File sharers hold vigil for Pirate Bay
Update 7:27 a.m. PT: To include news that the Pirate Bay is back online and statement from site's operators.
The Pirate Bay--the BitTorrent tracker revered by file sharers across the globe and reviled by some of the world's biggest entertainment companies--is under siege like never before.
Many Pirate Bay fans believed that the site had met its end.
(Credit: Twitter)Black Internet, the largest Internet service provider supplying bandwidth to the site, said Monday that a court in Sweden has threatened it with fines unless it discontinued service to Pirate Bay. The site's operators did find an alternative Web connection and got Pirate Bay up and running, though only for a brief period. As the outage dragged on, the site appeared to be in its death throes, prompting people to post messages to Twitter such as "Goodbye Pirate Bay, I'll miss you" and "Rest in peace."
But Pirate Bay's operators have refused to give in and have vowed to bring the file-sharing site back online. Which is what they did. On Tuesday morning The Pirate Bay had returned. The founders took the opportunity to issue a rallying cry to followers by updating one given by Winston Churchill (The entire statement is at the bottom).
"We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets," the operators said in a statement, "to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone."
Bravado aside, the truth is that The Pirate Bay's future is grim. By all appearances the BitTorrent tracker is on its way to joining Napster, Aimster, and TorrentSpy among once popular but now dead file-sharing services--all of them killed off by the entertainment industries.
In April, a Swedish court ruled that the co-founders were guilty of copyright violations, ordering them to pay $4 million and spend a year in jail. Then, following a proposed acquisition, The Pirate Bay was supposed to evolve into a pay site offering authorized film and music files. But that plan, too, seems to be buckling. Global Gaming Factory X, the software company supposedly trying to acquire The Pirate Bay, is facing its own legal challenges.
Even as fans bid farewell to The Pirate Bay, they've been chattering about which of the other BitTorrent trackers would best fill in for the site. The blog Gizmodo attracted a lot of attention by guiding readers to five Pirate Bay alternatives. In addition, a Pirate Bay user recently made a complete copy of the site and made it available for download at (where else?) The Pirate Bay. Regardless of whether the original Pirate Bay ever reopens, its legacy will endure on countless sites.
That's because--wherever one stands on the issues of file sharing or copyright--as long as films and music can be digitized and there is an open Internet, file sharing will exist. That reality is not lost to the Motion Picture Association of America. A spokeswoman for the film industry's trade group said: "We'll continue to evaluate and take appropriate actions against sites offering unauthorized copies of our member companies' works."
The question is whether any of these clones and wannabes can build the kind of cult following or wield the same influence as The Pirate Bay--they're unlikely to be "game changers," one music industry executive told me, and he's right.
The Pirate Bay's founders did more than just index torrents. To the 20 million who visited the site monthly, co-founders Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfried Svartholm Warg are Scandinavian Robin Hoods, who freed the masses to enjoy music and movies and protected them from profiteering conglomerates.
To many artists, the three are little more than thieves who stole their work to line their own pockets.
A gamble for Global Gaming
As popular as The Pirate Bay is, however, users don't seem to have any problems walking away from the version proposed by Global Gaming, which would require a monthly paid subscription. The idea of paying for content is the antithesis of what The Pirate Bay stood for.
And that's just one of the many hurdles confronting Global Gaming, whose chances of actually acquiring the site appear slim.
In June, when Hans Pandeya, Global Gaming's CEO, announced the company's intention to buy The Pirate Bay, the plan was that the site would charge a monthly fee for content and users could lower their charges by contributing hard drive space and bandwidth to the service. If users contributed enough computer resources, then conceivably they could get free access to movies and music.
Click the image to see a roundup of recent Pirate Bay stories.
Global Gaming came under scrutiny last week after regulators in Sweden became concerned about the company's ability to pay for The Pirate Bay. The transaction was supposed to be completed by Thursday but Global Gaming apparently is in serious debt. Company managers have also been accused in the Swedish press of issuing misleading information to the public.
Even if the company is able to come up with the cash to pay for The Pirate Bay, just where it will find the money to pay for content in addition to a new technology platform that Pandeya promised back in June is still a mystery. In 2008, records show the company, which makes software and operates Internet cafes, generated the equivalent of $800,000.
