Your opinions on TPB trial (The pirate Bay)

[Anon]

The Pirate Bay. Pirated software.

Eggplant. It is simultaneously an egg and a plant.

Really, if you're going to use the "legitimate purposes" argument then enjoy your lack of handguns. Unless killing people is ok?

Anywho, story time! Let's just say that I open up a website detailing how to distil alcohol at home using everyday equipment. As it happens, this is perfectly legal in my country, but completely illegal in virtually every other country (certainly all first world countries).

Now Mr X, Mrs Y and Mr Z, all from the USA, post to said website, and their posts all contain hard proof that they are from the USA, and that they have indeed distilled beverages successfully. This really riles the US government (or vigilante organisations, whatever) and I am sent legal threats to turn over the IP addresses of these users. This is, of course, not going to happen as it would go against my privacy policy, so I publicly respond to these legal threats. I am subsequently sued, and am told to

a) hand over the IP addresses of these users, potentially subjecting them to criminal investigation and decimating my privacy policy

-or-

b) told to shut the site down.


Now, anti-TPBers, for both of those given conclusions, are they fair? Are they just? Would you be happy to see those judgements made?

[ToonArmy]

I am not even offereing an opinion about whether this is good or bad. I am simply saying that it is very naive to think that they are all innocent bystanders and had no idea their software would be used for illegal purposes.

No you quite clearly stated that the only purpose of torrents and the only motivation for creating such software was for sharing copyrighted content illegally.

the only files anyone would ever want to share would be ones that are copyrighted like software and music and images etc.

the people that originally developed it were simply trying to get around the fact that all the other p2p sites/software was getting sued and shut down etc.

[thecoalman]

the only files anyone would ever want to share would be ones that are copyrighted like software and music and images etc.

What if I wanted to send a 2 GB video to a relative across the country?

Blaming the technology and trying to limit, regulate it or labeling it as pirating software is going down a slippery slope. I'll bring up the example of CD recorders again. If you're older and remember the days of the tape cassette they all had a record button on them. <gasp> Yes us old people had the ability to record things from a common device that we all had.

CD players today do not have this ability except some very expensive models. Certainly a manufacturer would want to add this feature to get a leg up on the competition correct? They don't because the RIAA was successful on few fronts with this technology. A portable CD recorder is considered a standalone "music" recording device which places it in a special category. Firstly they need to have a special chip which as I understand it has technology licensed from the RIAA or an associated company driving the cost up. Secondly there is a tax applied to them and the media they use. The media would be those discs with the "Audio CD" label on them and these recorders will reject any disc without that label.

The end result is these extra expenses have driven up the cost of such recorders and the media beyond what a consumer would want to pay preventing it from being a widely available. The same thing happened with the DAT format released before CD's which is a better format. They wanted the same rules applied to MP3 players, phones, computer CD/DVD burners etc. all of which are used for very legitimate purposes every day.

Getting back to the topic at hand and how this applies to it people who are seeking out pirated material will inevitably gravitate to whatever technology/sites/software/hardware allows them to do it. The solution to this problem as the mass media conglomerates see it is to eliminate this technology as proven by their past and ongoing practices. That is unacceptable.

The only real solution for the large media conglomerates is to change their decades old practices of trying to control their content by controlling how it can be distributed. Their "golden goose" in the past has been reselling the same content over and over which was quite easy to do because the media had shelf life. That of course has changed now we are in the digital age, if they want to survive they need to move into the electronic age with a new business model and stop trying to extend practices of the past. Until then their business will continue to suffer either through people getting pirated materiel but more importantly looking for alternatives such as legal material distributed over services like bit torrents.

[ToonArmy]

Well said, you hit the nail on the head with exactly why the media industry is making such a big fuss. It undermines their core way of exploiting wads of cash out of consumers by charging for each and every format you purchase the media in.

[thecoalman]

I don't want to drive this off topic or sound like a conspiracy kook but the media companies will tell you they have DRM for protection against piracy and they are fighting technologies and sites like TPB because of piracy but I think the real reason is to extend their hold on the industry. DRM gives a media file shelf life and if you eliminate distribution methods artists have no choice but to use established companies...

The declining sales of CD's is often cited as clear sign that every one is pirating it however I think the major contributing factor is people like me who have legitimately purchased all the music they want since CD's came out. I haven't bought a CD in a decade because I have already purchased all the music I enjoy.

[Techie-Micheal]

The Pirate Bay. Pirated software.

Eggplant. It is simultaneously an egg and a plant.

Lovely. Really. Now let's make some sense, shall we? I replied to the person stating that any reasonable person would actually be able to gather that TPB was for pirated software. It is in the name.

Incidentally, your rant about distilling in the US is pretty moot, because people are actually allowed to distill their own alcoholic beverages in the US. But that aside, them not removing the links to the pirated material is pretty much the point here. They refused, so now legal action is being taken against them to force them. Just like I can refuse to hand over IP addresses until I'm hauled in to court and forced to. Then no privacy policy in the world is going to keep the IP addresses in question in my hands.

[Anon]

The Pirate Bay. Pirated software.

Eggplant. It is simultaneously an egg and a plant.

Lovely. Really. Now let's make some sense, shall we? I replied to the person stating that any reasonable person would actually be able to gather that TPB was for pirated software. It is in the name.

Incidentally, your rant about distilling in the US is pretty moot, because people are actually allowed to distill their own alcoholic beverages in the US.

