4 ms·

Actually, I'd argue that TPB winning would be a good outcome for the rest of us, but even if they don't, it's only a matter of time. Patterns are not things, a

Actually, I'd argue that TPB winning would be a good outcome for the rest of us, but even if they don't, it's only a matter of time. Patterns are not things, and the only way to paper over the difference is to make it harder to work with patterns... but that's not the way technology is going.

ErrantX 18y ago
I dont buy that. Please explain why that would be good? If the music companies win then perhaps the idiot pirates start to acutally get scared. Then us sensible lot can sit down with the companies and get them to do things right. Stuff is moving in the right direction (Apple going non-DRM for instance) these guys are dinosaurs and holding things back. Send em down. I fail to see how anyone can condone TPB ever.... they damage the file sharing community like nothing else before. (ps am amused at the downmodding of my comment.... way to support piracy.. ;))
- allenbrunson 18y ago
  you're not being downmodded because everybody here supports piracy. it's because you used the word "idiot," among other things. you can make almost any point on hacker news and get away with it, if you're respectful to all involved.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    Why? They treat everyone else with the same degree of snootiness and vitriol... calling them idiots is barely disrespectful :)
    - allenbrunson 18y ago
      you've perhaps heard that two wrongs don't make a right? pg started this site, and he has inculcated it with his values. imagine pg writing an essay about the pirate bay. do you suppose he would call them "idiots?" like it or not, the culture around these parts tends towards respect. you violate local customs at your own peril.
      - ErrantX 18y ago
        I dont buy that. It is expressing an opinion. I do respect the excellent way they are using the media and the internet to show off their cause. I dont respect what they do. I disagree calling them idiots is disrespectful: because, well, they are.... (in my opinion):) There is a huge difference between respect and dislike. Perhaps I should be clear and say they act like idiots. Then its an opinion... I would edit the original but I cant any more.. oh well. Slowly losing a lot of respect for some of the posters here... :(
        mixmax 18y ago
        Idiot is a pretty strong word, and using it requires some arguments and substance besides "in my opinion they are idiots". Intelligent discourse is based on good arguments and respect for the other party.
        ErrantX 18y ago
        I wish I had never used the word: I really dont see it as particularly strong... perhaps it is cultural differences getting in the way. But a single word is getting in the way of a good debate elsewhere in the thread - which is a bit sad. (for the record I think I did back up my statement: they are idiots because they are helping and encouraging people the steal with no thought as to the consequences and believe they are above the law to the point of being. And, importantly, refuse to be reasoned with - and yes I have tried.) I agree with the good arguments - but respect should not be automatic. I would look for it to be earned in an argument (probably I did not do much to earn any yesterday). My other point, of course, is that TPB (at whom my remark was directed) are not here and so are not one of the debating parties... :) EDIT: I am not particularly worried by the downmods. People can express their opinions. However downmodding based on wording feels a bit short sighted... downmodding based on percieved bias (which a friend of mine pointed out) I would agree with (because it did introduce a bias.. which was a mistake). (Also it's a bit sad to see this bumped up to the first page... this surely is stuff for the "back room")
  - mixmax 18y ago
    and if your arguments are good you'll usually get upmodded.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  It would be good because it will cause far more attention than the reverse verdict, and there will be some people who would otherwise have feared unspecific consequences for sharing who will thereby be reassured. It's a PR victory for the forces of anti-copyright (and, to a lesser extent, copyleft), and a conviction would be a draw (there's no way that the music companies can actually win, as far as I can see). I'm interested to hear what you believe the endgame for copyright is, given that you think that those currently ignoring copyright are in the wrong, but that Apple, et al, should go non-DRM? I'm against copyright, and I dislike DRM, but I don't have anything in principle against DRM, as I do against copyright.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    yes maybe it would get more attention - but what kind of attention? Basically it would amount to the Swedish coaurts saying that providing the infrastructure ot share Copyrighted material was ok.. which it is not. In the face of that could we expect media companies to be reasonable and sit at the table to work out new ways to provide access to digital media/software? This is not a 2 sided battle in my eyes. TPB are as much an enemy to the consumer as the IPFI. And why shouldnt the sharers get some fear? Perhaps it will dissuade them from sharing. Bearing in mind I am massivley pro copyright (as a software developer and writer - even though the majority of my work is open source). In terms of copyright - I too am not too worried by DRM. I would like to see DRM dropped but can understand why it is there. In the Apple case they had to impose stupidly strict DRM just to get the store off the ground. The fact they can now release that music more freely is a testamount to how much the music companies are starting to come round to the consumers viewpoint. I am never one to blame the music companies for wanting to protect their material: even though I do disagree with the prices they charge, how they screw over the artists and how they insist (till now) on locking stuff up in super restrictive DRM. I never fully understood the arguments against copyright. Care to explain?
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      Let me preface by noting that I, too, am a software developer, and ran/was an ISV catering primarily to small business from 2001 to 2008. Nevertheless, I am anti-copyright. There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it. In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves. If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.
sfk 18y ago
I disagree. Should the pirate bay win, politicians can argue that current laws aren't strong enough to prevent illegal activities on the Internet. Thus, freedoms that we enjoy nowadays might be taken away in the future. This is a classic case where the misbehavior of one segment of the population (in this case quite a large segment) could make stricter legislation necessary. I think that real world traffic laws are a good analogy here: Most people are violating speed limits, and speeding in moderation is socially acceptable. Compare moderate speeding to moderate file sharing, i.e. sharing files with say only 10 of your best acquaintances. Legislation would not be required. However, gross violation of speed limits by a certain group of drivers brought us the traffic police and radar controls. I hope that the gross copyright violations of a certain group of people do not ruin the Internet for everyone.