What's remarkable about the brewing controversy is that the alarm bells didn't go off before now. Here's a quick synopsis of what stands in the way of an acquisition:
• Peerialism, a Swedish peer-to-peer company that Global Gaming announced it would acquire at the same time as The Pirate Bay, hasn't begun work on building the site's technology platform. Johan Ljungberg, Peerialism's CEO, told CNET on Thursday that Pandeya signed a contract and asked Peerialism to start production work. Two months later, Ljungberg still hasn't started because Pandeya hasn't paid.• Aktietorget, a Swedish stock exchange, halted trading of Global Gaming's shares on Friday and won't allow it to resume until officials are convinced that the company has the money to complete the acquisition of The Pirate Bay. So far, Pandeya has not provided sufficient proof.
• Aktietorget is also looking into statements issued by Pandeya. Since Wayne Rosso, the former president of Grokster, quit Global Gaming after working for Pandeya for three weeks, citing questions about Pandeya's character and the financial health of Global Gaming, Pandeya has said numerous times that the money for the acquisition was in place. He also has said that he received an informal $10 million bid for the company, via Rosso, from John Fanning, a co-founder of Napster. Both Rosso and Fanning denied it.
• Sweden's Economic Crimes Bureau has launched an investigation to see whether the whole acquisition hoopla wasn't part of a plan to boost the stock price, according to Swedish newspapers.
Pandeya told CNET over the past three days that he has the money to complete the purchase of The Pirate Bay and that he has done nothing wrong. He claims that he and Global Gaming are victims of a conspiracy led by Rosso and Johan Sellstrom, Global Gaming's former chief financial officer who has claimed Pandeya and Global Gaming owe him money.
As for the company's ability to launch on time, Pandeya acknowledged that there are a few glitches.
"I do not know of any project or merger or acquisition that everything ran according to an extraordinary detailed plan," Pandeya said in an e-mail to CNET on Friday. "We have done incredibly well despite a bunch of losers that are making a noise. Well, these losers can try what they want. Too bad it is not going to work."
Statement released Tuesday from The Pirate Bay.
We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the baywords.org, we shall fight on the /. and on the digg, we shall fight in the courts; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in Cerf's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Signed;The Pirate Bay Crew - Now until needed.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
And why should content creators be able to continue making money off the same works forever? That wasn't the purpose of copyright. Copyright was originally intended to last 15 years, to provide a balance between commercial interests and public good. And it's worth noting that "public good" was diametrically opposed to commercial interests in that equation.
If the copyright owners had not abused copyright, lobbied congress so hard for perpetual rights, and taken so many customers to court, maybe this generation would have a little more sympathy for them. As it is, they have destroyed any goodwill they may have had. They brought this on themselves.
Or you buy a house with a 30 year mortgage, then after 15 years you say "Gee, this is too old, it doesn't hold anymore" and you tear up the mortgage and blow the money on beer.
That was your most stupid argument yet. The intent of copyright is to give a LIMITED monopoly and then put it in the public domain. Why?
Because a healthy public domain is necessary for a society to advance. The US is going to pay dearly in the next 100 years for allowing corporate interests to trump the best interest of society.
To compare copyright with with property shows your lack of understanding.
Yup, they do those kind of leases on reservations.
But to answer your question. I'd sure hate to have to pay royalties on fire every time I lit a match, it's enough at some point to pay for the match.
"Not paying and enjoying is NOT an option."
Of course it is. It's accepted in some cases, and endorsed in others. You are of course thinking of piracy. But there are plenty of examples. Roadies get to enjoy the show. Living next door to a drive in has it's benefits. My new favorite play it until my ears bleed song was on a promo site and 100% free in order to promote the group. It worked. I checked out their other work. I've advertised the song to my friends and some of them will like it as well.
"... please explain how people choosing not to buy your product is the fault of the people not buying?"
Nice gig!
Please give us all one example - just one - where the phone company was held liable for providing a phone line to a criminal.
Housing Known Criminals IS illgal and you CAN be held accountable (they call you an accomplice).
If the manager knew his tenents were making crack, but they paided good cash... he can be charged, quite easily.
"There is no right to be paid. Only a right to try to convince people to buy." - http://www.p2pnet.net/story/26507
No, seriously. If you're going to claim that a copy of the original is not the orginal and THUS is no longer theft you have to realize that you created said copy without the permission of the company (copyright violation) and inturn, have committed the act of reverse engineering... then distributed said product.
