5 ms·

This isn't ridiculous at all. To use a parallel, you can commercially facilitate non-commercial dating as much as you like, and many websites make a killing out

This isn't ridiculous at all. To use a parallel, you can commercially facilitate non-commercial dating as much as you like, and many websites make a killing out of doing so. If they were to facilitate commercial dating (prostitution), it would be a different matter, and that would be illegal in most places. But as long as the main activity is legal, then of course it's also legal to commercially aid somebody in doing so. Entire industries are built on that fundamental logic. Cheers, Rick

benologist 14y ago
Are you claiming TPB is not commercial because the person sending the file is not charging the person receiving the file, in a relationship facilitated commercially by TPB?
- Falkvinge 14y ago
  TPB may or may not be commercial, and it doesn't matter in the slightest here, as they're aiding a noncommercial and therefore legal sharing of knowledge and culture. Aiding that would always be legal under this proposal. Somebody making money off of aiding a legal noncommercial sharing doesn't make the original sharing commercial and illegal. Again, compare dating. And if you can make money off of people wanting to share culture and knowledge, all the better for you.
  - benologist 14y ago
    By that argument there is basically nothing that qualifies as "commercial" file sharing because ultimately those bytes are moving for free whether it's P2P or a bootleg DVD transferring them to a DVD player. Everyone benefits from patent reform, copyright reform, the cost of drugs being reduced, DRM being abolished etc. Why derail those arguments with "and legalize piracy!" when TPB etc's perhaps illicit business models are of no lasting consequence to anyone but the few whose pockets they line?
    - tomp 14y ago
      I think the argument is not so much "legalize piracy" as it is "decriminalize 30% of the society". In this case, it's obvious that the law sucks. Also, it's pretty easy to judge when file-sharing is commercial - whenever it is done by a commercial entity, e.g. a for-profit radio station that would otherwise have to pay public-performance fees.
      - tzs 14y ago
        Falkvinge explicitly said above that it doesn't matter whether or not the entity is commercial.
        Falkvinge 14y ago
        No, I said that it doesn't matter whether an entity aiding noncommercial filesharing is itself commercial (like The Pirate Bay might be; just having ads does not make an entity commercial). The analogy with the postal service made earlier was actually quite apt. Cheers, Rick
        benologist 14y ago
        I'm increasingly curious what you consider commercial - there's an awful lot of businesses out there with the exact same monetization methods as TPB that are indisputably "commercial". The line between "aiding file sharing" and "file sharing is their business model" is also very, very questionable. We all saw what happened to Mininova when they stopped "aiding".
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        Could you name a few so this discussion can make more sense? TPB could easily run without ads. In my mind adding ads to something should generally not affect legality. A guy who prints DVDs with movies on them and sells them on the street is a commercial pirate. A guy that takes DVDs someone else made and brings them to people is a courier. It's not a very complicated distinction.
- ktizo 14y ago
  If I want to give something to a mate for free and do this through the post, then the delivery company is making money off the fact that I am doing so. But this does not mean that the transaction between me and my mate is commercial, even though a commercial entity is making money off the delivery.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
evv 14y ago
The concern in this case is that the average consumer might pay the file-sharing service for the content, thinking it is going to the content creators. You can't simply abolish a system like copyright because it protects the people who create original work. Otherwise people will sell their work. IE. If TPB created a premium offering, wouldn't everybody pay for that instead of offerings which actually paid the content creators? Why don't we work on building a system which allows a consumer to reliably identify and pay the creator of a work? This way content can still be freely distributed, but the consumer can easily support/finance the creator if they want.
- tomp 14y ago
  I'm sure that if copyright is abolished, such a system will come into existance "by itself" (i.e. without the help of laws/governments).
  - archgrove 14y ago
    I think the point of copyright is that this is the system that came into effect from the chaos that previously existed. Patronage, trade guilds, etc have all been tried. The world eventually settled on government enforced temporary monopolies in the form of copyright. Now, we can argue that the temporary monopoly is too long now, but to suggest that we go back to square one is silly. Why throw away hundreds of years of progress on this issue?
    - jeffool 14y ago
      We live in a vastly different, and still rapidly changing, world now. You see hundreds of years of progress, I see hundreds of years of overgrowth that's just not relevant. I think patronage and reorganization of artistic groups is coming inherently. The only question is will we decide to stick them, and ourselves, with laws made for completely different technology. Copyright in the US started at what, 14, 21 years? I forget offhand. Then you had to write a book, sell all rights to a publisher, deliver it to the publisher by horse then train then horse, have them print it, deliver it to sales people by train then wagon then horse, who delivered them to purchasers by train or wagon or horse. And throw some boats in there. That was plenty enough copyright, our founders said. Other nations did not heavily disagree in copyright length. After that time, the work should go to the public good. Remember, the public good is the only reason for copyright; to entice people to create for the public domain. Today? You finish a work, upload it, and it's available for purchase from you, the creator. Nothing created in your lifetime will lapse into the public domain naturally. This is not progress. This is perversion.

benologist 14y ago

Are you claiming TPB is not commercial because the person sending the file is not charging the person receiving the file, in a relationship facilitated commercially by TPB?

