TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Who’s The Police And Who’s The Crook, Anyway?

The past few years has seen a development that may look like the tables have turned completely with respect for the law. The people who are upholding the law and guaranteeing our fundamental rights are hunted activists. They are defending our law-written rights against none other than law enforcement. Who’s the police these days, anyway, and who’s the crook?

Governments all over the world, and in the so-called Free West in particular, look like confused sheep. They are applauding the net activists who are helping people communicate unhindered to get news out from repressive regimes, and at the same time arresting people who use the same technologies in their own countries.

In the United Kingdom, you can get five years in prison for not revealing a password to an encrypted data set. Even if you have forgotten it. Even if it isn’t an encrypted dataset to begin with, but recorded astronomy noise, which looks just the same. If you can’t produce the documents that law enforcement says are in there, somewhere in the noise, then off to jail you go.

In Sweden, the government has enacted laws that enable wiretapping of all your communications at any time without warrant or notice (the FRA act). In France, the government is trying to send people into social exile for sharing music. Where’s the police here, protecting our rights? We find them in the shape of activists. Governments are slowly discovering that the door to freedom swings both ways.

If net activists are applauded as they help people in corrupt and repressed regimes expose secrets of the government, then those same technologies can and will be used in every country, even the ones who consider themselves good.

Don’t all governments consider themselves good? It’s just the citizens who tend to disagree to a varying level.

This pattern, where activists are seen as lawbreakers for doing what’s right, follows the patterns of history. It happens about every 40 years. 80 years ago, activists were protecting fundamental rights against law enforcement who opened fire on people who protested in the streets instead of being at work.

The activists founded a new political movement — the labor movement, social democratic parties — that rewrote the laws and reshaped law enforcement to police our rights. 40 years ago, activists were protecting our environment against law enforcement who were protecting corporations that polluted way above what was allowed.

The activists were the ones upholding the law and our rights; law enforcement and governments tried to prevent it from happening. In the end, the activism spawned green parties in many countries that reshaped law enforcement to stand on the side of the citizens, and not on the side of polluting corporations.

And here we are today, with a global, unfettered right to communicate, share, observe, and inform. Law enforcement is cracking down on it. Activists are defying law enforcement and giving us tools that guarantee our rights. People have a duty to defy unjust laws.

And until everybody finds the courage to do so, I am grateful and indebted to the activists who police and guarantee our fundamental rights.

— — —

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

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

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • omg

    i totally agree with you there…. now i just hope we see a change soon… because the witch haunting is starting to get old … its time to guarantee our fundamental rights for good!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      Unfortunately, you can never guarantee anything “for good”. But if you never fight for your rights, you won’t notice them when they’re gone. ;)

    • Anonymous

      Hope and change…I’ve heard that before somewhere…

      • Tjscott87

        what a croc that turned out to be

  • Anonymous

    Hey, no problem man :)

    Over time governments get corrupted and too far behind on current problems so they need to be replaced by a new generation.

  • Anonymous

    On soviet Internet, DNS looks up you.

  • Uploader

    Well said my man .. well said

  • I am a sausage not a hotdog

    Again,Rick another great article! I think until we get rid of the globe elitist like the “BILDERBERG GROUP”!!We are doomed they are a group of heartless scum that run our politicians media etc.Unless you all haven’t been paying attention these last few days! Go to infowars.com or just type in bilderberg protest.Yes these scum lord people from across the globe meet once a year.Corporate paid media won’t show this on tv. But it’s great to have alternative media!!! ;)

    • Anonymous

      lol…

    • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

      Totally.

      Hope everyones been keeping an eye on Bilderberg 2011, been the most interesting yet.

      • I am a sausage not a hotdog

        Yep for sure!!

    • Guest

      What did grammar ever do to you? It doesn’t deserve this kind of punishment.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Freeda-Weed/100001728244194 Freeda Weed

        Aren’t you the bright one hey? Your insight insight into this argument is second to none.

        I’m sure the op will rectify it just for you, can’t be seen to err in your well educated presence can we.

        • I am a sausage not a hotdog

          lol, it’s alright let the spell check fag feel good for once. I don’t know exactly what i said or spelled wrong? Nor do i give a shit lmao.Thanks for looking out.

        • Anonymous

          proud to be ignorant? then you must be from the the state of alabama.

        • Guest

          @sausage

          Your spelling was fine, it was your grammar and punctuation that sucked. There were sentence fragments galore and punctuation in places that made no grammatical sense. Twas truly a wonder to behold. I have hardly seen the like since last I looked upon my grade-school cousin.

  • 3digger

    Well said!!!Bravo..

  • Pingback: Who’s The Police And Who’s The Crook, Anyway? | Torrentfreak.com

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UJ4XRIA3A3E6MYGK755EGWLN4Q Dani A

    thank you for that article. Some people forget that weve been here before, every few decades we clash with the old guard and reform our world to fit the new society.

    This is an issue of generations, and it will sort itself out because sooner or later the elders will die off and the new generation will take power.

  • Cracker

    Oh for the sake of god, QUIT BLAMING THE POLICE! The police only act to uphold laws. They have a responsibility to make sure all laws are upheld, including laws that are unpopular. The only laws they are supposed to disregard are the ones that cause active harm to innocent people, and as much as we dislike copyright, it’s not causing any of us active physical, mental or fiscal harm. And before someone says it, having to pay for something is not fiscal harm. Fiscal harm in this context is when something is taken from you or destroyed, like if someone stole something from you.

    Blame the politicians instead of the police. They’re the ones who keep making these atrocious laws. We need to vote the politicians out of office and replace them with people who actually understand the problems of copyright legislation. Blame the people who make the laws, not the ones who enforce them.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      The executive branch (at least in the US) is just as culpable for our out of date views on copyright as the legislative is at being bought out for our rights.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      The executive branch (at least in the US) is just as culpable for our out of date views on copyright as the legislative is at being bought out for our rights.

    • Anonymous

      Being bankrupted and unable to feed yourself and your family is indeed nothing fiscal…

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        Neither moral, psychological and whatever word you can think about.. The police may indeed not be the one to blame in this case but they don’t enforce certain laws when they don’t want to because they [the laws] are moronic.

    • Anonymous

      “Blame the politicians instead of the police.”

      Why? Politicians merely write the laws. The police are the ones who actually act on them.

      Hence, the police can go fuck their fucking selves. I forget the exact wording, but I once read a quote to the effect that “I was only doing my job!” is how evil men dodge the responsibility for their own misdeeds.

      If all the “good people” who were just “doing their jobs” had rejected Hitler’s orders, there never would have been a Nazi Germany. Poor Adolph would’ve been reduced to a very frustrated orator that nobody listened to, a footnote in history.

      The only fucking weapon a politican has is a pen. That’s it. Writing things down on a piece of paper is the full extent of their power. Police, military – they are the ones who go out there and crack skulls, literally and metaphorically, transforming the words of politicians into actions carried out by their hands.

      If I tell you to go shoot someone, then I’m to bame for giving the order. But you are the one to blame for pulling the trigger. It’s not the people that make the laws who have the dirtiest hands, its the people who enforce them.

      • Cracker

        Note: all of the things you cited are examples of laws that do active harm to people. if a policeman is ordered to shoot someone who isn’t an active threat (say, a protester or innocent person), he is being given an order that is causing active harm. Copyright does not cause active harm. It’s annoying and backwards, but it’s not hurting any of us.

        “I forget the exact wording, but I once read a quote to the effect that “I was only doing my job!” is how evil men dodge the responsibility for their own misdeeds”

        Damn straight, but that doesn’t apply here. Copyright is wrong, but it isn’t evil by necessity. It’s a law passed fairly by the legislative system, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. The police have no mandate to disobey laws the dislike, only to disobey laws that are harmful. Copyright laws never lead to someone getting shot in the head. They never lead to someone being able to express their free opinions. Hell, if the police were as bad on this as people claim, there would be no pirate party, torrentfreak, or any tolerance for any site that had any P2P links.

        “It’s not the people that make the laws who have the dirtiest hands, its the people who enforce them. ”

        I really disagree with this. You underestimate the power of authority in influencing the behavior of otherwise good people. Read up on the Milgrim Shock Experiments, then tell me what you think.

        By the way, thanks to the mods for unbanning. Very nice of you.

        • Anonymous

          “Copyright does not cause active harm.”

          How about when the police arrest somebody and/or raid their homes and seize their belonging, all without a warrent, entirely bypassing the legal process? The police aren’t just enforcing copyright laws, they’re breaking other, much more important laws in order to do it.

          “It’s a law passed fairly by the legislative system”

          It was. A long, long time ago. Back when it said that copyrighted works would only be protected for 4 years or less and then enter the public domain, back when it was meant to secure royalties for the author rather than middlemen, back when the punishments for breaking it weren’t ludicrous.

          “and it doesn’t hurt anyone.”

          Uh, hello? Warrentless raids and arrests? Ludicrous punishments? Wholesale theft of the public domain?

          “The police have no mandate to disobey laws”

          They do, it’s called their conscience. Assuming they have one.

          “Hell, if the police were as bad on this as people claim, there would be no pirate party, torrentfreak, or any tolerance for any site that had any P2P links.”

          Any tolerance the authorities had for P2P link sites is rapidly evaporating. Witness ICE’s domain-seizing spree. How long can it be before attempts against Pirate Parties and sites like Torrentfreak are made? Maybe not domain-seizing, but an attempts of some kind. There wouldn’t be a legal basis for it, you say? HA! Like I said, the police have demonstrated they’re willing to break certain other laws to enforce another. I’ll give you one guess as to what grea$es the wheels of justice.

          “You underestimate the power of authority in influencing the behavior of otherwise good people. ”

          Once a person starts mindlessly doing whatever an authority figure tells them to, they’ve forfeit every right to be called a “good person” under any context.