HOWEVER, if a product is similar enough to the original product the company can claim theft. Bootleg videos are NOT the original video (I'm not talking about AVI, MPEG, uhh DivX?... I'm talking about VHS) but the content is similar enough to the original so they claim that it is theft, of a different nature.
So TRUE, you're not STEALING THE ORIGINAL, but you ARE stealing copyrighted information, and information need not be on a CD to be stolen. *"Copies" is the weakest piracy argument of them all. I don't know why people keep using it*
HE WHO FIGHTS AND PAVES THE WAY,
WILL LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY
You are so sucked into the mentality that has been fitted for you as a consumer that you cannot even separate the bull from reality. I pity you.
Actually it is about big powerful companies who via the RIAA and MPAA are slapping the other little guys up side the head. You know the other plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and janitors who go to the movies and buy music or watch shows. In other words the big companies biting the hand that feeds them. Bad business really.
If Joe Corporate gave Joe Consumer what he wanted at a price he was willing to pay, Joe Artist would eat far better.
And technically, making a copy of a tape and a file is not really different. However, because of the format and the Internet, copying files becomes a much more impactful problem.
And technically, making a copy of a tape and a file is not really different. However, because of the format and the Internet, copying files becomes a much more impactful problem.
Sorry GarysonBuzz. Didn't mean to hurt you're feelings. I hear you. I really do. What gives anybody the right to stop anyone else from making a copy of digital media. What right? Explain that concept again. OK. Once more without the attitude. You think like a Cro-Magnon... extinct.
Wait, let me type it in a brittish manor... there is nothing juvenile about a brittish accent, right?
Jolly fellow. I do see your point. Poor knobby knees has his panties in a twist over a file that never existed.
Who gives a dangle 'bout ye old profit?
Seriously though. I'm just jerkin your chain Gary! Do you write music? Make movies? Ecomonies bad... pockets a little light? Law abiding and mature... yeah, your're stretching it. I did get your last sentence... I think you were aiming at the consumer mentallity comment I made and how that was getting in peoples way of thinking... Yeah. I am just guessing. Not your's of course, Cro-magnons don't think.
Take Economics, Take PHILOSOPHY... LOL.
No one EVER asks for donations because people typically don't donate. Now if you, say, put people in a spot where they feel COMPELLED to donate, more often than not they will donate MORE than the asking price. Simple psychology, mom tells you not to put the quarter in the salvation army pot, and when you do mom pulls out 5 dollars. Mom FEEL THE NEED to make herself look "better" than a stingy scrooge. But if you never put that quarter in, mom wouldn't have donated.
But Free Market refers to the unfettered conditions inwhich capitalism "works" to destroy the economy.
See, the heart of capitalism is to lower prices by cutting costs. Thats it. Now does that sound bad? No?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/orph-f20.shtml
Durring the industrial revolution, CHILDREN were sent into machines to "fix" them. CHILDREN were murdered a dime a dozen by being underpayed, over worked, and actually being PUT into harms way because they were the "less capable" and easier to replace labor unit.
THAT was what the Laissez-faire movement wanted. The government wanted to regulate commerce by setting minimum wages (in capitalism, they could pay you a loaf of bread for a weeks work. And people would STILL work because they were STARVING.) by regulating the age of the workers (re on the murder of children) by improving working conditions (In those days... you peed where you stood, because if you left your spot you would be fired [of course, you could get fired for peeing on the floor]) AND what was worse was NO ONE would mop that pee up.
Now tell me, where in capitalism is it about the CONSUMER? It's all about the PROFIT and reducing costs.
The "Free Market" you're talking about exists no where. There is "bartering", there is the "I'll give you 20 for it", but there IS NO "free stuff, please donate." (Yes, there is software that took several months to make and only a few hours to update... but that software doesn't make a real profit, mostly just enough to keep webservices up (and it's not gaurenteed that the quarterly income will be the same as the next)
and there was NEVER a free option before digital media. Free TV? Nope, you have to BUY a TV. Free Radio? Nope, well yep... but damn hard to make (before cyristal transistors... there were VACCUUM TUBES)
techwiz2000
[CNET editors' note: URL deleted.]
