7 ms·

We will host The Pirate Bay inside the Swedish parliament

89 points by bigstorm 16y ago

henning 16y ago
That talk about freedom of speech is a nice way of defending large-scale copyright infringement.
- praptak 16y ago
  But they defend large-scale copyright infringement openly. You know, they are the Pirate Party.
- tsally 16y ago
  Good thing you can't find copyright files to download via Google search. Otherwise it would be as bad as The Pirate Bay! Enabling someone to break the law doesn't make the enabler culpable. We apply this standard to manufacturers of lock picks, crowbars, physical key-loggers, books detailing the security of computers, etc. I'm curious why you feel a different standard should apply to someone who provides hosting for torrent files. The onus is on the criminal, not those who provide tools which may or may not be used in a crime.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "We apply this standard to manufacturers of lock picks, crowbars, physical key-loggers, books detailing the security of computers, etc. I'm curious why you feel a different standard should apply to someone who provides hosting for torrent files. The onus is on the criminal, not those who provide tools which may or may not be used in a crime." If I had a website setup exclusively for sharing valid credit card numbers (and yours was on my site), would you want my site taken down? After all, the credit card number itself is just data (nothing is actually taken from the original owner when it is shared) and my site isn't actually doing charging anything to the cards.
    - lkozma 16y ago
      But if someone takes money from your credit card then that amount is not there anymore, whereas if I download and watch a movie it does not diminish anyone's chance of watching it. Now I might become less likely to pay for the movie after I downloaded it for free, but if that likelihood was zero already then where is the harm caused?
      - rick888 16y ago
        "But if someone takes money from your credit card then that amount is not there anymore, whereas if I download and watch a movie it does not diminish anyone's chance of watching it. Now I might become less likely to pay for the movie after I downloaded it for free, but if that likelihood was zero already then where is the harm caused?" We aren't talking about the act of charging money on the card (which technically, is still just a bunch of 1s and 0s being transferred from one place to another). We are talking about the act of sharing the card info (just like sharing torrents, my site isn't doing the illegal activity, only facilitating it)
    - alexro 16y ago
      As someone who just cancelled a CC after 2 transactions done by scummers, I find your example silly. I'm responsible for keeping my CC with me and the bank is responsible for providing on-line security. If a CC info was stolen from a shop's database, and then shared on some website, it doesn't matter that you can take that website down. Just cancel the CC and let the numbers rest forever.
    - Jach 16y ago
      This is assuming the Pirate Bay et al. are exclusively set up for sharing copyrighted information, when this not the case. You can find credit card numbers through Google as well. Anyway, the example just seems really silly, and as a previous commenter noted, whether your site is taken down or not doesn't matter: the card number is leaked (which has nothing to do with your site), I'm canceling it anyway.
    - tsally 16y ago
      Stealing a credit card is stealing in itself, you don't actually have to charge anything. The analogy isn't valid. The correct analogy is the fact that you can use Google to find numbers that look like credit card numbers. Similarly, hosting a copyrighted file is illegal. But providing the means in which to find said file is not. There's a reason why the world should work this way. I can use a wide array of objects as a lock pick (i.e. a banana). To prosecute me for walking down the street with any of these objects (including actual lock picks) is just ludicrous. Hence why the law says that I actually have to demonstrate the intention to use a tool to steal something in order for it to be a crime. And in any case, the took maker is usually never liable. It's a very simple idea. Prosecute the criminals, not the people who provide tools which might be used in a crime. Obviously there's an upper limit. For example, a grenade is a pretty unambiguous, single-use tool. That's why selling one is illegal. But most tools have many uses, some illegal and some not. It's an impossible task to go after the tool makers, so just go after the criminals.
  - johnfn 16y ago
    This argument doesn't apply. The things that you listed all have legitimate, non lawbreaking uses. For instance, security books can help you keep your computer more secure, lockpicks can help you understand your house security, and so on. A torrent containing a link to a file that is illegal to copy has no legitimate non lawbreaking use case. There is no legal way to use a torrent of Portal. I notice you mentioned in a separate comment that some items, like grenades, can only be used in illegal ways. This is true also of torrents that the Pirate Bay hosts. Yes, it is true that legal torrents exist; however, the Pirate Bay distinguishes itself as having both legal and illegal torrents. That's what the difference is.
    - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
      I have downloaded many copyrighted works that I own physical media for as a convenience, since ripping them can be such a pain and kids are hard on little plastic discs. Courts have held that this copy is a legal copy. To say there is no legitimate non-lawbreaking use is incorrect.
      - eru 16y ago
        Yes, but I guess when you use Bittorrent for this purpos, you have to make sure that you are not sharing your legal copy with other people, who may not have purchased the work.
        SoftwareMaven 16y ago
        It is not my job to police them. Given I am utilizing the BT ecosystem to receive the copy, I share in return as payment. I do not share movies forever, but that is really just to keep my bandwidth from being saturated. If I just leach, then I won't have an opportunity in the future to have this convenience. Would I prefer that they not pirate the stuff I download? Yes, I would. Content creators absolutely deserve to be paid for their efforts. If content publishers would give me the convenience of a non-DRM infected digital copy (or the ability to easily rip a disc), I would not ever need to use BT. The digital copies of disks some publishers provide is close, but not good enough.
  - paul9290 16y ago
    @tsally but Google does not profit nor market itself directly or indirectly from copyright infringement. The Pirate Bay does markets itself and profits(in the millions) from facilitating and the inducement of copyright infringement. I use to download but grew tired of hoarding content and then hard drive crashes. Thankfully the content creators created Hulu and other legitimate ways to consume their content online. Maybe those who upvoted this live outside of the US?
    - jamesbritt 16y ago