        • Fredrika

          > “However, people don’t have the right to use his work.”

          Society doesn’t work in that order, that people need permission to “use his work”? It works the other way around, people are free to do with it as they wish, until it is specifically forbidden through legitimate legislation. Since the parts of the copyright monopoly that forbids non-profit filesharing, through performing an intrusion into people physical property, is clearly illegitimate, it’s completely ok to fileshare as much as one want’s.

          > “If someone wants to use his product, then he has the right to charge them for the right to use it.”

          No. First, you are confusing rights with privileges, and second, he has no right whatsoever to charge anyone for using anything. The copyright holder holds a monopoly on distribution. That’s not a right to charge

          > “If they don’t like the price, they don’t pay and don’t use the product.”

          No, if they don’t like the price, they don’t buy it from him. Instead it’s fully possible to access the content through other manners. Once you have the content in front of yourself, you don’t need any permission whatsoever to use the product, because again, society doesn’t work in that order, that you need permission to use something to you have in front of you.

          > “In this way..//..but he does have the right to only allow its use to people who pay him what he wants.”

          No, in no way is that what the monopoly within copyright is about. A distribution monopoly is in no way a right to control what people is allowed to use.

          > “If he wants more than people will pay, then they won’t pay and the product will be unused.

          No, society had that debate over a 150 years ago, and society came to the conclusion that people can access and use the content even if they don’t want to buy it, and the rights holder should not be privileged with any control to stand in the way of that.

        • Cracker

          “How about when the police arrest somebody and/or raid their homes and seize their belonging, all without a warrent, entirely bypassing the legal process? The police aren’t just enforcing copyright laws, they’re breaking other, much more important laws in order to do it. ”

          When the police violate laws of legal process, then yes, we should hold them accountable. However, those times are not so common as people believe (although they do happen and we should certainly bring the hammer of justice down upon them when they do).

          “It was. A long, long time ago. Back when it said that copyrighted works would only be protected for 4 years or less and then enter the public domain, back when it was meant to secure royalties for the author rather than middlemen, back when the punishments for breaking it weren’t ludicrous.

          You can’t call the amount of time illegitimate just because you disagree with it. You can call it stupid (fair call), you can call it bad for society (it is), you can say that it needs to be changed (it does), but you can’t call it illegitimate. It is a legitimately passed law. The large punishments are a failing of the judicial and legislative systems, not of the executive, so blaming the police for that would be inaccurate.

          “They do, it’s called their conscience.”

          Laws are a mandate on behavior. They mean nothing without compliance, and disobeying them should not be taken so lightly as to allow disobedience on any matter a person desires. The conscience of a man will reflect his desires, and his desires will not be pure. That is why we say that only directly and actively harmful laws should be disobeyed. A law being stupid or inane is not a reason to disobey.

          Having people obey laws based on their conscience would be great if we assumend that people’s concsiences led them to do good instead of leading them to personal gain. It doesn’t take a whole lot of study to see that a removal of order will lead to evil behavior, not good behavior.

          “Once a person starts mindlessly doing whatever an authority figure tells them to, they’ve forfeit every right to be called a “good person” under any context. ”

          Please read about the experiments I mentioned, or better yet, watch a documentary on them. Then decide that. They changed my mind.

          In short, you’ve talked about police misbehavior. That should be punished whenever we catch it and it is an ongoing problem, but that’s a problem of wider implementation of laws. You haven’t really said why copyright itself is harmful. I’d like to hear that.

        • Anonymous

          @Fredrika

          > “No. First, you are confusing rights with privileges, and second, he has no right whatsoever to charge anyone for using anything. The copyright holder holds a monopoly on distribution. That’s not a right to charge”

          The right in itself may not be explicitly written as “Copyrights holders can charge what they like” But in effect that’s more or less what is saying isn’t it? Because copyright is a right to allow or deny distribution as you said, ie a monopoly. In saying that they can deny any distribution for a price they do not deem fit.

          It is possible the source of the disagreement is on a technicality of the strict legal definition of the term “right”? Because I think when most of us on here talk about rights we’re not adhering to the strict legal definition of it, but more of the layman’s use of the right which is much more broad.

          > “No, if they don’t like the price, they don’t buy it from him. Instead it’s fully possible to access the content through other manners.”

          Does your definition of access include downloading it through torrents?

        • Fredrika

          > “The right in itself may not be explicitly written as “Copyrights holders can charge what they like” But in effect that’s more or less what is saying isn’t it?”

          No, it is not. There’s nothing in copyright that says that a copyright holder has a right to charge consumers for using his work, which was what you claimed.

          > “Because copyright is a right to allow or deny distribution as you said, ie a monopoly. In saying that they can deny any distribution for a price they do not deem fit.”

          No, the monopoly privileges the author with some control over some distribution, not all.

          > “It is possible the source of the disagreement is on a technicality of the strict legal definition of the term “right”? Because I think when most of us on here talk about rights we’re not adhering to the strict legal definition of it, but more of the layman’s use of the right which is much more broad.”

          No, it’s about the term “use”, which you through out over and over again, and every time fully incorrectly.

          But if it was about the term right, in no way would i agree use it in such a grotesque way, that totally reverses the order of how society works, as in as if everything was forbidden, until you had acquired a right to do it.

          The problem is that i’m not interested in trying to guess what others actually mean, and then respond to that. I respond to the words that others themselves chose to write, in the exact way that they are written.

          “Does your definition of access include downloading it through torrents?”

          That is irrelevant to whether your previous claim is correct or not? Try to follow the thread from the beginning. Your original claim was:

          “However, people don’t have the right to use his work. If someone wants to use his product, then he has the right to charge them for the right to use it. If they don’t like the price, they don’t pay and don’t use the product.”

          That is an incorrect claim from beginning to end.

          1) People do need any right to use his work.
          2) The author has no right to charge people for using his work.
          3) Not buying the physical copy the author is trying to sell, does not in an absolute way equal not being able to access or use the intellectual work.

        • Fredrika

          > “The right in itself may not be explicitly written as “Copyrights holders can charge what they like” But in effect that’s more or less what is saying isn’t it?”

          No, it is not. There’s nothing in copyright that says that a copyright holder has a right to charge consumers for using his work, which was what you claimed.

          > “Because copyright is a right to allow or deny distribution as you said, ie a monopoly. In saying that they can deny any distribution for a price they do not deem fit.”

          No, the monopoly privileges the author with some control over some distribution, not all.

          > “It is possible the source of the disagreement is on a technicality of the strict legal definition of the term “right”? Because I think when most of us on here talk about rights we’re not adhering to the strict legal definition of it, but more of the layman’s use of the right which is much more broad.”

          No, it’s about the term “use”, which you through out over and over again, and every time fully incorrectly.

          But if it was about the term right, in no way would i agree use it in such a grotesque way, that totally reverses the order of how society works, as in as if everything was forbidden, until you had acquired a right to do it.

          The problem is that i’m not interested in trying to guess what others actually mean, and then respond to that. I respond to the words that others themselves chose to write, in the exact way that they are written.

          “Does your definition of access include downloading it through torrents?”

          That is irrelevant to whether your previous claim is correct or not? Try to follow the thread from the beginning. Your original claim was:

          “However, people don’t have the right to use his work. If someone wants to use his product, then he has the right to charge them for the right to use it. If they don’t like the price, they don’t pay and don’t use the product.”

          That is an incorrect claim from beginning to end.

          1) People do need any right to use his work.
          2) The author has no right to charge people for using his work.
          3) Not buying the physical copy the author is trying to sell, does not in an absolute way equal not being able to access or use the intellectual work.

        • Guest

          “No, society had that debate over a 150 years ago, and society came to the conclusion that people can access and use the content even if they don’t want to buy it, and the rights holder should not be privileged with any control to stand in the way of that.”

          Big claim. Let’s see a citation.

        • Fredrika

          Look up library in a dictionary.

          They make content available on a commercial scale, for non-profit use, and the author has been privileged with no right whatsoever to stand in the way of that.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          “A law being stupid or inane is not a reason to disobey. ”
          Please enforce that law from some crazy US city that forbids ppl from dying. Or that law in whatever UK city that obliges boys of a determined age to take archery classes in some monastery. Yes, it is enough reason. I had to comment on that…

          Copyright is not wrong in its essence. The Koran wasn’t bad in it’s essence and Mohammed’s wife had a key role back when Islam was born. The Bible. Whatever, wherever. Things are corrupted by interests along the time. Copyright followed the same way with rights being ‘protected’ for decades instead of a fair time. Copyright followed the same path by punishing ppl based on fake biased claims by an industry.

          I mean, your argument is well built but it has a fundamental flaw: corruption is within human nature and while it doesn’t necessarily manifest itself, laws are made by humans and are also susceptible to corruption.

        • Cracker

          @Ninja

          Yes, laws are subject to corruption, but then again, so is the human conscience. I choose to place more trust in the one I have some say in.

    • FuzzyDuck

      > QUIT BLAMING THE POLICE! The police only act to uphold laws.

      Sorry that sounds like: “Don’t blame the German soldiers who forced the Jews into the gas chamber, blame the politicians who made those laws. Those soldiers were merely enforcing the law.”

      I can’t agree with you. If cops are enforcing immoral laws then they ARE to blame, because the government can’t enforce laws without them – they are the tools of oppression. Then they the police become the enemy of the people.

    • logic sometimes fail

      And nazis had the responsability to kill jews…

      • Cracker

        People keep making this argument, but as I keep pointing out, people have a duty to disobey laws if and only if THE LAW IS ACTIVELY HARMFUL. Nazis being ordered to kill Jews; harmful. Hutus slaughtering Tutsis; harmful. Political or religious groups being suppressed; harmful. Having to either pay for content or wait for copyright to expire; not harmful. Stupid, maybe. Harmful, no.

