It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pirate Bay co-founders lost

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I would point out that linux has many programmers that produce software, with their own time without getting any money for it.

However i would also point out that many hackers often support small companies and buy their software if they see them as having the right attitude. You see people don't like to be cheated, if a small company made movies and sold them for 1 pound a time i can assure you that many people would buy it. Of course there will always be some idiots who get it free but they would shrink into a minority if the cost was so small.

That is the problem at the moment, movie theaters charging such high costs when people would prefer to sit at home and watch the movie. If the movie companies just embraced the internet and provided the films on the same date as the cinema then people would watch them at home and be very happy.

Most people don't consider this otion, they only see the copyright issue without looking at the reasons for the current abuse of it.




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Most people don't consider this otion, they only see the copyright issue without looking at the reasons for the current abuse of it.


You are right of course, but you can take it further ...

The people accusing the 'thieves' of acting out of a selfish sense of entitlement most probably have never questioned their own sense of entitlement when it comes to believing that they should own and control thought forms.

However, it seems it is pointless to attempt to expand someone's limited perception or ask them to examine their personal world view. Self righteousness trumps open mindedness every time.

I reckon this is one of the reasons the boys from TPB are constantly accused of lining their own pockets by facilitating theft from poor defenseless artists. The accusers lack the perception to see the heroic nature of these individuals and completely miss the point, and with it, the beauty of the human spirit at work.

"who me, bitter?" ...



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I give up. Intentionally or not, you totally miss the point. Anyway, enough talking. I hope that Pirate Bay keeps on doing the good job they have been doing. I hope the real criminals (bankers and corporations) go to jail for good.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
what if software and music had evolved like....cooking? Where everyone shares recipes freely.

in my ideal world, everyone that had ever received a copy of a digital file they did not pay for would go turn themselves in, and demand their year in jail too.

They'd run out of space really, really quickly.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


That's exactly what I think, too!!!

I don't hear of < car manufacturer here > being prosecuted every time someone speeds or kills someone with a motor vehicle.


This is being argued now that it was politically motivated.

To make a stand I suggest everyone jumps on BitTorrent etc.. and downloads the legal content 24/7.

In the UK BT, P2P etc.. are BLOCKED. You can not use them, even for LEGITIMATE, LEGAL purposes. They also keep trying to suggest P2P and BitTorrent are illegal here in the UK. THEY ARE NOT.

This smacks of Napster and the MP3 format.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
This has been going on with Books for DECADES! Public libraries lend books to MILLIONS of people for years without the author collecting any royalty.

Sure, the book was originally bought from the author, but then it was shared with thousands of people who borrowed it from the library everyday for days at a time.

I didn't hear about any copyright uprising then.......

Then you might argue "Well they didn't copy the book, they passed the same one book around"

And I would reply, What's the difference? If an unlimited number of people are being entertained by a piece of work you created, who cares if it was attained by copying or passing around? Bottom line is, you got $20 bucks and 500 people read your book!

...Still no copyright uprising..

The internet was never intended to be a place for commerce. It was created as a means to share information. So for that reason, it is doing what it was meant to do.

Every computer has the inherent ability to duplicate data. So until you can come up with data that does not contain "ones" and "zeroes" you better get used to the fact that your digital product will inevitably be copied and sent to other computers no matter what the government does.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
In the UK BT, P2P etc.. are BLOCKED. You can not use them, even for LEGITIMATE, LEGAL purposes. They also keep trying to suggest P2P and BitTorrent are illegal here in the UK. THEY ARE NOT.


No it isn't blocked. I downloaded Ubuntu 8.04.2 just fine the other day. Bit torrent definitely works here for me just fine. You're definitely right on the other point though. Actually, I like torrenting Linux just to spite people who think it's illegal to use it at all.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Wow.

The one year in jail, I can understand. But the 3M Swedish crowns? That's a bit too much, isn't it? It's not like they're the ones who uploaded all those torrents onto the website. They only started the site, other people put the movies, TV shows, games and apps on The Pirate Bay.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
As a shareware author I have to say its about time! Why should the works of people who depend on them to make a living, be free for all just because some jerk cracked their software or ripped their DVD's. If you enjoy having quality software and good movies to watch, then show some support!!

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
So if i were to go buy a cd, rip it on to my computer I could go to jail for making a copy of it....right... How many of you have either burned ot gotten burned cd's? There is no diffence, if you were to get a burned cd form a freind then to download it. All you ITS THEIF people are true idoits missing the point of the lawsuit. EVERY single person getting stuff for free. If i buy something it mine. NO copyright bullsh*t has anysay on what i do with it. If i wanna give a copy to a freind I'lld do it because I OWN IT.(or rather a copy)

What about the used stuff? Isnt that the same thing as thief? The Author/Musican/Delevlipor arent getting any money form a used copy only the person selling it is. I mosly only buy used books. because they are cheaper, and damned near free. Should I go to jail if i buy a used copy of Mareks book? You're not seeing a dime of my money. only the seller it.