      "Thankfully the content creators created Hulu and other legitimate ways to consume their content online" I wonder where that idea came from ...
- oldgregg 16y ago
  "That talk about racial equality is a nice way of saying you just want a better seat on the bus." -- talking heads, 1955. I don't think you get it. The question is whether copyright is morally right. Rosa Parks sat on the back of the bus. The Pirate bay moves their servers into parliament. People have always protested laws they feel are unjust and you clearly you don't seem to realize that. These guys have suffered considerable persecution for what they are doing so to frame it like "well they just want free copies of Toy Story 3" is bullshit.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I'm really not sure how the analogy works. Rosa Parks was engaging in civil disobedience, and the point of civil disobedience is that you demonstrate the unjustness of a law by openly breaking it and accepting your punishment. The unjustness of the punishment you receive will raise attention about the unjustness of the law. Whatever the Pirate Party is engaging in, it's the complete opposite of civil disobedience, since they're trying to avoid getting punished for breaking the law.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > That talk about freedom of speech is a nice way of defending large-scale copyright infringement. Copyright laws exist to restrict people's rights to free speech and freedom of communication. And in the age of the internet, business models based on scarcity of copies are obsolete; they cannot be propped up except by restricting the utility of the internet. The copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want every computer to be a DRM-crippled locked down device like the iPad, and for themselves to have the power to kick anyone off the internet by merely accusing them of copyright infringement. If you don't want that future, it's time to support the Pirate Party.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Copyright laws exist to restrict people's rights to free speech and freedom of communication. And in the age of the internet, business models based on scarcity of copies are obsolete; they cannot be propped up except by restricting the utility of the internet." Businesses were never based on scarcity of copies, but scarcity of creation. The latest version of Photoshop can't be created with once click of a button. It takes many programmers and designers thousands of hours. Copying the bits is the easy part. When anybody can create (not copy) photoshop in their homes, I will agree with you. "The copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want every computer to be a DRM-crippled locked down device like the iPad, and for themselves to have the power to kick anyone off the internet by merely accusing them of copyright infringement. If you don't want that future, it's time to support the Pirate Party." There was an app designer awhile back that posted his sales numbers on reddit. He had 80% more sales on the iPhone. The reason? Android made it very easy for people to download his app and share it (and not pay) (he had the ability to see the people that pirated his app). I wonder what would happen if I came out with the piratebay2 and claimed I was thepiraebay.com. If I made it look like the piratebay owned the site and I hurt their reputation in some way through disparaging comments. Would they (thepiratebay) come after me? After all, I'm not "stealing" anything. It should be fine, right? My problem is that it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Thepiratebay supporters want the ability to freely download commercial applications with no repercussions. I don't agree with this. If you don't want to buy a commercial application, that's fine (it's your right). But you shouldn't be able to download it for free without the owner's permission. I also don't think many people realize what a world with no copyright would be like. Once a company got big enough, they would easily be able to take ideas from smaller companies just starting out. The smaller companies would have little legal recourse or enough resources to defend themselves.
madmaze 16y ago
I wish the US would have a Pirate Party! I would be a supporter of freedom of speech and internet neutrality!
- Cayenne 16y ago
  Aren't you a citizen of the US? If you are, then why not just start it yourself, instead of wishing? Also, there IS a Pirate Party for the US: http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php
  - hugh3 16y ago
    If those are the issues you're concerned about then I don't think a Pirate Party is actually helpful. But it's an interesting question: if you want a certain type of political change are you better off forming a crazy extremist group or a modest mainstream one?
    - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
      I think the extremists are more effective. While people don't take them as seriously, they do move the balance of the discussion. It's like a see-saw {balance}. Where do you put a limited weight to have the maximum effect. Groups like The Sierra Club were ignored or seen as pretty fringe, until groups like Earth First came onto the scene.
acon 16y ago
This really makes me question my vote for the pirate party. I really like them, as a voice for freedom on the internet and beyond, and would really like them to lay of the pirate propaganda and start preaching the gospel of freedom instead. Perhaps I bet on the wrong horse all along. Unfortunately I don't know what the right horse is.
- oldgregg 16y ago
  From a branding perspective I think you're right. Corporations have been far too effective at using loaded words like piracy and intellectual "property" as a way to frame the argument.
- rick888 16y ago
  "This really makes me question my vote for the pirate party. I really like them, as a voice for freedom on the internet and beyond, and would really like them to lay of the pirate propaganda and start preaching the gospel of freedom instead. Perhaps I bet on the wrong horse all along. Unfortunately I don't know what the right horse is." I would vote for them as long as "freedom" doesn't mean the ability of anyone to download/share commercial software, music, and movies with no legal consequences.
  - Jach 16y ago
    So your disagreement with the status quo is the current brand of legal consequences being used? What do you propose instead that will have the effect of limiting downloading and sharing of the above, since that's what you seem to be after?
    - rick888 16y ago
      "What do you propose instead that will have the effect of limiting downloading and sharing of the above, since that's what you seem to be after?" That people respect the wishes of the content providers by not going around them and downloading their content for free. Since it's obvious this isn't going to happen, it's going to have to happen by force. I hear so many arguments on this site about respecting your fellow man when it comes to health care and paying your fair share of taxes. Yet, when it comes to someone selling software online, they don't deserve the money. It just seems very hypocritical to me.