        We can only disobey laws if they are actively harmful or if they do damage to the rights of people (and by rights, we’re talking about the important ones like right to voice an opinion, bear arms and have a fair trial, not the right to a moca from Starbucks every day). We can’t disobey just because we dislike them. If we dislike them, we try to change them through the legislative system or by challenging the laws in the courts. If we succeed at that, we throw a party. If not, we cry and try again.

        • Fredrika

          > “We can’t disobey just because we dislike them. If we dislike them, we try to change them through the legislative system or by challenging the laws in the courts. If we succeed at that, we throw a party. If not, we cry and try again.”

          People have never throughout history restrained from disobeying unjust and clearly illegitimate laws, just because your personal subjective list of rules for when a law is ok to disobey, hasn’t been fulfilled.

          People can, they currently do, and they will continue to, that’s a fact of reality.

        • Cracker

          Ok. Let’s bite the bullet again. What makes a law illegitimate? Who decides? You? Me? Anyone who wants to decide? We have laws so that society can decide. The very idea of a constitutional republic (a common form of modern government), is that people set out a list of unalienable and unquestionable rights and then use representatives to decide for society what is and is not acceptable. If people don’t like what their representative decides, then they vote the representative out of office and get someone who will campaign for change. This acts as a check on the naturally self-serving desires of humans. People will often change their morals to fit what they want. If everyone’s conscience could be trusted, then we wouldn’t need laws, but as long as we’re wishing for things, I’d like a unicorn that flies, reads tarot cards and dispenses ice cream.

          If we all get to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves and then break laws based on our decision, how can we regulate anything? For example, what’s to stop a businessman from paying a judge for an innocent verdict? Both the judge and businessman say it’s ok, so no jail time for them. What about a man who decides walking into a business and robbing them is ok? He decided the laws against theft were illegitimate, so why can’t he? Or is filesharing somehow different and sacred, and society can’t regulate it like it can regulate other behaviors?

          You talk about illegitimate laws, but it becomes clearer and clearer that “illegitimate” is shorthand for “laws that I dislike”. It’s a form of psychological justification, not a real argument.

    • unslaved and awake

      Hi, this may not apply to you if not in Europe but im in the UK and 80% of the laws now enforced on uk citizens are being written in Europe by un-elected officials and not by uk elected politicians. this means its irrelevant who you vote into government as they dont write the laws. Considering this I think the police are the worst in the whole situation as they are dogs, blinding enforcing will of these un-elected European offials without questioning “is this right”. if the police and armed forces didnt do the dirty work for these scumbag corporations and the governments that protect them then we might actually see an end to all this nonsense.. thereore i really disagree with your comment i think every soldier and every police officer on the planet needs to look in the mirror and realise exactly what they are doing, although this is obviously quite hard because people are often drawn to those roles because they have a huge ego and are therefore less likely to question the morality of their behaviour…

      But we cant even blame the police… only people we can only blame is OURSELVES for letting people decide our fate behind closed doors and accepting that

  • Anonymous

    These days people are now sheeple controlled under the rule of government who themselves are controlled by money by corporations who only want more money in endless greed. They also impose extra control that abuses public rights.

    Here is a topic worthy of Rick. How much has copyright stolen from us?

    In an example I release a great media creation. I do so freely without any reward or control for public enjoyment. I do not state copyrighted because I do not want that. I do not state ownership because I do not want fame. I do not state anything and just release it.

    The law without any voice by me says my creation is copyrighted. Copyright has thus just stole ownership to my creation. It did not use to be this way when people had to mark copyrighted on their creation. Copyright has stolen all unmarked media.

    Without voice by me claims can be done about copyright infringement or fraud. Maybe not directly but hear the latest copyright demands. Copyright now wants governments to take action against infringement WITHOUT the artist involved. My creation became so popular that entire websites are taken down because of it. Copyright has thus stolen control and enforcement from me and falsely used it as a weapon.

    Media companies desperately want to air my creation but they are unable to. They cant trace the owner and they cant broadcast it due to feared infringement. Right now there are THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS of media they cant trace the owner of and thus cannot use. So copyright who stole my creation now denies media companies using it.

    The UK currently aims to fix that one with an unclaimed media library that services can use without owner approval.

    Then we have the blissful eternal copyright. My creation may be popular but given 5 years then no one much cares about it. Been and gone and on with the new. The problem is copyright refuses to release control. Copyright refuses to end. The term of copyright increases 30, 50, life + 70 years and now they want 150 years. Guess what if they got 150 years then they would want 200, 300, 500 and 1000 years. Simply because copyright can never bare to lose what can make it money. The blissful term of endless copyright.

    Without a single word from me copyright has stolen everything to my creation. They did not just steal it from me they stole it from the public who only wanted, without any profit or gain, to enjoy what I made.

    • Guast

      “Anyone may use this”

      4 words. Problem solved. Next issue.

      • Anonymous

        Even if done the original message can be quickly lost in all the distribution and copying involved. My point was though that copyright steals everything.

        There are many thousands of media around with no owner and no copyright status and copyright laws deny valid organizations using it. Media headed for total non-use when no one can lawfully use it.

        That is the real world of my example. “Let anyone use this” helped them none and neither were they into copyright.

        • Friend of the People

          Ok, fine. I guess I’ll go back to my real pseudonym and actually formulate a long response. Now let’s see, where to begin…

          Your example does highlight a few problems with copyright law that should be corrected, but it doesn’t really say that copyright itself is bad. I’ll try to explain this.

          The centerpiece of your thought experiment is that someone can create something and intend it to be for everyone without any restrictions (except perhaps the restriction that no one else may represent it as their own, but we’ll call that a common sense provision that should apply to everything), but that works are assumed to be under copyright unless otherwise stated. The easy and obvious solution would be to simply include this information with a product. If it’s a movie or game, this would be just including it in the product itself in the credits. For other things, like pictures or music, you could make it clear when you originally post it. Things like that do tend to be mirrored and copied in the internet today, but for the sake of argument, and for the scenarios where people would actually forget this provision, we’ll say that the original message is insufficient.

          To fix this, I would propose these ammendments to current copyright law; There should be a central location, perhaps maintained by the government and perhaps by a non-profit, that documents all copyrights. It should also be the artist’s responsibility to register their product, and if a product is not registered, then it should be assumed to be free for all. Such a place should be easily accessible to even poor artists. For the sake of convenience, it may be possible for someone to register entire websites worth of their work, instead of registering each photograph or song at once. Naturally, this would be hard, but as a rough concept, I think it addresses that issue.

          “The problem is copyright refuses to release control. Copyright refuses to end. The term of copyright increases 30, 50, life + 70 years and now they want 150 years.”

          All systems run by man will natural tend towards more control instead of less. It is our duty to oppose this wherever it shows up. This is not a failing of copyright, and it is not a reason to give up on the entire concept. What should be done is that copyright should be set at some time, say, 10 years (just a proposal number). I should note that I don’t apply this same timescale to patents, which should be considered separately from cultural products when making this decision.

          To finish this up, you’ve shown a few problems with copyright, but you haven’t shown any problems with the actual concept. The person in you example wanted no profit from their product, and should therefore be exempt from copyright rules because copyright is only designed to ensure that people who desire a profit from their creation have the right to pursue a profit.

          To finish, I suppose I should ask a question. Do you think people have the right to pursue a profit from culture they make? And please note, I’m not saying anyone has the right to make a profit, only that they have to pursue it. Opinions?

        • Anonymous

          I am not opposed by the basic concept of copyright in that for (ideally) 5 to 10 years no one else can lawfully profit from their creation without their approval. That would not include file sharing which is a non-profit resource of public enjoyment.

          The available facts makes it very unclear if file sharing causes profit or loss to the copyright owners when any loss can be offset by increased exposure, fans and resulting sales. Current evidence seems to highlight that file sharing does benefit the majority of copyright owners. The movie industry in Hollywood reports that they have just had the best year ever. Clearly file sharing hurt Avatar and Inception none. The music industry have also reported their best sales since music sales crashed in the 90s. Lady Gaga does not mind people sharing her music when she knows the more fans she has the better her career will be. It should also be clear that file sharing will make good media more popular and bad media less popular. No more need to buy or rent something you ponder if you will enjoy or not. That would make them work harder to make better media.

          I am also strongly opposed to the abuse and restrictions that the copyright monopoly gives to the public. Zoning in terms of satellite services would be my main pick. Then general people need to remove Macrovision to copy their Video Cassette collection to DVD or to remove CGMS to copy their DVDs to Bluray.

          The central location for copyright you speak of is much like the former requirement that all copyrighted media must come marked copyrighted. They changed from an opt-in system to an opt-out system which changed unmarked media from ok to not ok. So now we both say that it should be changed back to opt-in.

          Whatever the solution it should be easy and well known when not all artists have the time, knowledge or resources for piles of paperwork. Simply stating copyrighted is already well known and easy to do.

          The main problem with copyright is that they make the money and they use that money to lobby (bribe) politicians to make yet more restrictive copyright laws for their increased profit. Then they dare call this infringement of public rights “modernising copyright laws”

          Should you need the opinion of those who believe copyright should not exist then there are plenty here.

    • Colin

      You can copyright your work under a creative commons licence which allows anyone to freely use it, distribute it, modify it without charge, PROVIDED they apply the same creative commons licence to the work or its derivative.

      This protects your work from being hijacked by anyone trying to claim it as their own, trying to sell it, trying to licence it for profit etc etc etc.

      • Anonymous

        Yes more control under copyright. It is hard to believe that there is a valid world without copyright when copyright lays claim to it all.

        Many people though have released their works without knowledge of creative common licences. Then most artists are not aware of the 6 distribution rights even today.

