18 ms·

Gottfrid Svartholm is currently being held in solitary confinement in Denmark, Peter Sunde is arrested in Sweden. I thought these countries were like role model

Gottfrid Svartholm is currently being held in solitary confinement in Denmark, Peter Sunde is arrested in Sweden. I thought these countries were like role models.

_delirium 12y ago
They're good on some things, bad on others. Generally the police are less militarized, and the criminal-justice system is somewhat less overgrown than in many other countries (lower % of the population in jail, much shorter typical sentences, etc.). However Scandinavia isn't really some kind of paradise, and the legal system is still zealous about pursuing quite some number of things I don't agree with.
waynecochran 12y ago
Not trying to be a troll, but aren't these people essentially supporting theivery on a massive scale? I've never understood why so much of the Internet community thinks downloading software and/or movies that is meant to be paid for is ok.
- mindslight 12y ago
  When you examine the topic at a level beyond "it's theft", you may conclude that imaginary property is unsustainable in a world with private communications, decide privacy is the more worthy goal, and view those corrupting justice to preserve dying business models as the crooks.
  - mwfunk 12y ago
    I would certainly hope that he wouldn't conclude that. That level of certainty/hyperbole/condescension is either the Dunning-Kruger effect in action (AKA the "overconfident CS undergrad effect" on tech forums) or the mark of someone who would much rather embrace an exciting falsehood than spend a lifetime seeking messy and often unattainable truths (AKA why we can't have nice things).
    - mindslight 12y ago
      By that standard, one can never condemn any existing state of the world. I am actually willing to compromise in that nominal imaginary property isn't the worst idea (especially as applied to the commercial realm), but only after its industries accept its limitations and stop attacking anything that prevents them from having iron-clad absolute control (attacking justice by extorting IP addresses, attacking end-user computing via DRM, attacking communications and privacy through six strikes, attacking self-determination by forcing their laws onto other countries, attacking the distributed Internet through streaming). Until that happens, they are a malevolent pest that must be starved, as any money sent their way just supports destroying the future.
      - mwfunk 12y ago
        No, people can condemn whatever they want. I don't think having a healthy skepticism in all things precludes having strong opinions about what's wrong with the world, in fact I agree with much of the basis of what you're saying. Heck, just a few months ago I walked away from several thousand dollars that I could've had just for letting someone put my name on a software patent. It would've been nothing to me to do that, but I know I would've felt dirty because of my views on software patents. If all you want to do is preach to the choir, fine, but if you care about making a difference in the world by changing the minds of people who either don't know about these things or are on the fence about it, then your choice of words is going to drive away fence sitters and possibly discredit others who are on your side. This is exactly what RMS does, and it hasn't exactly worked well for him. Look at the phrases you use: "imaginary property", "attacking justice", "destroying the future". Those are strong words with loaded meaning- just using phrases like that is a rhetorical trick that most people are going to see through immediately. Those kinds of words should be reserved for things which are facepalmingly obvious; simple binary issues which have no gray areas, and are not things on which reasonable people can disagree in any respect. The fact that you present it in such a way is going to be interpreted by the audience in one of two ways: (1) You really believe that all (or almost all) IP law the world over is really one of those blindingly obvious binary issues relating to basic morality that has few or no gray areas, to the degree that you don't care about changing anyone's mind; in fact, you would like to shame anyone who disagrees with you or is on the fence about any aspect it. You put it up there with pedophilia and ethnic cleansing and all the other things for which there is pretty much absolute consensus on in most of the developed world. - or - (2) You know how complicated it all is, and the history and rationale for it and so on, but you think that the people you're talking to are lesser minds who are only going to be swayed by hyperbolic, emotional language and loaded terminology. Either way, it's not constructive, and may actually be destructive to the cause (again, see RMS/PETA/Earth First/etc.). I don't think that's where you're coming from- I think you mean well and are probably young and very passionate about this stuff, and for the most part I think you're on the right side and hopefully on the side of history. I just remember spending years with much the same mindset, without even realizing it, and it didn't help anyone. Another danger of using bile and invective and loaded terminology as a form of argumentation is that after a while you might start believing it yourself, in which case (1) and/or (2) become not just what you're mistakenly communicating but what you actually believe. And that is the path to the Dark Side. :(
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > ... decide privacy is the more worthy goal... Essentially you are saying, My information is mine and should be under my control because privacy. But your information is "imaginary property" and anyone should be able to take it whenever they wish, because dying business models corruption crooks. Hilarious!
