Comments on: Copyright holders cheer Pirate Bay verdict

Music and film industry groups express a sigh of relief after the ruling in the Pirate Bay case and voice hope for new legal download services.

[oo7-maverick]

If I write a book and everyone on the net reads it for free, yet they gain something positive from having read it, or they go out of their way to criticize it, I may not have become richer monetarily, but I have gained an audience and my work was not in vain. The same can be said about a movie, a song, and everything else.

The purpose of the creation is where the problem exists. If I wrote, composed, or recorded, the creation with the purpose that had nothing to do with monetary enrichment and purely for the love of participating in its creation and the benefit it brings to my fellow man or woman, then there is no problem.

The problem is we are taught that to create for a reason other than monetary enrichment is foolish, and an unworthy reason. So today those that create songs, movies, books, excreta, only create for the purpose of monetary income. So is it wrong for these guys to point to a resource of the copied material? The answer is, only if they gained some monetary wealth from such actions. Because the product was created to acquire monetary wealth and these guys provided a means to circumvent that, does not in anyway make them guilty of breaking any law, as they never received any monetary enrichment from the product.

It makes them guilty of showing the true shallow purpose of its creator. The true guilt falls at the feet of the creator of the material who hates what he does and feels it a burden to be monetarily compensated for, A True artist of the Twenty-first Century.

[sanenazok]

It's OK for your book, which you write on your time. Self-satisfaction from "work not in vain" is OK for most, but what if others were getting rich off your work. Like by making it available for download on an ad-supported website.

People have always liked money, it's not just the 21st Century.

[mediumfries]

Here does this crazy attitude that copyright and making some kind of profit from your hard work is wrong in some way?

This romantic "true artist" doesn't need monetary reward stuff is Bull. It takes hundreds of people to produce a motion picture. Do you expect them all to work for months for free with only the hope that viewers may "gain something positive". How do they feed their families during this joyous period of "participation".

Fact is without the current structure for making films we are all going to reduced to watching YouTube for infinity. I don't want that. I am prepared to pay someone to supply me with some polished, well made, and talented film making. The often trotted out idea that a company is greedy for charging for such a service I find insane, and puerile. Concocted by fake freedom fighters to disguise the fact that they are too cheap to buy a DVD, and because file sharing is so easy they equate that with it being morally correct.

oo7-maverick why don't you show up to work on Monday morning and tell you boss you dont want to be paid anymore - that you just want to "participate" in the hope that you hope you "gain something positive". See how long you last.

[ckh1272]

I tell you what then. Learn some music and invest in an instrument. After, spending $5000US and many hours perfecting your craft, see if your perspective doesn't change just a slight. Despite the amount of garbage put out for just a buck, there are many others in the biz' that can have both the personal satisfaction and get paid for it (i.e. Tool, even with their music on Guitar Hero III now). Don't believe me?? That's ok. If it you are right, then by your logic, a president should not get paid for a job that is there to help others (by definition, anyway) . Think about it for just a minute.

[pdxaudi]

You are utterly misguided.

To attach guilt to the productive efforts of an individual who seeks wealth, success, and happiness is purely evil. You think the failures of our culture rest on the shoulders of men and women working hard to earn their wages? Or those brutes who wish to steal from others and claim a moral right to their property?

If you want to create a book with the intent to distribute it for free, that is your choice. But those who wish to produce wealth have the right to deal by trade with others who value their property. Those who do not recognize their value are free to do business with someone else. Each individual may voluntarily choose to exchange his effort for another's, but no individual has the right to initiate force on another to obtain his property. That is what you are advocating.

The problem with the artist who wastes his fortune is not his quest for "monetary enrichment" but his lack of values. Money will not provide him the knowledge of what to value nor will it purchase him happiness. He must consciously choose to discover a worthy moral code which serves his goals and interests. That is the responsibility of every individual.

