networking and people that share quality, legit, amazing entertainment. I thank everyone that continues to support entertainment to one other. Not everything you may want to hear, watch, or play is available for a cost. This is why so many to turn to the internet because the industry will not release old entertainment for a group of people. Instead, it makes more sense to release newer material to the mass. Anyone against piracy needs to pull their head from their ass and get real with themselves.
Thank you bittorrent, usenet, and IRC! I appreciate the innovate ideas that went behind code software, the hardware to burn my entertainment, and those who create quality entertainment!
FFS courts..
Piracy is a problem that needs sorting out but they are going about it all wrong
I like downloading but ultimately it is stealing
@14: i fully support neostyles, he’s right in the most, the piracy is ugly and dirty thing, that’s why we’re here to make it squeaky clean and legal.
BTW what’s the weather there on Mars today, neostyles ?
privacy is more important! ppl r not dying or anything close :\
ffs
Sure, and I might murder someone tomorrow. No, really. It’s very possible. In fact, I’m going to tell you all that I plan to do it. I’m also going to tell you all that that is a blatant lie, and I plan to never even come close to murdering someone if I can avoid it.
Also, I’m downloading something right now. Toodles.
Two words.
Retroshare
GNUNet
privacy is definitely more important. I’m just sick of people trying to dictate things. What is wrong to someone is not so wrong to others, get it # 14? The world is not a place for people just like you. This kind of behavior and that of the industry is the same. They are afraid of something different, they are babies themselves because entrepeneurship sounds like its too much for them. I want the day to come quickly. The day in which the industries and horrible corporations are held ACCOUNTABLE for their CORRUPT actions and for the actions that are not justifiable. So whats next? This court said its ok so they’re going to do it all over Europe and soon to all of north, central and south America?
Absolutely absurd… internet serves the people, not businesses!
Yay. Finally!
I can monitor their illegal outfits. How else would I know if they’re downloading something illegal?
DIE LOGISTEP DIE YARRRRR
Pirates deserve no rights or privacy. You have abused the system to point where it’s completely out of control and it has become nothing short of a massive crime spree.
@61
I completely agree with you. Let’s spy on children shall we?
there has never been such a thing as privacy. never has, never will. privacy is nothing more then a well fabricated lie, fed to general public.
freedom without restraint is anarchy.
Copyright without limits is bankruptcy
Copyright without limits is:
- Invasion of privacy.
- Monopoly.
- Reduced income.
- Unfair exploitation of a venue.
- Extortion.
- The end of free speech.
- The end of privacy.
- Corporation welfare.
- Theft of the cultural heritage of humanity.
- less arts and science being done.
- unnatural and counter intuitive.
- abhorrent to the people and cultural values.
- validation of a system that subverted capitalism.
- anti competitive.
- anti democratic.
- a squeeze on peoples rights and income.
Ppl will always “share”, means non-aggressively apprehend someone’s “copyrighted” material for their own use. Ppl sick and jealous of celebrities salaries while hardly making ends meet, in their own ethical protest, or just bc they can safely drug it.
For instance, try to learn Adobe Illustrator in 30 days(trial) if you have no viable income and then apply for a job when company ask for 3 years of experience minimum.
everyone knows that majority celebrities and movie makers are spoiled and overpaid. So I have no hesitation to lightly equalize my position.
Anyone worry about their copyright? Make it unbreakable or useless. Make it not so money-driven eager but share to public. Stupid fokkers writing damn books about their feeling for a dog with broken leg and crying for protection of their “precious” crown jewel…
Song writers? Are they making money or just express their feelings? O-oh, they feel upset? Then stop forking write for money and do tires. Go and write for ur own pleasure for Rusty Shmeisser’s sake, how about that?
“freedom without restraint is anarchy.”
Freedom *with* restraint is an oxymoronic fallacy.
Copyright without limits is:
- a barrier to progress and creativity.
- the foundations for real war.
- a drag on peoples taxes that are used to guard such virtual rules that need intense care and resources to be maintained.
- unenforceable and out of reach.
- a fertile terrain for greed and real criminals.
- produce anger in society and make a lot of people seem like they were raised by rats with all this cursing going around. Please people be civil it looks bad when you call somebody names even if he has and different opinion.
- a threat to open knowledge and exchange that is necessary for new ideas to come.
- a threat to other business that depend on open knowledge to produce real physical property(think Ford).
- a threat to the betterment of society reducing its pace.
So until copyright is balanced again with society’s needs piracy is the only option left for the people to circumvent the unjust and greedy people who thought they could pull a fast one on the world.
@51 : It’s just not yourself. That’s the fundamental flaw of the pirate mindset. It’s based on the idea that everything revolves around you. People who pirate don’t deserve privacy because they only use that privacy as an excuses to evade the law.
It’s not just entertainment. This reveals yet another part of the pirate mindset. “All the copyrighted things are making me happy so it’s OK that im not paying for them.” It’s not just “entertainment” or “information” (these both just BS codewords.) It’s someone else’s work that they have legal ownership of. True there is alot of other stuff going on, but it isn’t too hard to imagine that rampant torrent piracy might actually be a fairly substantial part of the current economic hole we’re in.
The fact that you never paid a dime for anything just goes to show how selfish you are.
If you don’t like CD, then don’t get it? Is it really that hard? Why do you talk about how the industry is putting out so much crap but at the same time affirm how much stuff you’ve stolen from them?
??????????????????????????
@41 : Copyright infringement does involve stealing in this case. Please do some reading up on the following :
-Copyright/copyright infringement (as a legal concept)
-The Berne convention
As for the second part, here is the proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uENqtT5AP_w
There is no way that a site as popular as the pirate bay is not making that much money.
“When did filesharing harm anyone”? Are you serious? Think about all the people who work in the movie industry that, along with the hard economic times, are now loosing money, because you think you are entitled to everything you see.
??????????????????????????
@31 :
1) That’s like saying a store should change it’s business model when people start to shop lift. Give me one good reason why they are the ones who should change. This is utter bullshit. A bunch of people think it’s ok to steal their stuff and they are the ones who should change? THEY?
2) That doesn’t say anything about actual profits and is thus meaningless. Especially when you consider the massive effect piracy is having on every imaginable entertainment industry (multi billion dollar losses.)
3) Someone who thinks they are entitled to take what they please and not pay for anything is by no means a customer. More like someone who chokes others with their own good will.
4) The scale of internet piracy is huge. It’s estimated that half the traffic on the internet is due to piracy. So please, don’t tell me that there are hundreds of millions of street vendors. Plus, internet piracy is much easier to shut down because of it’s centralized nature. The pirate bay thinks it can do whatever it wants? Get a court order to can it.
