Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Did you see the interview with one of the founders of "The Pirate Bay" on last night's BBC News, Moejoe?

Quote: "I don't care about the law. If I see something I want, I take it. Because I can."

That doesn't strike me as the attitude of a "rock star"; more the attitude of a spoiled kid (and three of them are just kids) who has never had to learn the realities of life: that you can't have everything that you want, instantly. That you have to work and save up your money and BUY stuff that you want.

These are not "heroes". They're a group of kids who want "to get free stuff". And now they've learned that there are consequences to their actions, and that they are not "above the law", as they so obviously consider themselves to be. Perhaps, after their prison sentences, they'll grow up a bit and learn that you can't take whatever you want, just because you "can".

Didn't see the report at all, but that "I can do whatever I want" attitude is the epitome of the Rock Star and has been for at least fifty years. Throwing TV's out of hotel room's, trashing said hotel rooms, Christ, if you think what they're doing is bad, read Iggy Pop or Jim Morrison's biography and the Piratebay people pale in comparison. If you're looking for a more political edge to what they're doing then they're probably more nihilistic anarchists, akin to the Punk and Hardcore ethos of the late 70's early 80's.

In any case, it's not really what "We" think that matters, but what those who follow them think, and that includes a lot of creators too who are seeing opportunity in all this, who are excited by the challenge being presented to the old systems. Everything changes, I suppose it's up to each individual to embrace or reject that change.

EDIT: Oh, and Harry, what I'm really interested in is what you think can be done to stop all this sharing? Is there, in your opinion, any way that it can be stopped?

EDIT 2: And they may not be "heroes" to you, but they are to a lot of sharers. When they stand up and flick the V's to the big companies, whether that's in their amusing replies to lawyers, or interviews, they're reflecting the rebellion of many ordinary people who are fed up and thought they were powerless to affect a change. Now they discover they can make that change in a very simple way, by downloading.

[Wetdogeared]

FYI: This news does not effect the Pirate Bay decision, the IPRED law only coming into affect on April 1, 2009, but it seems to have had an effect on torrent traffic.

On CNET: Swedish antipiracy law: Traffic down, ISP rebels

Immediately following the enactment of a new Swedish antipiracy law on April 1, Internet traffic in Sweden plummeted--and it has yet to return to prior levels.

According to Netnod, an organization that measures Internet traffic on access points between Swedish and international networks, traffic went down from average data speeds of about 160 gigabits per second to about 90Gbps and has remained so since the day the new law went into effect.

"Almost half the Internet is gone," Karlung told CNET News over the telephone from Sweden. "Likely, it is the torrent traffic that has declined, but I cannot say whether this traffic is legal or illegal."

The so-called IPRED originated from the European Union's "International Property Rights Enforcement Directive." IPRED stipulates that property rights holders can take their grievances to a court, which will examine the evidence and decide whether the name of a holder of an IP address will be released.

This could been given a separate news thread, but it directly relates to pirating and I thought that here would be an appropriate place for it.

Link to IPRED in article not working, but I found reference in Wikipedia here.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Wetdogeared

FYI: This news does not effect the Pirate Bay decision, the IPRED law only coming into affect on April 1, 2009, but it seems to have had an effect on torrent traffic.

The traffic was reduced with 40% but this measurement does not include all network traffic (university net is not included for example) in Sweden. It is also to early to say what will happen. I think people wait and see how things will be handled in court. I also think people are waiting for a VPN service that is going to be sold by pirate bay or somebody associated with pirate bay to enable people to be anonymous on the net. Some internet provider have recently said they are not going to save log data so if they can do that people will change to these providers.

[HarryT]

Can you clarify: does this new law actually change what it is and is not legal to download in Sweden, or does it merely make it easier for people to be prosecuted for what is already illegal to do?

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by tirsales

You are not seriously comparing copyright violation and child molestation?

