High Court orders British ISPs to block "The Pirate Bay"

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No. Just no.

You don't even understand what stealing is.

Stealing is taking something without the owner's permission. If you think a product is too expensive, you just don't buy it. It is not stealing for a company to ask you to pay more for a product than you, personally, think it is worth.

It is stealing for you to take the product without paying.

This post is dripping with delicious irony-sauce. Berating someone for getting the technical meaning of "stealing" wrong, and then applying a meaning that is no less correct buy helps advance your own personal position caused me to have a grin two-sizes too large for my face. Thank you for that.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The ones you are talking about are not consumers. Consumers are people who are willing to pay for a product, they don't just take what doesn't belong to them because they can get away with it. And neither are those who claim to be willing to buy for a ridiculously low price that nobody can afford to sell at called consumers. The ones you are talking about will always take it for free and never buy, anyway. They really don't count. Honest people may think something is too expensive. Then they just stay away and get something else.

Except, as has been pointed out many times, and in threads that you've participated in, recent studies have shown that pirates do in fact buy quite a bit of media even though it's evident that they know how to get it for free. Gabe Newell at Valve Software would certainly disagree with you as well and say that most pirates are merely under-served customers. Valve's profits in the Russian market (where piracy is rampant), would certainly seem to suggest that Gabe is correct on this one.

It's easy to demonize copyright infringers, but hyperbole doesn't make for a useful conversation.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Except, as has been pointed out many times, and in threads that you've participated in, recent studies have shown that pirates do in fact buy quite a bit of media even though it's evident that they know how to get it for free. Gabe Newell at Valve Software would certainly disagree with you as well and say that most pirates are merely under-served customers. Valve's profits in the Russian market (where piracy is rampant), would certainly seem to suggest that Gabe is correct on this one.

It's easy to demonize copyright infringers, but hyperbole doesn't make for a useful conversation.

Apparently you didn't read the post I was responding to. He said if the product is not priced the way people want it they should just take it. The seller has no say in the matter. That is obviously not the attitude of people who buy even though they know how to pirate.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Except, as has been pointed out many times, and in threads that you've participated in, recent studies have shown that pirates do in fact buy quite a bit of media even though it's evident that they know how to get it for free.

That may very well be true, but it doesn't excuse their illegal activities. It's like saying "Fred's a drug dealer, but it's OK - he's kind to small furry animals". The fact that these people may perhaps also buy content does not "legitimise" their illegal downloading of other content.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

No, piracy is buying (getting) the product without paying.

How would they know the difference between people pirating it and people doing without or buying an alternative product instead? All they would have to go on is the previous year's sales figures, and it would be very easy to just blame piracy for everything and carry on as normal.

I still see writers complaining about piracy being the reason for their lack of sales, despite Amazon (and others) reporting record sales of ebooks. What excuse will they use when they get what they want, an instant kill switch on any website they don't like?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How would they know the difference between people pirating it and people doing without or buying an alternative product instead? All they would have to go on is the previous year's sales figures, and it would be very easy to just blame piracy for everything and carry on as normal.

I still see writers complaining about piracy being the reason for their lack of sales, despite Amazon (and others) reporting record sales of ebooks. What excuse will they use when they get what they want, an instant kill switch on any website they don't like?

The reason that I know that are people pirating my software is that I see it posted on Usenet binaries groups, pirated CD offered for sale on eBay, etc., and the times that I can do anything about it are few and far between. There are some particularly brainless ones that you can take action against, but such victories are rare.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How would they know the difference between people pirating it and people doing without or buying an alternative product instead? All they would have to go on is the previous year's sales figures, and it would be very easy to just blame piracy for everything and carry on as normal.

I still see writers complaining about piracy being the reason for their lack of sales, despite Amazon (and others) reporting record sales of ebooks. What excuse will they use when they get what they want, an instant kill switch on any website they don't like?

I am no writer, musician, or in any other way affected by piracy. I am 100% on the other side of the fence.

The point is, how can you justify the downloader getting something for free? What has he or she done to deserve it? No matter what or if there is any damage, no matter if anyone notices it. What gives the downloader the right to just take what doesn't belong to him?

I am looking at it purely from the downloaders state of mind. How does he justify it? This is the important question. Forget what others are doing, who else did something wrong or immoral. The downloader had no book, song, movie before he downloaded. After "the act" he has a copy of something that costs money. How is this right?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am no writer, musician, or in any other way affected by piracy. I am 100% on the other side of the fence.

The point is, how can you justify the downloader getting something for free? What has he or she done to deserve it? No matter what or if there is any damage, no matter if anyone notices it. What gives the downloader the right to just take what doesn't belong to him?

I am looking at it purely from the downloaders state of mind. How does he justify it? This is the important question. Forget what others are doing, who else did something wrong or immoral. The downloader had no book, song, movie before he downloaded. After "the act" he has a copy of something that costs money. How is this right?

You've probably seen all the same excuses as me, but I doubt many people doing it even think about it in those terms, never mind try to justify it to themselves or others.

"Because it's there" is probably the most likely, and that's something creators do have at least some control over. Usenet not so much (though that didn't stop Harlan Ellison or Suze Randall) but it's such a minority interest these days that it's not really worth fretting about. Most providers will warn users about copyright complaints and take action over multiple complaints, or release subscriber details with a court order.

Ebay, anyone who wants to (whether they are the owner or not) can have listings removed just by asking. I've had 1970s Hells Angels books removed, and also devices to plug a Playstation controller into a USB port (the latter almost certainly done by a competing seller).