5) That is legitimate competition. That’s kind of like saying that the bank should have “adapted” to train robbers.
??????????????????????????
@39: You’re over complicating what is really a very simple moral issue. People think they are entitled to not pay for anything. Period. The internet provided people with a way to do things that people thought no one could no about. Turns out they were wrong.
??????????????????????????
@37 : Sounds like someone doesn’t like being told that they have to pay for their stuff. :(
??????????????????????????
@ 26: It’s not about a privileged few. It’s about laws that were put into place to protect people and their work. It isn’t fair for people who pay for Movies and games (because they like) either. Piracy is awfully pretensive in this regard because it pretends that people who particulate in it are “better” than those who pay for their things (like you are damn well supposed to) and the law doesn’t appy to them. I also believe the the industry stand on two very different grounds and for that reason, the “few vs the many” analogy doesn’t work here. If that were really true, then we could just say that consumers in general are the “majority” and business owners of any type (grocery, donut shops, etc) are the minority and thus people shouldn’t have to pay for anything. The entire economy would cease to exist. Just because piracy is digital, doesn’t mean, that is completely cut off from the real world or that it is ok. It’s effects are VERY tangible.
The answer to your fist part is that digital piracy is a different kind of theft. In the end, whether you are taking the physical product or not, the end result is ultimately that you don’t pay anything back to the company, and that you just make yourself look like a self absorbed brat who thinks the world owes him something.
I’ve said it before, but there is no reason why the industry should be obligated to adapt to a crime that’s being committed against itself. How might the laws be change? A business model that favors stealing? Where the creator gets no profit? Im sorry, the economy would collapse. No viable business model can compete with millions of people who think they are entitled to everything.
“Sorry, but no business can, nor will it ever be able to, dictate how people live their lives. People define what they want to define and you can’t arbitrarily force such things onto people.”
That’s like calling pedophilia an ‘arbitrary’ lifestyle choice. Im sorry, society has rules. The fact that they haven’t been enforced up this point is only a credit to Sweden’s “we don’t care” attitude.”
“Yawn, more controlling BS.”
No more like more laws. By calling it controlling, I can only surmise that you consider piracy to be an element of freedom? Freedom has limits. You can’t break windows or assault people.
“Screw you. No government (and ESPECIALLY not businesses) have any right to dictate how others live their lives. If I deem a law to be just, I will follow it. If I deem a law to be unjust, I will stand my moral ground and fight against it. My own morality comes before any law.”
If laws were optional, society would descend into anarchy and chaos. Laws are an essential foundation of any society.
“Funny, because this is, in fact, what happens. I’m amazed that you actually managed to get something right.”
Uh, you are severely misinformed. Every part of the industry is reporting huge losses every year.
“Copyright infringement is not a crime. Next.”
Wow. I guess when you habitually steal, you actually start to believe that what you are doing is not a crime.
Please read
http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-3-Is-copyright-infringement-a-crime-or-a-civil-matter.html
TPB earns massive revenue from advertising.
Also
http://www.piracyisacrime.org/
There is physical harm like raping and burglary and there is financial harm like piracy
Read
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090512-715192.html
“Whose trust is being abused here? This doesn’t make any sense.”
Society’s trust that people will pay for games and that ISPs needn’t take action against those who they provide internet service for.
“Nothing is being abused, sorry. People are being people. It is human nature to copy; that’s how we got the advancements we have today. Businesses that attempt to restrict that are doing so wrongly and they need to be ignored.”
…Uh, so how about all those people who don’t copy and pay for what they use? Are they somehow a different species of humans? lol, this is ridiculous.
You have provided zero compelling arguments to justify piracy.
@66 : Who said anything about making copyright limitless? How is paying for what you own unreasonable? Explain that.
@ 58 : Says who? So people should be allowed to do whatever they want? Wow.
it is time do stop this invasion of privacy right no. the government should be controlled by the people and not vice versa. people wake up, this
has noting to do with file sharing. they wanna tell
you what to hear and watch, so they can charge you some ridiculous fee’s. its time to take this matter serious. no more invasion’s of our privacy. stop buying overpriced products. then those corporations have to change there politics.
stop this corruption now. be careful who you vote for. demand answers from your political party’s before you vote for them.
@70 Jun 05, 2009 at 05:54 by neostyles
- So renewing copyright terms every time they are going to expire is not infinite copyright?
- Forcing business to pay for you troubles is not a fact? Ask youtube if they are happy that they were compelled to add filters or if ISP will be sued if they don’t prove that they are not helping pirates? The U.S. have a safe harbor provision the rest of the world don’t.
- Enacting laws that effectively cancel fair use and fair dealings are not signs of the end of limitations?
- And the sore point, a law that turns millions into criminals or offenders is a sign of a balanced law that compromises between the needs of the copyright holders and the needs of society?
- Even though there are others sources of income they want all of it and are by the law entitled to it, there are no rights no exceptions being made, laws are so broad that even quoting someone else is unlawful without having paid a license, a picture of the birthday party of your kids is not own by you, you cannot make a poster out of it, if it was not you who took the picture this seems limited in any way to you?
If that is not limitless then you tell me what to call it please.
ps: don’t forget to point out the limits of copyright please?
“- So renewing copyright terms every time they are going to expire is not infinite copyright?”
That’s completely irrelevant and it seems like you’re just trying to take people’s attention off of what really matters. Pirates don’t even respect copyrights that are CLEARLY STILL IN EFFECT.
“- Enacting laws that effectively cancel fair use and fair dealings are not signs of the end of limitations?”
Fair use is quickly gaining popularity as a piracy justification. Seems like somewhere along the line, someone started throwing it around and people were like “yeaahh, it’s perfect.”
Fair use is for factual things like articles and recordings, not for creative works, like movies, games, or applications.
“- And the sore point, a law that turns millions into criminals or offenders is a sign of a balanced law that compromises between the needs of the copyright holders and the needs of society?”
People should be accountable for their actions. Trying to exonerate them by saying “it’s just the internet” or “it’s just sharing lololl” doesn’t work.
The entertainment industry is under no obligation, legal or moral to come to a compromise, because pirates have been unapologetically stealing from them for the last decade. Thieves shouldn’t have the luxury of concessions.
“- Even though there are others sources of income they want all of it and are by the law entitled to it, there are no rights no exceptions being made, laws are so broad that even quoting someone else is unlawful without having paid a license, a picture of the birthday party of your kids is not own by you, you cannot make a poster out of it, if it was not you who took the picture this seems limited in any way to you?”