The fact is the people that make the most money off an artist's work is the record companies. Artists make so little money for what they get from the record company.
Give the money to the artists.
The record companies recoup all expenses and then pay them a quarter per CD sale if they are lucky, usually half that. And they usually steal their music so they have little, if any control over it.
The RIAA members are the real thieves. They are also obsolete, there are online middle men that assist with distribution and the musician/distributor relationship is reversed. The online distributor gets a tiny percentage and the musicians keep the copyright.
Sharing of music has been around since records (giving someone a your record, I am not that old lol) I never had any problem nor did I feel like I was doing something wrong when I made a copy of a tape. Artists need to move away from these companies and do it on there own, maybe then we can get CD's with more than one good song and the horrible singers would be weeded out, horrible meaning the ones who need computers to enhance there voice.
The original song is all theirs. You cannot take that away. But copy it all you want. I?d hate to live in a economy that is so weak and poor that you have to rely on these things to feed the public (oh, snap. I do!) . Instead of worry about something as trivial as copy and paste, maybe you should devote your time to thinking of a better system that is not run by corporate interest. You see, the rights belong to the people not the companies. Pure and simple. The founding fathers did not create a bill of rights for corporations, it was for free people. You should meditate on the difference of the two.
I Invent Intermittent Window Wipers. Someone else (FORD) Copies it, then sells cars USING MY DESIGN without my permission. I sue and make more money than god... I even get a movie made after me! I become famous.
:p
Well, the point is clear, the copy may not be the original... but copyright law (Hmm... COPY Right... the RIGHT to Copy!) says you are in violation.
"You see, the rights belong to the people not the companies."
So COMPANIES have the right to protest and create their own little country NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
And COME OFF IT, the 15 dollar a CD is overpriced, it's better at 9.95. But how "cheap" would you make it? Free? Always? The problem with pirates is the sense of entitilement. You aren't ENTITLED to anything, no where in the bill of rights (also known as James Madison can't be unique and copied the Magna Carta verbatium) does it say "You have the right to listen to music and watch videos" You have a right to own a gun... but nothing else.
The Bill of Rights deals with CIVIL Liberaties... not ownership.
Now ponder this. If we weren't a capitalistic society... AND if the internet hadn't opened the youths minds enough to realize that NO ONE gets to be a CEO... CEO's are CEO's by birth. So everyone will be richer than you...
Would people still pirate?
Banana trees are all clones (they are ripped, copied and pasted). If you are a banana farmer and I decide to clone your tree and grow my own bananas am I a thief?
Hardly so.
Intellectual property is a crock? can one man not think another?s thoughts? Are we prisoners of concepts? Should we build fences around ideas? Sounds? Visuals? Logic?
I suppose you believe you have it all worked out. You understand. You effortlessly make sense of these many sided issues because you are gifted.
You remind me of a black hole. a single point of nothing.
Do you have an actual opinion or are you just floating through like a turd in the sea?
When the world finds an unlimited source of energy then there will be no need to buy that energy anymore.
Art is not a job. It is an expression.
Is "copying" my tree illegal?
But lets use your example as is.
To "copy" a tree you must be NEAR the tree... tresspassing.
You must "infringe" upon trade secrets to aquire the "data" of the tree... corporate espionage
Then you must "recreate" the tree using the data you gathered... reverse engineering
You may think another mans thoughts... but would you think of the lyrics and music to that song BEFORE listening to it? I think not.
See, IP exists... it's impossible to attack it UNLESS you can PROVE you can create what another person created... and that you CREATED it without the assistance of the work the other person released. Else, you just "copied" their work.
If you allow for it, humans will attempt to legitimize ANYTHING.
Nazi Germany anyone? Why should music and movies stand immune?
Edited quote from a p2pnet.net story:
"No one has a ?right to be paid for their work.? You have a right to try to convince people to buy, and the RIAA and its labels FAILED in convincing many to do that. But that?s the market at work. Today for lunch I may pick the deli rather than the pizza shop next door. Based on the RIAA?s logic here, I have just ?robbed? the pizza place of its ?right to be paid? for its work. "
Are you one of those nickel and dimeing kind. That IS what it is all about for you, huh? If we left it up to you, you?d find a way to charge me for the blood in a man?s veins.
