5 ms·

Why the free software community cares about The Pirate Bay

18 points by brl 17y ago

daeken 17y ago
This article, IMO, exemplifies a lack of understanding by members of the free software community. You can't say "The international free software movement has decisively placed themselves in opposition to laws which restrict information freedom by prioritizing intellectual property and the ownership of information by corporations over the civil right to information and software." while supporting licenses like the GPL which depend solely on copyright law to restrict the way software is distributed.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Indeed, but there are two qualitative differences: the GPL's terms are fair, and those who get sued for violation are actively making money out of the copyright infringement. So are some music and video pirates, but many more are just inclined to share, same way I used to put songs on cassette tape for friends in the 1980s.
alain94040 17y ago
I strongly disagree with the premise of this article. There is a major difference between free software, which obeys and even relies on copyright to enforce its rules, and this generalized pirate movement which wants the right to copy anything, anytime, freely.
- Herring 17y ago
  Or you could listen to the FSF. They disagree & they're responsible for the gnu & the gpl. http://torrentfreak.com/the-war-on-sharing-why-the-fsf-cares-about-riaa-lawsuits-090513/ http://torrentfreak.com/the-war-on-sharing-why-the-fsf-cares...
  - triplefox 17y ago
    Or if you want a strictly economic explanation: The law is a cosmetic blemish upon what could be a top-to-bottom free system. The high level would be original free software and media - tools and inspiration. The medium level is derivatives; things made using the tools and media built upon other media. The low level is the consumer level, where the best things are filtered and distributed to the public. The system takes the lowest-cost option at each step: remixing material and building on open source is easier than starting from scratch. Digital distribution is easier than physical distribution. But it is entirely dependent upon the source material being permissive-use. When it isn't, derivatives become illegal material, and people will subsequently choose not to make value-added derivatives because any profit motive that would have existed is gone; settlement and legal fees are likely to wipe out any gains. This doesn't affect the consumers of media, however, because consumers are largely anonymous and hard to target by the legal system. Thus you get widespread piracy, but few derivatives.
- seculo21rojo 17y ago
  This article is right on. And, in fact, I don't think it goes far enough. The fight for the Public Commons is a struggle that has been going on for a long time and it just so happens that the internet is another battlefield in which it takes place. Especially since the end of World War 2, and the growth of contemporary corporatism, there is a struggle between privatization (where a few people profit off of resources that should belong to everyone) and the Public Commons (where resources are used for the benefit of the public, i.e. everyone). This struggle becomes more and more acute every day. People are giving their lives in defense of the Public Commons. In Bolivia, people took to the streets to fight Bechtel's attempt to steal water resources from the Commons and claim ownership of it for themselves so that a few individuals could benefit by selling Bolivians the water that belongs to them in the first place. Many Bolivians gave their life in this struggle because it required defending themselves against Bechtel's private death squads. But, in the end, the Commons won -- but at a great sacrifice. And there are hundreds of examples of this type of conflict happening all over the world, every single day. And, this is why what The Pirate Bay is doing is justified. Because it subverts and sabotages the efforts of the RIAA cartel while promoting the ideals of sharing and co-operation in the world. I cheer every time Final Cut Studio is downloaded for free via BitTorrent. Microsoft and Adobe and Apple and all of these corrupt corporations use bribery and extortion to do what they can to destroy the Public Information Commons. Shell and Exxon and Bechtel use private death squads to murder labor activists and indigenous communities to fight other forms of the Public Commons. A former CIA agent tells the story about how he & other operatives in Castro's Cuba would pour cement into milk headed for children in public schools. The "contra" terrorists who fought the Public Commons in Nicaragua raped and killed a group of Catholic nuns and when Archbishop Oscar Romero spoke out about it in a sermon, these butchers gunned him down during the mass. This is the level of reality that defenders of the Commons face. Peer-to-peer networks make it possible for one of these international criminal cartels to fear their utter annihilation, to be replaced by the Public Commons. How any decent human being could "strongly disagree with the premise of this" is beyond me. This is why I support The Pirate Bay and any other project which would sabotage a future of corporate privatization.
quoderat 17y ago
In a war of large corporations with nearly-unlimited resources against someone who just wants to listen to some music, I'll take the someone who just wants to listen to some music every time. I'm a fan of the underdog, especially one who's had progressively more power removed from their bailiwick -- fair use? Almost gone. Time-shifting? They'd take that away if they could. DMCA? What a travesty. Time the balance shifts the other way for a while.