    - zanny 12y ago
      There is a very real difference between people voluntarilly sharing the information they have, and breaking and entering into someones personal networks to steal stuff. When you torrent a file, you are never participating in an involuntary transaction. And very little torrented material is procured through breaking into secure networks - an example of that would be the half life 2 prerelease source break in. These are people performing legal valid transactions with businesses (be they physical discs, or digital downloads) and then they share the information they now posses, but under copyright do not own (you never own it unless you are the creator or rights holder) with others that want that information. Like I said, if you break the encryption on someones private network to steal their data that is still a violation of their property rights because you are breaking in. You aren't stealing, but the act of breaking in is still violating their property rights, or in this context their right to security. In movie terms, it would be fine for a movie studio to create a film, and never distribute it. Then it is theirs, privately, and nobody has the right to forcibly take it from them, even if the encoded information is valuable to someone or useful. But when they start selling DVDs outside the studios front door, and you buy one and go home with it, rip it and share it on TPB, there is never a violation of voluntary exchange or property rights besides you breaking an implied contract with the media distributor that nobody understands exists and thus no market in the world is operating without it. People also break contracts all the time, and that usually doesn't result in a jail sentence, it results in a secession of business. And IP is ridiculous in how you enter perpetual contracts by having a sequence of polarized magnetic splotches on a composite disk. Hell, when people try to release software public domain (like sqlite) there is a massive legal morass and their disclosure license is pages long just to cover all the corner cases.
      - throwawaykf05 12y ago
- clarry 12y ago
  Sharing is at worst a victimless crime. At best.. well I don't know about best but I'd say something about living in the future where we have the technological means to give people anything they need or want. That if something is wealth. And progress. Thievery is an inappropriate description of making copies.
  - anon4 12y ago
    At best it's free promotion. The thing is, piracy right now is rampant, but it doesn't seem to have a measurable effect on profits. As in, they aren't dropping. Edit: Here's a concrete example of "At best": http://anton.nordenfur.se/paulo-coelho-destroys-piracy-myths/ http://anton.nordenfur.se/paulo-coelho-destroys-piracy-myths... In 1999, when I was first published in Russia (with a print- run of 3,000), the country was suffering a severe paper shortage. By chance, I discovered a ‘pirate’ edition of The Alchemist and posted it on my web page. A year later, when the crisis was resolved, I sold 10,000 copies of the print edition. By 2002, I had sold a million copies in Russia, and I have now sold 12 million
    - mike_hearn 12y ago
      Eh? Music industry sales have dropped off a cliff starting around the year 2000. It's been a bloodbath, they're now at something like a third of what they once were: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a0... Do you think people listen to a third of the music they listened to ten years ago? No way!
  - mcintyre1994 12y ago
    I'm not making any judgement on whether it should be legal/illegal etc. but I think saying it's a victimless crime at worst is potentially incorrect. In the worst case, it's absolutely possible that you share something with someone, A, which A would have bought and then they don't buy it. In the worst case they don't in the future buy anything from the author/creator etc. In the worst case I'd consider that author/creator a victim in this case, they would have been paid whatever amount A would have paid but now haven't been. I'm not arguing that's often the case (I don't think it is) but to absolutely rule it out feels like too much of a simplification. There can be a legitimate victim, it almost certainly isn't the person suing you and in most cases there probably isn't - but there can be I think.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Sure, some people just want free stuff, but a lot of people just think treating digital copying like violent crime is an unacceptable excess of the laws the copyright megaliths have lobbied for over the decades.
- atmosx 12y ago
  Sure, fine him 500 USD and make him to 100 hours of social work. Not 20 years and 45 millions essentially for movies that no one would ever pay for anyway, e.g. if I download 'Charlie's angels' doesn't mean that I'm willing to pay a ticket or a rent a DVD to watch the movie. Anyway, piracy is not good but the real price of renting an online movie, say from iTunes, should be about 0,30 USD. That way no one would bother.
  - consz 12y ago
    Why do you assume they are movies no would ever pay for? I've downloaded hundreds/thousands of movies from pirating sites that I'd be happy to pay for if I didn't have the alternative of pirating it -- that's easily $10,000+ in lost revenue just from me.
    - atmosx 12y ago
      Well, the prior statement was my case. Your case is probably different. I don't watch TV, just sports for which I happily pay when possible (e.g. NBA) and don't pay and search online-shitty-streaming services when not (e.g. F1). That said, I'm not sure you're the rule. Maybe neither am I, but either way... Software apart, digital media sharing/copying doesn't equal with stealing in THE REAL WORLD that's why people would always do it. Imagine if I could steal your car and the owner could find it on the parking the next day ;-)