…No. Please see the definition of copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
@70 Jun 05, 2009 at 05:54 by neostyles
About ownership do you care to explain why should I pay for something that I don’t own and never will own?
- If I own music can I sell it for a profit after buying a CD?
- Can I rent it?
- Can I make a video with it and send the creator packing if he comes asking for money like I would do if Ford did?
- Can I mass produce that music to others because I’m the owner of said music?
I disagree it is relevant because knowledge should return to society to be used by the people and not be guarded by a few. Try to let people outside and they will ignore you and it is happening right now as you obviously have noticed.
Still you didn’t answer the question, do the end of fair use and fair dealings doesn’t mean the end of limitations on copyright?
just for factual? Some countries and laws disagree with you entirely please read “Sony Corp. of America vs. Universal City Studios, Inc.”.
So are the people who are being robbed by self perpetuation of copyright terms, laws that nullify historical rights, lost freedom of speech due to frivoulous litigation, lost of privacy, serious this was the best you can do?
74 Jun 05, 2009 at 07:50 by neostyles
Please I’m still waiting for the limitations of copyright to be explained because I see none. I what supposed to be a compromise, not these new laws being passed that infringe on the liberties of society, not that copyright owners should not have any rights they do and they can profit from it still is not enough they think they need more and that is crazy talk LoL
Well and how would someone know if another person is a pirate?
Well them is fair to say that because there are business man that are thiefs and crooks every busisness man is a crook and a thief and they should have all their communications monitored and have no privacy at all.
All politicians should too.
How does it sounds like to be monitored and have no expectation of privacy at all?
Care to see the theather gross for the most torrented movies?
You be disapointed to know that the gross of the movie industry compared to pre internet is double the size that it once was and is growing, you could please show us some numbers to what you are saying?
Even the postings of the 4 biggests studios on the SEC(United States Securities and Exchange Commission) don’t show that and I’m wondering where did it come from.
Besides, sharing it’s not stealing and technically copyright infringment it’s not stealing is infringment and it’s not criminal, further the internet is more like radio and TV not a physical product so people should not be affraid of listening to anything or watching anything, the IFPI knows that otherwise they wouldn’t refer to the internet as a sample plataform and they even do let people upload free music(MySpace) if they get a cut, so no sharing it’s not stealing it’s sharing and there is nothing anybody can do about unless they wanna criminalize 1 billion internet users around the world copyright should have limits and one of them is that the internet is off limits for copyright holders, they can still profit from live shows, theathers, merchs and others streams of revenue but should not be allowed near the internet for commercial purposes.
Response to neostyles:
_________
1) That’s like saying a store should change it’s business model when people start to shop lift. Give me one good reason why they are the ones who should change. This is utter bullshit. A bunch of people think it’s ok to steal their stuff and they are the ones who should change? THEY?
Not quite, it’s more like saying a shop should change it’s business model when people start to be able to make copies of their products themselves. Say that I see a nice vase in the shop, but I have a machine at home that enables me to make a copy of it myself in under five minutes. Wouldn’t you say that the shop selling the items is really selling something that has lost it’s apparent value?
2) That doesn’t say anything about actual profits and is thus meaningless. Especially when you consider the massive effect piracy is having on every imaginable entertainment industry (multi billion dollar losses.)
Again, you are missing the point here. I would like to see conclusive evidence from you that PIRACY is responsible for losses (and not from a RIAA year-report). There are a large number of other factors that are very likely to be the cause of the problems that the music industry is experiencing now. I say the music industry, because the movies industry is booming with massive profits and the games industry has been growing steadily in the last 10 years. Such factors include the economic mess that has been going on since the Bush years, as well as a severe increase of competition within the entertainment industry itself. Ed. q. the recent rise of the gaming industry. I find it more likely that those are having a major economic effect on your beloved companies than filesharers.
3) Someone who thinks they are entitled to take what they please and not pay for anything is by no means a customer. More like someone who chokes others with their own good will.
Yes I am entitled to take what I please if it is easily available for all. That’s how the world works. If I want to pay for something I’ll do it on my own terms and directly to the artists in question.
4) The scale of internet piracy is huge. It’s estimated that half the traffic on the internet is due to piracy. So please, don’t tell me that there are hundreds of millions of street vendors. Plus, internet piracy is much easier to shut down because of it’s centralized nature. The pirate bay thinks it can do whatever it wants? Get a court order to can it.
I don’t quite see what point you are trying to make.
5) That is legitimate competition. That’s kind of like saying that the bank should have “adapted” to train robbers.
Except in train robberies, money is taken away from the bank. Even an analogy that banks should have “adapted” to fake money creators would be falicit seeing as how filesharing is non-profit in nature.
6) You’re over complicating what is really a very simple moral issue. People think they are entitled to not pay for anything. Period. The internet provided people with a way to do things that people thought no one could no about. Turns out they were wrong.
When something can be freely copied then yes, I should be able to get it for free. Whether or not I want to support artists for their work, now that is another question.
7) Sounds like someone doesn’t like being told that they have to pay for their stuff. :(
Again, I don’t see the argument in this.
8) It’s not about a privileged few. It’s about laws that were put into place to protect people and their work. It isn’t fair for people who pay for Movies and games (because they like) either. Piracy is awfully pretensive in this regard because it pretends that people who particulate in it are “better” than those who pay for their things (like you are damn well supposed to) and the law doesn’t appy to them. I also believe the the industry stand on two very different grounds and for that reason, the “few vs the many” analogy doesn’t work here. If that were really true, then we could just say that consumers in general are the “majority” and business owners of any type (grocery, donut shops, etc) are the minority and thus people shouldn’t have to pay for anything. The entire economy would cease to exist. Just because piracy is digital, doesn’t mean, that is completely cut off from the real world or that it is ok. It’s effects are VERY tangible.
Not quite. I see more support from coorporations to copyright than from artists. Can you explain this? The way I see it, artists are risking only album incomes (even then, most independant bands nowadays can live off their fanbase very well), whilst the ‘industry’ are risking to lose ALL their income. In short, currently the laws are (at least for the majority) not protecting artists and culture, but rather an industry and a corporation.
9) The answer to your fist part is that digital piracy is a different kind of theft. In the end, whether you are taking the physical product or not, the end result is ultimately that you don’t pay anything back to the company, and that you just make yourself look like a self absorbed brat who thinks the world owes him something.
Again, I’m mainly talking about the music industry here as this is the only sector that is actually seeing a large downward trend in sales. I have yet to see the negative effects of piracy on the movie- and games-sector. Take the movie ‘Wolverine’ for example. It leaked on the internet a long time before it was done and was downloaded by a huge amount of people. Fox thought this would ruin the movie at the box office. The movie grossed a whopping $171M. Tell me, where is this 90% loss they predicted? You can’t, because it’s not there. Again we see the falicity of the dogma ‘people who download something will not buy/pay for it’ that has been proposed by many pro-copyright supporters.
