5 ms·

>The piece doesn’t go deep into detail but it shows that the entertainment industry lawyer doesn’t regret going after the site and its founders, despite the mix

>The piece doesn’t go deep into detail but it shows that the entertainment industry lawyer doesn’t regret going after the site and its founders, despite the mixed result. That lawyer is probably the person who has made the most money off of TPB. Of course they don't regret it.

arthurcolle 5y ago
this would be a funny youtube video, have all the RIAA lawyers, this lawyer, then all the haxxor TPB coders, passing around a blunt discussing the state of the industry
- emj 5y ago
  You "don't do drugs" in Sweden so that won't happen, publicly almost everyone is against pot. This might be changing but not in the near future.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    FWIW, pot, or cannabis, is not a drug, no more than nutmeg. They're vegetables. Alcohol, on the other hand, is indeed a drug. So, no drinkers in Sweden? It always sounded like a pretty nice place to me, and now it sounds even more so.
    - 1_player 5y ago
      As someone that has smoked most of his 20s away, your comment is absolute misinformed bollocks.
      - Maursault 5y ago
        Accurate, you mean, though one could say delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is a drug. Also, wine and beer? Beverages, not alcohol, though they usually contain alcohol. It seems unimportant, but getting things right is critical. I mentioned nutmeg intentionally. 10g of nutmeg will cause quite like LSD states, and I'm not sure why, but no one anywhere considers nutmeg a drug. I'm also not sure how this was discovered as consuming even half a gram of nutmeg would be a pretty amazing feat.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        From Wikipedia >A drug is any chemical substance that causes a change in an organism's physiology or psychology when consumed. So yes, both nutmeg and pot are plants and drugs when consumed with the right dosage. Nobody considers nutmeg a drug as it's rarely used as one in their presence. And it was probably discovered when nutmeg was used for food preservation.
filmgirlcw 5y ago
I was at a Grammy luncheon a number of years ago and I somehow wound up seated with all of the entertainment attorneys for the labels/recording industry/whatever and it was a very interesting/bizarre conversation. I’ve spent much of my adult life (and even pre-adult life), speaking out and writing about the idiocy of those various campaigns to shut down P2P, DRM, etc., and then I was at this industry luncheon with some very nice people who believe the exact opposite of me. Interesting and civil discussions ensued (I was the odd-woman out, both for my position and because I didn’t drive to the Beverly Hills Hotel in a $200,000 car), but I got the sense that as misguided as I personally think they are, many of the lawyers honestly think they are doing the right thing to try to protect against so-called infringement the ways that they do. I’m sure the money is definitely part of it (again, I took an Uber to the luncheon. They had valet service for their $200,000 cars), but I don’t think that’s most of it to be honest. It was helpful for me to meet and talk with people who have the opposite opinion and perspective of me. Not because we changed each other’s minds (my mind wasn’t changed), but because I saw that these were people who really thought they were protecting and fighting for the rights and protections of artists and creators. As I said, it didn’t change my opinion about how misguided and ultimately harmful those fights have been (especially towards the parties they want to protect), but I did at least see that not all of them are evil boogeyman who just want to get money.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  If their actions are indistinguishable from the actions of evil bogeymen, I do wonder what the real difference is. I think the truly worst people alive right now are really, really fucking charming and 'nice' to have dinner with in a fancy hotel - they get plenty of practice - but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible.
  - adjkant 5y ago
    I think the issue here is with the conception of "evil". The one shown in most media is incredibly flawed, and it is why the best villians are the ones that can actually argue their point, make you understand where they are coming from, and potentially even come to their side. People are not evil, they are simply acting as all humans do most of the time: in self preservation of some form. What makes a person appear "evil" is simply the situations they have ended up in and the accompanying beliefs and knowledge. > but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible. This is not meant to excuse that response, but I do want to point out that it is the rational and "easy" path of response. When people make ideas the core of their personality and survival, threats to those ideas are now personal threats. The path of coming to challenge and change those ideas is a hard road in most cases. It takes a very strong and brave person to change their mind on a core belief. The better way IMO to approach it is to ensure people don't get caught in the position in the first place. Don't make beliefs the center of yourself, make values the center, and choose them carefully and with nuance. It allows you to change course on beliefs or ideas with much less pain and personal internal sacrifice. That needs to start early though, way before anyone at that table sat down for their meal. It's an education issue, an early one at that.