        My example was about total not caring what happens to it. Copied, modified and sold no problem when it is still free to others. False claims of ownership is more interesting but they also have to PROVE ownership.

  • Glowerous

    No sir. I must disagree.
    The police must have a moral compass also or else there is no balance to corrupted power mongers. How do you think megalomaniacs and dysfunctional personalities maintain power? By force? Correct. But who administers that force? Usually a police agency.

    If the police are asked to serve without question, without morality, then freedom is doomed. Following orders without question has given us two World Wars. The next will be the First World Information War.

    Already the rights of the people are being crushed by the actions of the various states and countries who wish to impose their domination. Things will get worse before (or if) they ever get better.

    One thing is certain; there will always be freedom-fighters, dissenters and revolutionaries, thank God, for, without them, we would already exist in an Orwellian age.

  • Slipf0rm9112

    Just as stated in a previous article, It IS our duty to defy unjust laws.

    However, there is an unthinking majority; they do not care about these matters, or know that their rights are under attack, or even want to think of such things.

    More people need to know about the fight for the free internet. If you frequent this site, you show interest in these matters, and are not in the unthinking majority.

    Then, it is our duty to inform the others; Talk to your friends, post on FB, print a poster and put it in a coffee shop. We are obliged to inform the others, whether they care or not.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    People, I’m all for activism in copyright, but let’s remember *some* activists can be downright kookie.

    I would not follow the likes of PETA off the side of the road, much less over into animal activism. And there are actually environmental “terrorists” who use arson on homes in places like California as valid weapons.

    Yes, fight unjust laws. But don’t say that activism is the best thing on earth when it has its darkside as well.

    • Anonymous

      Peaceful protest, education, discussion, vote!

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Democracy is defended with four boxes.

      Soap, jury, ballot, and ammo.

      To be used for defense of democracy in that order.

      • Joel

        Right idea, but I disagree with you slightly on the order.

        1. Soap box – You talk, express your viewpoint, listen to others. Exchange ideals, ideas, and information. This is the best place to be.

        2. Ballot box – You choose people to represent you, and to set ground rules for the society. If the representatives are wise, they make laws that benefit the society as a whole, and that reasonable people feel they can support.

        3. Jury box – If your representatives aren’t wise, they’ll start making all sorts of insane laws, with draconian punishments. A majority of people will inevitably wind up breaking some (or many) of them on a regular basis, in the course of ordinary living. At this point, the jury box becomes an essential safeguard. You simply refuse to convict for anything that shouldn’t be a crime, or for anything that you know has an inappropriate punishment.

        4. Ammo box – Finally, after a long train of abuse, in which the government starts approaching absolute despotism, it is your duty to throw it off, and figure out something better.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          Agreed. While ammo, in all its forms, should be avoided, there are times when things will not go forward by any other means.

          Hopefully we won’t reach this time.

    • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

      PETA murder animals as well over 9/10 animals they take get put down.

  • Zzzzz

    Governments need to be given a bloody nose occasionally.

    In Britain in the late 70 and early 80 a policy change in law enforcement along with laws that allowed police to stop anyone on suspicion meant that a vastly disproportionate amount of young black men were being stopped by police and searched without due cause.
    This policy slowly worsened over time so that in some areas there were virtual road blocks stopping black communities on mass as the moved about their neighbourhoods. The police also started to get more aggressive as resentments rose.

    The inevitable happened in 1981 and all hell broke loose resulting in huge riots in Toxteth in Liverpool, Brixton in London and smaller riots in several other cities.

    This gave the Thatcherite government a substantial kicking which resulted in a total revamp of the law with he repeal of many police powers.

    Say what you might about rioting but it was the only way to get that arrogant Thatcher regime to listen to sense and change their ways. Some time the people have to take power back and by force if necessary.

    • Joe

      So are you saying that in a democratic country the way to show your dissaproval is to riot, cause millions of pounds of damage to property, injure and murder – [Broadwater Farm housing estate in Tottenham 1985].?

      I disagree.

      • Zzzzz

        I think you should actually read my post properly and also read about the causes of the riots before you misrepresent my words any further.
        I did say that it was sometimes necessary.

        Or do you believe the state should be allowed to do what it chooses and we should all hide under the bed like scared little children?

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        When the democratic country becomes democratic in words and dictatorial in practice yes.

  • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

    Here’s a direct quote from a letter I recently received signed by Ed Vaizey (UK Tory Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries). The arrogance is astoundingly disappointing and highly relevant to Rick’s article today -

    “Firstly, I should emphasise that unlawful filesharing is just that – unlawful. The owners of copyright … are entitled to the fundamental right to property, and it is right that they should be able to protect the rights that they own online. Where individuals are infringing copyright, it is clearly within the law for copyright owners to be able to take steps against them.”

    I found this small extract quote one of the most horrendously mistaken, arrogant and ill-advised statements ever to be made in relation to a governments attitude toward OUR internet.

    In fact, I’ve had this letter for over 2 weeks now and I’m still in fucking shock, that I haven’t even uploaded it yet to make it public. Nor have I yet composed a follow-up response to this or the rest of the letter – so any suggestions would be welcomed guys.

    I’m thinking Rick’s article is spot-on, and we need to be active in fighting to protect OUR right of freedom to share for no cash, no profit and no personal or tangible gain without being threatened with civil suits or even criminal law.

    Sharing IS caring.

    And fighting unjust laws is indeed OUR duty – to ourselves, to each each other, and for the very future freedoms for our kids.

    • Anonymous

      Then you should remind Ed Vaizey that homosexuality was unlawful not many years ago and well within his lifetime.

      Best then ask him if before this law change, when legal age of 21 was applied, if homosexuals should have been punished because unlawful is… unlawful. Then mention that homosexuality is a crime against the family life of Christian heterosexual couples, and their children, who need protection from such inhuman perversion.

      Then to point out that to protect the moral fabric of society we can, like Alan Turing, chemically castrate them all. The law after all is the law even if suicide rates may greatly increase.

      Or do we instead justify our laws by ethics which would say what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is not a place for our laws. Ethics also says that the Government did commit an ethical crime against Alan Turing.

      Then we can understand some laws can be made from our fears and concerns and not from the logic of ethics. We can then conclude that some current copyright laws do not benefit society either.

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        Some laws and decisions, if not most of them, are taken out of humanity hysteria. Fukushima leaked. Now Germany repels nuclear power and plans to dismantle their nuclear plants. Nobody comments the fact that it was a 9 degree earthquake in a unstable region followed by a huge tsunami, both the largest in Japan’s history. Nobody questions that there are ongoing researches to make this technology even better and cleaner and that they should receive incentives. Not to mention natural prejudice to something that was used as a weapon when many of our current gadgets and products started as weapons.

        MAFIAA tries to create hysteria with child porn, lost jobs and other lame arguments so they can get the green light to make the adjustments they want.

  • jd900

    Why hasn’t this site, or other sites reported on the fact the judge withdrew the 23,000 subpoenas in the Hurt Locker case?

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/judge-furious-at-inexcusable-p2p-lawyering-cancels-subpoenas.ars

    • Fredrika
    • Anonymous

      Slyck are more covering the US copyright cases than TF does. Their usual news is how many thousands more are sued this week and for what porn movies.

      At an 80% success rate those porn companies can soon feed their whores gold bricks.

      You only have to wonder the number of false claims paid anyway to avoid family shame. It seems to be over 30%

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

  • Anonymous

    What a joke. You do NOT have a right to have other people’s work for free and to distribute that work to others. You are NOT an activist. Just a cheap bastard with the “Mine MINE!” mentality of a 5 year old, but since you work for a shitty blog, you don’t make enough money to buy it legally.

    If you want to talk about some of the methods used in catching the ILLEGAL filesharers, then fine. Then possibly you won’t be an embarrassment to your family. But as long as you still try to claim that you are innocent and just disobeying a bad law, you will never be taken seriously be REAL human beings. (I mean even more so than when you say you write for a blog for a living.)

    • Anonymous

      Man, you’re a very angry person. You know, you’re going to give yourself an aneurysm one day if you don’t calm down a little. I’m saying that based off what you just wrote and what you normally write (I get bored I look at people’s comment history to see if they’re reasonable or do*ches or whatever). How dare anyone have a point of view that’s even remotely different from yours. You snap and go off like crazy on them if they do. I’d hate to know you in real life, I bet you’re the kind of person who goes off on some serious rants. And not the good kind. The kind where people look at you and think “Man, this guy has f*cking lost it. It’d be in my best interest to nod and agree with everything he (or she) says while slowly making my way to the nearest exit before he completely flips out and starts murdering people.”

      You say the writer of this article won’t be taken seriously by real human beings, but look at you. As in who would take such a nut with serious anger issues like you seriously? Ranting and getting angry over what he wrote. It’s apparent you take him pretty seriously or you’d just blow him off completely, as opposed to getting all riled up and insulting him. That means what he said got to you (even if it was in an upsetting kind of way). Which means you read what he wrote and took it seriously enough to get mad and post a comment about it (and not even related to what he wrote, just a tirade of insults, which were pretty lame by the way). You’re definitely one to talk about being taken seriously.

      [End of my reasonable and calmly written response to what is obviously a person who needs a stress ball.]

      P.S. That vein in your forehead is seriously pulsating like crazy and looks like it’s about to burst. : )

    • Anon

      Did you do a line of coke before writing that or are you just an asshole all of the time?

      Launching into an abusive tirade will not get YOU taken seriously.

    • Anon

      Did you do a line of coke before writing that or are you just an asshole all of the time?

      Launching into an abusive tirade will not get YOU taken seriously.

      • Anonymous

        Hey come on now, doing a line of coke doesn’t turn you into an a$$hole. Being an angry SOB who’s unable to stand anyone’s POV but his own makes you an a$$hole. (And not you, but lakawak. You get what I mean.)