- daeken 17y ago
  I agree, I just dislike all of this being linked to the free software community, and dislike the hypocrisy of a good portion of the community with respect to copyright.
- gustavo_duarte 17y ago
  You mean 'just wants to listen to some music' _without paying for it_. Regarding the DMCA and fair use restrictions, I agree it's something we must fight against, but I don't think piracy is an effective way to go about it.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Arguably not: http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-... One reason that people listen to music for free online (which I usually do via YouTube) is because the selection of music on radio is dreadful - most commercial radio is owned by the same handful of companies, and it's the same greatest hits mixed in with the latest heavy rotation day-in day-out. I don't even own a radio any more - and as an ex-DJ, I am pretty sure I have spent far more on music than you will in your whole lifetime.
    - gustavo_duarte 17y ago
      I wouldn't make personal assumptions like this. I might be a DJ myself. ;) Regarding the study, the results are in line with my expectations. Several of my friends are DJs and other art-loving people, who all download and buy massive amounts of stuff. The correlation between P2P downloads and buying strikes me as natural. There's no doubt the major labels have played a pretty rotten game and also got the Internet completely wrong. I want to see services that allow us to sample and listen to music without paying for it, allowing people to sample a large number of tracks and hopefully buy a fraction of those. I'd love to see decentralized distribution in such a way as to pay artists more and encourage creativity. But I don't think piracy is the answer.
DanielStraight 17y ago
So what about when a group like Pirate Bay decides to start using GPL'ed software without following the GPL rules because they don't care about copyright? I'm sorry, but I think music theft is about one of the lamest things you can do. If you really like music, you'll support the artists. I don't want to hear the BS line, "oh, they don't get any money from the record sales anyway." Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? They may not get much money DIRECTLY from record sales, but that's really not the point. If you steal music, you are completely and utterly useless to the music community, and it would be better off without you. You are a short-sighted mooch, and you're just bringing people down for your own temporary benefit.
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  > Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? What a ridiculous thing to say. What would happen then? The middlemen would be cut out. Artists will distribute their creations themselves. If they're not savvy enough for that, optimized CMS will sprout about that'll make it easier for them to do so. The best thing is that record-chosen records won't come to top, the best and most preferred things will (to use a crude example, they'll find their way to the top in a Digg-like fashion). This is exactly what needs to happen. This is exactly the turn that needs to be taken. As for the recording costs -- well, the only people that can afford it at the moment are the artists that are ALREADY at the top. Musicianship is a risky business to get into in the first place, and it's just really their responsibility to make smart and systematic decisions themselves in the circumstances they're in. Beside that, the matter of the fact is that it's becoming very possible to do more 1) with less people, and 2) with less money. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo -- a HQ video, that anyone reasonable would have to admit beats professionally-created movies in terms of quality (I'll myself admit that the acting isn't the best it could have been). When this happens, a new connection will be born between the artists and the customers. And I think this newfangled connection might encourage a few more people to purchase music (which, hopefully, will go at a cheaper cost than before due to this new, middleman-less, direct artist-to-customer relationship).
jacoblyles 17y ago
If you're going to opine about the virtues of the public commons, then why not support artists who produce copyright free content? There are plenty out there. The hypocrisy of the pirate movement is seen when the lion's share of the content they consume is the high-budget stuff produced in big studios. This is in stark contrast to the free software community, in which genuinely free software is used far more than pirated commercial software. Content pirates are parasites that are killing their host. They take and offer nothing in return. They certainly don't add the magnitude of value to the world that is offered by the free software movement.
- greendestiny 17y ago
  I think piracy actively harms free content producers, and without it free copyright would be a lot more prevalent and of higher quality. I wrote this blog post elaborating on it a bit, but didn't think I made the point all that well: http://greendestinyonyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-piracy-didnt-exist-then-riaa-would.html http://greendestinyonyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-piracy-didnt...
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

