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: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


It has nothing to do woth "sharing" or "the internet being free," what it has everything to do with is scumbag freeloaders who don't want to pay for someone elses hard work, financial outlay, time, and effort.

Don't worry - it's all under control ...

As soon as everybody's chipped, then this nonsense won't happen anymore.

Hope this helps




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

And that is probably at the crux of this debate:

How much should we be paying for movies, music and books et al.


The market determines an equilibrium price with supply and demand, which is the point between surplus and shortage. We've all voted with our dollars how much we're willing to pay for a product.


Originally posted by skibtz
Is it right that actors demand $40m per movie?


Yes. How dare you tell me or anyone else how much I should be paid. If I can get $40m for my movie, great! If having my name in the marque is going to boost the ticket sales then my value to the company is quantifiable in a dollar amount. Paying me the hypothetical $40m is good business.


Originally posted by skibtz
Do we still need the middleman?


It is a dynamic market now with the introduction of downloading, iPods, etc. There's still a middleman, just a different one.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


But the hackers will scan them from a distance and identity theft ever thing about you your bank accounts your credit cards and even your heath records. Isn't technology wonderful they push products out the door so quick anymore they don't bother to get the bugs out and hackers prevail. Example Windows vista theres problems all over the place with it and microsoft knew and didn't care.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
on one hand the pirate bay people seem to have done nothing against the law by setting up a website, and so they should not be made martyrs, if this is true.

on another hand, copyright is not the right to make a copy. it is, in fact, the right to prevent others from making copies. and if the owner of the copyright does not grant permission through licensing or otherwise, to make such copies, then the law has been broken.

i think we should all be careful about why we're supporting one side or another. A digital copy of a product is still a product, and is not free, unless the owner says it is.

please read the US copyright law. it is very clear.




[edit on 17-4-2009 by conwaylemmon]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
This suxorz!
I want my torrents!

Well I've been avoiding TPB lately anyway with all this news being thrown around. The MPAA and RIAA and all others really should just be shut down. I know that's not so logical to say but seriously if we cannot download songs and movies due to copyright infringement we will always be able to rip them from the disc and then distribute them or get them off someone else. I am sorry but I feel rather certain the only way piracy can truly be stopped is by completely shutting down the internet.


I think the war here is a war of example. If those organizations can make a big enough example they can scare a lot of people out of downloading certain things since it is quite impossible to stop everyone. Either way I'll look somewhere else in the meantime. Good post S&F!



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


But the hackers will scan them from a distance and identity theft ever thing about you your bank accounts your credit cards and even your heath records. Isn't technology wonderful

Certainly technology is wonderful, and also all the 'progress' this technology enables.

And as far as the hackers go, as soon as they are detected, a process which will take no more than a few milli-seconds, once everthing's 'in place,' then their 'chip' will just emit a certain special chemical, and the 'hacking activity' will definately stop right there and then ...



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
How's this for freaky symbolism? Study this picture of Judge Tomas Norstrom commenting on the Pirate Bay trial verdict.



Look behind him, there are two light fixtures, of a style I have not seen before.

The lights seem to be tilted towards the audience, giving the appearance of... eyes! There is also a brown post behind the judge.

a Nose?

The judge is in front of the nose, appearing as a mouthpiece... A mouthpiece of this symbolism?

...is the judge a mouthpiece of 'whoever' is behind him?



So who's behind him?

The Owl of Bohemia!












posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

A digital copy of a product is still a product, and is not free


Really? So how much does it cost the company that produced said file if I copy and paste it?

There is no physical medium cost to the company when I copy and paste it.

Profit loss projections based on piracy assumes every person that shares said files would have purchased them if they weren't otherwise available for free.

This is not the case.

We've got a new war on our hands - the war on technology.

They need to adapt to an ever changing method of distribution, instead of paying for profit control legislation.

If this proves anything its that our government is bought and paid for, and only serves the interests of big business.