      • Getshorty123

        No, he’s not an asshole.People who steal other people’s work, or expects ANYONE to work for free is an asshole. Does your boss/workplace expect you to do work for free? Do YOU work for “free”?, or do YOU expect to be paid for your work? That’s the real question.

      • Getshorty123

        No, he’s not an asshole.People who steal other people’s work, or expects ANYONE to work for free is an asshole. Does your boss/workplace expect you to do work for free? Do YOU work for “free”?, or do YOU expect to be paid for your work? That’s the real question.

        • Anonymous

          Insulting someone anonymously online because he doesn’t agree with what they have to say makes him an a$$hole.

        • Fredrika

          > “People who steal other people’s work”

          Your are of course aware of the fact that copyright infringement through filesharing, or in more actual terms, performing an intrusion into a monopoly, isn’t theft, according to either the law or a dictionary?

          > “..or expects ANYONE to work for free..//.. Does your boss/workplace expect you to do work for free? Do YOU work for “free”?, or do YOU expect to be paid for your work? That’s the real question.”

          I think the real question is if you understand the fundamental difference between performing a work task one has been specifically hired for, and expected to perform, and then being paid contracted salary for, from voluntarily and of free will performing a task, and maybe creating something, with hopes of possibly later making money when using that product in a working business model, that people think is worth the price?

          The latter individual has obviously no rights to monetary reward, if he is unable to get such a business working, and sell a product or a service.

        • Cracker

          @Fredrika

          True, he has no right to any monetary reward. However, people don’t have the right to use his work. If someone wants to use his product, then he has the right to charge them for the right to use it. If they don’t like the price, they don’t pay and don’t use the product.

          In this way, the creator has no right to any monetary reward, but he does have the right to only allow its use to people who pay him what he wants. If he wants more than people will pay, then they won’t pay and the product will be unused. Simple.

        • Anonymous

          “People who steal other people’s work”

          People who fucking lie that filesharing is stealing are assholes.

          Stupid, too, if they think they can actually make the world believe it.

    • Anon

      Did you do a line of coke before writing that or are you just an asshole all of the time?

      Launching into an abusive tirade will not get YOU taken seriously.

    • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

      What’s illegal about sharing digital files? Why should people have to dumb-down and do without receiving or sending some 0′s & 1′s merely because you want those numbers to be restricted by money?

      You’re not a very nice or even sensible person. Are you?
      Now go to bed, and you get no dinner and no internet until you repent your sinful thoughts.

      • Cracker

        @Fredrika and Anonymous

        “Everything is allowed, until it is specifically forbidden, through legitimate legislation.”

        Yes, and copyright law has forbidden this. It is forbidden by society. If copyright is voted away, then it won’t be forbidden anymore, and people will be able to do all the filesharing they want. The key here is probably the word “legitimate”. There’s no way you’d ever view copyright as being legitimate, is there?

        “Actually I do. You don’t get to force people to buy your $15 album that’s being distributed in some way that’s rife with absurd restrictions.”

        No one is forcing you to buy the album. You don’t have to buy it, but you you assume that because you want it, you have a right to have it. If you don’t like the conditions on the album, boycott it and don’t listen to the music. Tell others to do the same.

        “The market dictates the value of your work and how it will be distributed”

        You misunderstand how the market works. The market works like this; a bunch of people do something, and the people who are good at it and appeal to the populace more will be more successful. The others will fail. Nowhere in there does it say that consumers get to decide prices or distribution for any individual product. Anyone can charge anything they want for anything. I could buy a gallon of milk and try to sell it for $50, but no one would buy. That’s how the market works. If people don’t like what the distributor has done with his product, either in price or restrictions applied, then he doesn’t buy and he takes his business to a more reasonable locale.

        In short, you don’t have any right to get something without paying the asking price. You do have a right to take your business elsewhere, to people who charge less (indie music comes to mind). That’s how the market works. People have the right to make stupid business decisions. Your recourse should be go somewhere else for your music.

        • Fredrika

          > “The key here is probably the word “legitimate”. There’s no way you’d ever view copyright as being legitimate, is there?”

          I view copyright as a concept to be fully legitimate. The parts of some countries copyright legislation, that privileges the rights holder with a monopoly over non-profit distribution, through an intrusion into people own property, is clearly illegitimate, according to the three rules that all legitimate legislation must uphold, regarding need, function, and proportionality.

          Because when you try to motivate the restrictions that current copyright laws are based upon, a legislative fail of unprecedented proportions will occur in seven stages.

          There is very little to none evidence to support the claim that the current format of copyright is needed in this day and age, to protect intellectual works for the current long term in time, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that copyright needs to interfere with what the public does for non-profit purposes, for the actual goal of copyright to occur, to culturally maximise society with creative works.

          Presented evidence that some business models, among many, might fail, is in no way any sorts of evidence that the actual goal of copyright no longer will occur, with the help of other currently available, or future, business models.

          The fact that several other business models already exists, works, and function, to give that effect, is already clear and proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

          The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, to guarantee that some business models, among many, should work forever, when the public no longer demands them.

          The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, that creators or right holders should be able do dictate which business models the public must use and pay for, to gain access to creative works.

          The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, that creators and rights holders out of principle should have anything close to complete control over their works, and how the public access these works.

          There simply doesn’t exist any copyright related problem today, at least not in the direction that anti-pirates and rights holders claim, that copyright laws need to address.

          That’s fail #1. A problem that needs to be legislatively addressed does not exist.

          The current and suggested copyright laws, does not work in any way, in the manner that they are intended to. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite, that current copyright laws is an actual obstacle for the goal of copyright to occur.

          That’s fail #2. Current copyright laws do not work, or create the effect they intend to.

          Instead, current copyright laws is an obstacle for the goal of copyright to occur, they create the direct opposite of the effect that is desired.

          That’s fail #3. Current copyright laws definitely do not work, or create the effect they intend to.

          The non-profit monopoly in current copyright laws are in no way obeyed by the public, and it does in no manner stop the public from doing what they want do to, in terms of sharing and distributing creative works for non-profit use.

          The public doesn’t see it as anything they need to or should obey, so every time legislators try to strengthen copyright laws in conflict with this public’s opinion, the public will simply use technology to find a new way around copyright laws.

          Technology always beat legislation, if motivation exists to create that technology, and after over 40 years of home copying, and almost 15 years of filesharing, it is abundantly clear that that motivation does indeed exist among the public, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it can be stopped legislatively.

          That’s fail #4. Current copyright laws definitely schmefinatly does not work.

          Current copyright laws in no way reflect the public’s opinion on what control creators and rights holders should be privileged with, to interfere with the public’s own physical property. Instead the non-profit parts of current copyright laws is considered a joke, and that decreases the public’s acceptance for the very concept of copyright specifically, and the legislative process and laws in general.

          Current copyright laws hurt the public’s acceptance for the basic concept of copyright.

          That’s fail #5. Current copyright laws still doesn’t work, instead they create a new problem. They hurt copyright.

          As a result of that the current copyright laws are unacceptable among the public, and the legislative process that has taken place around them over the last 10 years, this hurts the public’s acceptance for the legislative process and laws in general.

          That’s fail #6. Current copyright laws still definitely do not work, instead they create a really dangerous problem for society.

          Current copyright laws are because of the six above mentioned fails in no way proportionate, or cost effective for society or the public. They give nothing positive in return that wouldn’t occur anyway, but instead they create a large economical cost for society, on several different levels.

          That’s fail #7. Current copyright laws are disproportionate and in no way cost effective.

          Since legitimate legislation must live up to three rules..

          (the legislation must be needed to solve an actual documented problem, #1 above
          ..the legislative tools in the law must work, #2 through #4 above
          ..and the legislation must be proportionate and cost effective, #5 through #7 above)

          ..which these seven fails point out that copyright laws fails miserably with, this leads to the crystal clear conclusion that current copyright laws has no legitimacy in this day and age. They are a complete legislative failure from beginning to end.

          There exists no legitimate prohibition against copying.

          Therefore copying is a completely legitimate task, that no one needs to make excuses for performing, and that is something that hundreds of millions of filesharers have already figured out.

        • FuzzyDuck

          > Yes, and copyright law has forbidden this. It is forbidden by society.

          You mean those laws bought by the MAFIAA and that the MAFIAA is trying to bully other countries into adopting? Sorry but those are illegitimate.

        • Anon

          “I could buy a gallon of milk and try to sell it for $50, but no one would buy”

          Then some bright spark comes along, figures out how to copy that gallon of milk and shares it with the rest of humanity for free. Everyone’s a winner apart from you, who is left spending vast amounts of money trying to push through legislation around the world criminalizing the copying and unauthorized distribution of milk.

        • Cracker

          @Fredrika

          You begin with a faulty premise. The purpose of copyright is not and never has been to maximize the diffusion of currently existing culture to the public. Copyright exists to incentivise further creation by giving exclusive monetary rights to the creator of the content, on the condition that the rights to the content will eventually be made public when the copyright ends.

          You also misunderstand market economics. The way market economics work is that people who make products are allowed to distribute them however they please, but the people who do so in a way the people prefer more (lower price or easier to get) and the people who provide better products will get more of the business, and the other business models will fail. The customer does not get to decide how any individual product is distributed, but they do get to go to someone else who distributes a similar but different product and give them their business instead. Using music as an example, say that Kanye West demands $30 for an album and 2Pac gives it away for free, asking only for donations (I know they’re not even remotely similar in quality, but for the thought experiment, just assume they are). Here, you can either pay Kanye and get his music, or get 2Pac’s music without paying. In this situation, Kanye’s business model would fail, unless his music was of a superior enough quality to 2Pac’s that people could justify the purchase. If it’s not, then his business model will fail and he’ll either have to change it or go broke. That’s his choice, not yours. You don’t get to choose for him.

