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: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Marek
 


No there users did, its user uploaded material the founders themselves did nothing but run it.

Do you really think it hurts the entertainment industry? They still make billions and it isnt going to just end like that.

Since the invention of the mp3 and mp3 players the music industry knows they need to shift everything onto digital downloads to make money because people just dont go out and buy albums/singles anymore.

Here in the UK we have the highest prices in Europe for DVDs and CD's and people wonder why they dont get bought.

More people buy the products than get them for free and it will always stay that way.




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Concept X
 

When asked to remove copyrighted material they openly mocked them while hiding behind Sweden's ill conceived laws.

They were called the "PIRATE" bay with a big picture of a ship with a skull and cross bones as their front page. Of course they knew what was going on.

They openly facilitate and encourage theft, Pure and simple.

Despite their seemingly liberal ideals their founders are making vast amounts of cash from other peoples work. They are also less open-minded than you would hope.

www.theregister.co.uk...

Yes, of course giving people access to free material harms the industry. I work in the music industry in London and have seen countless jobs and studios close in the last 5 years.
These are my friends jobs and livelihoods just disappearing because of some ridiculous sense of entitlement kids have simply because it has been made so incredibly easy and convenient to steal.

The companies are NOT making billions. Even if they were is that justification to steal from them?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Marek]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Marek]



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


Small studios yes because there artists just either dont sell or are not getting enough publicity or recognition, it has nothing to do with piracy, and when i say they are making billons i am talking about the industry as a whole, which is true.

My cousin is a singer/songwriter from London who now lives between London and Spain and internet piracy has not affected her in the slightest and she is not a well known artist but sells enough physical cd's and digital downloads on websites and applications such as ITunes to make a comfy living.

These are huge companies taking them to court not a little studio or agency or a freelance singer/song writer. The fact is they do it for greed and remember i am talking about the big players in the industry that create artists for the sole purpose of making money, how is that not greed?

People dont appreciate the greed of corporations, hence howmuch support they have got, it would be a different story if it was a small company or artist.

It's not the perfect system or what people should think, but its what they do think.

But i agree i dont think that should allow us to steal from them, what i personally disprove of is the greed of international corporations that make up high numbers and push and push and push to get everything they want.

Ofcourse they knew what they were doing but they still did not host any files on there servers, its just links, i could find links on Google, should Google be taken to court for allowing me to find copyrighted material for free?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Concept X]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Concept X
 


Tosh.

Just because a company has 2000 people working for it rather than 20 you are well within your rights to steal from them?

What utter bull.

That "greedy" corporation is made up of 2000 individuals with homes, kids and mortgages, just like the 2 person business.

Ah, the google argument.

Google remove links and pages they find to be in breach of the law.







[edit on 17-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


This verdict is indicative of the times, the establishments want to shut down knowledge, and make sure we stay in the dark. I know for a fact I could not learn to play the guitar, i had not downloads some books, on how to, this lead me to buying a better guitar, and I actually bought the book i download as it was so good, I think i bought over 7 books on how to play the guitar. most of the books i had got from torrents sites were great but a pain to stand up on a music stand, plus i wanted to get the real deal as quality of the product was great. Alot of companies are ripp of merchants they sell you crappy products and then tell you to lump it when you complain. I am in the view you download it to try it mode after i bought so many games and i read the reviews before i bought them. When i got the games they were nothing like what the review stated, just look at the reviews for empire totalwar, nothing like that in reality but still a great game and yes i bought it. The internet has opened up my eyes to different thoughts and ideas, not only polictial but also culturallly, there is music i have down loaded i would never dream of buying, but now i would consider it if the price was low enough, still the prices of cds are soooo expensive still its stupid. All this legal stuff will go the way of tapes and vhs they will have to deal with it.