ErrantX 18y ago

I dont buy that. Please explain why that would be good? If the music companies win then perhaps the idiot pirates start to acutally get scared. Then us sensible lot can sit down with the companies and get them to do things right. Stuff is moving in the right direction (Apple going non-DRM for instance) these guys are dinosaurs and holding things back. Send em down. I fail to see how anyone can condone TPB ever.... they damage the file sharing community like nothing else before. (ps am amused at the downmodding of my comment.... way to support piracy.. ;))

allenbrunson 18y ago
you're not being downmodded because everybody here supports piracy. it's because you used the word "idiot," among other things. you can make almost any point on hacker news and get away with it, if you're respectful to all involved.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  Why? They treat everyone else with the same degree of snootiness and vitriol... calling them idiots is barely disrespectful :)
  - allenbrunson 18y ago
    you've perhaps heard that two wrongs don't make a right? pg started this site, and he has inculcated it with his values. imagine pg writing an essay about the pirate bay. do you suppose he would call them "idiots?" like it or not, the culture around these parts tends towards respect. you violate local customs at your own peril.
    - ErrantX 18y ago
      I dont buy that. It is expressing an opinion. I do respect the excellent way they are using the media and the internet to show off their cause. I dont respect what they do. I disagree calling them idiots is disrespectful: because, well, they are.... (in my opinion):) There is a huge difference between respect and dislike. Perhaps I should be clear and say they act like idiots. Then its an opinion... I would edit the original but I cant any more.. oh well. Slowly losing a lot of respect for some of the posters here... :(
      - mixmax 18y ago
        Idiot is a pretty strong word, and using it requires some arguments and substance besides "in my opinion they are idiots". Intelligent discourse is based on good arguments and respect for the other party.
        ErrantX 18y ago
        I wish I had never used the word: I really dont see it as particularly strong... perhaps it is cultural differences getting in the way. But a single word is getting in the way of a good debate elsewhere in the thread - which is a bit sad. (for the record I think I did back up my statement: they are idiots because they are helping and encouraging people the steal with no thought as to the consequences and believe they are above the law to the point of being. And, importantly, refuse to be reasoned with - and yes I have tried.) I agree with the good arguments - but respect should not be automatic. I would look for it to be earned in an argument (probably I did not do much to earn any yesterday). My other point, of course, is that TPB (at whom my remark was directed) are not here and so are not one of the debating parties... :) EDIT: I am not particularly worried by the downmods. People can express their opinions. However downmodding based on wording feels a bit short sighted... downmodding based on percieved bias (which a friend of mine pointed out) I would agree with (because it did introduce a bias.. which was a mistake). (Also it's a bit sad to see this bumped up to the first page... this surely is stuff for the "back room")
- mixmax 18y ago
  and if your arguments are good you'll usually get upmodded.
randallsquared 18y ago
It would be good because it will cause far more attention than the reverse verdict, and there will be some people who would otherwise have feared unspecific consequences for sharing who will thereby be reassured. It's a PR victory for the forces of anti-copyright (and, to a lesser extent, copyleft), and a conviction would be a draw (there's no way that the music companies can actually win, as far as I can see). I'm interested to hear what you believe the endgame for copyright is, given that you think that those currently ignoring copyright are in the wrong, but that Apple, et al, should go non-DRM? I'm against copyright, and I dislike DRM, but I don't have anything in principle against DRM, as I do against copyright.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  yes maybe it would get more attention - but what kind of attention? Basically it would amount to the Swedish coaurts saying that providing the infrastructure ot share Copyrighted material was ok.. which it is not. In the face of that could we expect media companies to be reasonable and sit at the table to work out new ways to provide access to digital media/software? This is not a 2 sided battle in my eyes. TPB are as much an enemy to the consumer as the IPFI. And why shouldnt the sharers get some fear? Perhaps it will dissuade them from sharing. Bearing in mind I am massivley pro copyright (as a software developer and writer - even though the majority of my work is open source). In terms of copyright - I too am not too worried by DRM. I would like to see DRM dropped but can understand why it is there. In the Apple case they had to impose stupidly strict DRM just to get the store off the ground. The fact they can now release that music more freely is a testamount to how much the music companies are starting to come round to the consumers viewpoint. I am never one to blame the music companies for wanting to protect their material: even though I do disagree with the prices they charge, how they screw over the artists and how they insist (till now) on locking stuff up in super restrictive DRM. I never fully understood the arguments against copyright. Care to explain?
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    Let me preface by noting that I, too, am a software developer, and ran/was an ISV catering primarily to small business from 2001 to 2008. Nevertheless, I am anti-copyright. There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it. In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves. If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.

sfk 18y ago

I disagree. Should the pirate bay win, politicians can argue that current laws aren't strong enough to prevent illegal activities on the Internet. Thus, freedoms that we enjoy nowadays might be taken away in the future. This is a classic case where the misbehavior of one segment of the population (in this case quite a large segment) could make stricter legislation necessary. I think that real world traffic laws are a good analogy here: Most people are violating speed limits, and speeding in moderation is socially acceptable. Compare moderate speeding to moderate file sharing, i.e. sharing files with say only 10 of your best acquaintances. Legislation would not be required. However, gross violation of speed limits by a certain group of drivers brought us the traffic police and radar controls. I hope that the gross copyright violations of a certain group of people do not ruin the Internet for everyone.