          Another thing; you talk all the time about “people shouldn’t be forbidden from using culture they have right in front of them”, but people don’t start with any piece of culture they want right in front of them. They have to seek it out and acquire it before they can use it, but there are limits in the ways they can legally seek it out. Those limits are applied by copyright.

          You are correct about the way society works in that people are allowed to do whatever they want unless it is specifically forbidden. What you don’t seem to understand is that copyright acts to forbid behavior with the goal of making an incentive for the creators of culture and science. Because you have the wrong goal for copyright in mind, your entire past argument is invalidated.

          Looking at it from the correct goal, we can see quite a few flaws in current copyright. For example, the rights to culture are still supposed to be given to the people after a reasonable amount of time, so reducing the length of copyright to around 10 years (or at least shorter than the current time) would probably serve this goal better.

          There is one strong flaw with copyright studies that has never been properly addressed; all studies take place in the current world, where most people still pay for culture because they are required to. In a free culture society, there would be no requirement to pay, so you can’t say that pirates showing more people some piece of culture would result in more sales. This holds particularly true for culture like large-scale videogames and movies where the main cost is in production and development, not marketing.

          Why am I even talking about movies and music? I don’t care about them, I care about videogames. You know what, I’ll ignore everything else here if you can answer this one question for me: How would large videogames survive in a free-culture society? Videogames are very expensive to develop and are played at home so you can’t get money like a movie theatre could. For note, I’m not talking about competition-based games like Halo or Call of Duty, I’m talking about story-based singleplayer games like Okami, Disgaea or Shadow of the Colossus. In fact, let’s just talk about Shadow of the Colossus. There is no need for a multiplayer server because it’s singleplayer only, and there is no need for updates or fixes because the game is not glitchy or poorly-balanced (ignoring the fact that updates and fixes are easily acquired anyway). It was very expensive to design. In a culture where no one has to pay for a digital product, how would a game like that be made?

          In truth, that’s all I care about. I see free-culture, and the first thing that pops to my mind is the active degradation of culture because the great things that take time and effort to make won’t be profitable anymore. Convince me I’m wrong about this (particularly about the videogames, because I really couldn’t care less about most movies or music), and you’ll have done something no one else here has ever managed to do.

        • Fredrika

          > “You begin with a faulty premise. The purpose of copyright is not and never has been to maximize the diffusion of currently existing culture to the public.”

          I have never made such claim.

          > “Copyright exists to incentivise further creation”

          No, the reason society wants further creation to take place, is to culturally maximise society. That’s the goal with the conceptual copyright. Society, for the benefit of the public’s access to it, wants as much culture as possible to be created.

          Simple logic should tell you that? Why does society have a concept that seeks to have as much culture as possible to be created? Obviously for the public to have access to as much culture as possible. To culturally maximise society.

          > “..by giving exclusive monetary rights to the creator of the content..”

          That’s what the copyright legislation does, which is the tool, or the means, which seeks to help the goal of copyright to occur.

          And second, no, by giving the author limited privileges.

          > “..on the condition that the rights to the content will eventually be made public when the copyright ends.”

          Under the condition that the privileges that the creator have been given, can be changed or revoked at any time, as the public sees fit.

          > “You also misunderstand market economics.”

          Market economics has nothing to do with a monopoly based market?

          > “The customer does not get to decide how any individual product is distributed, but they do get to go to someone else who distributes a similar but different product and give them their business instead. Using music as an example, say that Kanye West demands $30 for an album and 2Pac gives it away for free, asking only for donations (I know they’re not even remotely similar in quality, but for the thought experiment, just assume they are). Here, you can either pay Kanye and get his music”

          If it weren’t for the copyright monopoly, i could buy identical copies for a way lower price, from another seller. That’s how market economics works. Anyone can manufacture a physical copy, with their own property, but only one is allowed, since he has a monopoly on manufacturing, distribution and selling copies of that particular intellectual work. Since market economics obviously don’t apply to monopoly based markets, it meaningless for you to discuss how the economic market works.

          > “That’s his choice, not yours. You don’t get to choose for him.”

          I have never made a claim that anyone other then the rights holder decides what business models they wish to try to get revenues from.

          > “Another thing; you talk all the time about “people shouldn’t be forbidden from using culture they have right in front of them”..”

          I have never made such claim. That is a falsified quotation.

          > “..but people don’t start with any piece of culture they want right in front of them. They have to seek it out and acquire it before they can use it”

          That does not change the fact that you continuously make incorrect claims that people aren’t allowed to use content, if they don’t pay for it.

          > “..but there are limits in the ways they can legally seek it out. Those limits are applied by copyright.”

          I have never claimed otherwise.

          > “What you don’t seem to understand is that copyright acts to forbid behavior with the goal of making an incentive for the creators of culture and science. Because you have the wrong goal for copyright in mind, your entire past argument is invalidated.”

          No. It’s you, who again and again confuse the means with the end of copyright, which is two different things, and you also seem to confuse copyright as a concept, with current copyright legislation, which also are two different things.

          http://torrentfreak.com/why-the-copyright-industry-isnt-a-legitimate-stakeholder-in-copyright-110430/

          > “In a free culture society, there would be no requirement to pay”

          I’m not sure what a “free culture society” is, and i have never claimed that’s something we need or should seek to achieve.

          However, in reality, where people today can manufacture their own physical copies through filesharing, there would be no need to pay for physical copies, yes.

          So the single business model of trying to get revenues from selling physical copies will most likely die out.

          That’s one single business model, among many, that is based around the use of an intellectual work.

          > “so you can’t say that pirates showing more people some piece of culture would result in more sales.”

          Sales of what? That depends on what you are trying to sell. There are many different products and services you can sell, through business models based around the use of an intellectual work, and many of those business models could most definitely achieve higher sales as a result of pirates showing more people some piece of culture. That is something that has already been proven.

          > “How would large videogames survive in a free-culture society?”

          Again, i don’t know what you mean by “a free-culture society”, and i have not suggested such.

          But logically and obviously, by acquiring enough revenues from working and sought after business models, that are based around the use of the intellectual work?

          > “In a culture where no one has to pay for a digital product, how would a game like that be made?”

          I assume what you’re really trying to ask is how would such a production be financed, when enough revenues most likely would not be made from selling single physical copies?

          Obviously, through other business models that are based around the use of the intellectual work, already existing such, or new ones, which will be invented in the future.

          > “In truth, that’s all I care about. I see free-culture, and the first thing that pops to my mind is the active degradation of culture because the great things that take time and effort to make won’t be profitable anymore.”

          Degradation? The goal of copyright as a concept, isn’t to guarantee, that a specific type of culture that you personally like, always and forever will continue to be made? Many different forms of culture have over the last hundred years died out, and new ones have taken over. The fact that some might miss certain old forms of culture is not a copyright related problem?

          If entrepreneurs and creators of a certain type of culture are unable to secure enough revenues through use of their works in working business model, they don’t deserve any profit, and their creations should stop. That’s how market economics work?

          > “Convince me I’m wrong about this..//.., and you’ll have done something no one else here has ever managed to do.”

          Your lack of faith, in that humanities remarkable ability to continuously invent new working business models, and that they will secure enough revenues to finance sought after forms of culture in the future, is not something i’m interested in trying to convince in any direction.

        • Cracker

          @Fredrika

          First, I’m sorry if it looked like I was attributing that quote to you. I was trying to capture the gist of what you said, not actually say that you said it. That is your idea though.

          “Once you have the content in front of yourself, you don’t need any permission whatsoever to use the product”

          And that is a quote from you. And my argument still stands.

          If I may quote a large section:

          “”You begin with a faulty premise. The purpose of copyright is not and never has been to maximize the diffusion of currently existing culture to the public.”

          I have never made such claim.

          > “Copyright exists to incentivise further creation”

          No, the reason society wants further creation to take place, is to culturally maximise society. That’s the goal with the conceptual copyright. Society, for the benefit of the public’s access to it, wants as much culture as possible to be created.”

          THAT’S THE SAME THING! Your idea of culturally maximizing society is to give everyone access to all culture produced, but your free-culture ideas don’t acknowledge how removing the profit incentive for the makers of culture will affect society. Society is not enriched if the makers of culture are not given the right to pursue a profit.

          “If it weren’t for the copyright monopoly, i could buy identical copies for a way lower price, from another seller”

          No, you could get something similar, not the exact same thing. If you want an IPAD, you have to get it from Apple, but you can get a tablet made by anyone. If you want a Kanye West song, you have to get it from Kanye, but if you want a rap song, you can choose someone else. The market doesn’t let anyone produce exact copies of someone else’s design, but it does let people try to improve on what already exists.

          “Obviously, through other business models that are based around the use of the intellectual work, already existing such, or new ones, which will be invented in the future.”

          So, essentially, you’re asking me to assume that either business models for small-scale production will prove feasibly for larger production costs or that people will invent something new? That’s a lot to take on faith. I’d rather see evidence that this can work for something that costs some real money to develop before I jump in blindly.

          “Under the condition that the privileges that the creator have been given, can be changed or revoked at any time, as the public sees fit.”

          A few problems. “the public” is an extremely vague term. Who represents the public here. Is this meant to mean that anyone who wants can violate the privileges the creator has, or does there have to be some consensus? Is there some organization that decides? How about a standard time for everyone? That seems like a good fair way to work it. Oh wait, we already have that…. Maybe it’s a good idea.

          “However, in reality, where people today can manufacture their own physical copies through filesharing, there would be no need to pay for physical copies, yes.
          So the single business model of trying to get revenues from selling physical copies will most likely die out.”

          The concept of a free-culture society is one where all culture products are available for free on the internet. The term was coined by an anti-piracy organization a few years. I apologize for assuming you knew the term. I forget that it’s a bit obscure and used more by anti-pirates than pirates. The basic idea is that anyone can put anything up for digital distribution, and there are no rights for the creator other than acknowledgment as the creator. If they want money, they need to offer a service or rely on donations.

