Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bozon on April 17, 2009, 09:05:05 AM
-
11 more rounds to go...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm
This is really silly. I have two main gripes against this ruling:
1. On the legality aspect, these guys do not host any protected data. They do not even trafic the bits as they are exchanged. They do not have the information on who has even a single byte of data. What they have is torrent files - the information there is a list of file names, url of trackers and a general description on how a big file is chopped into small pieces (without knowing what is in the pieces). They just tell you who to talk to if you want to find more people interested in the files listed in the torrent.
The real world equivalent: If you ask me, I can tell you who to talked to, that can give you the phone number of a drug dealer. Should I got to prison for drug traffic?
2. Why is downloading media that is broadcasted on TV a crime? I can record it at home and watch it 100 times legally. I can even load the tape to a friend who does not have cable and it is legal. If instead I download the same episode using the pirate bay to get the .torrent it is a crime and they are criminals too. Why? I already payed to watch this episode. What business is this of anyone what electronic appliance in my house I use for this purpose? No one is missing a copy of the episode and it was already paid for. On the other hand, If an episode is broadcasted at the same time as a football game and I watch the one, I can't watch the other. Will I get a refund for content I payed for but was not delivered?
The way media companies are calculating their "losses" are borderline retarded. Even If I do download something that is not broadcasted locally, it is not like I would have gone out and buy it. If it was unavailable I would have watched some other crap - it is like zapping with the remote: it is all garbage, you just watch the most smelly and available garbage at the time.
-
The real world equivalent: If you ask me, I can tell you who to talked to, that can give you the phone number of a drug dealer. Should I got to prison for drug traffic?
err yes, because you are "Aiding and Abetting in the Distribution of Drugs" which is a crime in most countries...
-
If Pirate Bay is guilty then so is Google and Yahoo etc...
-
Why is downloading media that is broadcasted on TV a crime?
This proves that you do not understand the underlying legal issue.
-
That's not going to end there. This case will porbably go all the way to the EU Courts.
One question though, were they making money out of this site?
-
That's not going to end there. This case will porbably go all the way to the EU Courts.
One question though, were they making money out of this site?
No.
-
Don't worry. They'll win the appeals. They've unsuccessfully tried to kill off TPB I don't know how many times.
It doesn't matter if they were making money off the website. Anyone can put ad space up on their webpage. Or sell Tshirts with logos on them.
The reason it doesn't matter is: they hosted any files for distribution. Not one MB of data that the industries are accusing them of distributing was ever on any of their servers.
Another case and point: if thepiratebay.org (http://thepiratebay.org) gets shut down at all, another website offering the exact same abilities will pop up to fill its place. In fact, more likely multiple sites will come into dominance.
-
There is no way to stop TPB and all the similar sites so they should just "cave/give up and surrender" on that and start working _with_ the technology rather than against it.
The music and film industry have been way to slow to start using this kind of tech and now they are paying for that. There are only now beginning to pop up legal ways of getting music that are user friendly, cheap and with decent quality. Ive used the payed/add-free version of Spotify for my music needs for a few months now and I am betting that it wont be very long before other similar good ways comes for tv and film. That is 5-10 years later than it should have been.
10 usd for Spotify is well worth it to get all the music you want in good quality. Id glady pay 3-5 times that a month if it was in lossless. I also think a service that would sell lossless music for download (come on itunes!) would make good money for the artist but i have yet to find one. Due to size of files they would also need to use peer to peer technology like Spotify does.
-
This proves that you do not understand the underlying legal issue.
I understand them pretty well. The "why" question was not a technical one but a moral one. The fact that there IS a law does not mean it is not retarded. The fact that ridiculous interpretation is given to a stupid law by an idiot judge who is likely under political pressure, gives it a big "SO SAYS THE LAW" stamp. It does not make it justice though.
Prohibition was a law that actually made some sense as a society. However, the public did not accept it and could not abide by it (for a million reasons, but that is irrelevant). It just turned a lot of essentially good people into criminals for doing little things that harmed no one and at the same time made a huge profits to professional criminals and gangsters. This law makes more sense than some of the copyright laws, EULA and whatever.
Patents and copyrights were intended to protect developers and artists - especially the small ones. The situation today is that they mostly serve as ammunition by the big firms to fight each other and squash the little ones. It slows down progress, not encourage it. The whole thing needs a big revision. Time to evolve or go extinct.
err yes, because you are "Aiding and Abetting in the Distribution of Drugs" which is a crime in most countries...
That is an interpretation and a harsh one at that. I don't tell the guy where to find drugs. I tell him who to talk to in order to get the information, I have no idea where to get drugs. You could say that if a guy asked me for a quarter and I give it to him knowing that he is going to call his dealer, that I am "aiding and abetting".
-
(http://www.geekperspective.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/filesharing1.gif)
-
The sentence is somewhat harsh and unheard of in the scandinavia. Getting jailed for a year along with $4,5 million in damages, which can't be even proved, is totally outrageous. In scandinavia people found guilty usually have to only pay for the actual damages, and often it is alot less after moderation. Making examples with harsh punishments is neither typical to scandinavian justice.
-
Too bad they'll most likely never see any time in prison. These guys are just the pirate version of a "fence" and are just as culpable as those that actually pirate the software.
People that willingly download pirated software/music are nothing but thieves, no matter how much they cry to the contrary.
ack-ack
-
These guys are just the pirate version of a "fence" ...
Explain please: How are they like a "fence"?
-
Too bad they'll most likely never see any time in prison. These guys are just the pirate version of a "fence" and are just as culpable as those that actually pirate the software.
People that willingly download pirated software/music are nothing but thieves, no matter how much they cry to the contrary.
ack-ack
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR matey! :D
PS A fence is someone that you would sell your stolen goods to.
-
PS A fence is someone that you would sell your stolen goods to.
Exactly, but how are the Pirate Bay or the guys running it like "fences"?
-
They aren't. Was just giving the definition.