Anything else, if the site owner won't play nice just get Google to remove it from their search results, that will cut out anyone who was ever likely to buy it. You don't need to be American to take advantage (or misuse) American laws.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You've probably seen all the same excuses as me, but I doubt many people doing it even think about it in those terms, never mind try to justify it to themselves or others.

"Because it's there" is probably the most likely, and that's something creators do have at least some control over. Usenet not so much (though that didn't stop Harlan Ellison or Suze Randall) but it's such a minority interest these days that it's not really worth fretting about. Most providers will warn users about copyright complaints and take action over multiple complaints, or release subscriber details with a court order.

Ebay, anyone who wants to (whether they are the owner or not) can have listings removed just by asking. I've had 1970s Hells Angels books removed, and also devices to plug a Playstation controller into a USB port (the latter almost certainly done by a competing seller).

Anything else, if the site owner won't play nice just get Google to remove it from their search results, that will cut out anyone who was ever likely to buy it. You don't need to be American to take advantage (or misuse) American laws.

So, did TPB ever take something down? Did they ever release a statement that they were vetting the links or that they would cooperate with rights owners? Isn't TPB a target that literally does everything wrong and brazenly out in the open, just like Napster?

And with regard to Google removing a site from search results, would you have to get a court order for that? Why would Google cooperate? Would Google potentially set up themselves for a lawsuit? It is easier said than done, Google isn't run by the government.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The point is, how can you justify the downloader getting something for free? What has he or she done to deserve it? No matter what or if there is any damage, no matter if anyone notices it. What gives the downloader the right to just take what doesn't belong to him?

Someone getting something for free that I paid for is annoying, but I also don't care unless their getting something for free causes harm; my annoyance that someone got a benefit that I did not isn't a harm (or at least only a minor one), it's just me being petulant.

I would greatly prefer that piracy didn't exist, but if the harm that it causes is weighed against the harm caused by more draconian laws and internet monitoring, than I usually side with the pirates. Piracy may or may not be morally wrong, but I only care about its actual effects.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Someone getting something for free that I paid for is annoying, but I also don't care unless their getting something for free causes harm; my annoyance that someone got a benefit that I did not isn't a harm (or at least only a minor one), it's just me being petulant.

I would greatly prefer that piracy didn't exist, but if the harm that it causes is weighed against the harm caused by more draconian laws and internet monitoring, than I usually side with the pirates.

You seem to be confusing "cause" and "effect" here. There would be no need for more draconian laws and monitoring if these people whom you side with weren't illegally downloading stuff.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Someone getting something for free that I paid for is annoying, but I also don't care unless their getting something for free causes harm; my annoyance that someone got a benefit that I did not isn't a harm (or at least only a minor one), it's just me being petulant.

I would greatly prefer that piracy didn't exist, but if the harm that it causes is weighed against the harm caused by more draconian laws and internet monitoring, than I usually side with the pirates. Piracy may or may not be morally wrong, but I only care about its actual effects.

I am definitely not supporting any draconian laws and widespread monitoring like SOPA. But I also am not afraid of ghosts and think the world would be a better place with TPB gone. You can't stop everything and it makes no sense to even try. But they are taking it much too far. IMHO an easy call.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Someone getting something for free that I paid for is annoying, but I also don't care unless their getting something for free causes harm; my annoyance that someone got a benefit that I did not isn't a harm (or at least only a minor one), it's just me being petulant.

I would greatly prefer that piracy didn't exist, but if the harm that it causes is weighed against the harm caused by more draconian laws and internet monitoring, than I usually side with the pirates. Piracy may or may not be morally wrong, but I only care about its actual effects.

Spoken like a guy whose work can't be pirated-yet!

If the product of NL's labor could be distributed free on the Internet, thus costing him income, he would not have this wise and understanding attitude about piracy.

[ProfCrash]

The actual effects are that the creators of the work make less money and are less able to take care of their families and the families of others tied to the pirated goods. I am sorry, but I don't have to be selling something that can be pirated to know that that is bad and wrong and should not be encouraged or allowed.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So, did TPB ever take something down? Did they ever release a statement that they were vetting the links or that they would cooperate with rights owners? Isn't TPB a target that literally does everything wrong and brazenly out in the open, just like Napster?

And with regard to Google removing a site from search results, would you have to get a court order for that? Why would Google cooperate? Would Google potentially set up themselves for a lawsuit? It is easier said than done, Google isn't run by the government.

I find it astonishing how people twist themselves into knots defending TPB.
The Pirate Bay is not necessarily engaging in , or facilitating, piracy. Seriously?
If so, they are going about the legal distribution of content the wrong way.
AS far Google is concerned, they BENEFIT from piracy , since content illegally uploaded to YouTube drives eyeballs and therefore advertising to the site.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So, did TPB ever take something down? Did they ever release a statement that they were vetting the links or that they would cooperate with rights owners? Isn't TPB a target that literally does everything wrong and brazenly out in the open, just like Napster?

My understanding is they didn't remove anything because what they were doing wasn't illegal in their own country (at the time, I don't know about now).

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And with regard to Google removing a site from search results, would you have to get a court order for that? Why would Google cooperate? Would Google potentially set up themselves for a lawsuit? It is easier said than done, Google isn't run by the government.

You just send a letter or a fax. But bigger corporations can probably just email them instead.
http://www.google.co.uk/dmca.html