BZZT! Wrong! It's legal to make your own beer and wine, but distillation of alcohol is very illegal.

But that aside, them not removing the links to the pirated material is pretty much the point here. They refused, so now legal action is being taken against them to force them. Just like I can refuse to hand over IP addresses until I'm hauled in to court and forced to. Then no privacy policy in the world is going to keep the IP addresses in question in my hands.

But had you simply not replied to those requests, would you expect a lesser sentence/fine than had you openly mocked those who requested the info?

[phpDummie]

They are about as guilty as gun manufacturers are for gun related crimes and murders.

I thought intelligent discussion was required.

Extraction made a good point, no reason to shut it down right off the bat. I'm sure you are aware of some US cities (sweet home Chicago for one) having tried unsuccessfully to bring up nuisance laws against gun makers? Their effort for misguided but hardly unintelligent.

[phpDummie]

Except that selling bottled water does not make a crime. ...

As far as I understand the crime is .... well, what action is illegal after all? Would it be ripping an audio CD into mp3 files? This is not a crime if you own the CD. (Domestic Recording Act, if remember correctly), but if it is should they be suing computer software and hardware companies making this possible? It isn't even a crime to share that CD with your friend (same). Same goes for movie DVDs. (there was a case about VHS recordings, don't ask me to find it though I will if you do). If I have some Web or ftp server of my own, it can't be a crime for me to store my mp3 files there in case I'd like to listen to my music on business trips, right? If I can share hard copy records with my friend without braking any law, I should be able to share the mp3s, right? Is this a question of haw many friends I am allowed to have?

[phpDummie]

You bring up two very good points:

... If I was to buy a DVD and lost it, I'd feel like I have the right to download it as I already bought it. ...

Some could argue it makes the artists and actors and what not lose money but that's a whole other story.

Indeed, by purchasing, say, an audio CD, I buy the right to play that music in perpetuity. This right should not be effected by my possible loss of the media and if it does happen as a result of fire, theft, hungry dog or just plain act of God, I should be able restore my ability to exercise that my right by replacing the media by whatever means possible.

Amazon, as well as many other on-line music stores, has a way to hear short exerts of songs. If I so preview a song and decide not to buy, can Amazon be liable for artist's lost profit? I did download the mp3 file after all...

... Only thing I see that they wrote is the layout of the site and some other small things.

I only hope they used computers running Windows, so that Microsoft can finally be brought to justice!

[phpDummie]

Can't TPB founders be tried in absentia in the countries where TPB would be illegal? ....

I seriously doubt that There would have been a whole lot fewer war criminals if it were possible.

[phpDummie]

I think Exreaction is splitting hairs. That doesn't change the fact that TPB has not been taking responsibility for removing copyrighted material and other sensitive material. ...

Bold is mine.

What exactly IS this sensitive material you keep referring to?

[lurttinen]

I think Exreaction is splitting hairs. That doesn't change the fact that TPB has not been taking responsibility for removing copyrighted material and other sensitive material. ...

Bold is mine.

What exactly IS this sensitive material you keep referring to?

Arboga murder, for example.

[thecoalman]

As far as I understand the crime is .... well, what action is illegal after all? Would it be ripping an audio CD into mp3 files? This is not a crime if you own the CD. (Domestic Recording Act, if remember correctly),

The law is unclear as no one has ever been prosecuted for making copies of audio files from CD's they own. The law you are referring to in the U.S. is the Audio Home Recording Act which exempts manufactueres of devices that can record audio from being held liable for that use. It also provides for the "tax" I referred for in my above post. Technically I believe if you want to make a copy of a digital file you first need a "taxed" device and the media would also need to be the ones labeled "Audio CD". There's also an exemption in copyright law for making backups of software you have purchased.

It isn't even a crime to share that CD with your friend (same).

Yes you can share the original but if technically if you give him a copy and still possess the origianl you'd be in violation of the law AFAIK.

Same goes for movie DVDs.

There's no exemption for DVD's and again never brought to trial and never will be because the DMCA supersedes most of these laws. Specifically it forbids the breaking of copyright protective measures which makes the argument as to whether you can possess a copy a moot point because you would have to break the law to obtain that copy.

(there was a case about VHS recordings, don't ask me to find it though I will if you do).

I believe you are referring to the Betamax case, Betamax was the predecessor to VHS. I mentioned they tried to stop VHS above but it was actually Betamax when it came on the market. The argument was the same old thing that the technology would be contributory to copyright infringement. You're allowed to record broadcasts with VHS or other devices however these recordings are only supposed to be viewed once. You can't legally for example record movies off HBO and build a library. See "time shifting".

Again all pretty much irrelevant at this time because as long as the DMCA exists in its present form they only have to apply copyright protection.

[phpDummie]

thecoalman,
thank you for clarifications, you are right on the money with factual references.

My whole problem with all these copyright laws is that the consumer seems to be on the short end of it. If software companies recognize the fact that they mainly sell you the license to use the software with or without the media (as the case is with diskless Windows XP distribution of late) and have no problem with you manufacturing the installation disks yourself, no problem with making backups of installation disks and no problem with making additional backups if the first backup goes bad, why is it the entertainment companies do not make it clear that by payning for the initial piece of work you do obtain the right to consume that work forever and ever rather than use the particular media currier?

This unwillingness on the part of media companies grant this right is the crux of the problem all them recording companies have with new technologies and the problem is self-inflicted.