10) I’ve said it before, but there is no reason why the industry should be obligated to adapt to a crime that’s being committed against itself. How might the laws be change? A business model that favors stealing? Where the creator gets no profit? Im sorry, the economy would collapse. No viable business model can compete with millions of people who think they are entitled to everything.
There’s no reason why I, together with millions of others, should be obligated to adapt to a crime/distortion that is being comitted agaist society. Laws might be changed by abolishing non-profit copyright (I suggest taking the Creative Commons system as a standard for non-economic activities). A business model should favor innovation, and not a status quo that is protected by greed and demonization of customers. Artists will always get profits, industries might not. And no, the economy would not collapse of the loss of the ‘entertainment industry’. That is just a display of unwarranted self-importance from their part. These companies are so stuck in numbers and business that they forgot what the customer wants. Cheap access to a range of works. I don’t see the difference in profit between a person paying $10,- a month for access to a database of a hundred thousand albums or a person paying $10,- a month for one CD. The entertainment industry had a monopoly on the medium of their work, and now they lost that monopoly. They have to adapt by delivering the content in an innovative and renewed way. A company that is not in touch with it’s userbase, as the static attitude of many of the industry shows, can never survive on it’s own right. But to blame the userbase for that is just plain folly.
And according to some studies a more broad expression of Fair Use could result in more cash and jobs for any economy.
http://www.ccianet.org/artmanager/publish/news/First-Ever_Economic_Study_Calculates_Dollar_Value_of.shtml
So the copyright holders are holding the economy back and because they want to protect their own selfish interests are impeding the creation of more jobs in other areas and more money.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Here’s me thinking I’m safe in Switzerland from these anti-piracy loons.
The Copyright law is outdated and should therefore be revised for the modern times.
Neostyles is a perfect example of over-reacting.
He believes that because some people use the internet to download copyrighted material – everyone should suffer a loss to privacy, including himself.
That would make him one of those ‘if you aren’t doing wrong, you have nothing to worry about’ people. I hate those fucking people, they are the people who create ID cards, extend custody-time for crime-SUSPECTS, install CCTV everywhere and so on.
Now the people get to feel rich for once by downloading what they want and giving a big up yours to the corporate slave-masters.
Neostyles thinks children should be spyed on. FACT.
Thanks for covering that one.
Let’s see how the crap spreads to Switzerland, there’s been quite a couple of shameful stuff going on with the Razorback case already.
instead of getting trolled into rehashing piracy debates, maybe ppl should be more upset about how f’d up this ruling is.. distracted..
There is no justice in Switzerland!
@Neostyles:
“People who pirate don’t deserve privacy because they only use that privacy as an excuses to evade the law.”
I agree with you completely. People who attack ships and steal and/or murder the people on board shouldn’t have privacy. At all.
hittler has a new name logi step.
so the swiss gits have declaired war, considering they think there with in there rights to illegally wiretap other countries.
this is getting beyond a joke swiss law dose not extend across its borders same problem the yanks had.
LOGI STEP MUST BE STOPED.
this snake oil corp was on tv on tuseday on bbc 2 on a program called whos watching you, i will post a link to the iplayer and if you acesess to a uk proxie/internet con you can watch it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ksjd9/Whos_Watching_You_Episode_2/
there we go
shareing is cearing
hell to the haters
may logi step and its surporters burn in hadies
come on swiss sort out these swines
@86 Agree with you there too =]
@87 I currently live in the UK, will check out the link now. Don’t have much else to be doing right now…
Thanks.
“Obviously you believe that the interests of the privileged few outweigh the interests of the public.”
——————-
LOL!
when it comes to the “privileged few’s” OWN property? that they created themselves?
you’re f*cking right it does! does this concept really confuse you?
here’s a nice quote for you: “You can always make a case for the public interest if you are willing to exclude from common equity those whose rights you seek to abridge.”
Copyright is hurting the economy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMuGnFdQ0s
Copyright is itself an abridgement of the public’s rights. it is falsely named because it is not a right. it is a monopoly priviledge granted by the state. copyright was created to serve a purpose, that being to promote creativity. the laws have been twisted by vested interests so that they no longer serve their purpose therefore we should not be obligated to follow them. the fact is that they need to justify the breach of human rights caused by copyrights. and they can’t now that they have twisted it to serve themselves so thoroughly. people know intuitively that copyright is wrong and they disreguard it because they know that they are not doing anything wrong or harmful to anyone else. it is not their “property” it is in fact not “property” at all. even the law recognises that. nothing is being stolen from them, and in infringing copyright the public are simply taking back their human rights.
cool 87 yer guy know if you visit http://po-ru.com/projects/iplayer-downloader/ and look at his projects yer can download (reverse the iplayers XOR). and yer left with a video file in a mov container with h.264 video and acc audio.
whats even more cool is that yer can play it back on a xbox 360 with no transcodeing.
Cheers
@14
“A violation of that privacy is justified because it will benefit the majority.”
Majority is telling : RESPECT OUR PRIVACY
And what about the rights of those who don’t infringe copyright – it seems that the copyright trolls have forgotten that THEY will also be giving up their own privacy!!
To better understand why government must (and generally always will) place coherent civilization and law abidance above personal privacy, IRL or on the network, read and consider ASCAP’s Bill of Rights, The American Society of Composers, Author’s and Publishers. It is brief and to the point.
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
Creators will always feel a proprietary attachment and will always strive for a natural control of everything they create. That’s just in human nature, and this Bill of Rights reflects that.
It’s not in our human nature to pass around what doesn’t belong to us in the first place, or to steal or infringe, or illegally distribute or to ransack the catalog of others, and law and law enforcement will always reflect this, too. The Swiss are correct in this respect and piracy is wrong.
Only pirates work to maintain this “confusion” of natural rights because it gets them free stuff. Pirates with an interest in the truth acknowledge this.
They want more nazi gold, but this time from the **AA’s.
Swiss have ZERO morals, and are corrupt as a people….
On the same logic of swiss court:
why not creating an ANTI-anti-piracy group who spy on peoples working in anti-piracy groups and breach theirs privacy.
the ends justified the means….
lol
OMG the swiss court stole the privacy of the world!
By the way go see “The Hunt For The Gollum” is a free fan film that is very good, don’t pay corporations when you can get stuff for free, kill the greed by not paying them if they want war lets start it with saying “I don’t want to pay YOU!”