arthurcolle 5y ago

this would be a funny youtube video, have all the RIAA lawyers, this lawyer, then all the haxxor TPB coders, passing around a blunt discussing the state of the industry

emj 5y ago
You "don't do drugs" in Sweden so that won't happen, publicly almost everyone is against pot. This might be changing but not in the near future.
- Maursault 5y ago
  FWIW, pot, or cannabis, is not a drug, no more than nutmeg. They're vegetables. Alcohol, on the other hand, is indeed a drug. So, no drinkers in Sweden? It always sounded like a pretty nice place to me, and now it sounds even more so.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    As someone that has smoked most of his 20s away, your comment is absolute misinformed bollocks.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      Accurate, you mean, though one could say delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is a drug. Also, wine and beer? Beverages, not alcohol, though they usually contain alcohol. It seems unimportant, but getting things right is critical. I mentioned nutmeg intentionally. 10g of nutmeg will cause quite like LSD states, and I'm not sure why, but no one anywhere considers nutmeg a drug. I'm also not sure how this was discovered as consuming even half a gram of nutmeg would be a pretty amazing feat.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        From Wikipedia >A drug is any chemical substance that causes a change in an organism's physiology or psychology when consumed. So yes, both nutmeg and pot are plants and drugs when consumed with the right dosage. Nobody considers nutmeg a drug as it's rarely used as one in their presence. And it was probably discovered when nutmeg was used for food preservation.

filmgirlcw 5y ago

I was at a Grammy luncheon a number of years ago and I somehow wound up seated with all of the entertainment attorneys for the labels/recording industry/whatever and it was a very interesting/bizarre conversation. I’ve spent much of my adult life (and even pre-adult life), speaking out and writing about the idiocy of those various campaigns to shut down P2P, DRM, etc., and then I was at this industry luncheon with some very nice people who believe the exact opposite of me. Interesting and civil discussions ensued (I was the odd-woman out, both for my position and because I didn’t drive to the Beverly Hills Hotel in a $200,000 car), but I got the sense that as misguided as I personally think they are, many of the lawyers honestly think they are doing the right thing to try to protect against so-called infringement the ways that they do. I’m sure the money is definitely part of it (again, I took an Uber to the luncheon. They had valet service for their $200,000 cars), but I don’t think that’s most of it to be honest. It was helpful for me to meet and talk with people who have the opposite opinion and perspective of me. Not because we changed each other’s minds (my mind wasn’t changed), but because I saw that these were people who really thought they were protecting and fighting for the rights and protections of artists and creators. As I said, it didn’t change my opinion about how misguided and ultimately harmful those fights have been (especially towards the parties they want to protect), but I did at least see that not all of them are evil boogeyman who just want to get money.

mandmandam 5y ago
If their actions are indistinguishable from the actions of evil bogeymen, I do wonder what the real difference is. I think the truly worst people alive right now are really, really fucking charming and 'nice' to have dinner with in a fancy hotel - they get plenty of practice - but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible.
- adjkant 5y ago
  I think the issue here is with the conception of "evil". The one shown in most media is incredibly flawed, and it is why the best villians are the ones that can actually argue their point, make you understand where they are coming from, and potentially even come to their side. People are not evil, they are simply acting as all humans do most of the time: in self preservation of some form. What makes a person appear "evil" is simply the situations they have ended up in and the accompanying beliefs and knowledge. > but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible. This is not meant to excuse that response, but I do want to point out that it is the rational and "easy" path of response. When people make ideas the core of their personality and survival, threats to those ideas are now personal threats. The path of coming to challenge and change those ideas is a hard road in most cases. It takes a very strong and brave person to change their mind on a core belief. The better way IMO to approach it is to ensure people don't get caught in the position in the first place. Don't make beliefs the center of yourself, make values the center, and choose them carefully and with nuance. It allows you to change course on beliefs or ideas with much less pain and personal internal sacrifice. That needs to start early though, way before anyone at that table sat down for their meal. It's an education issue, an early one at that.