I'm not saying one is just as serious as the other. Obviously, child molestation is much more detestable. The point I was making is that "some people" not thinking it is wrong is a meaningless standard. The whole reason we have a representative republic is that laws are based on the majority (whether it's the majority of citizens or representatives). The fact that "some people" think a law is wrong doesn't give anyone the right to flip the law the bird. And in the United States, we've been in agreement that intellectual property should be protected since ~ 1793.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

... The point I was making is that "some people" not thinking it is wrong is a meaningless standard. The whole reason we have a representative republic is that laws are based on the majority (whether it's the majority of citizens or representatives). The fact that "some people" think a law is wrong doesn't give anyone the right to flip the law the bird. And in the United States, we've been in agreement that intellectual property should be protected since ~ 1793.

It isn't so black and white. The body of law is an evolving one. And the evolution is often effected through disobedience and challenges to existing law. This goes from Prohibition, to civil rights, to intellectual property.

When the law runs against common sense, it becomes widely ignored (think state sodomy laws.)

I'd say, some of the aspects of recent intellectual property legislation, do indeed run against common sense, and stifle innovation.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I'm not saying one is just as serious as the other. Obviously, child molestation is much more detestable. The point I was making is that "some people" not thinking it is wrong is a meaningless standard. The whole reason we have a representative republic is that laws are based on the majority (whether it's the majority of citizens or representatives). The fact that "some people" think a law is wrong doesn't give anyone the right to flip the law the bird. And in the United States, we've been in agreement that intellectual property should be protected since ~ 1793.

You've been in agreement that it should be a fixed-term, shortish thing. The extensions to 40 years, 50, 70, life+70 are all later additions that were hardly thought necessary, or beneficial to society as a whole, by the guys who first wrote it. The difference between what, 20 years, and life+50 or 70 is rather large, wouldn't you say?

The U.S. Congress first exercised its power to enact copyright legislation with the Copyright Act of 1790. The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right of renewal for one additional 14 year term if the author was still alive.

Also, while "some people" doens't constitute a reason to change, unenforced laws generally tend to die. Furthermore, there's the "change of attitude" thing that can be long in coming (see MLK).
Exceptions happen, and things change.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

The fact that DRM-free content works for music (now) doesn't necessarily mean that it will work for ebooks (now).

The primary reason that DRM-free music works is because the hardware involved (primarily, the MP3 players) became easy enough to use, and the associated software (including the MP3 format) became good enough for consumers to easily download, store, play, search, manipulate (e.g., normalization), and catalogue their music -- with standards that were developed.

Ebooks, by contrast, have very few of those things. The reader hardware is good, but not necessarily great, and it's relatively expensive. Ebooks can come in several different formats (not including DRM formats), and there are metadata issues. Don't get me wrong: I love my Kindle, but there's a distance to go yet, before ebook readers will be ready for the masses. (The introduction of color e-Ink will obviously be a huge step in the right direction, as would the ability to have a light of some kind built-in to the book, which so far has proven difficult for e-Ink devices.)

I don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You're saying that DRM-Free music is only acceptable due to the fact that we standardized on the MP3 container?

One of the problems with DRM is the fact that there isn't some universal standard. If I want to buy a book from Fictionwise but it is only available in a secure format I'm SOL since I have a Sony Reader. I'm not a criminal, I don't violate copyright, I just want to buy an ebook and read it on my reader. If not for the DRM I could just use Calibre to convert it to ePub or LRF. But since it does have DRM, I can't use it without violating the DMCA and becoming a criminal.

All DRM is doing is having me renew my library card since I can't legally use the book on my Reader, and therefor won't buy the book.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you clarify: does this new law actually change what it is and is not legal to download in Sweden, or does it merely make it easier for people to be prosecuted for what is already illegal to do?

Copyright holders lobby organizations can now force internet service providers to release information about who had a specific IP number at a specific time. If the same thing happens as in Denmark when they got a similar law the lobby copyright holder organization will then send an extortion letter threatening with having to pay their court cost if they loose and saying they will go to court if you do not pay a lesser amount. Since this is not a criminal case you have to pay the winning sides costs.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

A few factual clarifcations first...




Stephen King started writing a novel, The Plant, a chapter at a time, release as an e-book with no DRM by suscription. Half way through, he decided he was not getting enough suscribers for the next chapter, so he stopped. Please note, he made $440,000 US dollars from his subscribers for the half written book by the time he quit. Gone all that well, therefore is a matter of perspective. Many authors would beg, borrow, or steal for those sort of numbers.

