"Nobody is crying that people who used to go around selling ice to people do not have a job anymore because of the fridge."

This is a quote from one of the Pirate Bay founders, Peter Sunde. It's one of many quotes from Sunde that illustrate a lack of any real argument as to why what he is/was doing is illegal and probably immoral.

I read about the Pirate Bay and of course I am reminded of Napster. But when Napster was purchased from its original owner, it became a legal pay-per-song website. This situation with Pirate Bay baffles me.

Sorry - I meant to say "what he is/was doing ISN'T illegal and probably immoral."

Happens more often than you'd think, although usu. the order is "break the law, make a ton of money, go to jail*"

It is less a stamp of approval than a "danegeld" payment -- they buy the site, try to use its notoriety to their own benefit and hope the mooks who set it up originally can't duplicate the feat.

(* = for a bureaucratically broad appropriate definition of "jail")

"I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

That line can be applied to this debate in a number of different ways, showing yet again why The Empire Strikes Back is the best of the Star Wars films, including all its live action, animated, and Ewok-centric incarnations.

(Although, some might argue, "You're far too trusting" is the line that the Pirate Bay founders should be remembering at this point.)

Question of the Day: Don't movies like Goodfellas and The Godfather, as well as TV shows like Growing Up Gotti, all of which make tons of money, show approval of racketeering?

So, a site that was fully engaged in illegal file sharing is worth buying

The sticking point of this is that the files downloaded from The Pirate Bay (Torrent files) are not illegal themselves, but a means to share material illegally. "Fully engaged in illegal file sharing" implies being able to download illegal material directly from The Pirate Bay (a client-server arrangement), which to my knowledge, is untrue.

Not condoning, just clarifying.

I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong, everyone has to adapt to new technologies or die, there's no point in trying to go against progress

the notion of copyright is inexistent technically, it doesn't match reality, you can make laws and create copy protection systems but in the end once technology catches up there's no valid argument to prevent people from doing whatever they want with the material they physically own, there isn't any part of the dvds you have on your house that you don't own, copyright is a fictitious concept created to make money

and this is a separate from the notion that people who created the material should be paid for it, of course they should, but if they choose to put that material on a disc and sell it, then they can't control it anymore, it's unrealistic to try because of the nature of the technology

again, it's not about right or wrong, it's just the way it is, maybe it was wrong that steam powered machines replaced hand labor on the industrial revolution leaving thousands out of work but people have to adapt

trying to shut down the pirate bay is like when those unemployed starving people in England stormed into the factories to destroy the steam machines, another machine will just replace it, just like another tracker will replace the pirate bay (not that there's any need for it since they're thousands of trackers out there and many like mininova just as big as pirate bay)

also not all filesharing is ilegal, "the hunt for gollum" was largely distributed by torrent trackers as ar all teh fan films, a lot of film students share their shorts through filesharing, and of course thousands and thousands of home made porn videos

Doa, as someone who wants to make a living off his art someday, I find your arguments insidious, a speech of temptation from the Dark Side.

To say that a human decision isn't right or wrong because it Is often made ignores the entire history of moral thought, and is rejected by every major religion except maybe Taoism. That same argument could justify anything from murder to rape to simple theft, the last of which describes Internet piracy.

Just because ships were built for trade doesn't mean pirates were justified in using their ships for piracy.

Break the law, go to jail, make a ton of money?

Paul (Tue Jun 30 09, 12:14PM):

Just because ships were built for trade doesn't mean pirates were justified in using their ships for piracy.

Perhaps the new owners think thePirateBay.com won't be illegal by the time they own it:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86376/swedish-pirate-party-wins-2-seats-in-eu-parliament/

I would also submit the millions who are engaged in the piracy are more at fault that those who are enabling it. The Pirate Bay would not be worth anything if no one went there to acquire the torrent files.

There are legitimate uses with file sharing, as doa766 points out, but with a name like "The Pirate Bay" that doesn't seem to be their primary intent.

doa766: By that logic all property laws are ficitious concepts created to make money. I'm sorry but your argument simply doesn't hold water. It has always been technologically possible to copy copyrighted work. That has never been a reason for changing the way the law works.

You are also wrong as to the reason copyright was created. It was created to encourage artistic expression, which prior to the creation of copyright was essentially limited to those who could afford to engage in leisure - the wealthy held great sway over the creation of artistic work for much of history. If you are comfortable returning to that sort of model, then by all means abolish copyright.