I thought our government was here to protect us as individuals - not already wealthy businesses who only care about maximizing their profit margin.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by djzombie]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi
What planet do you people live on?

You have absolutely NO right to decide that you're going to share out someone elses property, and I say good riddance that they've been found guilty & sent down.

I personally have penned 2 books, and although you probably think it's a walk in the park to write a book, I can assure you it isn't - months of research, months putting it together, and then marketing it.

It is my livlihood, and what do I find? Some reprehensible little scrote somewhere has decided that's he's going to share my work with other people for free - what the Hell gives him the right to do that?

If you download copyrighted material from torrents then you are a THIEF - PERIOD!

It has nothing to do woth "sharing" or "the internet being free," what it has everything to do with is scumbag freeloaders who don't want to pay for someone elses hard work, financial outlay, time, and effort.

I hope they get the ISPs to log anyone who uses a torrent and fine them all.


This is singularly the most inane post i have read. have you no understanding AT ALL of what torrents are? You may as well ban the internet as the entire network facilitates illegal activity. BAN cars as drunks drive and kill people, BAN books as some read them and commit crimes, BAN government as they go to war and some commit crimes.

The merits of the case are that NO COPY WRITTEN material was ever on Pirate bays servers. They shared NOTHING, except torrents, which are index files pointing to people who CLAIMED they were sharing files, or PARTS of files. By the logic of this ruling, or lack thereof, any time you see a single pixel of flesh tone image, you are potentially looking at child porn!! After all..it "Might" be.

If you had any concept of viral marketing, you would WELCOME people sharing in your work. You would WELCOME the free distribution of your efforts and the fame that you would exploit for future profit. Perhaps you should, before you rebut the argument, research the history behind the "Winzip" story. This in itself would show you exactly what the power of sharing can do for a group, company or organization.

The real theft in this story, is the theft of freedom. Selectively enforcing laws that are in place to protect the few at the cost of many. This ruling opens a door to a far greater danger than most people can imagine.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'm afraid I agree fully with Power_Semi on this issue...

Seems to me that an artist making a living through their art ('art' referring to any medium here), whether it be independently or through a publisher/label/whatever/ has a right to actually earn that living.

Now, fair play, some of you state that by downloading a pirated version you were intorduced to new experiences and were prompted to then purchase the legitimate version of whatever you downloaded. That's a good thing, no doubt about that. But I would suspect that you would, across the whole internet, be a minority. Sadly, many people in this "everything for free" culture of ours get what they want and leave it at that.

Being paid for their creativity means that the artists can free themselves from the godawful grind of a paying job to concentrate on their art. I would love to spend all day drawing my comic or writing my music, but that's probably never going to happen.

To use my music as an example, I have a CD that you can buy. it has only ever sold a few copies, and that's fine. Why? Because I freely make the tracks downloadable all over the place anyway. Why? Because the music is my hobby. I do it for fun. I don't believe for one minute that it would ever sell enough to make a living out of. So I am fine with people distributing it around as it's free publicity for me, and in all truth it's matters more to me that people are able to enjoy it and be moved by it than me making a living out of it. But if my CD actually sold in numbers that meant I could give up my day job and write music for a living, and still pay the bills and keep a roof over my head? Then you can be goddam sure that anything new would no longer be widely downloadable, because that would be giving away my income, my living, the thing that would allow me to continue writing the music for people to enjoy.

But at the end of the day, whether an artist is independent and paid by their fans, or under a label/publisher/whatever and paid that way they still have a right to the income for the hard work they put in for our entertainment.

Here's a real-life example of the harm that piracy can do (and no, as this person is under NDA's I won't reveal specific details, but those of you with half a mind will figure it out.) A very good friend of mine worked at a small independent games studio. The studio had enjoyed good success with casual and small PC games. About a year ago they released their first big-time game, after several years of development and a massive amount of funding from investors who saw the growing market for video games. The game received very good reviews. They also had a very great dislike of DRM and all the restrictions and frustrations that caused to gamers. They were on the gamer's side.