Still if they find a torrent site then what about the people who made bit torrent etc, or the isps, in fact go further and charge phone companies who provide the connection and infratructure, after all they are allowing me and you to access material on the web. If but no they have big money behind them. The truth is the people with money want to restrict knowledge and to stop us from becoming more open and cultured. Companies should release better products with good quality and the price should be reflective of that, in other words do not charge the earth. Still in the age of banker ripp offs and greed no wonder the record/ movie companies are stupid enough to waste money on something they cannot do about. In the end they have to live with it and move on. After all they are have good living any way.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by Daniem
 
but now i would consider it if the price was low enough, still the prices of cds are soooo expensive still its stupid.


The album that cost £100,000 to make, you bought for £5 and don't think that is a bargain?

If people don't pay for art it will only get worse and worse until only the X-Factors, the Pop Idols and the comics in the back of newspapers are left.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Marek
 

I dont agree that it gives us the right to steal from them just because they are a corporation rather than a small company.

From previous post:
"But i agree i dont think that should allow us to steal from them, what i personally disprove of is the greed of international corporations that make up high numbers and push and push and push to get everything they want."

And the fact they have lives still doesnt change the fact they are greedy, the point is the corporations have hardly lost anything from files being on the Internet, they still make huge profits through retail sales, cinema and digital downloads.

Theres a pretty big difference is what for example Sony make AND lose than an independant artist.

Take Blizzard and World of Warcraft for example,

13 Million players - $9.99 /month = $129.870,000.00 /month
Lets say 1 Million downloaded World of Warcraft for free, they cant play on Blizzards servers and can only play on private servers so
12 Million players - $9.99 /month = $119.880,000.00 /month

Looks to me like they are loosing so much money that its damaging the company... which is what they say it is doing, and thats only including the monthly fee, and there is alot less than 1 million people playing on Private Servers.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Concept X
reply to post by Marek
 

And the fact they have lives still doesnt change the fact they are greedy, the point is the corporations have hardly lost anything from files being on the Internet, they still make huge profits through retail sales, cinema and digital downloads.

Theres a pretty big difference is what for example Sony make AND lose than an independant artist.


Sony music lost $45million in Q4 '07. I can't find more recent figures but I know for a fact things haven't got better since then.

I don't really know what you mean by greedy? How does their greed manifest itself?

If a company is doing well then they make money. It's a side effect of capitalism. *shrug

I can't comment on WoW.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


wong people who download stulff from the net are not thieves, they are sharring infomation, just like google or any other search engine, if you do not want your work to be download on the net, then do not put it on. simple. I have written stuff that i would never dare put on the net, but if i did, they fair dues i know the rist, i might not like it but i went and put on with open eyes, just like photos of my famiily on my webiste. I know there some sickos out there that might, do things with them , but hey i am not that parrnoid about it. If you put your stuff on the public domain and do protect it then its your own fault.

In fact i write a lot of peoms and if i published them and i found out that they were on the net and people were downloading them and that means they are reading them hey, great stuff. i am not going to chase them. and sue them for breach of copy write. look at britians got talent. the new find susan boyle she has over 20 millilon hits. now are you saying the person who loaded up the tv section is breaching copy write and should be sued.? Without the net the programme would not be as popular and no one would of seen susan boyle do the amazing singing she did. It works both ways, the programme is in the public domain. I see the law eventually being changed to say if you put stuff on the net then it then you put on via your own risk. Also if you release it to the public like movies then the law has to reflect that and say well you know the risk . It is the same with cassette tapes yeears ago there was a big huha about kids recording music from the radio, and the radio shows did stupid things like talking in the middle of the song, all it did was make people mad and not listen to the show. I myself tape stuff as a kid but if i liked the song. I went out and bought the ablum, or single, and i have lots of stuff i have bought because i heard on the tv or radio. its the same with tv, i taped alot of programmes with blank vhs tv companies used to put markers on their programmses so you can put your vcr on pause, yes when vhs came out they tried to stop it, but people just went and record stuff anyway. most people love quality and they would like to buy stuff they like. YOu cannot go round and say every one is theif i bet you have recorded a video or song and thought that was great and now you have your work you say oh you cannnot do that. Well if you stick it out in the public domain expect people to copy and i say copying is extremely form of flatteriy. It means people thougt it was so good they copied it , who knows they might buy it as well.