See the error in your logic?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


After reading all of your "relevant" posts on this topic I have thus concluded:

A. You have NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to file-sharing and/or packet-delivery. Torrent ARE NOT whole files or even content. They are bits of information existing in millions of computers around the world. The torrent you download is the equivalent to having a more computer savvy friend send you a link to a website.
B. Just because you "penned 2 books" does not give you the right to condemn others for choosing to download content. Your words are purposely brash and confrontational. If you approach this subject in that manner you will gain no allies.
C. You seem to be unaware that a large portion of the torrent file library that exists online is content that CANNOT be obtained elsewhere. (in the case of out-of-print books and movies). Case in point, I downloaded a few movies from the 1920's that are NOT on DVD or VHS; they ONLY exist in digital form because a friendly collector converted them.
AND
D. Once you contribute your "artistic" or "intellectual" property to the PUBLIC, you lose all control over it. There may be laws claiming you own said information but the simple fact of the matter is YOU OWN NOTHING. Unless I steal your work and attach my own name, there is NO theft. It is in the PUBLIC sector and therefore belongs to the public (i.e. "us"). The laws written about copyright existed before the invention of DIGITAL media. As of this moment, the world is wired. There is no more "ownership" of ideas. Everyone has access to "your" ideas.

I hope one day you realize that the "thousands" of downloads of your e-book are a reason why ANYONE knows who you are. Use the torrent system as a way to become a household name. Putting some energy into that would gain you many followers and more potential buyers.

-AnonAzazel



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Well I'd love to live in you guy's Utopia where anything that requires independent thought or "creativity" becomes property of the state and thereby property of everyone.

What a beautiful idea.

Everyone is equal, we all contribute to the "advancement" of society and need no recompense for our efforts.

That'll work.

Hmmm ...sounds familiar though comrade....

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by manbird12000

Sure, the book was originally bought from the author, but then it was shared with thousands of people who borrowed it from the library everyday for days at a time.

I didn't hear about any copyright uprising then.......

Then you might argue "Well they didn't copy the book, they passed the same one book around"

And I would reply, What's the difference? If an unlimited number of people are being entertained by a piece of work you created, who cares if it was attained by copying or passing around? Bottom line is, you got $20 bucks and 500 people read your book!



It is nice to see this argument being taken off the shelf and dusted off. There IS NO difference. Was I breaking the law by lending my cds, dvds, and VHS tapes to my friends. NO! So why, if I own the movie, will my friend go to jail for having an "unlicensed" copy. Sorry to say it, RIAA scum, we have the legal right to give OUR purchased content to ANYONE we see fit. If you want to give an iPod full of music to a friend as a gift it is legal. So therefore ANY sharing of public digital information is LEGAL.

Don't try to shove your BS down our throats, RIAA and the like. We are smarter than you and larger than you.

Without torrents half of the artists today would remain UNKNOWN.

-AnonAzazel




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonAzazel
 


I remember going to the library and borrowing music and books.

I'm really amazed people struggle with the idea of COPYRIGHT.

Look I made the words BIG to help you understand.

You have no RIGHT to COPY a piece of work that has COPYRIGHT

A piece of music, a film or a piece of software is a product EXACTLY like any other.

Why would you think it is any different than a pack of corn flakes or an architects designs?

Should we just set everyone free that has to use their imagination or any creativity in their job.

They are monetizing their thoughts. That's WRONG I tell you.
We all think the same or we strip you of any rights and feed you to the dogs.







[edit on 20-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
All these copyright issues primarily deal with what I consider to be forms of art.

And as such are meant to express the artist(s) views and/or entertain others.

There is absolutely no valid reason to require compensation indefinately for said works. Specifically music, movies, books and pictures.

I exclude software because is is not art but rather a tool.

Artists all have a means which to earn ridiculous amounts of money via means other than their art.

Musicians have concerts, can endorse/license their name to clothing lines, perfume etc.... Same with actors. Authors get credibility and big bucks to lecture and speak, as well as possible movie/tv deals. The producers and promoters of all said media make a ton of money for advertising and representing ideas promoted by special interest groups. In reality most of their income is from these avenues anyway.

If the end user likes the finished product enough to support the above named people by purchasing their physical products and services (t-shirts, perfume, advertising), great! Then it's win/win for everyone.

But the idea that an entity should "own" an expression of thought indefinately and charge for any use of it usually in advance (without regards to possible quality) is absurd.