Your intent to deride artists who seek profit is a moral issue. You insist they have a moral duty to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others by abandoning their own self-interests. Tell me: What do you think motivates individuals to create the technology you're using to participate in this forum? What inspires men and women to strive for greatness and produce the art you wish from them? It comes from the knowledge they have total right to the goods they created--that the product of their mind and effort is their property--and they are free to interact with their peers and exchange value for value. Not from savages who wish to steal their hard work and scoff at their property rights.

I am here to defend artists and individuals alike. We do not exist as slaves to serve your needs. We exist as men with the right to live for our own sake.

[oo7-maverick]

guys you miss the point This is why the artist that stands behind the recording companies? copyright crap are not artist. I believe artist should make money for their creation sure, get upset with those making money on their behalf that have stolen their product, but don?t get upset with anyone trying to enjoy what u created without paying for it. Because he or she might go to your next concert or buy your next creation. Everyone else that is angry here because they paid for their legal cd or movie, or what not, seems to me like you may have nothing left, or you may not want others to enjoy for free, what you paid top dollar for. I am sorry you are hurt. Instead of buying the next cd or movie, of the artist you favor, find out where they live, send them half the money you would pay the recording companies for their creation. In this way, the artist makes the more money then they would through the recording companies, you enjoy their creation with a clean conscience, and you stop sounding like you hate your fellow man, or woman. But if you buy the cd and hate others who can?t, that is just a reason for you to return, or repent, depending on your belief system.

[kmike1111]

your ignorance isin the fact that billion dollar computer giants are using intellectual properties of creators and they do not want to give back even a 100th of the billions back to the creator that is the center piece of there entertainment.
you are a moron

[biffhenerson]

It is interesting that you continue to call it "file sharing" when it is, in fact, "illigal copying". The term "file sharing" seems to make it sound like some innocent and polite thing to do with others. Violating copyright has always been a crime. Just because computers make it easy doesn't make it not a crime.

[pjhenry1216]

It's interesting that you're playing semantics here. It's not illegal copying. In fact, its not illegal to download at all. Its the distribution that's technically illegal. Therefore, if you want to get technical, its "illegal sharing." More to the point however, the Pirate Bay has various legal uses and in and of itself shouldn't be considered illegal. its the fact that the government systems are owned by corporate entities that led to this decision, on top of the fact that most governments are seated with people who don't understand technology.

[linuxgeek90]

It's not illegal to download?

I dunno about that...

[lildimsum7]

Copyright has only been established since the late 20th century... I am against intellectual property rights and for the creative commons. There are plenty of people who are willing to support the music artists or are willing to go to the theaters and watch a movie.

[ckh1272]

by lildimsum7 April 17, 2009 8:13 AM PDT
Copyright has only been established since the late 20th century... I am against intellectual property rights and for the creative commons. There are plenty of people who are willing to support the music artists or are willing to go to the theaters and watch a movie.

Not most of the people on this message board, judging by their comments.

[linuxgeek90]

Look, you and I both know that it's stealing. Not stealing in a traditional sense, i.e the victim doesn't loose anything. But you, the thief, are still taking something that isn't yours. So your still stealing; it just doesn't effect the victim as much/at all.

As much as we'd all love to spin theories to justify it (who doesn't love free music?), it's still taking something that you aren't supposed to have.

We need Open Source music... ;-)

[AngryCanadian]

Actually, it's technically not theft. It's the infringement of a right granted to the holder of that right by law. If it was just theft, then why would the DMCA allow someone to be fined millions of dollars for downloading/sharing a small number of songs when someone who shoplifts a CD almost certainly would never be sentenced to pay a fine that severe?

It may be why so many people are "stealing" from the recording industry. It's one of the few industries in the world which sues it's own potential customers.

[pjhenry1216]

Wow... way to create a crime out of something that you'll readily admit harms absolutely no one at all.

[linuxgeek90]

Obviously, it's technically *not* theft.

But you are still taking something that doesn't belong to you, without permission. Call it what you will...

[biffhenerson]

You mean to tell me that if I spend two years of my life writing a book, writing a song, or writing software and then put it up for sale and one person buys it and copies and gives it to the rest of the world for free that I, the author and seller, AM NOT LOOSING ANYTHING? You are wrong. I would be loosing tons of money and two years of investment. And there is "open source music" There is tons of music on the web that is legally free. It is typically posted by up-and-comming independant artists but sometime appears from top artists.