1) Stephen King made $440,000 US because he's Stephen King. Compare that number to the sum he usually makes for a book. Comparing it to a lesser-known author isn't really a valid comparison, if what you're trying to do is measure the success of the technique (rather than the success of the author).

2) King released the chapters DRM-free on the condition that 75% of the people who downloaded them would pay for them (I think the price was $1, if I remember right.) He stopped because he wasn't even getting that from people.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Some vendor has, for a number of years. Baen books. Science fiction and Fantasy specialist, admittedly, but they have not been cutting back, dropping all new publishing, ect. that has been occurring at the top 6 publishers. I highly recommend reading Eric Flint's "Salvos Against Big Brother" colums in Baen's Universe magazine. Eric Flint is a sucessful professional niche writer, and has explicit sales numbers to back up (from his own published works!) why e-books without DRM have made him more successful.

Granted, Baen has been doing this for a while. They're the equivalent of where eMusic was several years back in the online music industry. Small vendors can afford to do DRM-free ebooks because it's better for them to have their e-books readable by as many people as possible (rather than tied to a specific device). Larger vendors have more to lose.

It should also be noted that book publishers currently have a lot less incentive to go digital than the music industry did. The barrier to copying a book is a lot higher than the barrier to copying a CD. Essentially, that means that the risk of digitizing is higher, since you're removing the biggest obstacle to copying. (The DRM is actually trivial, by comparison.)

At this point, Amazon represents the best hope for ebook readers. If Amazon succeeds, ebook readers will become ubiquitous. If they fail, ebook readers may become relics.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

You've been in agreement that it should be a fixed-term, shortish thing. The extensions to 40 years, 50, 70, life+70 are all later additions that were hardly thought necessary, or beneficial to society as a whole, by the guys who first wrote it. The difference between what, 20 years, and life+50 or 70 is rather large, wouldn't you say?

The U.S. Congress first exercised its power to enact copyright legislation with the Copyright Act of 1790. The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right of renewal for one additional 14 year term if the author was still alive.

Also, while "some people" doens't constitute a reason to change, unenforced laws generally tend to die. Furthermore, there's the "change of attitude" thing that can be long in coming (see MLK).
Exceptions happen, and things change.

Yes, I agree that the current copyright is too long. That doesn't mean that copyright itself should die, though. As for "unenforced" laws, there is almost no chance that copyright itself will ever be unenforced. People tend to enjoy getting paid for their work, and tend to not enjoy other people stealing and/or taking credit for their work.

The comparison to MLK is wrong-headed. It's actually the polar opposite of the situation with piracy. You're comparing someone fighting for justice for a group of ne'er-do-wells fighting for injustice, in the form of intellectual theft.

People who do work deserve to get paid what the market will bear. If you don't want to buy it, don't.

It's one thing to argue for DRM-free content. I support that, and think the market will move in that direction once the powers-that-be are satisfied that more people will buy content than will steal it. But organizations like The Pirate Bay are antithetical to that goal, because they encourage (gleefully so, apparently) people to violate copyright and distribute works for free which should be paid for.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

The comparison to MLK is wrong-headed. It's actually the polar opposite of the situation with piracy. You're comparing someone fighting for justice for a group of ne'er-do-wells fighting for injustice, in the form of intellectual theft.

No, it's fighting against an oligopolic industry, that is able to behave surprisingly like a cartel, without ever having really been investigated for that.
Especially with the currently surfacing idea in the US justice system that the RIAA is abusing the courts in order to push through its agenda, that is, to troll people into submission by threatening them with the possibility of humongous court fees if they go to court and lose. There was a recent judge that was very annoyed that the RIAA kept dropping cases after discovery of the names that were subpoena'ed in RIAA vs. Does cases, and then filing individual suits against those people. Apparently that sort of thing isn't 'legal', or somesuch. Sadly, they're never confronted, as they always drop the cases they stand even the smallest chance of losing. As soon as they become suspicious of the skills of the defense attorney, they'll drop the case like a hot potato, thus ensuring no precedent is created. See the working paper by Pamela Samuelson for more.
Whatever you may think of "pirates", their existence does not warrant the behavior of the RIAA towards basically defenseless people, as no individual in his right mind will take the risk to be forced to pay the costs the RIAA can force on them just by suing them. Those extortionist practices are absolutely pathetic, and only reinforce the "class justice" stereotype that is already dominant in some circles. And you will not be able to convince me that an industry that happily hires lawyers like that deserves any pity whatever.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

1) Stephen King made $440,000 US because he's Stephen King. Compare that number to the sum he usually makes for a book. Comparing it to a lesser-known author isn't really a valid comparison, if what you're trying to do is measure the success of the technique (rather than the success of the author).