@24
Have you ever been to switzerland – i doubt it. Ok i mean i shouldn’t feed the troll but to you I have a message: How in the hell does anything about the banks have to do with the normal citizen of my country. I you had read the books (not only THE one) you would know that most people didn’t even know that the banks make money with the nazis. Besides: Think of one thing: Switzerland is a very small country. How in the hell would we have been able to fight back the germans. We did what we had to do to stay away from the nazis. AND a big thing: I live in Basel and there are a lot of jews here – a lot of my friends are jews – so please, we didn’t send them all back – that is a foolish lie!
For the foreigners, you said that they are treated badly here: I have to say that it is not true. I have a lot of friends coming from different countries and even my girlfriend comes from eastern europe (swiss now).
So I think to say that all people of a country are nazis is the most “naziest” thing anyone can say. And by the way – the word nazi has been used too much in this world – it’s just a ridicoulous thing to say that to someone.
Oh yes about the main topic: Its really going on now here. Rules getting more stricktly than ever – but not only for downloaders. Our parlament just made all laws more strickt. Hmmm… But in some cases it is really necessary – but not in P2P :-(
this ruling is completely outrageous!!! the ends justify the means to spy on people? i dont know how these people can live with themselves while they extort,harass,terrorize kids and grannies who just want a little escapism from reality.
im pretty sure music and movie industries are doing just fine profit wise even with filesharing.
greed and control.
neostyles, is this your full time job? you come across as an epic shill. do you get paid per post or is it hourly?
@98 right on. people who spy on others should be exposed.
Neostyles
I do pay for what I deem appropriate, but a lot of times, you’re right I don’t. Why should I pay to see something on the big screen when it’ll probably end up crap? Sure, we have sneak peaks and what not where we can view a minute or two of the movie, but a lot of times I have seen only the good parts in the review and others where the sneak peak was junk so I paid to see 1 movie but ended up seeing 2 and still enjoyed it (yes I currently pay 2 for 1 movies – not that hard to setup either)! I got sick of the repetitive nature of this so I keep my own green.
The same goes for music, just because a song is released on the radio doesn’t mean the entire album is good. There’s been plenty of CD’s that I purchased that when I listened to the entire disc overall it was garbage. Now you tell me why I should pay for garbage when I can download as I wish and delete just as fast without wasting a penny?
I don’t mind paying for quality entertainment, not at all. It’s a lot of bands that are out there released crap and I got sick of it. I’d rather have what I purchase go DIRECTLY to the artist, not the industry that thrives off others people work and claim it as their own for “copyright.” If anyone is to sue anyone for infringement, it’s the artist. As of late, none are and when the industry does it for the musicians, are these musicians seeing a dime in return? No, as previous articles showed with various artists stating they didn’t. It’s probably bad PR for the artists to sue their fans anyway, such as Metallica way back during Napster times. When I want a musician to continue to make quality music, I’ll give to them my dough directly at concerts where they make the most. They do sell their own CDs too!
How am I supposed to know if a CD is good or not without purchasing it? Long ago before we could download and share entertainment the way we do now. We could not and therefore we had to buy an artists album to listen to it. Waste of cash back then and I refuse to do it now. But, hey, Neostyles, if you by all means enjoy purchasing a CD that you have never heard and find it a waste after you did listen to it, then by all means continue to throw away your cash, or how about you spread it to me? You don’t seem to mind purchasing (wasting imo) your money on distasteful entertainment.
If you honestly, wholeheartedly, believe that piracy has had a “fairly substantial part of the current economic hole” that the world is is, then please do your own research without reading anything related to copyrights, piracy, and the internet, or just remove yourself from the gene pool. :)
Ok, biased judges again.
Oh by the way, everyone should remember there was a court once in the europe and it’s judge was named Roland Freisler.
@70, neostyles:
Real quick before I post anything else, I’ma respond to your links. In regards to this:
http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-3-Is-copyright-infringement-a-crime-or-a-civil-matter.html
“A copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.”
Most downloaders do not use p2p networks to profit. They don’t sell what they download. Those that DO sell what they download ARE criminals and DO deserve prosecution, but your average p2p user does not because he’s not in it for financial gain.
As such, piracy is still not a crime.
In regards to:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090512-715192.html
“…according to an annual study sponsored by the Business Software Alliance.”
Sorry, but I don’t find this study to be trustworthy. One, it’s sponsored by a commercial organization that has a commercial interest in getting people to buy software. Two, the article won’t let me read past the intro, and not even the page source reveals anything further. Three, I bet you that this study uses the “one download is one lost sale” assumption, which is fallacious.
http://www.piracyisacrime.org/
This is an opinionated site. If it were sponsored or hosted by an organization (specifically, a neutral one), it would say so on the site. But all I see are uses of the word “I” which means that this is administered by one person, or a few people, who believe that sharing is wrong. As such it’s not credible.
Also, you still haven’t given proof about TPB’s supposed fortunes gained from advertising.
@97, Reasoned Mind:
I clicked your link and started reading…
“We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.”
I stopped reading right there.
It’s clear that this organization believes in the concept of intellectual property. IP is fallacious. You can’t own ideas. The intellectual products of our civilization are the “property” of all people in the world, to use and benefit from (and when I say benefit, try to imagine it being used in a context that is not financial). No one has the right to use any talents they may have to exploit others.
I urge everyone on here to visit http://www.gnu.org/philosophy and read the articles listed there, especially those in the Copyright section.
“It’s not in our human nature to pass around what doesn’t belong to us in the first place”
But 99% of the time, the people who originally upload the music pay for it. They have paid for it, therefore it belongs to them.
If it belongs to them, why should it be illegal for them to pass it around?
And if it doesn’t belong to them, then what did they pay for when they bought the CDs? They bought them, yet they don’t own them?
They paid for the music, so it is now their property. They should be free to share it with whoever they want.
“Creators will always feel a proprietary attachment and will always strive for a natural control of everything they create.”
And when they sell their creations, they are losing control over it. No sacrifice, no gain. They are sacrificing their control, gaining the money others pay for it.
Or are you telling me that people shouldn’t be allowed to have control of CDs they have bought from the creators? If you bought a car you’d expect to have control over that, yes? You’d expect to be able to sell/lend/give that car to whoever you pleased. Why not with music too?
@70, neostyles,
‘That’s the fundamental flaw of the pirate mindset. It’s based on the idea that everything revolves around you.’
Aw, really?
So what you’re actually saying is that the mindset of the pirate, who wants nothing else then to experience culture, is an egotist for wanting to experience culture.
Oh, did ya figure that one out for ye self?
@neostyles-All I need to say is this.