89 points by bigstorm 16y ago

henning 16y ago

That talk about freedom of speech is a nice way of defending large-scale copyright infringement.

praptak 16y ago
But they defend large-scale copyright infringement openly. You know, they are the Pirate Party.
tsally 16y ago
Good thing you can't find copyright files to download via Google search. Otherwise it would be as bad as The Pirate Bay! Enabling someone to break the law doesn't make the enabler culpable. We apply this standard to manufacturers of lock picks, crowbars, physical key-loggers, books detailing the security of computers, etc. I'm curious why you feel a different standard should apply to someone who provides hosting for torrent files. The onus is on the criminal, not those who provide tools which may or may not be used in a crime.
- rick888 16y ago
  "We apply this standard to manufacturers of lock picks, crowbars, physical key-loggers, books detailing the security of computers, etc. I'm curious why you feel a different standard should apply to someone who provides hosting for torrent files. The onus is on the criminal, not those who provide tools which may or may not be used in a crime." If I had a website setup exclusively for sharing valid credit card numbers (and yours was on my site), would you want my site taken down? After all, the credit card number itself is just data (nothing is actually taken from the original owner when it is shared) and my site isn't actually doing charging anything to the cards.
  - lkozma 16y ago
    But if someone takes money from your credit card then that amount is not there anymore, whereas if I download and watch a movie it does not diminish anyone's chance of watching it. Now I might become less likely to pay for the movie after I downloaded it for free, but if that likelihood was zero already then where is the harm caused?
    - rick888 16y ago
      "But if someone takes money from your credit card then that amount is not there anymore, whereas if I download and watch a movie it does not diminish anyone's chance of watching it. Now I might become less likely to pay for the movie after I downloaded it for free, but if that likelihood was zero already then where is the harm caused?" We aren't talking about the act of charging money on the card (which technically, is still just a bunch of 1s and 0s being transferred from one place to another). We are talking about the act of sharing the card info (just like sharing torrents, my site isn't doing the illegal activity, only facilitating it)
  - alexro 16y ago
    As someone who just cancelled a CC after 2 transactions done by scummers, I find your example silly. I'm responsible for keeping my CC with me and the bank is responsible for providing on-line security. If a CC info was stolen from a shop's database, and then shared on some website, it doesn't matter that you can take that website down. Just cancel the CC and let the numbers rest forever.
  - Jach 16y ago
    This is assuming the Pirate Bay et al. are exclusively set up for sharing copyrighted information, when this not the case. You can find credit card numbers through Google as well. Anyway, the example just seems really silly, and as a previous commenter noted, whether your site is taken down or not doesn't matter: the card number is leaked (which has nothing to do with your site), I'm canceling it anyway.
  - tsally 16y ago
    Stealing a credit card is stealing in itself, you don't actually have to charge anything. The analogy isn't valid. The correct analogy is the fact that you can use Google to find numbers that look like credit card numbers. Similarly, hosting a copyrighted file is illegal. But providing the means in which to find said file is not. There's a reason why the world should work this way. I can use a wide array of objects as a lock pick (i.e. a banana). To prosecute me for walking down the street with any of these objects (including actual lock picks) is just ludicrous. Hence why the law says that I actually have to demonstrate the intention to use a tool to steal something in order for it to be a crime. And in any case, the took maker is usually never liable. It's a very simple idea. Prosecute the criminals, not the people who provide tools which might be used in a crime. Obviously there's an upper limit. For example, a grenade is a pretty unambiguous, single-use tool. That's why selling one is illegal. But most tools have many uses, some illegal and some not. It's an impossible task to go after the tool makers, so just go after the criminals.
- johnfn 16y ago
  This argument doesn't apply. The things that you listed all have legitimate, non lawbreaking uses. For instance, security books can help you keep your computer more secure, lockpicks can help you understand your house security, and so on. A torrent containing a link to a file that is illegal to copy has no legitimate non lawbreaking use case. There is no legal way to use a torrent of Portal. I notice you mentioned in a separate comment that some items, like grenades, can only be used in illegal ways. This is true also of torrents that the Pirate Bay hosts. Yes, it is true that legal torrents exist; however, the Pirate Bay distinguishes itself as having both legal and illegal torrents. That's what the difference is.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    I have downloaded many copyrighted works that I own physical media for as a convenience, since ripping them can be such a pain and kids are hard on little plastic discs. Courts have held that this copy is a legal copy. To say there is no legitimate non-lawbreaking use is incorrect.
    - eru 16y ago