          There are 2 main business models; physical goods and services. Essentially, with this, only the service models will survive, but for things like videogames that are based solely on the actual good and have no services to offer (besides multiplayer, which is not applicable to all games, and online backups, which are worthless), there would be severe damage. This is the problem with your idea. You talk about culturally maximizing society, but if your ideas lead to a future society that produces less culture, than your ideas do not fit your goal. Your ideas seem to me to center around giving everyone access to the culture that exists now, but you seem to assume that culture will continue to be produced at the same rate unimpeded if your ideas are adopted. I see evidence to the contrary.

          “pirates showing more people some piece of culture. That is something that has already been proven.”

          Again, the problem with those studies is that they function in a society where the people the pirates show the culture to will pay for the culture. In a society where payment is not a requirement, there will not be nearly as strong a link between pirate marketing and sales, because if you show someone something they like, there will be no necessity for them to buy it to have it. It’s a serious problem with the studies that the researchers themselves have acknowledged.

          “If entrepreneurs and creators of a certain type of culture are unable to secure enough revenues through use of their works in working business model, they don’t deserve any profit, and their creations should stop. That’s how market economics work?”

          I thought the goal of copyright as you put it was to “culturally maximize society”, but you acknowledge that your ideas will lead to the severe problems for certain types of culture. We want more culture to be produced, not less. We accomplish this by making an incentive for creation. That incentive is the privilege of distribution control so that you can try to make a profit off of it. If a form of culture can’t survive in an atmosphere where we allow people to use the market for profits, then we can let it die.

          “Your lack of faith, in that humanities remarkable ability to continuously invent new working business models, and that they will secure enough revenues to finance sought after forms of culture in the future, is not something i’m interested in trying to convince in any direction.”

          I’ve been asking around this forum for a couple months and haven’t gotten a good answer from any of the pirates here. AshenTech is one of the only ones who tried, and he failed at it. If you have even a single idea of a business model for a form of culture that is totally reliant on the actual physical piece of culture in an environment where they have to let their product be offered for free, then say it. Tell how me how interactive media (not just competitive videogames) can make a profit in that environment.

          Socrates once said that if we use a logical path but arrive at an erroneous conclusion, then we must reexamine the logic we used. You say that you want to “culturally maximize society”, but your ideas will lead to a decline in the amount of content being produced in the future. I say it’s time to take another look.

          And I’ll be out of town for the next few days without my laptop, so this will be my last post to you. I do hope I’ve managed to talk some sense into you, although I wouldn’t place money on having done so. Also, it’s very annoying when you respond to an argument by saying (not a quote, just my representation of what you appear to be) “I didn’t say it in those exact words, so I won’t answer your point”. It reeks of evading the question. If you didn’t say what people think you did, explain the error. If you don’t understand what people are saying, tell them AND write based on what you think they mean. You’re a good debater, but those are points where you could improve your debate technique. Of course, if I’m going to criticize you, I have to be open to criticism as well. Fire away, and feel free to be harsh :) Have a very nice day.

        • Fredrika

          > “That is your idea though.”

          No, it was not.

          > “And that is a quote from you. And my argument still stands.”

          No, it does not. Your original incorrect claim was the following:

          “However, people don’t have the right to use his work. If someone wants to use his product, then he has the right to charge them for the right to use it. If they don’t like the price, they don’t pay and don’t use the product.”

          That is an incorrect claim. The fact that you don’t like the price means that you do not purchase that particular copy, or that particular service, from that particular seller.

          That however does not equal that ““he has the right to charge them for the right to use it” or that “people don’t have the right to use his work”, because you never need any right to use an intellectual work.

          Please try to follow the thread from the beginning.

          > “THAT’S THE SAME THING!”

          No, it’s not the same thing as what you wrote. You added the words diffusion and currently existing. That completely changes the meaning of that sentence.

          > “Your idea of culturally maximizing society is to give everyone access to all culture produced”

          No. To culturally maximise society is not the same thing as giving everyone access to all culture produced

          >“..but your free-culture ideas”

          I do not have any such ideas.

          > “don’t acknowledge how removing the profit incentive for the makers of culture will affect society.”

          I have not suggested “removing the profit incentive for the makers of culture”.

          > “Society is not enriched if the makers of culture are not given the right to pursue a profit.”

          Creators don’t need any right to pursue profit. They are free to do so regardless of the format of society’s copyright legislation.

          >> “If it weren’t for the copyright monopoly, i could buy identical copies for a way lower price, from another seller”

          > “No, you could get something similar, not the exact same thing.”

          Oh but i could, ever hard of copying? Digital such can replicate exact copies.

          > “If you want an IPAD, you have to get it from Apple, but you can get a tablet made by anyone.”

          Why are you confusing yourself with a comparison with trademark, which also is a monopoly?

          An incorrect one no less. If it wasn’t for the trademark monopoly, i could call up the factory that Apple has contracted to produce the Ipad’s, and order identical Ipad’s for a way lower price then what Apple charges. I could then sell them at again a way lower price.

          > “If you want a Kanye West song, you have to get it from Kanye”

          Yes, because of the copyright monopoly? If it wasn’t for that, anyone could manufacture, distribute and sell identical copies.

          > The market doesn’t let anyone produce exact copies of someone else’s design”

          That’s incorrect. It isn’t the market that stands in the way of that, it’s the copyright monopoly.

          > “A few problems. “the public” is an extremely vague term. Who represents the public here.”

          Elected governance, of course.

          > “Is this meant to mean that anyone who wants can violate the privileges the creator has”

          Violate? Decreasing the copyright holders privileges or revoking them completely is not a violation? It’s a reduction of the intrusion into people property, that the copyright monopoly performs.

          You seem to be confused about what part violates what, and what the starting position is.

          > “How about a standard time for everyone? That seems like a good fair way to work it. Oh wait, we already have that…. Maybe it’s a good idea.”

          So because we today have something, that means that it is good? That’s a circular argument, and therefore complete nonsense.

          > “The concept of a free-culture society is one where all culture products are available for free on the internet.”

          The fact that digital copies is freely available online does not equal a free-culture society?

          A culture society is not equal to only digital copies.

          > “The term was coined by an anti-piracy organization a few years.”

          That explains why it’s such an illogical term.

          > “I forget that it’s a bit obscure”

          The problem with the term does not lie in the fact that it is obscure, it lies with the fact that it is illogical and misleading. But that however make complete sense, since anti-piracy organisations usually resorts to illogical and misleading terms.

          > “The basic idea is that anyone can put anything up for digital distribution, and there are no rights for the creator other than acknowledgment as the creator.”

          The fact that anyone can put anything up for digital distribution(i assume where talking about non-profit filesharing here), does not equal that there are no rights for the creator?

          It’s fully possible to difference distribution between profit and non-profit distribution. Copyright legislations all over the world already has that ability.

          > “If they want money, they need to offer a service or rely on donations.”

          No. The fact that anyone can put anything up for digital distribution does not equal that.

          > “There are 2 main business models; physical goods and services. Essentially, with this, only the service models will survive..”

          Possibly.

          > “..but for things like videogames that are based solely on the actual good and have no services to offer (besides multiplayer, which is not applicable to all games, and online backups, which are worthless), there would be severe damage.”

          Possibly, if the sellers of single player games are unable to invent new business models, that will overcome that. That is not something that has to happen.

          > “This is the problem with your idea.”

          I have not put forward any idea? Nor does it exist one that originates from me.

          > “Again, the problem with those studies is that they function in a society where the people the pirates show the culture to will pay for the culture. In a society where payment is not a requirement, there will not be nearly as strong a link between pirate marketing and sales”

          Sales of digital copies yes. That’s one single business model among many. Creation of culture does not stand or fall with that particular business model.

          > “It’s a serious problem with the studies that the researchers themselves have acknowledged.”

          It is only a serious problem if you exclusively rely on selling digital copies, in combination with working under the premise that every single creation must be financed with revenues only from sales of copies of that particular creation. That has never been the case. Both the recording-, movie-, game- and publishing industry can verify that that’s been the case for decades.

          Nine out of ten creations have never made enough revenues from sales of copies of that particular creation, to finance the creation. It has instead been financed with revenues from other parts of the business. And since the combined revenues in the content industry continue to rise, no problem exists with financing creations, and there are no studies that prove that a free-culture society would decrease those total combined revenues.

          > “I thought the goal of copyright as you put it was to “culturally maximize society”, but you acknowledge that your ideas will lead to the severe problems for certain types of culture.”

          The fact that certain forms of culture might cease to be created, for any reason, does not equal that society no longer will be culturally maximised.

          > “We want more culture to be produced, not less. We accomplish this by making an incentive for creation. That incentive is the privilege of distribution control so that you can try to make a profit off of it.”

          Yes, there has been an assumption that we accomplish that effect with the privilege of some distribution control. That assumption isn’t necessarily correct in this day and age.

          > “If a form of culture can’t survive in an atmosphere where we allow people to use the market for profits, then we can let it die.”

          This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. There has never been any talks about “an atmosphere” that forbids “people to use the market for profits”?

          > “I’ve been asking around this forum for a couple months and haven’t gotten a good answer from any of the pirates here…//..If you have even a single idea of a business model for a form of culture that is totally reliant on the actual physical piece of culture in an environment where they have to let their product be offered for free, then say it.”

          Anyone who in advance gives away new business models, so that others can copy them and beat you to the market, is a complete idiot. Obviously no one should give you an answer to such a deceptive question.

          > “Tell how me how interactive media (not just competitive videogames) can make a profit in that environment.”

          Are you saying that you are a business entrepreneur that can’t come up with such business models on your own? If so, you don’t deserve to make any money whatsoever.