AJP: property laws and copyright laws are two separate things, if you own a car you own it there's nothing else to it, if you write a screenplay or a song you own it, it's yours, if you put that song on a cd a sell it, you don't own the CD anymore nor anything in it, you have no control over what the cd owner does with it

the notion that you still have rights over the person who bought the cd from you is fictitious, it doesn't matter if the law says you own it, you don't, not anymore

my point is that copyright goes against the concept of property

obviously this is not something that companies or people who make a living out of their creative effort find appealing but it's the truth

before copyright artists made their living out of live performances or a one time pay for their efforts

it's just like a law telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies, regardless of if what they do is right or wrong, you have no control over it, it's their property, just like a dvd you own it's yours

laws that don't match reality in time are disregarded, the purchase of the pirate bay is proof

you can make a law (as some counties do) that says homosexual activity is forbidden, but it's no based on reality, you can't exercise control over what people do with their property on their houses

and this is not something I came up with it, it's been said many times before by different authors who can provide a much more detail explanation of the ilusion of copyright, I don't remember any to quote now other than Michael Moore, who usually makes this argument, there should be stuff on his website about it

probably the guy who owned a company that made those machines to search through old newspapers on libraries thought it was unfair and wrong that his company went bankrup because the internet made those machines obsolet

it's just the way it is, copyright was wrong to begin with it but it's just on teh last few years that techlogies truly confirms that notion, you can't stop the flow of information

also copyright was never meant to benefit artists, it's was design by the companies who exploit them

The purpose of copyrights is to encourage the flow of creative works into the public domain.

A rich public domain contributes to education for everyone, even those with very limited ability to pay. Works in the public domain also become raw material for new creative works. Thus early copyrights had very limited time spans, such as 14 years. This let artists and authors make some money from their work, but it was never meant to provide their income for the rest of their lives. It was meant to encourage creation of new work, to further enrich the public domain.

The entertainment industry has subverted this basic purpose of copyrights. They have purchased new laws to make the time span of copyrights unlimited (for all practical purposes). This extremist expansion of copyrights has nearly eliminated the growth of the public domain.

The result is an extremist response, as seen in people like doa766 here, calling for the abolition of copyright law.

A more moderate response predicts that if copyright laws were made reasonable again, more people would respect the law and abide by it.

If the ship builder is the pirate, then he should be responsible, and in the computer world the pirates are usually programmers.

If someone buys my book and loans it to a friend, fine. But stealing a product and throwing it at the masses for free can cost millions.

And why should publishing companies pay artists money for products, even the fixed rate you suggest, that they can't make a profit off of because of people like you, Doa?

And in a country were rule of law, including copyright law, is voided, it is the weak that hurt the most. And don't tell me about dictatorships: that is the rule of people over people through law, or around the law, not rule of law, which is why Bush's Constitutional violations were dangerous.

And in a country were rule of law, including copyright law, is voided, it is the weak that hurt the most.

doa776: You have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that because an object is physical your ownership of it is not a legal fiction. Yes, you have physical possession of a car, but what defines your ability to exclude others from possession of it? What defines your ability to use it? What defines your ability to transfer ownership of it? What defines your remedies should someone take it from you? That would be the law. Property ownership of all kinds is a legal construct, or as you put it, a legal fiction.

When you sell a physical CD with intellectual property on it, you are indeed selling the physical product. But the law says that is not the same as transferring the intellectual property on it. The fact that you don't understand that these are legally two seperate and distinct property rights is where your argument falls apart. The fact that you think that somehow intellectual property rights are somehow more "fictitious" than any other kind of property rights just shows how little you understand property law of all kinds.

Before copyright, artists made their living by seeking out wealthy patrons who would pay for their work. Why do you think we have so many Renaissance portraits of rich people? Books were written only to the extent that the writer had the wherewithal to spend his time in a non-renumerative manner. The arts were severely limited: you can count the number of novels that predated copyright using a very short list. Artists could only paint or scuplt items pleasing to their patrons if they wanted to continue to receive patronage. And so on.

Like I said, if you want to return to a system where most artwork is done at the behest of (and controlled by) wealthy financiers or religious organizations, by all means, abolish copyright law.

So, AJP, you've never heard of Creative Commons? ;)

Newbs: Oh, I have a job. I even rather like it. But without copyright, then all those Harry Potter movies, Stephen King movies, and any other movie based upon a book would have been made without any money at all going to the writers. Without copyright law, full time writers would only be able to make a living as the employees of movie, TV, and book producers. Anything made by independents would be on the level of Youtube and fanfic, which is sometimes good but not often enough that I bother with it. So if you think there's a dearth of creativity now, wait until what happens without artists' rights.

So, AJP, you've never heard of Creative Commons? ;)

You are astonishingly ignorant if you think Creative Commons invalidates AJP's point. Creative Commons is a license entirely based on and enforceable only through the power of copyright law. Believe you me, people who distribute their work under open source licenses believe in copyright, and ferociously so.

Believing in copyright does not require accepting every claim in the sprawling concept of "intellectual property."