18 points by brl 17y ago

This article, IMO, exemplifies a lack of understanding by members of the free software community. You can't say "The international free software movement has decisively placed themselves in opposition to laws which restrict information freedom by prioritizing intellectual property and the ownership of information by corporations over the civil right to information and software." while supporting licenses like the GPL which depend solely on copyright law to restrict the way software is distributed.

anigbrowl 17y ago
Indeed, but there are two qualitative differences: the GPL's terms are fair, and those who get sued for violation are actively making money out of the copyright infringement. So are some music and video pirates, but many more are just inclined to share, same way I used to put songs on cassette tape for friends in the 1980s.

alain94040 17y ago

I strongly disagree with the premise of this article. There is a major difference between free software, which obeys and even relies on copyright to enforce its rules, and this generalized pirate movement which wants the right to copy anything, anytime, freely.

Herring 17y ago
Or you could listen to the FSF. They disagree & they're responsible for the gnu & the gpl. http://torrentfreak.com/the-war-on-sharing-why-the-fsf-cares-about-riaa-lawsuits-090513/ http://torrentfreak.com/the-war-on-sharing-why-the-fsf-cares...
- triplefox 17y ago
  Or if you want a strictly economic explanation: The law is a cosmetic blemish upon what could be a top-to-bottom free system. The high level would be original free software and media - tools and inspiration. The medium level is derivatives; things made using the tools and media built upon other media. The low level is the consumer level, where the best things are filtered and distributed to the public. The system takes the lowest-cost option at each step: remixing material and building on open source is easier than starting from scratch. Digital distribution is easier than physical distribution. But it is entirely dependent upon the source material being permissive-use. When it isn't, derivatives become illegal material, and people will subsequently choose not to make value-added derivatives because any profit motive that would have existed is gone; settlement and legal fees are likely to wipe out any gains. This doesn't affect the consumers of media, however, because consumers are largely anonymous and hard to target by the legal system. Thus you get widespread piracy, but few derivatives.
seculo21rojo 17y ago
This article is right on. And, in fact, I don't think it goes far enough. The fight for the Public Commons is a struggle that has been going on for a long time and it just so happens that the internet is another battlefield in which it takes place. Especially since the end of World War 2, and the growth of contemporary corporatism, there is a struggle between privatization (where a few people profit off of resources that should belong to everyone) and the Public Commons (where resources are used for the benefit of the public, i.e. everyone). This struggle becomes more and more acute every day. People are giving their lives in defense of the Public Commons. In Bolivia, people took to the streets to fight Bechtel's attempt to steal water resources from the Commons and claim ownership of it for themselves so that a few individuals could benefit by selling Bolivians the water that belongs to them in the first place. Many Bolivians gave their life in this struggle because it required defending themselves against Bechtel's private death squads. But, in the end, the Commons won -- but at a great sacrifice. And there are hundreds of examples of this type of conflict happening all over the world, every single day. And, this is why what The Pirate Bay is doing is justified. Because it subverts and sabotages the efforts of the RIAA cartel while promoting the ideals of sharing and co-operation in the world. I cheer every time Final Cut Studio is downloaded for free via BitTorrent. Microsoft and Adobe and Apple and all of these corrupt corporations use bribery and extortion to do what they can to destroy the Public Information Commons. Shell and Exxon and Bechtel use private death squads to murder labor activists and indigenous communities to fight other forms of the Public Commons. A former CIA agent tells the story about how he & other operatives in Castro's Cuba would pour cement into milk headed for children in public schools. The "contra" terrorists who fought the Public Commons in Nicaragua raped and killed a group of Catholic nuns and when Archbishop Oscar Romero spoke out about it in a sermon, these butchers gunned him down during the mass. This is the level of reality that defenders of the Commons face. Peer-to-peer networks make it possible for one of these international criminal cartels to fear their utter annihilation, to be replaced by the Public Commons. How any decent human being could "strongly disagree with the premise of this" is beyond me. This is why I support The Pirate Bay and any other project which would sabotage a future of corporate privatization.