[Sausagebiscuit]

biffhenerson: right, you aren't "LOOSING" anything. Unless that anything was once tight, and then someone came along and loosened it... but I suppose you could just tighten it again.

Ah, the old LOSE vs LOOSE debate.

[d3vildog69]

Biff, if you were a real writer you would be happy with people reading your work for what it is. Your work, as a writer myself I ask for no money for any of my work and freely distribute it to anyone. My FB page is littered with all my works. All i ask is that my name stays on it and they leave a comment. Those who seek money for what should be your passion, are sickening.

[khara1898]

file sharing will always win if one site goes down thousands will appear.
those rich people want more money to spend it on hookers and drugs.
NOT MAY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sanjayb]

Agreed. If Pirate Bay goes down, something else will take it's place.

[SIBJ]

Khara1898: Surely you can't believe that all artists are rich people throwing out money on drugs and hookers...That's just plain ignorant. By far the largest part of artists hardly make enough money to pay for their rent, even though they work more than 40 hours a week....The stars you read about on the glossy pages are just the top of the iceberg of people hit by the pirate consumers. For many people, copyright piracy means they have to close down business completely, and switch to a job, or jobs, for which they are less qualified and which makes them utterly unhappy...all because the pirate consumers, WHO ENJOY THE ART, are TOO CHEAP TO SUPPORT THE CREATORS.

Also...In the case og music. It doesn't make sense to just circumvent the record companies. Many indie acts are dependent on the support they get from their hard working label, who believe in the music even though it may not make as much income as they'd like. They pay for the production and advertisment, that makes the artist visible and available, and thus makes it financially possible to tour, and perhaps even earn a little bit of money. Be true to yourself and support the art that you chose to be part of your world. Or else do with out, for that will be the long term consequence anyway....

[kmike1111]

Well we will keep throwing them in jail for stealing like the 4 cowards that went to jail in this story

I let my girl friend listen to my Rolling Stones CD, am I guilty of file sharing? What about if I listen to the CD in my car with the windows down? I guess we should all get headphones.

[linuxgeek90]

Before long, DRM will make sure that you are using headphones, or that both earbuds are in your ears only. Each human will have a unique 'listener' key... ;-)

[kmike1111]

You are not that dumb. you can let your girlfriend listen to your cd you bought.

[Remo_Williams]

Oh, it's illegal all right. It's also a valid form of corporate disobedience. When the "legal alternatives" emerge you'll see exactly why torrents are so good, and copyright holders are disconnected to reality.

-Remo

[russkeller]

Heh, they're celebrating their own demise by not adapting to the new business model.

[dvaughn007]

I love how people justify theft because someone is generating income from their talent. Music does not manifest itself, it requires a great deal of effort from the songwriter, the artists, the engineers, the promotions team, the administrative staff, etc... These people have invested their time and skills into the production, promotion and distribution of this material, they have chosen to do so based on the assumption that they will be paid royalties generated from the sale of this material. "File Sharing" circumvents this process and takes money from all these people. You aren't just "sticking it to the man" you are killing an industry, and the little guys are the first ones to be laid off. As it becomes less profiatble for record companies to produce new music who do you think are going to be the first to get he axe, thats right the guys on the bottom. Keep stealing your music, and you may find that there isn't anymore new music woth listening to.

[linuxgeek90]

"Keep stealing your music, and you may find that there isn't anymore new music woth listening to."

Where have you been?

[umbrae]

People have been stealing music for real and its still here and artist's still make millions of dollars. The arts are part of culture, and culture only dies when it is not "shared".

[umbrae]

People have been stealing music for "years"...

sorry typo correction

"As it becomes less profiatble for record companies to produce new music who do you think are going to be the first to get the axe, thats right the guys on the bottom."

I disagree. Whilst you are right in that there won't be as many artists getting silly amounts of money for producing mediocre pop tunes, I would guess that as it becomes less profitable to mass produce music, the first people to leave will be those who are only interested in the financial potential of the music industry - ie the big label execs looking to grab as big a slice as they can of the multi-million dollar music pie.