- gdulli 12y ago
  > aren't these people essentially supporting theivery on a massive scale? By the letter of the law: unclear, probably not. By the spirit of the law: absolutely.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > supporting theivery on a massive scale? That depends on your attitude. Only a very small minority of content creators make a living from that activity. Some people are always going to be cheapskates of varying degrees. Unless they are actually manufacturing and selling counterfeit copies of my books, in my view it doesn't rise to the level of a tort, much less a crime. Google indexes downloads of my books. What consequences should that have? Same as for Pirate Bay? If you are a poor person in Pakistan, how else are you going to get it? If you are a rich person in a developed country, you are just a jerk if you lack the creativity to ask for a review copy. I don't see a practical way to have a different view of the situation. I could rail against downloads, but what is that going to do? Publishing is a leaky bucket. If you take the advice of someone like Guy Kawasaki on how to promote a book, you should go with the flow and give away as many copies as you can. Every time I speak at a conference and give away a few dozen signed copies, sales go up. Someday that kid in Pakistan who torrented my book might work for a system integrator that hires me to train them. If I thought reality wasn't OK, what should I do? Many of the problems in the computing industry come from efforts to deny the reality that content can't be protected beyond the audience's willingness to be honest.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    Many of the problems in the computing industry come from efforts to deny the reality that content can't be protected beyond the audience's willingness to be honest. And that's where the entertainment industry's efforts to brainwash people ("you wouldn't steal a car") and to make copyright violation a criminal offense (the longer the sentence, the better) come in: they are all efforts to try to make people so afraid that they'll be honest. What a way to treat their customers.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    How would your comments apply to the use case of distributing GPL software derivatives instead of digital movies?
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      Wut?
- zz1 12y ago
  You can watch the movie, it surely will provide you some more context. http://watch.tpbafk.tv/ http://watch.tpbafk.tv/ To reply to your answer: no, they just provide a distribution tool. Yes, it is very much used to bypass copyright, but they just provide a tool. In TPB AKF brokep says "file sharing is here to stay, if you (majors) could just stop fighting us, we could sit together and try to find a way to give money to the artists". And he did, indeed, with flattr.
- codeshaman 12y ago
  You mean watching movies for free is illegal ? Here are some considerations: - It is legal to watch movies for free on TV, as long as you accept to be brainwashed by advertising. - It is legal to lend your DVD to your friend and it's legal for him to give it to his friend and his friend and so on. - It is legal to bring 90 friends to your house and watch the movie together. Each of them can then borrow the DVD and invite 90 of their friends... - Movies drop in value considerably after being watched once. It's a very poor investment. Since obviously demand for free material exists, it means that: - there are no alternative legal channels with such diversity and simplicity of use or they have DRM or other restrictions (proprietary formats), which means that you actually rent, not buy. - the prices demanded are too high, especially for movies which you stop halfway through because they suck (a vast majority) As a developer, I do not agree with using commercial software for free and so I never download anything and always buy my software. thepiratebay is the largest distributed backup of cinematography and music in the world. What happens to all these movies if something happens to the Internet (lots of things can make Internet unusable or disconnect parts of the world from it) ? What if the global economy collapses, WW3 starts and Internet companies as well as movie studios go belly up ? Where would all these creations be ? Who would have the copies if there were no torrent sites like piratebay ? But it would be possible to re-create thepiratebay and republish all those movies and music from their hard-drives back to the Internet.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    > It is legal to bring 90 friends to your house and watch the movie together. Technically it is not legal to do this. At that point, you're putting on a "public performance", and they may indeed sue you. Where is the line at which "having a few friends over to watch the game" a public performance? It's up to the NFL's lawyers and the corrupt judges that decades of copyright cartel lobbyists have schmoozed.
    - rurban 12y ago
      The limit is 15. Around this number
- jakejake 12y ago
  I have my own feelings about it which that it is not really theft, but perhaps it is worth considering that the work of musicians and artists is devalued. I hear a lot of rationalization about how the artists don't get any money anyway, but I personally think that is a separate issue from sharing music. It's an interesting question, especially when you mention software. Because here on HN and other forums I get the impression the majority are in favor of TPB. The more interesting thing is when somebody is caught appropriating a site design, graphics, violates GPL, etc there will be universal rage against them. I guess it is different when you are on the receiving vs. the providing side of things.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    This is just a mishmash of sentiments. Calling out a ripoff site design as unethical is very different that siccing the police on the people who made a torrent index. Start complaining about hypocrisy when someone goes to prison fro a GPL violation.
