| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
   |
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:58:00 -
[1]
I already popped the champagne.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 12:34:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Revonanist
I am a little behind the times, but I think the 'music industry' needs to be killed.
The pirate bay didn't just link to music, it linked to books, movies, games, etc. even games that ARE easily available (such as Valve-games).
The reason I think it's a deserving judgment is:
1. Intent. They had full intent to spread this type of material. Anyone who says different is an ideological apologist.
2. Responsibility. While it is true that they did not provide with the bandwidth for spreading the files themselves. They still provided with the means to obtain them. Without the pirate bay, the files distributed mentioned in this case would not have been spread via pirate bay. They are responsible for what type of traffic goes on. I doubt if this was eg. a pedophile torrent site that many would be defending them. "The Pedophile Bay" defended under the same type of clueless rhetoric "Oh we're just a regular torrent site, it's not our fault that we link to hundreds of thousands files of child ****". This is not as damaging as that, true. But call it what it is. Aiding in copyright infringement. With intent. Sure as hell they're responsible.
3. Scale. Scale plays a big part in my opinion. The Pirate Bay has around ten million people using it, and lets; for arguments sake say half of them are using the pirate bay to spread copyrighted materials, that is a scale that just cannot be ignored. It is significant enough to not slide under the radar. I am personally not against people who share, I believe in "fair use", and I think software patents and copyright are going to far. But this isn't a matter of black and white. These boys are in a grey zone, but because of the scale I think it's leaning more toward black. Mostly because they also draw a lot of profit from this site. Profit from ads for example. Also, their arrogant attitude toward many, far from rich authors who asked them to remove their books from the pirate bay were met with this inane puerile drivel, an arrogance that I am happy to say went around and slapped them in their own faces.
They went out last night to celebrate their conviction. Damn, I hope they get convicted on the next level as well.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:50:00 -
[3]
Originally by: mama guru
All you "It's a crime" folks might wanna do some research on Swedish law.
I did, and yes it is a crime. And they were convicted by a court. Do you claim to be better at interpreting Swedish law than the Swedish legal system?
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 22:26:00 -
[4]
Originally by: nahtoh
And If I am not mistaken its a really recent one that was the result of years of lobbing by the entertaiment companies (and they appernttly used used some really shady tatics before it became law).
Sure, and 9/11 was staged by George W. Bush to be able to war on terrorism. Let's buy into the conspiracy-theories.
Everyone knows what the site is about, it's no surprise they get convicted for it. No-brainer really.
IPRED on the other hand is some pretty scary stuff.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 22:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Mother Clanger
Originally by: Onus Mian
I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child ****ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities.
I implore you to take 19 minutes of your life and take a look at the link posted earlier of the TED talk:
How creativity is being strangled by the law
In particular pay attention to the comparison to land ownership and trespassing laws in 1945.
Copyright law as it stands is broken. The system is broken. If it wasn't, sites like piratebay wouldn't be as successful as they are. Innovation is the key and as yet it's only been limited. Of course artists should get paid for their wares. Of course studios should get paid back with profit for the risk that they take with funding some of these things. But the balance is out of whack and the landscape has shifted beyond recognition. Yet because the studios have their heavily influencing hand in the places that matter, they have been able to stagnate and get away with it, and we are in the situation that we are in now. But people get around this because there are more innovative people not working for the studios than there are people that are working for them.
So just because its legal in law doesn't mean that the law is necessarily right. What isn't right is comparing this to child ****ography just because they share the term "illegal".
- MC
You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you?
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:17:00 -
[6]
This thread tells me I'm glad that the mob doesn't rule over verdict.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:16:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/04/2009 13:16:46
Originally by: Doctor Penguin
And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies.
This is the main argument of those who think that the pirate bay were wrongly accused (and sentenced). Their so-called impartiality is however a house of cards at best. First of all, their very site name tells you (and everyone) what type of files they are niched to aid in supply of. Apologists would have us think different, that "pirate bay" is really as neutral as "google", but apologists never were right. Secondly, the "impartial" notion you claim is nothing but a convenient ruse to try and avoid responsibility for what goes on on their site. Together with the purpose of the site (come here for pirated software) that claim of impartiality is null and void.
Quote:
The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber, and the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.
This failed analogy, while providing with some comedy value (especially since you used the word 'logic') is a complete shambles. A man who has his house burgled? Who is this supposed to be? Are you trying to say that the pirate bay are victims of burglary somehow? What were you smoking when you made that comparison?
A park wherein crimes are perpetuated requires the state to take responsibility of said crimes. For public safety, and to preserve law and order. In that sense your second analogy is actually worse than your first. Secondly, a park is not created for the specific purpose to do illegal activities. But you can bet your hinds that if there was a sign saying "CRYSTAL METH BAY", there would be hell to pay (especially if the council was involved, lol).
|
| |
|