"Keep stealing your music, and you may find that there isn't anymore new music worth listening to."

Come on - clearly you don't know many musicians. Generally the guys and gals doing all the interesting music have been doing it for years with little financial reward. Some may get lucky and garner some kind of fringe recognition that helps them derive a more steady income but most musicians never get, nor expect to get, the same kind of financial security associated with the 9-5 world. We don't do what we do because we're following some childish pipe-dream that millions of dollars are suddenly going to fall into our laps and we'll have "made it". We do what we do because its what we do, we love doing it and can't imagine a world where we don't do it anymore. I know plenty of professional players who work 60+ hour weeks (by the time you take into account practicing, rehearsing, travelling to gigs etc) and still have to take the odd crappy job now and then to pay the bills. They just accept that's the way it is and get on with it.

"You aren't just sticking it to the man, you are killing an industry"

Perhaps, but its an industry that has been morally and culturally dead for a long time and it needs to finally die so that it can be rebuilt in a manner more suited to the 21st century. I'm not saying that is a justification for downloading music without paying for it - personally I pay for all the music I download - but the fact is the music industry as it has been in the past is on its way out and good riddance to it. Up until recently it has taken vast sums of capital to produce and distribute recorded music on a scale that is profitable. Without the backing of a major label it was almost impossible to get your music heard outside of your local community. Now it is possible for anyone to produce and distribute an album worldwide literally from their bedroom - all you need is talent and a few bits of kit. The power held by the major labels over the artists is dissipating and will continue to do so as more musicians realise they no longer need the same kind of financial backing to get their music heard - which incidentally is usually of more importance to the musician than getting a fat pay-off. If these big labels had any smarts, they'd accept the world has changed, move on and look for new ways to keep themselves in the industry. The days of one-off $80 million deals are gone and they're not coming back. Respect to the Pirate Bay guys for sticking to their guns but at the end of the day, this verdict isn't gonna make any difference one way or another

[gsekse]

Fine, then teach us a lesson, don't make music, movies or anything else. Make us SUFFER! Yeah, that's it, don't make the product! Then we will have to live without these momentary media things.

Funny, I go days, weeks, sometimes months without listening to music.

Better yet, only sell your music live, no recordings, that will fix it.

"But I wanna make money sitting on my butt at home doing nothin'..."

REJECT technology if you can "Mr. IP creator". Don't record it! Just Play it only.

Or does that sound too much like a real job, gigging sucks by some musicians standards.

Pompous so and so's...

[Havoc70]

HAHA those idiots think this makes a difference, all they did was **** off people, now there is going to be even more pirating !@

LONG LIVE THE PIRATE BAY !

[linuxgeek90]

Well....

Years ago, I never knew TPB or any illegal download site existed. In fact, I thought pirating was done on a per-user basis (each user digging around in the disassembly and cracking), and I didn't even know music piracy existed (yes I was that stupid). Then one day, I read something on the news about TPB...

No publicity is bad publicity!

[kmike1111]

hey havoc 70. How will you like jail?

[inachu1]

When my favorite band on cassette was eaten up by my car stereo I purchased a new one.
Then the sun warped it.... I bought a new one.
THen it came out on CD but then I scratched it. So I bought a new one.
ETC ETC....... I am so sick and tired of buying a new one! I should not have to buy a new one every misfortune or mishap that happens to befall me. If I keep the CD cover or casstte case this should entite me as proof of purchase to download a replacement for free.

I really am so sick and tired of buying the same music title over and over again.
It is to the point of being livid. I think for the past 20 years i must have already spent $4,000 on my music and half that amount was to replace the title I broke,scratched...what have you and there needs to be a better plan.
Either create a bullet proof scratch proof ,sun melting proof CD then I can see myself not visiting these sites that also spread malware.....

You dishonor your customers by going after the honost ones like myself.