Why should these people be filthy stinking rich for only doing a little song and dance ONE time?

It's certainly unethical to incarcerate people for sharing a book. Multi-million dollar judgements are even more ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by slimpickens93


But the idea that an entity should "own" an expression of thought indefinately and charge for any use of it usually in advance (without regards to possible quality) is absurd.


Who is downloading "expressions of thought"?

No-one. They are downloading songs, games and films. All of which cost money to produce. Like any other "product" you use.

Why steal these particular products and not every other "product"?

I have illegally downloaded software and music. I wasn't "making a stand" or attempting to "alter my perception". I did it because I could, and I knew I could get away with free sh$t.

I've yet to hear a better excuse.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
As a shareware author I have to say its about time! Why should the works of people who depend on them to make a living, be free for all just because some jerk cracked their software or ripped their DVD's. If you enjoy having quality software and good movies to watch, then show some support!!


Hang on. Shareware? Doesn't the term "shareware" suggest that sharing via torrents is fine? Or have people changed the definition of sharing again?

And yeah, I'll pay to see a good film at the cinema (probably the student cinema at university, because it only costs £2), and if there is some software I find I need to pay for, fine, I will. However, I'll take a free alternative anyday (preferably a Free alternative).



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Soon enough Humans are going to finally come to the relization that the best way to keep from being utterly exploited by a bunch of Plutocrats is to make resources more readily available for all people on the planet.

Yes - in many cases - this means FREE!

You don't wanna work for F'in Free!?? - then Don't!!! - there are plenty of super talanted individuals who will work for recognition alone - and create amazing new content for everyone to enjoy and share.

This is the TRUE future of any sufficently tecnologically advanced civilization!

However - in the Short Run - there is indeed a way the current, ruling, Kleptocracy can and perhaps will set the Internet Back for a long LONG time.

They can do so by this rather simple two step process:

1) Make your O/S police your own system, shut down any "non-authorized" files - this is what Microsoft calls the Palladium Protocol

2) Require through legislation a specific O/S or O/S plugin to be required to Positively Identify users on the Internet

(i.e. ISP's must enforce this or not allow you to subscribe to their service)


Once those two steps are in place - the Internet has just become Cable TV for all but the most sophisticated of hackers...

Not enough Public Will to allow this... Hmm.... Perhaps you are right, perhaps their would have to be an Internet "Pearl Harbor" to shape Public Opinion....




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by manbird12000
This has been going on with Books for DECADES! Public libraries lend books to MILLIONS of people for years without the author collecting any royalty.

Sure, the book was originally bought from the author, but then it was shared with thousands of people who borrowed it from the library everyday for days at a time.

I didn't hear about any copyright uprising then.......
Because it was not a copyright breach.


Then you might argue "Well they didn't copy the book, they passed the same one book around"

And I would reply, What's the difference? If an unlimited number of people are being entertained by a piece of work you created, who cares if it was attained by copying or passing around? Bottom line is, you got $20 bucks and 500 people read your book!
Yes, but that is what people seem to not understand, what is forbidden is the reproduction of the copyrighted material (the book), because then those reproductions would be made without the author knowing about it and without gaining any direct monetary compensation for it.

In Japan many people buy manga and them on the bus/train/etc. for other people to read.

The same thing happens in many places with newspapers, someone buys them and then, after reading it, they leave them on a coffee-shop table or a park bench for someone else to read.

Those cases are not copyright infringement, they are legal.

The problem arises when you copy the book, because then there is nothing to stop you from selling it, and then you are making money from something that was not your work (supposing you sold it for more than the cost of the materials).


Every computer has the inherent ability to duplicate data. So until you can come up with data that does not contain "ones" and "zeroes" you better get used to the fact that your digital product will inevitably be copied and sent to other computers no matter what the government does.
That is the problem, nobody thought about the "digital revolution", not only the Internet but in other things, like printing shops, that are getting fewer because most companies print their own stationary and business cards, or about digital cameras replacing film cameras.

The evolution of digital appliances has been too fast for the legislators, some of which do not even know the technology to know what should be done.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
As a "neutral" party, I can see both sides of the argument. On one side, all those people making music/games/software do have a right to be upset, because they are loosing a profit, small as it is. And on the other side, the founders of piratebay shouldn't have to pay anything, because only the TORRENTS are on their site, and not the actual files.

Personally, I don't think that the downloading will ever stop-not as long as people can buy software (I'm referring to what was done prior to p2p- making copies of a cd/dvd for someone).

Also, I make my own music/software, but I do the fun thing and offer it for FREE. True, they are simple creations, and true, I don't get much out of it, but I do get satisfaction from knowing that someone is getting something for free

Just a few thoughts



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join