Problem was, within eight months the game had been so heavily pirated that the revenue made was much less than the cost of the game to make. Why buy the game when it was available on torrents for free? Result of the gamer greed? The company could not pay back the investment, could not pay it's staff, filed for bankruptcy, everyone lost their job. Some of the staff were lucky and were taken up by other developers. But for most, within a few months they went from doing a job they loved at a really great company to working some #ty office job. All because people today expect everything for free. The irony is that if every pirated copy of the game had actually been a sale, they would have more than paid the investors off and would still be making great games today. The gamers shot themselves in the foot.

So, to conclude, when you are taking money away from someone who has worked hard, so that they can no longer continue to produce what you enjoy, it IS theft. Pirate Bay engendered and encouraged the theft. They got what they deserved.

The "everything for free" mindset is flawed. Grow up and join the real, bill-paying world.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I agree with most of you here, There is no stopping file sharing via torrent sites etc. Not without huge restructuring of all aspects of the net. As a lot of you say, downloading and “reviewing” content actually promotes a lot of people to go to concerts, pay money to watch a film or buy a music cd.

Radiohead for instance have actually recognised this and in 2007 released the album “In Rainbows” on their website with the option for users to pay as much or as little as they like. With the understanding that hopefully this will promote later concert ticket, cd and merchandise sales. I really do think this is the way things ought to go. Everyone wins except the music big bods.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

The irony is that if every pirated copy of the game had actually been a sale, they would have more than paid the investors off and would still be making great games today.



Profit loss projections based on piracy assumes every person that shares said files would have purchased them if they weren't otherwise available for free.

That is not the case.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dogsounds
 


The problem is...that is just a story. How do they know that it was the torrents that caused the company to fail? How do they know what their sales would have been without the illegal distribution?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dogsounds
 


Seems to me that an artist making a living through their art ('art' referring to any medium here), whether it be independently or through a publisher/label/whatever/ has a right to actually earn that living.

But, how about this viewpoint -


The product of a talent, freely given at birth, should in no way entitle said talent's bearer to monetary gain. What was originally free should remain always free.


How can you put a price tag on anything, actually ?

The whole idea is absurd ...



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational
The market determines an equilibrium price with supply and demand, which is the point between surplus and shortage. We've all voted with our dollars how much we're willing to pay for a product.


And the sharing community have set their own price - free



Yes. How dare you tell me or anyone else how much I should be paid. If I can get $40m for my movie, great! If having my name in the marque is going to boost the ticket sales then my value to the company is quantifiable in a dollar amount. Paying me the hypothetical $40m is good business.


The business is so good that people are refusing to pay bloated prices due to bloated costs by downloading free content. A more effective business model is in order perhaps?

p.s. I was posing the questions - not telling you or anyone else what they can or can not do



It is a dynamic market now with the introduction of downloading, iPods, etc. There's still a middleman, just a different one.


Yeah. The new middleman is giving it away



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dogsounds
 


Ok, your post is dealing specifically with the pirating issue of media in direct conjunction to the artists livelihood. Although this is an argument that has heated debates on both sides, this really isn't the issue at hand here.

The Pirate bay site, and other torrent sites are much like phone books that offer information to find things. They don't actually contain the copy written work themselves. The USERS of the torrent protocol determine if they will share the actual file or how much of it they will share.

So this means that the Google argument, and the other arguments which express that ANY medium that provides access to any illegal activity should also bear the same penalty as they also contribute to illegal activity. (do you see where this is going?)

True to the conceptual logic of the actual case against Pirate bay, any company that facilitates any kind of illegal activity should be held accountable to the same degree. Oil companies that pollute the environment, TV companies that pollute the airwaves, knife companies that provide a utility which has been used for crimes, car companies which enable drunks to kill people, paper companies that provide avenue for hate crimes, Ink companies that allow their product (or take no effort to stop their product) to be used by people to write hate/suicide notes, threats or bad literature. computer companies that allow or fail to stop people from hacking others..the list will not end until we are left alone in a white room butt naked.