          Asking others to come up with solutions for how one should make money as an entrepreneur? If there ever was laziness or a free mentality.. =)

          > “You say that you want to “culturally maximize society”"

          No, i do not say that i want that. I say that’s the goal of copyright as a concept.

          > “but your ideas”

          No, not my ideas.

          > “will lead to a decline in the amount of content being produced in the future.”

          That’s an assumption from your side.

          > “I say it’s time to take another look.”

          Coming from the one that’s making an awful lot of assumptions.

          > “I do hope I’ve managed to talk some sense into you”

          Since over 90% of our discussions revolve around me having to over and over again explain what i actually wrote, since you continuously misinterpreting basically every claim i put forward, and turn it into something else, i don’t think talking sense into me is what this is about.

          The final 10% is you coming up with false claims, making assumptions based on basically nothing, and showing a lack of faith in things that history has already proven to be a fact.

          > “Also, it’s very annoying when you respond to an argument by saying (not a quote, just my representation of what you appear to be) “I didn’t say it in those exact words, so I won’t answer your point”.”

          It’s even more irritating having to reply to straw-man arguments, false quotations and incorrect claims.

          The problem isn’t that i don’t respond because you use different words, the problems lies with the fact that you completely change the core meaning of what i said, and then expect me to respond to something that i never said or meant. That problem originates with you alone. That is really not my responsibility in any way.

          > “If you didn’t say what people think you did, explain the error.”

          Wouldn’t it be easier if people learned to read? I’m not everybody’s English teacher. I write exactly what i mean, word for word, with correct English. If you then change the meaning of what i wrote, by replacing words or changing the sentence, that’s where it stops, because of you.

          > “If you don’t understand what people are saying, tell them AND write based on what you think they mean.”

          No, i respond to what people themselves actually write. When they make false claims i correct them, so that no one else would believe their false claims to be true.

          If they can’t write properly, and therefore make false claims, again, that’s there problem. I’m not their English teacher.

    • Fredrika

      > “You do NOT have a right to have other people’s work for free and to distribute that work to others.”

      Have a right? You seem to be a bit confused about how society works. People don’t need rights to be allowed to perform task? Society works the other way around. Everything is allowed, until it is specifically forbidden, through legitimate legislation.

      The parts of the copyright monopoly that in some countries forbid non-profit filesharing, in turn, is not made up of legitimate legislation. Therefore it’s completely ok to fileshare has much as one wants.

      > “You are NOT an activist.”

      How very dare you!? Ms. Tate salutes you. =)

      > “”Mine MINE!” mentality”

      Yes, people own their own harddrives, and the copyright monopoly should’nt be allowed to perform an intrusion into physical property, and forbid people to do as they wish with their own ohysical property. Such a monopoly would equal theft.

      > “you don’t make enough money to buy it legally.”

      You are of course aware of Falkvinge’s previous huge salary, that he earned each month, when he voluntarily quit that job, and founded the first Pirate Party in 2006? Most definitely he could afford to buy has much products and services as he wanted, so his motivation to give up that salary and start The Pirate Party must have been something else..

      > “But as long as you still try to claim that you are innocent and just disobeying a bad law, you will never be taken seriously be REAL human beings.”

      Should we by the quality of your reasoning assume you’re not either a real human being? Exactly what would the opposite of a real human being be? A clone? An alien? A robot? A bot?

      • Lfg

        Fredrika, can I say something? You seem to misunderstand what people mean by “rights”. There are certain things like the right to freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial that may only be restricted to a very minimal degree, if at all. What people are saying is that filesharing of copyrighted content is not covered by any one of these rights, so if society decides to disallow it, such as with copyright legislation, then people can’t go around claiming “it’s my sacred and inalienable right to fileshare.” You can’t claim that it’s something that the law should be forbidden from restricting. I know you like your argument and you think it sounds good so you use it for everything, but it doesn’t usually fit. Just tryin’ to let ya know.

        • Fredrika

          > “then people can’t go around claiming “it’s my sacred and inalienable right to fileshare.”"

          I have never made such claim, nor have i ever suggested that anyone should make such claim, or that it is correct.

          > “You can’t claim that it’s something that the law should be forbidden from restricting.”

          I have never made such claim, nor have i ever suggested that anyone should make such claim, or that it is correct.

          > “I know you like your argument and you think it sounds good so you use it for everything, but it doesn’t usually fit.”

          Which argument is that? Because the straw-man arguments you just put forward and replied to, where not mine.

          If those confused conclusions are how you interpret my actual claims, you obviously don’t understand what i’m writing, as it is written, and therefore your following assessments of what you think i have written are of no interest to me.

        • Lfg

          You claim that any restrictions on filesharing are illegitimate. That is true. You say that people should always be allowed to manufacture copies of culture they have and distribute them, and that the law can’t and shouldn’t stop people from doing it, and that any attempts are illegitimate. Do you dispute this?

        • Fredrika

          > “You claim that any restrictions on filesharing are illegitimate.”

          No, i have not made such claim.

          > “That is true.

          Are you agreeing with your own straw-man argument?

          > “You say that people should always be allowed to manufacture copies of culture they have and distribute them”

          No, i have not made such claim.

          > “and that the law can’t and shouldn’t stop people from doing it, and that any attempts are illegitimate. Do you dispute this?”

          I most certainly do, i have not made any such claims.

          If there are any specific claims, that i have written, that you don’t understand, please copy the claim in question, exactly as i wrote it, and maybe i can explain it to you. Do not, as you’ve been doing up until this point, try to rewrite my claim, as you interpret it, because i will not try to decipher your interpretations, to understand what you are talking about, and which of my claims you’re referring to.

    • Anonymous

      “You do NOT have a right to have other people’s work for free and to distribute that work to others.”

      Actually I do. You don’t get to force people to buy your $15 album that’s being distributed in some way that’s rife with absurd restrictions. The market dictates the value of your work and how it will be distributed, not your sociopath ass who wants royalties everytime somebody hears you fart.

      “You are NOT an activist.”

      Are you talking to Rick? Because if you’re talking to Rick, then you really need to go crack open a dictionary as he’s an activist by definition.

      “But as long as you still try to claim that you are innocent and just disobeying a bad law, you will never be taken seriously be REAL human beings.”

      But your definiton of a “REAL” human being is what most people would call a clown, a monster, or both. If we were taken seriously by your twisted idea of a person, that would mean we were doing something very, very wrong.

      P.S.
      You can’t just change your name from Jack Murdock to lakawak, you have to actually write in a different style and say different things. Otherwise it’s painfully obvious. Like this.

  • Sly

    I remember here in the states during the sixties the student protests and how the “establishment” barked at the student’s actions. On the other hand they,the “establishment” cheered the student protesters,under Communist regimes in Europe.. Both student groups were addressing essentially the same issues.

  • Anon

    Rick said: “People have a duty to defy unjust laws.”

    I’m cool with Rick calling for lawbreaking as long as he is cool with using his own resources to bail people out of legal trouble after they follow his idiotic advice.

    • Sparkie

      You can be pretty sure there will be nobody left to bail you out in future if you don’t follow this basic advice.

    • Guest

      Rick is right, he just uses to wide of a pen to define what is unjust.

    • Quinn

      If that’s your mentality you are so screwed.

    • Quinn

      If that’s your mentality you are so screwed.

  • Anonymous

    It is happening in India also.
    The Govt is beating up people who are demanding laws to punish corrupt politicians, Judges, police and Govt officials.
    Anybody who protests is branded a Hindu right wing activist.

  • gss

    I always will owe a big thank you to all the hackers out there. Without them, I’d never have learned all the things that I have in the last 6 or 7 years. Including teaching myself c++ programming…learning how to play poker…etc etc…thanks.

  • gss

    Yeah it’s kind of odd that the US media was cheering the Egyptian protesters on and backing them but at the same time, the US Govt silently developing non-lethal and lethal weapons for crowd control to obviously be used on future protesters.

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

    • spam go away

      spam go away

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    Great article, as always, Rick. Thank you!

  • Pingback: The Door To Citizens’ Freedom Swings Both Ways - Falkvinge on Infopolicy

  • Pingback: Who’s The Police And Who’s The Crook, Anyway? | TorrentFreak | NotSoCrazyNews BETA

  • http://twitter.com/sangamdelhi Sangam Kumar

    DVD player: Get latest and frineldy DVD player from Greendust.com
    http://www.greendust.com/dvd-player-c-8.html

  • Barack Overseer Obama

    The word officer, was originally overseer.
    Look it up.

  • Barack Overseer Obama

    The word officer, was originally overseer.
    Look it up.

  • Pingback: Una opinión más: Whos The Police And Whos The Crook Anyway

  • Guest

    Freedom Hackers I salute you!

    Let’s attack all these corporate parasites and criminals!

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2a7usxg

  • Karl

    Its power, not about wither its “good” or “evil” the super elites don’t care about such things, its all about just keeping them in power. Which requires a great sum of money. Money = social control + power.

  • Pingback: Whos The Police And Whos The Crook, Anyway? - wehaveways's posterous

  • Pingback: anacrismerino: Whos The Police And Whos The Crook Anyway

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2a7usxg

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2a7usxg

  • Sara Li

    Welcome to –**Millionairematchmakernyc.com**–. Just as the name shows, we are the go-between gathering all the millionaire singles from different background and occupation in New York City. Our members include CEOs, pro athletes, doctors, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, beauty queens, fitness models and Hollywood celebrities, just to name a few. Join us and date with hundreds of thousands of millioaire singles.

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2a7usxg

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Pingback: Dawog’s Blog » Blog Archive » Recent articles concerning Internet Freedom & Copyright

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

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

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

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

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

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

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

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

MostDiscussed

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

CopyQuote

Left Quote

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

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

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