2) King released the chapters DRM-free on the condition that 75% of the people who downloaded them would pay for them (I think the price was $1, if I remember right.) He stopped because he wasn't even getting that from people.

I will point out that 1. That wasn't the P-book rights (hard and paper), and any of the auxillary rights, either. For a market that is small and fledging, $440,000 was a lot of money. And 2. let's think this over. How many chapters in a Steven King book? 20? 30? 40? I've gathered his books are rather long. (I have no interest in either the genre or author, so I'm kinda the mythical Man from Mars on this.) That's 20, 30 or 40 or more dollars for an e-book. That's above hardcover prices. Amazon tries to cap at $9.99 a book for Kindle, and Baen caps at $6 for general release e-book. (Pre-publication versions go for more, but the price drops on publication.)

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Granted, Baen has been doing this for a while. They're the equivalent of where eMusic was several years back in the online music industry. Small vendors can afford to do DRM-free ebooks because it's better for them to have their e-books readable by as many people as possible (rather than tied to a specific device). Larger vendors have more to lose.

And more to gain.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

It should also be noted that book publishers currently have a lot less incentive to go digital than the music industry did. The barrier to copying a book is a lot higher than the barrier to copying a CD. Essentially, that means that the risk of digitizing is higher, since you're removing the biggest obstacle to copying. (The DRM is actually trivial, by comparison.).

Maybe you'd better look at the P.D. ebook available here and elsewhere. Over 6,000 titles here, and nearly 30,000 at Project Gutenberg. And all those books were scanned and proofed by volunteers. That's a lot of books. And please don't think scanner are limited to P.D. scanning. People scan things for the Darknet as well (think Harry Potter.)

Originally Posted by bhartman36

At this point, Amazon represents the best hope for ebook readers. If Amazon succeeds, ebook readers will become ubiquitous. If they fail, ebook readers may become relics.

They weren't relics before Amazon, they'll still be around after Amazon. Niche, yes, but still around...Being able to carry a thousand books in one hand is a tremendous rush....

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

... That doesn't mean that copyright itself should die, though....

This is not the argument people are making.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

... People who do work deserve to get paid what the market will bear. If you don't want to buy it, don't.

You got it right here. Except, that when too many are pirating a product, it would indicate that it is priced above market. If priced right, the majority of interested users will buy it - the "right price" will outweigh for the majority the cost of spending time scouring pirate sites, risking infections, and feeling guilty.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

... It's one thing to argue for DRM-free content. ... But organizations like The Pirate Bay are antithetical to that goal, because they encourage (gleefully so, apparently) people to violate copyright and distribute works for free which should be paid for.

With the advent of digital storage, the market has changed. Content providers have effectively used their influence and played the system, to attempt to increase profits above analogue levels (think of the prices of BluRay compared to DVD, or digital music and ebooks compared to their analog equivalents.)

One can argue, that groups like TPB act to level the market, where one side has a monopoly of sorts: if J.K. Rowling wishes to "gouge" the market, options like TPB would act to relieve the imbalance. If a Rowling ebook title is, say $7, I'd guess the majority in the developed world would rather pay, than expend the effort to "pirate."

So, in effect, without groups like TPB, the "powers that be," would have no incentive to refrain from gouging the market.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You got it right here. Except, that when too many are pirating a product, it would indicate that it is priced above market. If priced right, the majority of interested users will buy it - the "right price" will outweigh for the majority the cost of spending time scouring pirate sites, risking infections, and feeling guilty.

I thought it was wrong. What does "deserve" mean in this context. This seem to be an entitlement argument again. Or a circular argument.