One of the reasons I don't buy CD's anymore. There's a few albums I feel like I buy again every couple of years cos I've scratched it, left it out in the sun etc etc If I buy mp3s from somewhere like emusic then so long as I keep my subscription, I can get that album again no matter what outrageous act of muppetry I may perform!! ;-)

[ckh1272]

Not to pass judgement, but oh well. I guess some people just don't take care of some of their stuff. Sounds like user error to me. Good luck with that. BTW, I still have my first CD purchased for me in 1988. It still plays, it's been handled, many times, traveled many miles, and it has never skipped a beat. Just take better care of your stuff in the future, is the best advice I can give.

[umbrae]

""I hope this is an important signal to all parents, workplaces, and schools that file sharing is illegal and that the economic consequences can be severe," Per Sundin, managing director of Universal Music Enterprises, told the Swedish national daily SvD."

File sharing is not illegal. Enterprises "file share" all the time like spreadsheets etc. This small minded and overreaching view of file sharing is part of the problem of these companies trying to protect outdated business models that screw consumers.

[richard.watson]

Can't feel sorry for them - they've been so arrogant through it all. If you want to change the world, do it legally. The above poster was close with the idea of open source music. Same with a more open market for the music industry. It'll happen, but TPB isn't helping.

I know what you mean. Whilst I'm still more inclined to side with them over the big labels, I don't think they've done themselves any favours.

Am with you on the open market idea - I reckon that the first big label to see that and provide some form of financial backing to a project like that will make a fortune. The rest'll be left on the sidelines picking up the crumbs

[FellowConspirator]

We've all written or produced works under copyright -- in the US, everything you produce with a minimum amount of creativity is de facto subject to copyright. So, I think it's safe to say that the pronouncement "Copyright holders cheer Pirate bay verdict" is misplaced. The vast majority of copyright holders aren't cheering it. A very vociferous and litigious minority is cheering it, namely the mass media mercantile industry.

[WarSnake]

We're NOT GOING AWAY!

[kmike1111]

when we catch you will be going to JAIL.

[kirikiri09]

Ok, now I'm going to use Pirate Bay 3 times more than I used to. These idiots are swimming against the tide, when are they going to learn that they are not going to win this in the end.

[Sausagebiscuit]

Power to the people :)

[kmike1111]

Great we will send the authorities and you can goto jail and you were are guinea pig because you are so stupid kirkiri09

[Gary_Lacey]

ANALOGY: Concerts are often loud enough to be heard from the outside. Even though people pay large sums to get inside to see the concert, some people listen to them from the outside for free. The experience for the "insider" is worth the price, and the price for the "outsider" is worth the loss of experience. If outside listening is made illegal, outsiders have three options: buy a ticket, go away, or continue to listen "illegally". Few outsiders will buy a ticket just because the law changes. The "ticketmaster" is the only one who really cares what the outsider chooses to do. The ticketmaster hires "guards" to chase the outsiders away. Guards are expensive, and, by nature, "offensive". Guards determine who is in or out, affecting every insider, but only some of the outsiders. Some insiders then question the cost of the experience versus the control of the ticketmaster. How far can this war over "recordings" escalate before the "media money machines" cripple the arts and entertainment industry completely?

[Dayana_Martinez]

If this crazy ruling stands, then every public library will have to be closed down. After all, they "file share" books, magazines, CDs, and DVDs, for free to anyone who wants to check them out.

So how is Pirate Bay or any other file sharing program different from my school library or local public library?

[Sausagebiscuit]

I think the library pays for their books and such, much like netflix.

[kmike1111]

Because those books were bought and paid for to the copyright owner of the book you idiot

[Tron_B]

File sharing is wrong. I get it, but how does the entertainment industry go about figuring out lost revenue from piracy? How can you assume that these same people that download illegally would have paid for the copyrighted material if it wasn't available to them for free? I would think most would just opt not to buy or get it from another source.

[Sausagebiscuit]

They make big bar graphs that show all kinds of colors and numbers. Proof enough for me!

[ArtLa]

It isn't that complicated. If musicians want to give their compositions away, they can do that on the Internet. If they want to be paid, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It isn't much different from basic property rights which were understood thousands of years ago.