quoderat 17y ago

In a war of large corporations with nearly-unlimited resources against someone who just wants to listen to some music, I'll take the someone who just wants to listen to some music every time. I'm a fan of the underdog, especially one who's had progressively more power removed from their bailiwick -- fair use? Almost gone. Time-shifting? They'd take that away if they could. DMCA? What a travesty. Time the balance shifts the other way for a while.

daeken 17y ago
I agree, I just dislike all of this being linked to the free software community, and dislike the hypocrisy of a good portion of the community with respect to copyright.
gustavo_duarte 17y ago
You mean 'just wants to listen to some music' _without paying for it_. Regarding the DMCA and fair use restrictions, I agree it's something we must fight against, but I don't think piracy is an effective way to go about it.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Arguably not: http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-... One reason that people listen to music for free online (which I usually do via YouTube) is because the selection of music on radio is dreadful - most commercial radio is owned by the same handful of companies, and it's the same greatest hits mixed in with the latest heavy rotation day-in day-out. I don't even own a radio any more - and as an ex-DJ, I am pretty sure I have spent far more on music than you will in your whole lifetime.
  - gustavo_duarte 17y ago
    I wouldn't make personal assumptions like this. I might be a DJ myself. ;) Regarding the study, the results are in line with my expectations. Several of my friends are DJs and other art-loving people, who all download and buy massive amounts of stuff. The correlation between P2P downloads and buying strikes me as natural. There's no doubt the major labels have played a pretty rotten game and also got the Internet completely wrong. I want to see services that allow us to sample and listen to music without paying for it, allowing people to sample a large number of tracks and hopefully buy a fraction of those. I'd love to see decentralized distribution in such a way as to pay artists more and encourage creativity. But I don't think piracy is the answer.

DanielStraight 17y ago

So what about when a group like Pirate Bay decides to start using GPL'ed software without following the GPL rules because they don't care about copyright? I'm sorry, but I think music theft is about one of the lamest things you can do. If you really like music, you'll support the artists. I don't want to hear the BS line, "oh, they don't get any money from the record sales anyway." Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? They may not get much money DIRECTLY from record sales, but that's really not the point. If you steal music, you are completely and utterly useless to the music community, and it would be better off without you. You are a short-sighted mooch, and you're just bringing people down for your own temporary benefit.

jimmyjim 17y ago
> Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? What a ridiculous thing to say. What would happen then? The middlemen would be cut out. Artists will distribute their creations themselves. If they're not savvy enough for that, optimized CMS will sprout about that'll make it easier for them to do so. The best thing is that record-chosen records won't come to top, the best and most preferred things will (to use a crude example, they'll find their way to the top in a Digg-like fashion). This is exactly what needs to happen. This is exactly the turn that needs to be taken. As for the recording costs -- well, the only people that can afford it at the moment are the artists that are ALREADY at the top. Musicianship is a risky business to get into in the first place, and it's just really their responsibility to make smart and systematic decisions themselves in the circumstances they're in. Beside that, the matter of the fact is that it's becoming very possible to do more 1) with less people, and 2) with less money. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo -- a HQ video, that anyone reasonable would have to admit beats professionally-created movies in terms of quality (I'll myself admit that the acting isn't the best it could have been). When this happens, a new connection will be born between the artists and the customers. And I think this newfangled connection might encourage a few more people to purchase music (which, hopefully, will go at a cheaper cost than before due to this new, middleman-less, direct artist-to-customer relationship).

jacoblyles 17y ago

If you're going to opine about the virtues of the public commons, then why not support artists who produce copyright free content? There are plenty out there. The hypocrisy of the pirate movement is seen when the lion's share of the content they consume is the high-budget stuff produced in big studios. This is in stark contrast to the free software community, in which genuinely free software is used far more than pirated commercial software. Content pirates are parasites that are killing their host. They take and offer nothing in return. They certainly don't add the magnitude of value to the world that is offered by the free software movement.

greendestiny 17y ago
I think piracy actively harms free content producers, and without it free copyright would be a lot more prevalent and of higher quality. I wrote this blog post elaborating on it a bit, but didn't think I made the point all that well: http://greendestinyonyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-piracy-didnt-exist-then-riaa-would.html http://greendestinyonyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-piracy-didnt...

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]