      Yes, but I guess when you use Bittorrent for this purpos, you have to make sure that you are not sharing your legal copy with other people, who may not have purchased the work.
      - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
        It is not my job to police them. Given I am utilizing the BT ecosystem to receive the copy, I share in return as payment. I do not share movies forever, but that is really just to keep my bandwidth from being saturated. If I just leach, then I won't have an opportunity in the future to have this convenience. Would I prefer that they not pirate the stuff I download? Yes, I would. Content creators absolutely deserve to be paid for their efforts. If content publishers would give me the convenience of a non-DRM infected digital copy (or the ability to easily rip a disc), I would not ever need to use BT. The digital copies of disks some publishers provide is close, but not good enough.
- paul9290 16y ago
  @tsally but Google does not profit nor market itself directly or indirectly from copyright infringement. The Pirate Bay does markets itself and profits(in the millions) from facilitating and the inducement of copyright infringement. I use to download but grew tired of hoarding content and then hard drive crashes. Thankfully the content creators created Hulu and other legitimate ways to consume their content online. Maybe those who upvoted this live outside of the US?
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    "Thankfully the content creators created Hulu and other legitimate ways to consume their content online" I wonder where that idea came from ...
oldgregg 16y ago
"That talk about racial equality is a nice way of saying you just want a better seat on the bus." -- talking heads, 1955. I don't think you get it. The question is whether copyright is morally right. Rosa Parks sat on the back of the bus. The Pirate bay moves their servers into parliament. People have always protested laws they feel are unjust and you clearly you don't seem to realize that. These guys have suffered considerable persecution for what they are doing so to frame it like "well they just want free copies of Toy Story 3" is bullshit.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'm really not sure how the analogy works. Rosa Parks was engaging in civil disobedience, and the point of civil disobedience is that you demonstrate the unjustness of a law by openly breaking it and accepting your punishment. The unjustness of the punishment you receive will raise attention about the unjustness of the law. Whatever the Pirate Party is engaging in, it's the complete opposite of civil disobedience, since they're trying to avoid getting punished for breaking the law.
cabalamat 16y ago
> That talk about freedom of speech is a nice way of defending large-scale copyright infringement. Copyright laws exist to restrict people's rights to free speech and freedom of communication. And in the age of the internet, business models based on scarcity of copies are obsolete; they cannot be propped up except by restricting the utility of the internet. The copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want every computer to be a DRM-crippled locked down device like the iPad, and for themselves to have the power to kick anyone off the internet by merely accusing them of copyright infringement. If you don't want that future, it's time to support the Pirate Party.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Copyright laws exist to restrict people's rights to free speech and freedom of communication. And in the age of the internet, business models based on scarcity of copies are obsolete; they cannot be propped up except by restricting the utility of the internet." Businesses were never based on scarcity of copies, but scarcity of creation. The latest version of Photoshop can't be created with once click of a button. It takes many programmers and designers thousands of hours. Copying the bits is the easy part. When anybody can create (not copy) photoshop in their homes, I will agree with you. "The copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want every computer to be a DRM-crippled locked down device like the iPad, and for themselves to have the power to kick anyone off the internet by merely accusing them of copyright infringement. If you don't want that future, it's time to support the Pirate Party." There was an app designer awhile back that posted his sales numbers on reddit. He had 80% more sales on the iPhone. The reason? Android made it very easy for people to download his app and share it (and not pay) (he had the ability to see the people that pirated his app). I wonder what would happen if I came out with the piratebay2 and claimed I was thepiraebay.com. If I made it look like the piratebay owned the site and I hurt their reputation in some way through disparaging comments. Would they (thepiratebay) come after me? After all, I'm not "stealing" anything. It should be fine, right? My problem is that it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Thepiratebay supporters want the ability to freely download commercial applications with no repercussions. I don't agree with this. If you don't want to buy a commercial application, that's fine (it's your right). But you shouldn't be able to download it for free without the owner's permission. I also don't think many people realize what a world with no copyright would be like. Once a company got big enough, they would easily be able to take ideas from smaller companies just starting out. The smaller companies would have little legal recourse or enough resources to defend themselves.