Piracy can hurt an artist, I agree. However even the MS operating system you may use to post your reply, has a foundation in file sharing. If file sharing were treated the way it is today, back in the pre DOS days, the whole point would be moot. There is a happy medium in all of this, however the ruling against Pirate bay just isn't it.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dogsounds
 



How about the game sucked and no one wanted to buy it? Maybe since the game was avaliable in torrent for free people decided to try it? Thus it was downloaded. With out knowing what game this was, it is hard to say. Honestly though, if piracy caused your "friends" game to fail then why aren't all PC games failing?

Why?

Because even with piracy good PC games still make a profit. PC games from steam and subscription models do even better.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by djzombie

A digital copy of a product is still a product, and is not free


Really? So how much does it cost the company that produced said file if I copy and paste it?

There is no physical medium cost to the company when I copy and paste it.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by djzombie]


you conveniently cut off the second half of that sentence. It should read:

"A digital copy of a product is still a product, and is not free, unless the owner says it is."
I should stress the word OWNER.

My point is that no one has the right to make a copy except the owner and those authorized by the owner.

and another point:

when you go into a store and buy a physical copy of an album, for instance, you are not paying $15 - $20 for the physical CD, you are paying for a limited license to use that product. you are NOT purchasing the songs or the recording or the right to make copies. You are NOT acquiring ANY ownership of the creative content on that CD.

When you go to iTunes and buy a song for 99 cents, you are not buying a recording, or a song, you are buying license to use the recording and song, a limited license which does not include the right to make and/or distribute copy.
you simply have no right to make copies. it has nothing to do with profit margin and nothing to do with technology or the internet for that matter. you simply don't have the right to make a copy of someone else's work.

I'm not condemning anyone for downloading "free" mp3s. I'm not completely innocent. i'm just saying that you ARE breaking the law. when you drive over 55 mph you ARE breaking the law. and saying that "well, everyone is going 80 mph" doesn't mean that YOU aren't. Just because it's so easy to make a copy and share with your friends and the world doesn't mean it's legal.

the fact that the majority of the money is going to huge multinats is another matter.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by conwaylemmon]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Well, artist and musicians who yet have to find the breakthrough need to begin to understand that you can NOT make a good living on it UNLESS:


  • A globaly known artist/musician ( highly talanted ones, and not a Lady Autotune Popopopopokerface )
  • Follow the flow of technical advancement instead of go against it.


With the last point I mean that instead of stubbornly try to gather money in the old fashion why where we all were very dependent on physical things like CD,s and Vinyl Records, they should try and find a coexistant way of making a profit.

I believe Spotify is on to something. Personally I wouldn't mind hearing a few commercial breaks while streaming more or less any song I like.


However there is another aspect to this court crap.
( gonna copy and paste what I wrote in another TPB thread here )

This is why many Swedish are pretty aggravated at this moment.
Well, the damages you have to pay for murdering 2 kids in Sweden is:

200 000 SEK ( Swedish Crowns ) which is 23 700 Dollars.


The damage fee they have to pay for having torrents on a server..

31.000.000 SEK which is 3,670,700 USD.

What is wrong with this picture eh?

The companies and the less known artist/musicians/writers need to go with the flow now.
The file sharing will be unstoppable.
Internet is a phenomeon that is not a physical thing you can feel, touch and taste. It is only a Network...a big one. And to controll the internet you have to control ALL nodes/computers.

This is just not possible.

So torrents are here to stay. The companies need to find other solutions.
Sending people to jail and claim millions of dollars in damage is outrageous compared to the punishments you get on other stuff.

Ofcourse writers/actors/musicians and artists should earn their money, but again they need to understand what kind of society we live in.
If they gonna fight this like they have now it will sooner or later backfire.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
sorry this is a off topic and might sound a little snobby, but the past tense of copyright (if you have to use it as a verb) is copyrighted, not copy written or copywrote.

sorry please don't hate me




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join