You can't handle the truth Hoss! You can't handle the analogy of the banana tree because your mind cannot wrap around any concept that you have not been programmed to accept.
Do you not know the difference between something that cost nothing to exist, something that would not exist if it were not someone making a copy of it and something that someone else physically made? Soon enough you?re way will be deleted. Accept your defeat and come to me in an earnest attempt to regenerate yourself and I will redeem you.
Don?t be afraid of the new. Or even a copy of the old. It will be alright. Find what it is inside yourself that others may persecute you for and compare it to that.
It?s your belief and you are entitled to it. And I am entitle to mine? and yours. I offer you mine. You cannot stop me from copying you!
?You just have to stand in awe at thieving morons who breathlessly fight for their right to take whatever they want without cost. Hell, why mess around with the internet, just walk into your local electronics store and take the CD and/orDVD/BD right off the shelf. Hell, least you get the liner notes!
If you allow for it, humans will attempt to legitimize ANYTHING.
Nazi Germany anyone? Why should music and movies stand immune??
You should have copyrighted the post, then you could have sued me for it!
"No one has a right to be paid for their work. You have a right to try to convince people to buy, and the RIAA and its labels FAILED in convincing many to do that. But that's the market at work."
No, people just insisted that piracy was legal because they didn't want to pay for music... they still make a profit, but piracy puts a major dent in it... so they lay off american joe who worked at said company for 30 odd years to bring the quarterly profit back up.
"Today for lunch I may pick the deli rather than the pizza shop next door. Based on the RIAA's logic here, I have just robbed the pizza place of its right to be paid for its work. "
The RIGHT to pay, and the REQUIREMENT to pay are two different concepts.
And by the way, a man CAN absolutely think another's thoughts...he/she just can't reproduce them and profit from them without compensating the aformentioned.
this is held up in courts of law with nothing short of utter routine.
It's just like Nikola Tesla and that Marconi feller... Marconi beat him to the patent office punch by like... what? Two hours? I think Tesla had a bad knee or something. Oh wait... sorry I was just told that he did not have a bad knee. That was missinfomariton. Sorry.
He's another horrible analogy for you Master (made special for ya)...
The radio can jam the same 5 songs down your gullet twenty-four seven but, if so dare to play a copy of that song on your own system with having payed a thug fee... wait... they are the mafia! they are.
So does the copyright prevent us from hearing it or what? What does it really say? what does it mean? If i am turning on my radio am I not reproducing the song?
Just thoughts.
The RADIO has a... agreement... with RIAA or whatever to PLAY the song. You don't have that agreement so you can't play it... but RIAA doesn't care so much as the QL of most radio stations are poor enough to compell you to buy the CD.
Now, there IS a minor violation when copying the broadcasted song.... but I would never go after that, it's too much of a hell hole to even consider it (expecally with the Tivolution). The REAL violation comes in when you give your FRIENDS that tape you made, as your friends never listened to the original broadcast and thus are no longer under the protection that allows you to copy it (or thats how the law is worded)... and if your friend copies the tape and give it to three more friends the effect becomes appearant.
PERSONAL copies are legal, you can NOT restrict PERSONAL copies (legally) so YES, some anti-piracy Game software is illegal, but they get away with it by their AUP (you have to agree to have the limitations to play the game). It's really all about the sharing... after sharing you are in major violation of the law... and when it comes to piracy... it's insane, one seed can copy a song a thousand times over in a single day. That is meaingful.
precisely the problem.
Now, electronic file sharing has worsened this ridiculous notion further by implying (to some) that if you can't touch something, it can't be stolen.
Right. Like sneaking into a movie theater is ok too? Explain the fundamental distinction. Oh that's right, you can't.
You are enjoying a product for free that others pay for. Someone paid for the tape, you didn't. Other's paid to watch the film, you didn't.
The idea that we're "getting back" at the big bad corporate world is a joke, of course. With that logic, virtually everything should be free. Want a box of cereal? Nail big bad Kellog's, Post, General Mills. Need a new receiver? Sony, Yamaha, and Onykyo have plenty to go around.
where does it end?
To paraphrase Charles Darwin: "It is not the richest, or the most powerful who survive - it is those best suited to their environment."
You see, the real problem isn't what's happening now regarding file sharing. The problem is what happened back in the days of the original Napster, when the entertainment industry first found out about file sharing.