    - jakejake 12y ago
      I find both examples unethical. However, I never expressed an opinion on the unfairness of their prosecution. You argue a point that I never made. I don't think they should be treated like murders and neither should a GPL infraction. The degree of punishment is a different issue from whether or not I agree with what they're doing. I don't find that mishmash at all and if you do then that's your own problem. You do have a unique opportunity to support TPB, though, as all of your books are available there. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and replace your amazon links in your profile with TPB links.
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        Search for "Zigurd." The first download result appears on the 3rd page of Google's search results. You are implying hypocrisy where none exists, and comparing vile mafia-like tactics that pull police resources away from real crime to the way that most actual content creators deal with downloads.
- zz1 12y ago
  Also, on the same topic: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/studies-on-the-cultural-sector-in-the-file-sharing-era/ http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/studies-on...
oellegaard 12y ago
Svartholm hacked the Danish Police IT systems, including the driver license database. I don't think that should be allowed even in a role country.
- adamtulinius 12y ago
  .. but apparently the police haven't uncovered any evidence, and refuse to let him free because of fear of him tampering with evidence. His trial is scheduled to september, so basically the danish police has nothing on him (or they would just get the trial over with), and use some bogus claim to keep him in custody. So no, scandinavian countries aren't the worst, but they certainly aren't bright shining stars either. -- another dane.
  - Tangokat 12y ago
    As I understand it, the evidence is a chatlog and an encrypted container. The police have had a hard time proving that he was one of the people in the chat. The encrypted container, which the police somehow broke (wonder how they did that), had data from the Danish hack and private documents which doesn't look too good. Also he avoided a sentence for hacking into Nordea in Sweden by claiming that his computer was remote controlled and they couldn't prove that it was not. I'd say it looks fairly likely that he had something to do with these crimes. Also I wouldn't say they have no evidence just that they probably don't have enough to convict. The arguments for continuing to hold him are pretty thin. He already had unsupervised meetings with family and friends so holding him because they are afraid of evidence tampering seems questionable.
  - Kiro 12y ago
    Everyone knows he did it.
    - Kiro 12y ago
      People downvoting me obviously have no idea who anakata is. Stuff like this is what made him famous long before The Pirate Bay.
vinkelhake 12y ago
Sunde was tried and sentenced. He's been on the run since and hasn't served the time. Are sentences from trials ignored in role model countries?
- mpyne 12y ago
  > Are sentences from trials ignored in role model countries? Only sentences that we personally consider unjust. That's how the law works, isn't it?
- Excavator 12y ago
  He's been busy campaigning¹ during the EU elections. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fModmx3U8HI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fModmx3U8HI
marvin 12y ago
There's plenty to criticize in the Scandinavian judicial systems. Norway in particular has been criticized by the United Nations and various human rights organizations for decades, due to the indiscriminate use of long-term solitary confinement of suspects under criminal investigation. (Just today, a police officer accused of corruption was finally released after three months of solitary confinement - court-ordered as part of the police investigation). Speaking of Norway in particular, there is also the question of less clear-cut rights against regarding invasion of privacy etc. than the United States constitution provides. The counterweight is a very educated and well-respected police force. There is plenty to criticize in our contries, criticism which should definitely have a more prominent place than it does today. And I am saying this as a pretty strong supporter of the way Norway does things. The "damages" conviction of the TPB guys is another case in point: The ruling is in effect (1) a sentence to lifelong economic slavery or (2) a sentence to lifelong banishment from Sweden. Take your pick. This is not the way a modern democratic legal system should function. Similarly, criticism could also be made for the way these cases (and also the Julian Assange case, for instance) were started through external pressure rather than the regular state of affairs. Plenty of stuff that should be discussed more openly.
- belorn 12y ago
  Criticism was raised quite loudly when the court rewarded damages and justified it in the court document as "punishment". Damages is not allowed to be used as such, which was raised by the lawyers (if I remember right) when they appealed to the supreme court. It was also sad that the bribed policeman who did the investigation was not only given a free pass, but the police chief said "it shown that the policeman work in the case was appreciated".