One think i would say its plagerisim , by this i mean if some one download your stuff and they say they wrote this or recorded that, they i say go and get them because that is out of order, they never did the work on it etc. Like i said though, protect your stuff and get a good money from the publishers because if you think your stuff is not going to be downloaded your in dream land, but then again, if your stuff is not download it stuff proves its not very good, works both ways



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


wong people who download stulff from the net are not thieves, they are sharring infomation, just like google or any other search engine, if you do not want your work to be download on the net, then do not put it on.


The artists that create the work don't put it online. Some ignorant kid uploads it to a site like TPB that disseminate the links.

If you copy something you have no right to copy then you are a thief.

The erosion of copyright will kill the concept of Artist as a career and that will be a massive step backwards for us.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Marek
 


Its not stealing, you know this. they had nothing on the site simple as that. Oh please not another bleeding heart. lots of companies go to the wall for different reasons and you cannot use the net as an excuse for that. If your bossys were that stupid to put there price high, or too blind to see that their products wee not being protected then, they deserve to fail.



There is not difference in me pressing link in google to to any other site, all give out information, and if one chooses to download it then it fair game its in the public relm.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mulberry
 


Taking it just because it's there is not a good justification.

I find it really sad that people feel entitled to other peoples hard work simply because it is so easy to steal.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
What's next?

Are they going to attack Google for allowing us to find these sites?

Are they going to attack AT&T and BELL for allowing criminals to communicate?

Just how far will this precedence go?

Sure you can argue intent... but you'd have to be naive to think the precedent couldn't be used to expand such attacks to networks that have nothing to do with intentional piracy.



They didn't get this aggravated back when we pirated music from the radio via cassette tape.
Now THAT was intentional... you had to sit and wait for the song to play and get your timing right on the record button to do it... if that wasn't intent, I don't know what is.

But we got away with it... it was fine in the eyes of the recording agencies.

But now that we're in the internet age, these old judges and juries just don't understand what the net is, allowing sentences to be passed that would have never been allowed in the pre-internet ages.


Ask yourself... what's the difference between a radio with a record button and this?

... was the designer of the recording radio sued?

No of course not... that would be lunacy.

Whaddya think this is?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky


Ask yourself... what's the difference between a radio with a record button and this?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by johnsky]



The ability to share that illegal recording with millions of other like minded thieves in a matter of minutes springs to mind.

......darn character count...

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marek

Originally posted by johnsky


Ask yourself... what's the difference between a radio with a record button and this?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by johnsky]



The ability to share that illegal recording with millions of other like minded thieves in a matter of minutes springs to mind.

......darn character count...

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Marek]




Right, and radio never reached millions.

Come on.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Listening to the Radio is legal. Copying songs from it isn't.

Stealing songs and making hundreds of thousands of copies and making them available to anyone who wants them is certainly not legal.

Pretty cut and dried.

I used to tape the charts, but if I wanted to own the track I went down the record shop and bought it.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marek
Listening to the Radio is legal. Copying songs from it isn't.

Stealing songs and making hundreds of thousands of copies and making them available to anyone who wants them is certainly not legal.

Pretty cut and dried.

I used to tape the charts, but if I wanted to own the track I went down the record shop and bought it.



Copying songs from the radio didn't land you in jail.


And no, it's not so cut and dry... If I broadcast a song, via the internet or radio, the only difference that exists is on the receiving end... whether they store it or not.

A song broadcasted is a song broadcasted.
If a song is streamed over the net and listened to, it's assumed legal... but if the listener saves it then it becomes illegal?
For the broadcaster?


And even on that note, this trial has nothing to do even with the broadcasters! They've attacked the medium... not the broadcaster, not the listeners who are saving it... the medium.

It's like filing a lawsuit against Time Warner Cable because someone used it to send illegal documents.



Okay... so, here's a hypothetical scenario to help visualize whats going on.


You make a communication medium... for example, I'll say you set up a phone network.

Someone picks up one of the phones on your network, and calls someone else on your phone network.

They talk about an illegal activity and how to pull it off.

The police show up... and instead of arresting them, they arrest you for allowing them to talk about illegal activities on your network.