If that music industry is doing so terrible, show me your figures of profit loss(actual profit loss not estimated figures of what would of been made by pirated material)
Oviously you are sharing the same bed with RIAA I sure hope the sex is good.
Also just so you know, I Pirate material all the time but when I do and find something I love I buy it, there is millions of people who do this, and the fact of the matter is there has been studies showing people who pirate buy more movies.
Do you think the average person has deep pockets? Do you expect us to buy everything?
This isn’t about piracy, its not even about privacy to me, I could really care less about the two.
What this is about is the music industry getting more money then it already deserves.
You ask any professional business man whats the easiest and best way to make a good amount of money, they will say music.
So get off your stupid high horse and realise there is no REAL LOSSES.
and like I said, if somethings good people will buy it, nothing beats the quality,
A pirated movie may have a low quality.
A pirated game- may not offer all features the purchased game would offer(online play, updates ect ect)
Pirated music- is the same MP3 format music is not as good as .wav format so once again this is a quality thing.
People do not want to waste there time with crap. People do not want to buy crap.
The only reason why people like you and RIAA have there panties in a bunch is now, you can make profits from people getting ripped off. which isn’t an issue of stealing, its an issue of realising shit material.
Like 4nd say, an interesting thing to read are Stallman’s articles regarding copyright and intellectual property (actually there is a book which can be downloaded from the FSF’s site, or GNU’s site, I don’t recall right know. Anyway, the book is a compendium of several Stallman’s articles and speeches dealing not only with free software but also with this subject and privacy. Quite interesting).
Another interesting to do would be to stop using the term “intellectual property” because, as Stallman put it, it lumps together copyright, trademarks and patents, which are three completely different things that have almost nothing in common. Also, it serves to put in people’s minds the idea that you can own (”property”) ideas and things that are not material. Really strange when we take into account the fact that copyright is not natural, but an artificial concession made on behalf of the public’s freedom for the future common good.
That means it is not meant to last a long time (certainly it is not meant to last forever). It is only meant to motivate authors (not “creators”, because, as far as my uttermost flexible logic says, only God can create something out of thin air) to come up with more works, so that the public benefits from them (culturally). And with more than 90% of a record’s sales’ profit going into the pockets of the distributors, producers, advertisers, etc (AKA, the industry), I don’t quite see how an author is supposed to feel motivated to keep making songs with such a tiny income.
Another good article to read about this: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
Here in South America things are not that different. I don’t have solid figures (I doubt that such figures would ever show up in a mainstream newspaper over here), but urban knowledge says that from a $20 record sale, the artist only sees $1 (we nowadays have a 3.7->1 parity with the US dollar, so you do the math). It is also urban knowledge that an artist sees much more income from a concert than from record sales.
As such, many bands benefit from “mouth-to-mouth” (it’s an expression we use here to denote that information gets passed from one person to another, generally avoiding any mainstream newspaper/tv/radio station/etc). Actually I remember going to see a rock band a few years ago who managed to completely fill a rather big football stadium (40.000+ people) with only mouth-to-mouth. They never put an ad on any newspaper, nor did they advertise the concert through tv or radio.
And finally, another great thing to do would be to stop using the term piracy, as it was coined originally for people who attacked ships and stole MATERIAL THINGS and killed other people. And yet again, my uttermost flexible logic fails to see how can somebody who shares something that is not material attacks ships, steals material things and kills other people. You can use the term “copyright infringement” if you like, but please, stop using the term piracy/pirate. It is confusing, biased, and is the same thing as calling names and insulting the other party.
And we don’t do that in a democracy don’t we? ;)
start violating the privacy of Logistep employees, in the interest of upholding the law and public morals.
some of the employees might have shady activities that might otherwise go unnoticed because of their right to privacy.
yes, stalk them, violate their precious right, all in retaliation for violating the rights of others
112 ?
Not neccesarily. It simply refers to ownership. This is something which piracey niether understands, recognizes, or respects.
The evidence of losses is abundant. A simple google search would give the results you’re looking for.
piracy losses
Great, and what exactly was this supposed to prove? Do you have some way of keeping tabs on the purchasing habbits of said millions of people? As evidenced, by enormous losses, people aren’t have as ethically minded as you suggest.
Do you realize how absurd this sounds? So just because you don’t have the money for something you want, that means you can just go steal it? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
Well, like it or not, it actually is. You admit to pirating, and as such you’ve forfitted your privacy rights.
Who are you to dictate how much money the music industry deserves? You act like they are your slaves. You’re they’re master and they’re sole purpose is to make you happy.
You are deluding yourself if you think millions of people stealing has no effect on an industry.
As far as I can tell, most are XVID DVD rips. So, no.
Most people don’t care. If you knew anything about the statistics, you would know that game piracy is just as rampant as music piracy and is causing all sorts of things.
»Developers are moving away from the PC or abandoning it all together. Just because a bunch of self absorbed idiots think they are entitled, the PC is getting less and less games, because developers want to stay away from it.
»Worse Support
»The necessitated inclusion of DRM/copy protection.
This is another lie that pirates use to justify themselves. They use this all the time to exonerate themselves while shifting the blame towards those they steal from.
REALITY CHECK. Some of the most pirated things are the good games, movies, etc. Unless, you are an impulse shopper, who just goes out and blindly purchases anything on a whim, you don’t have to worry about spending your money on bad things. It’s not hard to find out what is bad and what is good these days, thanks to something called the internet. So, stop trying to push the whole “it’s their fault, because they’re stuff is bad” load of bullshit.
You have yet to give me one reason why you think you can take what is not yours.
Here you go again, repackaging things. It’s not just “culture” or “freedom.” It’s SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK. It’s INTELLECTUAL PROPETY.
I got a few words for you on this one here (you might remember them) : multi milllion dollar losses. You’re assuming you’re conclusion is correct by removing a critical piece of information from the picture.
You can still be persecuted even if you aren’t making money off of it. It’s called a civil offense. Just because you don’t make money off it, doesn’t mean it makes it okay. You are still taking whats not you’s without paying for it. Answer this : “Can you really not see the moral problem with that?” What.. just tell me what.. Makes you think you are entitled to steal other people’s things?
Wow, that had to be the most clueless thing I have ever read. Yeah, piracy is okay. Copyright is there to just tell people that “hey I made this!”
…..
WRONG. Copyright violation is a crime. People take other people to court over it all the time. Do you know what the Berne Convention is? Hundreds of countries (including those that house people like the pirate bay who claim that their locations renders them immune to the law) signed an agreement in which they pledged to uphold copyright. Everyone country who is part of the World Trade Organisation is part of it and bound by that agreeement.