Had they chosen to use Napster to their advantage (for example, inking a deal with them whereby people paid a monthly subscription to use the service - a fee which would be split between Napster's founders and the entertainment industry), they wouldn't be in the situation they are now, where they have to spend billions of dollars in legal fees to recover . . . what? A few million a year in punitive damages, if my research is accurate.
Granted, with services like Rhapsody, iTunes, and AmazonMP3, the entertainment industry has begun to change - but I have the feeling that it's too little, too late.
The best analogy I can come up with is to compare the entertainment industry's tactics to those used by the U.S. military: great for fighting an enemy that's in plain sight and easy to track, but not so good when you're dealing with people who tend to stay out of sight (and thus hard to track).
So they shut down one file-sharing service. Fine, people pick another one.
Or they start burning CDs/DVDs, or loading up flash drives, or recording the music onto audiocassettes, or trading files through IM/IRC/email/(insert protocol here) . . . and those are just the methods that pass the "grandma test" (i.e., they're easy enough to do that even someone's grandmother could do it).
In the end, the entertainment industry is going to have to adapt or die - and since they seem incredibly reluctant to adapt, they're likely going to die.
You have to at least see the difference in these things. No?
If you built a chair, I cannot copy that design for any reason? I cannot build a chair for myself or for anyone else? Wow! That?s sounds like a scam.
Where do you draw the line? Brands do this all the time. Where is the problem. Oh, it lies with the one who thinks he owns everything he can think of (pun intended).
Ha! What naivety.
There are things which no one own? and that may be a cloned file on another man?s hard drive.
But it was ALWAYS about the free music. Don't be stupid and say "digital media > cd" thats as lame as saying "CD Protection sucks so I'll pirate the game" Igoring GameCopyWorld.com (<-- please don't remove... it shouldn't be in violation as it does not distribute the "material" of the game. But I figure the more "pirates" I educate, the fewer lies they can hide behind... and that is a seriously nice end to the common argument.)
what? A few million a year in punitive damages, if my research is accurate. Capitalism... the act of MAKING MONEY. If they spend billions they lost trillions.
If I have a file that dictates the way to make an everlasting gobstopper... and you hack into my computer and copy it... are you stealing?
well at least we have sites like mininova !! who are still working ...
ouff we are just prisoners of the alliance made by loobies and media and entertainement industries!!!G
Blockbusters cost $100-200 million to produce. If everyone did what file sharers did, there would be no blockbusters. Of course, file sharers will respond with 'make good movies and we'll pay'. Which is a silly argument (and they still won't pay). And who are they to decide if something is 'good'. The artists and producers get to make that choice and the choice of whether they want to sell it at a cost or not.
And what about all the software being traded on TPB? People that want to write open source software and distribute it for free or under GPL have every right to. On the other hand if someone wants to make an income of that work and charge for the software should they not also have that right? Heck there are file sharers that trade software to crack iPhone app store software that cost $0.99 and was written by an independent producer. How is that taking it to the man?
I worry about the generation that is growing up now that has such little regard for other people's property (physical or intellectual).
TPB aren't heros of the little man, they are simply people that want to watch movies, listen to music or use software without having to pay for it and think they have some god given right to do so. At least have the balls to admit that and stop trying make yourselves out as heros.
"The idea that not giving money to the RIAA somehow means less music will be brought to the public is laughable. It?s not a fact, it?s pure propaganda. Thanks to these same new technologies that the RIAA has tried to kill off, it?s easier than ever for bands to create, promote and distribute music. And because of that, there?s more new music out there than ever before." -- http://www.p2pnet.net/story/26507
But it's a good thing that all these blockbuster films are making record sales still.
In regards to the music industry:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/0351345633.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090617/1138185267.shtml
Hardly any of the groups, movies, games, etc that they file share began without a large company's assistance/machine.
TPB even has to steal words from Churchill - they don't have any original thoughts of their own except for how to steal. I think they are getting off lucky.
lol are you serious, I don't have the right to decide whether a work is good or not. Pray tell who has the right to be the one absolute critic on films
- by reidme314 August 25, 2009 11:29 AM PDT
- "File Sharers"... that's a nice euphemism. I guess counterfeiters are "graphic artists."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (81 Comments)