Are you starting to see how ridiculous this is?



On top of it all, the recording agencies are also attacking people who have downloaded music belonging to artists who have publicly declared their music to be free for distribution.

The recording agencies aren't in this for the artists... they work with or without the consent of the artists, they're in it for themselves.


Some of the other composers I toss ideas around with have actually been contacted by RIAA with a desist order for downloading our own work!



And lastly, yes, if I like an album, I'll buy it.

That doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to sample before I buy.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I'm going to burn all my CDs and movies in protest! Man if it could happen ThePirateBay then really most will be within the cross hairs of the RIAA and the MPAA.

I think that this is what they were aiming for, to scare all the torrent trackers.

I wouldn't doubt there was witness tampering, intimidation, fraud, forgery, bribery, ect. They seem to have money to burn yet they claim there loosing money.

Sad day for the little man .



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
... If I broadcast a song, via the internet or radio, the only difference that exists is on the receiving end... whether they store it or not.

A song broadcasted is a song broadcasted.
If a song is streamed over the net and listened to, it's assumed legal... but if the listener saves it then it becomes illegal?
[edit on 18-4-2009 by johnsky]


If you broadcast copyright material without paying PRS or a license to broadcast then you would be arrested and have your equipment seized.

What people fail to realise is that it isn't only the large companies that suffer, it is the entire industry.

Music, Games, TV. It all costs money, whatever level you operate at. Like any business, without proper compensation for their products the quality will suffer.

Ever wondered why all music is being funnelled down into this Lowest Common Denominator trash we have to put up with these days?

I appreciate the "guns don't kill people" side of the argument, but copyright is under attack and action is needed.



[edit on 18-4-2009 by Marek]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Google decided to withdraw all music videos owned by the record labels because Warner Music Group (WMG) wanted to increase the annual fee and introduce a pay-per-click via hit-rate.

I applaud Google for their decision, the labels got too greedy and in response to Marek, WMG had the audacity to say that Google earns billions from showing other peoples content, so they should cough up. So your rhetoric about the size of a company swings both ways.

Marek, you also mistake the 100,000's of copies created by torrents, that's not the case. One person creates a torrent and this is downloaded via 3rd party apps (Bit Torrent, uTorrent, etc) by users and the file is concatenated in hash segments from all the seeders online at that particular time. Once the download is complete, then ONE COPY is created on the users machine. This is then disseminated and becomes available to other users, if they leave their torrent software running.

So why TPB got hammered, God knows; it is blatant corruption somewhere along the supply chain, as the judges and prosecution were clueless of torrent tech. All TPB do is link to torrents, but to get the torrent you have to use completely independent software.

The great thing about torrents is they aren't susceptible to "flash crowds" which can bottle-neck bandwidth. The more people who share the 'blocks' of data, the faster the seeding becomes.

It is a natural evolution for torrents to take over mainstream TV distribution imho, something that is in the pipeline


I bet your bottom dollar, the corporate big-boy whores are kicking themselves that they didn't harness and buy the embryonic torrent technology when it first reared its head on the internet. Now it's come and bit 'em on the bum.

Their ideal scenario is to kill the internet, atleast for any file they claim their retrospective 95 years (a joke that this law was passed), and for its customers to walk to shops to buy a bit of plastic costing $20. Those days are dead and they know it. They are just procrastinating the inevitable and scaremongering through cases like this on MSM, which btw is the first time i saw any mention of torrents on UK MSM !! If they would have won, i bet your bottom dollar, it wouldn't have aired.

On a final note, this is just the beginning of the evil the multinats are planning. Copyright has always been territorial, which is why TPB was set up in Sweden. The powers that be are secretly pushing for international legislation where copyright has no boundaries and can charge whatever they want for suspected grannies or kids whose IP may have been ghosted and treated like international criminals.

If you are suspected, they will fine you "Damages adequate to compensation", p3 Civil enforcement and "seize and destroy IPR infringing goods", p3 Criminal enforecment.

Perhaps ACTA is worthy of a new thread, as it is another notch in the bedpost of the NWO



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join