madmaze 16y ago

I wish the US would have a Pirate Party! I would be a supporter of freedom of speech and internet neutrality!

Cayenne 16y ago
Aren't you a citizen of the US? If you are, then why not just start it yourself, instead of wishing? Also, there IS a Pirate Party for the US: http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php
- hugh3 16y ago
  If those are the issues you're concerned about then I don't think a Pirate Party is actually helpful. But it's an interesting question: if you want a certain type of political change are you better off forming a crazy extremist group or a modest mainstream one?
  - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
    I think the extremists are more effective. While people don't take them as seriously, they do move the balance of the discussion. It's like a see-saw {balance}. Where do you put a limited weight to have the maximum effect. Groups like The Sierra Club were ignored or seen as pretty fringe, until groups like Earth First came onto the scene.

acon 16y ago

This really makes me question my vote for the pirate party. I really like them, as a voice for freedom on the internet and beyond, and would really like them to lay of the pirate propaganda and start preaching the gospel of freedom instead. Perhaps I bet on the wrong horse all along. Unfortunately I don't know what the right horse is.

oldgregg 16y ago
From a branding perspective I think you're right. Corporations have been far too effective at using loaded words like piracy and intellectual "property" as a way to frame the argument.
rick888 16y ago
"This really makes me question my vote for the pirate party. I really like them, as a voice for freedom on the internet and beyond, and would really like them to lay of the pirate propaganda and start preaching the gospel of freedom instead. Perhaps I bet on the wrong horse all along. Unfortunately I don't know what the right horse is." I would vote for them as long as "freedom" doesn't mean the ability of anyone to download/share commercial software, music, and movies with no legal consequences.
- Jach 16y ago
  So your disagreement with the status quo is the current brand of legal consequences being used? What do you propose instead that will have the effect of limiting downloading and sharing of the above, since that's what you seem to be after?
  - rick888 16y ago
    "What do you propose instead that will have the effect of limiting downloading and sharing of the above, since that's what you seem to be after?" That people respect the wishes of the content providers by not going around them and downloading their content for free. Since it's obvious this isn't going to happen, it's going to have to happen by force. I hear so many arguments on this site about respecting your fellow man when it comes to health care and paying your fair share of taxes. Yet, when it comes to someone selling software online, they don't deserve the money. It just seems very hypocritical to me.