Falkvinge 14y ago
TPB may or may not be commercial, and it doesn't matter in the slightest here, as they're aiding a noncommercial and therefore legal sharing of knowledge and culture. Aiding that would always be legal under this proposal. Somebody making money off of aiding a legal noncommercial sharing doesn't make the original sharing commercial and illegal. Again, compare dating. And if you can make money off of people wanting to share culture and knowledge, all the better for you.
- benologist 14y ago
  By that argument there is basically nothing that qualifies as "commercial" file sharing because ultimately those bytes are moving for free whether it's P2P or a bootleg DVD transferring them to a DVD player. Everyone benefits from patent reform, copyright reform, the cost of drugs being reduced, DRM being abolished etc. Why derail those arguments with "and legalize piracy!" when TPB etc's perhaps illicit business models are of no lasting consequence to anyone but the few whose pockets they line?
  - tomp 14y ago
    I think the argument is not so much "legalize piracy" as it is "decriminalize 30% of the society". In this case, it's obvious that the law sucks. Also, it's pretty easy to judge when file-sharing is commercial - whenever it is done by a commercial entity, e.g. a for-profit radio station that would otherwise have to pay public-performance fees.
    - tzs 14y ago
      Falkvinge explicitly said above that it doesn't matter whether or not the entity is commercial.
      - Falkvinge 14y ago
        No, I said that it doesn't matter whether an entity aiding noncommercial filesharing is itself commercial (like The Pirate Bay might be; just having ads does not make an entity commercial). The analogy with the postal service made earlier was actually quite apt. Cheers, Rick
        benologist 14y ago
        I'm increasingly curious what you consider commercial - there's an awful lot of businesses out there with the exact same monetization methods as TPB that are indisputably "commercial". The line between "aiding file sharing" and "file sharing is their business model" is also very, very questionable. We all saw what happened to Mininova when they stopped "aiding".
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        Could you name a few so this discussion can make more sense? TPB could easily run without ads. In my mind adding ads to something should generally not affect legality. A guy who prints DVDs with movies on them and sells them on the street is a commercial pirate. A guy that takes DVDs someone else made and brings them to people is a courier. It's not a very complicated distinction.
ktizo 14y ago
If I want to give something to a mate for free and do this through the post, then the delivery company is making money off the fact that I am doing so. But this does not mean that the transaction between me and my mate is commercial, even though a commercial entity is making money off the delivery.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

evv 14y ago

The concern in this case is that the average consumer might pay the file-sharing service for the content, thinking it is going to the content creators. You can't simply abolish a system like copyright because it protects the people who create original work. Otherwise people will sell their work. IE. If TPB created a premium offering, wouldn't everybody pay for that instead of offerings which actually paid the content creators? Why don't we work on building a system which allows a consumer to reliably identify and pay the creator of a work? This way content can still be freely distributed, but the consumer can easily support/finance the creator if they want.

tomp 14y ago
I'm sure that if copyright is abolished, such a system will come into existance "by itself" (i.e. without the help of laws/governments).
- archgrove 14y ago
  I think the point of copyright is that this is the system that came into effect from the chaos that previously existed. Patronage, trade guilds, etc have all been tried. The world eventually settled on government enforced temporary monopolies in the form of copyright. Now, we can argue that the temporary monopoly is too long now, but to suggest that we go back to square one is silly. Why throw away hundreds of years of progress on this issue?
  - jeffool 14y ago
    We live in a vastly different, and still rapidly changing, world now. You see hundreds of years of progress, I see hundreds of years of overgrowth that's just not relevant. I think patronage and reorganization of artistic groups is coming inherently. The only question is will we decide to stick them, and ourselves, with laws made for completely different technology. Copyright in the US started at what, 14, 21 years? I forget offhand. Then you had to write a book, sell all rights to a publisher, deliver it to the publisher by horse then train then horse, have them print it, deliver it to sales people by train then wagon then horse, who delivered them to purchasers by train or wagon or horse. And throw some boats in there. That was plenty enough copyright, our founders said. Other nations did not heavily disagree in copyright length. After that time, the work should go to the public good. Remember, the public good is the only reason for copyright; to entice people to create for the public domain. Today? You finish a work, upload it, and it's available for purchase from you, the creator. Nothing created in your lifetime will lapse into the public domain naturally. This is not progress. This is perversion.