Honestly, I dont think you have any understanding of the underlying legal framework regarding copyright violation. You know what I think? I think you just don’t like people telling you that you have to pay for things.
…………
Except that they are in no way connected to the software industry or their interests….
Actually, it isn’t. When people download, they cause the company to loose profits. If downloading wasn’t a major problem, why do you think major industries would be making so much of a fuss over it? Because they think it’s fun? Do you honestly think that the music industry and hollywood are putting so much of a commitment into their legal campaign against piracy because they think it’s fun? Or maybe gets them a free vacation?
Opinionated just because it disagrees with you? Everything and everyone is opinionated. The pirate bay is opinionated too because they think that “OOOhhh I dont care, makes it okay to steal things.” What do you know about that site?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_piracy
Do you really think that the movie and music industry would place their faith in the copyright system if it had no legal support? Piracy IS a crime, and you CAN be prosecuted for it.
“Amendments to the 1976 Copyright Act
With the passage of the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), US copyright law was changed to allow for the civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission that did not result in personal financial gain; historically, the criminal copyright law required infringement to be for financial gain. Among other things, the NET Act altered the definition of financial gain to include bartering and trading. In addition, under this US law, members of software piracy groups could also be prosecuted for participation in a criminal enterprise.”
Wow! For years I thought my shitty government (USA) would be the first to do this kinda crap. I have a better idea, How about our governments do the right thing for once and hold these companies liable for the damage they inflict on society through the peddling of their product. The glorified killing, drug use, gang banging, teen pregnancy, domestic and other violence, rape, etc. present in the products they peddle tends to have a negative influence on society,particularly youth, and this costs taxpayers billions a year to deal with! Accountability should go both ways here.
Did you just blame the recording/movie industry for drugs and teen pregnancies? Wow, blame shifting has truly reached an all time low.
This reminds me of the old argument of the ice man. He was pretty mad about the introduction of freezers. Or how about the man who erected washing lines when tumble dryer’s came.
The fact is thing’s come and go, music and art have been around long before copyright and will continue after. These snake oil lies spread about by the extremist church of imaginary property. There are now much better meathead for distributing content on a scale which is relativity cost free.
Copyright no longer stands for what its meant for, rather a despicable act used to protected the extremist who would rather see no progress at all, all in the name of the business model.
And for that reason (abuse) it dose not deserve our respect. Humans copy each other it’s a basic right and a key part to life. Copyrighting free culture is wrong ifpi bpi riaa did not invent free culture neither music they have no right to it.
The death bell has been stuck for distribution business. What these guys are doing is violating humanrights and must be punished for it.
@115 Jun 06, 2009 at 06:36 by neostyles.
I will dictate to the entertaiment industry how much their work will cost and I will do so in an honest way too.
I hereby never will buy a CD, DVD or Blu ray in my life nor will I sign a contract to receive their products in any form, from this day on I will search and acquire only music that is in the public domain, opensourced or with a license that says it will never deter me from broadcasting it in public or in private, sharing it, copying it or using it in my personal projects, the same I will do with any other media. You see I don’t need to “buy” which is a misnomer because you don’t buy property apparently when you talk about imaginary property.
Stop me if you can now LoL
The thing is, File Sharing or Piracy is what updates people to the new stuff.
P2P creates connections, it broadens local limitations. It is not inherent only in the US and UK but worldwide.
Piracy pursues International Recognition.
Entertainment industry gains supporters through P2P.
Piracy segregates the excellent from the average productions. (A little bit harsh but that’s how you it technically works.)
Piracy creates awareness. Movie and Music Ideas are improved through many comments and suggestions, how is that possible? Because Piracy reaches millions of people whose majority decides what is popular and what is not. What Qualities decide what is the best music. Sort of Like an MTV Top 10 but with more participants.
The Entertainment Industry has obviously benefited from Piracy.
Guess not through Money but Quality.
It is therefore their chance to innovate.
To all who are against P2P because of the “loss of money” they “suffer”. I just have to say: Stop making music if you do it for the money! Stop making films if its for the money! Look for a job and stop trying to rip people off with something that should come from your heart to enjoy people!
Thanx!!!
@Neostyles
You have selectively ignored 90% of my previous post, which leads me to the conclussion that you have no arguments whatsoever against it, ergo you agree with it, thanks :). So, since you agree with the rest of my post, please avoid using the term piracy, or we’ll just have to start calling anti-piracy people “biased pigs”.
So, let’s talk about what you seem to disagree with.
Intellectual property is not an actual term, nor even is it considered by law. Law, correctly, takes into account copyright, trademarks and patents separately, and each has its own law. It doesn’t matter how many organizations exist which have that term in their name, it is completely subjective and intended to be imposed on the public to change the way they think.
But since you probably don’t understand this, I’ll just explain it to you:
The correct term to use would be, in this case, copyright. This term identifies more or less quite accurately the subject in question (although this is arguable in many cases, but for the sake of conversation I will ignore them). The idea it gives to people is, more or less, the idea at stake here.
By using the term intellectual property, you are trying to impose on the public two (three) things:
1. The fact that EVERYTHING related to it (including musical works) comes from the intellect, aka the mind, brain, whatever. This is simply not true, as most works of arts come originally/mainly from “the heart” (if you would understand such a thing). A musician is an artists, and artists compose a song or write a poem based on what they feel.
2. The fact that such things can be owned Hmmm, interesting. US Constitution doesn’t consider this fact, but instead (as I marked earlier and suppose that you agree with) considers copyright as a temporal artifficial concession (which will someday end), put in place only to generate more works so that the public benefits. It never states that ownership is natural to these things (actually, that was proposed when the constutition was first enacted, but that idea was thrown away).
3. The fact that you can steal them (since they are “property”. If you steal, you deprive an owner of something he has. But if you copy a song or album (something you have admitted to do, at least in the past), you are not actually depriving the “original owner” of that which he had. The original owner still has its work. So, where’s the deprivation?
I have personally looked at the ways in which copyright organizations do statistics, and as somebody who has studied statistics, can say that the ways they do it is biased, which leaves them with no effect. And since you are so intent on reaffirming the “losses” the industry has had, I urge you to point us in the right direction by providing us with serious, unbiased statistical studies which show this trend. Thank you :)
Oh, and by the way, who do you think experiences those losses? The artist? The “industry”? The industry is a compendium of companies dedicated to the distribution of music, something quite obsolete today with the availability of digital technology to the regular person (such distribution was needed back in the days where we didn’t have the digital technology level we have today). If you are a businessman, and your business becomes obsolete, the ethical thing to do is to accept it and move on, and not to try to bring everybody down with you.
