3 ms·

TPB does not exist for only facilitating copyright violation (it's not piracy), it legitimately distributes torrents to files that are licensed to be freely dis

TPB does not exist for only facilitating copyright violation (it's not piracy), it legitimately distributes torrents to files that are licensed to be freely distributed. Here's a tv show made for torrent based distribution, it's on the front page of the pirate bay: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone

nailer 16y ago
That TPB indexes some legal content does not change that the TPB's reason for existence is piracy. You shouldn't need me to explain why The Pirate Bay exists for piracy. If you do, I suggest we end this conversation.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  Let's do a thought experiment: assume all copyright laws were abandoned tomorrow. In this instance, nothing TPB did would be copyright infringement or indudcement thereof. Now ask yourself the question: would the owners of TPB shut the site down, or keep it running. If they would shut it down, then TPB exists for the purpose of copyright infringement. If they would keep it up, then TPB exists for the purpose of facilitating transfer of content, and any copyuright infringement involved is a side-issue as far as the owners of TPB are concerned. I think they would keep it up.
  - nailer 16y ago
    You still haven't answered my questions, but sure, I'll answer yours. If copyright law stopped existing, and authors could no longer be compensated for what they'd made, TPB would stagnate: * There would be no incentive to run servers in exotic locations (Sealand, Saudi Arabia, etc) that don't respect creators rights. * Sites that own content would distribute their own data so it could be released and consumed quicker (it would probably be ad-supported since selling IP isn't possible anymore) * There would be no need to pirate anything as nobody has to pay for anything anymore. The domain would expire, or the servers have a prob, or the hosting bills come in, and not get fixed/paid as there'd be no point to stealing anything anymore.
    - thwarted 16y ago
      If copyright law stopped existing, and authors could no longer be compensated for what they'd made Haven't we already established that this is a red herring in light of all the content that people create for no money every day? I'd provide a list, but reminding people of this just gets exhausting. Just because some people wouldn't consider it worthwhile to create because they don't get paid doesn't mean that creation would stop, it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such.
      - nailer 16y ago
        > it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such. Direct payment is still the best option to make money from creativity. Things made for free reward their authors in other ways; * sponsorship payments * promotion of the authors (common with short films) * raising awareness of issues * promoting subsequent paid sequels (eg, NIN) As anyone who's run a website known, it's a lot harder to fund a business with these models than with direct payment. If direct payment for works was no longer an option, the current non-direct providers would struggle with an influx of high quality, well funded competitors. * Independent, low budget musicians would have to compete for sponsorship and venues with established acts suddenly doing gigs for free. * Indie gamewriters would have to compete for cash against giant game companies with high-end 3D engines giving away the latest games with in-game ads. * Authors that write books and companies that do training courses might just give up completely, and not write books, since ads don't work very well for OReilly. * OSS companies that give away their source and sell a binary compilation and update services would have to find a business model. TPB is already making these things happen today. That's why people who make things know they're bad.

nailer 16y ago

That TPB indexes some legal content does not change that the TPB's reason for existence is piracy. You shouldn't need me to explain why The Pirate Bay exists for piracy. If you do, I suggest we end this conversation.

cabalamat 16y ago
Let's do a thought experiment: assume all copyright laws were abandoned tomorrow. In this instance, nothing TPB did would be copyright infringement or indudcement thereof. Now ask yourself the question: would the owners of TPB shut the site down, or keep it running. If they would shut it down, then TPB exists for the purpose of copyright infringement. If they would keep it up, then TPB exists for the purpose of facilitating transfer of content, and any copyuright infringement involved is a side-issue as far as the owners of TPB are concerned. I think they would keep it up.
- nailer 16y ago
  You still haven't answered my questions, but sure, I'll answer yours. If copyright law stopped existing, and authors could no longer be compensated for what they'd made, TPB would stagnate: * There would be no incentive to run servers in exotic locations (Sealand, Saudi Arabia, etc) that don't respect creators rights. * Sites that own content would distribute their own data so it could be released and consumed quicker (it would probably be ad-supported since selling IP isn't possible anymore) * There would be no need to pirate anything as nobody has to pay for anything anymore. The domain would expire, or the servers have a prob, or the hosting bills come in, and not get fixed/paid as there'd be no point to stealing anything anymore.
  - thwarted 16y ago
    If copyright law stopped existing, and authors could no longer be compensated for what they'd made Haven't we already established that this is a red herring in light of all the content that people create for no money every day? I'd provide a list, but reminding people of this just gets exhausting. Just because some people wouldn't consider it worthwhile to create because they don't get paid doesn't mean that creation would stop, it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such.
    - nailer 16y ago
      > it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such. Direct payment is still the best option to make money from creativity. Things made for free reward their authors in other ways; * sponsorship payments * promotion of the authors (common with short films) * raising awareness of issues * promoting subsequent paid sequels (eg, NIN) As anyone who's run a website known, it's a lot harder to fund a business with these models than with direct payment. If direct payment for works was no longer an option, the current non-direct providers would struggle with an influx of high quality, well funded competitors. * Independent, low budget musicians would have to compete for sponsorship and venues with established acts suddenly doing gigs for free. * Indie gamewriters would have to compete for cash against giant game companies with high-end 3D engines giving away the latest games with in-game ads. * Authors that write books and companies that do training courses might just give up completely, and not write books, since ads don't work very well for OReilly. * OSS companies that give away their source and sell a binary compilation and update services would have to find a business model. TPB is already making these things happen today. That's why people who make things know they're bad.