Oh right, you meant that the artist is the one who experiences the losses. Well, I assure you, for less than 5% their share in record sales in most cases (which, if you had read Courtney Love’s article that I posted earlier, you would know that most times that revenue goes to cover other costs), artists rather prefer that you go to their concerts (which is a completely different experience that I personally enjoy much more than listening to a record).
3. The fact that you can steal them (since they are “property”. If you steal, you deprive an owner of something he has. But if you copy a song or album (something you have admitted to do, at least in the past), you are not actually depriving the “original owner” of that which he had. The original owner still has its work. So, where’s the deprivation?
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Right now and for the next two months I am in switzerland.
It has always been like this. Unlike in america, you cannot win agenst a big company in Switzerland. The company is always right :/
In america you see cases where people sue McDonalds or Publix but that is just not possible here :(
“The original owner still has its work. So, where’s the deprivation?”
Using privacy privilege to mask digital piracy you now possess and enjoy a perfect copy of the work illegally, while the creator is deprived of the compensation he (or she) depends upon, and is morally, ethically and legally entitled to. You break moral and ethical covenants in place through civilization LONG before the concept of corporation ever came into view. And you know and understand this and just don’t care so you dissemble and contort this to be about “freedom of speech” lol or “corporate domination” as long as you can keep finding ways to get their stuff for free.
It’s a pleasure watching the governments and the industries of the world methodically dismantle any real vestige of entitlement to privacy online, and history will lay this extraordinary loss at the feet of those who would trade their freedom and their privacy for a harddrive full of pilfered entertainment. Piracy, at the end of the day, is sophomoric and remarkably stupid. And the consequences serve you right.
Taking away privacy privilege was never an action. It’s a REaction. And the internet loses in the process.
Nicely done.
Idiots.
:-)
Just stop paying for music and movies, don’t go to the theather, buy a ball and go play in the park and wait those thiefs from the industry die of starvation.
Remember every time you buy something from them you are selling your freedoms.
Better buy a dog and name it RIAA and make him fetch your balls for ya LoL
@Reasoned Mind
“You break moral and ethical covenants in place through civilization LONG before the concept of corporation ever came into view.”
Actually I see it as the complete opposite. Copying and sharing has been in society since its very cradle. History is full of examples of copied ideas which succeeded thanks to somebody, but were in fact from somebody else.
It has always happened, and never before has the mess been so big. Of course, if means of communication grow and prosper, it is only logical to think that these things will increase. And personally I don’t see a problem there. Both things come hand in hand. If there was no Internet, but there was a way to connect and communicate from people around the world fast, effectively and cheaply, the same thing would happen.
Either you accept both of them, or accept neither of them.
…Which is probably why ideas aren’t copyrighted, but the way they can be presented can and almost always is.
In order to make this look like an example where copying was beneficial, you might want to give more information about this alleged time when it was..
Just stop paying for music and movies, don’t go to the theather, buy a ball and go play in the park and wait those thiefs from the industry die of starvation.
Piracy never ceases to amuse, that’s for sure. It has this incredibly ironic tendency to reverse roles.
You call hollywood thieves when YOU are the one taking what’s theirs without paying. Just because you are expected to give something back to them (ever heard of paying for things? Probabaly not), you act all incensed, like they are trying to wrong you. Pirates are the ones who anxiously grab everything in site and yet they call hollywood greedy. Pirates are the ones who think that they are the only thing that matters are thus robbing hollywood of billions of dollars every year, yet THEY call hollywood evil.
Oh my gawsh! We steal their things and they aren’t letting it slide??! They R soooo evvilll :(
“You ask any professional business man whats the easiest and best way to make a good amount of money, they will say music.”
——————
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
you. are. an. idiot.
@129
Stealing means taking something that belong to someone else :) Do 0 and 1 belong to Hollywood? So just because some people call this “piracy” and “theft” doesn’t mean it’s just that.
Ohh yeah Hollywood people work hard for the content they release. Ofc someone who really works in a factory to produce things others need to live make 1% or less of what a so called star actor makes for a few weeks of making a movie. Yes it’s indeed hard work, harder than the fuckers that work to fields so ignorants like can read the internet and get sucked up by propaganda.
You buy something you own it. Ok I understand we don’t sell copies of it (that i can understand) but let’s face it you pay for it you can give it to anyone. Or they should only rent things, but let’s see who’ll pay k’s of dollars for something they’ll never have actually.
Music and movie making isn’t even an art these days. It’s all for money, it’s only normal that free sharing of real art work take place, even if in this process this crap hollywood is shared worldwide. If there would really be quality control for movies and music then things would be different. But seen many movies with a great trailer but nothing really to see at the actual movie or so called artists releasing one decent song in one album and rest make your ear drums blow up :(
This isn’t about what they talk at all. They just scared that with the file sharing now documentaries and real art can be easily downloaded by almost anyone. That what scares them, not so called losses than no independent study ever quantified.
F*cked up world we live in. Same people who invade others so they defend freedom and justice now tells the world we all criminals and our freedom is less important then their profits. Way to go forward … to the dark ages :)
Two things -
The quickest and easiest way to make money is real estate.
An example of something that succeeded only because it was pirated – Windows.
“The court said that the end justifies the means”
Cool does that mean its ok to hack the bank accounts of Logistep to keep our privacy.
@128 Godlike
“Actually I see it as the complete opposite. Copying and sharing has been in society since its very cradle. History is full of examples of copied ideas which succeeded thanks to somebody, but were in fact from somebody else.”
Yes, copying and sharing that which is yours to copy or to share. Not the property of someone else. At no time in history has the fundamental covenant of barter or exchange ever been broken like this until now. There is no precedent in business history, not in food, clothing, shelter or any other product or commodity, where the public simply stole it because there was a technical way to achieve possession without paying, then justifying it because “it’s all crap” or “artists don’t deserve to be paid” or “this is a freedom of speech issue” (which is a howler.). The most fundamental agreement of all in an organized culture is always “one party works and creates things we need, another person pays for the things they wish to take from the first party.”
The simple notion of a fair business exchange.
This is not going to change anytime soon. Government and industry will do whatever they need to do to maintain this one-to-one correspondence. Piracy is a momentary online lunacy that will fade with the privacy priviliges that it needs to survive.
And anyone who cannot or chooses not to make the obvious distinction between things you can and should copy and distribute and things that belong to someone else and you may not, is kidding themselves and harming the image of “sharing” and doing irreversible damage to privacy on the internet in the process. Piracy as an attempt to chance the general order of civilization and the quid pro quo of business will inevitably fail, and is remarkably stupid.
10 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.