Gottfrid Svartholm is currently being held in solitary confinement in Denmark, Peter Sunde is arrested in Sweden. I thought these countries were like role models.

_delirium 12y ago

They're good on some things, bad on others. Generally the police are less militarized, and the criminal-justice system is somewhat less overgrown than in many other countries (lower % of the population in jail, much shorter typical sentences, etc.). However Scandinavia isn't really some kind of paradise, and the legal system is still zealous about pursuing quite some number of things I don't agree with.

waynecochran 12y ago

Not trying to be a troll, but aren't these people essentially supporting theivery on a massive scale? I've never understood why so much of the Internet community thinks downloading software and/or movies that is meant to be paid for is ok.

mindslight 12y ago
When you examine the topic at a level beyond "it's theft", you may conclude that imaginary property is unsustainable in a world with private communications, decide privacy is the more worthy goal, and view those corrupting justice to preserve dying business models as the crooks.
- mwfunk 12y ago
  I would certainly hope that he wouldn't conclude that. That level of certainty/hyperbole/condescension is either the Dunning-Kruger effect in action (AKA the "overconfident CS undergrad effect" on tech forums) or the mark of someone who would much rather embrace an exciting falsehood than spend a lifetime seeking messy and often unattainable truths (AKA why we can't have nice things).
  - mindslight 12y ago
    By that standard, one can never condemn any existing state of the world. I am actually willing to compromise in that nominal imaginary property isn't the worst idea (especially as applied to the commercial realm), but only after its industries accept its limitations and stop attacking anything that prevents them from having iron-clad absolute control (attacking justice by extorting IP addresses, attacking end-user computing via DRM, attacking communications and privacy through six strikes, attacking self-determination by forcing their laws onto other countries, attacking the distributed Internet through streaming). Until that happens, they are a malevolent pest that must be starved, as any money sent their way just supports destroying the future.
    - mwfunk 12y ago
      No, people can condemn whatever they want. I don't think having a healthy skepticism in all things precludes having strong opinions about what's wrong with the world, in fact I agree with much of the basis of what you're saying. Heck, just a few months ago I walked away from several thousand dollars that I could've had just for letting someone put my name on a software patent. It would've been nothing to me to do that, but I know I would've felt dirty because of my views on software patents. If all you want to do is preach to the choir, fine, but if you care about making a difference in the world by changing the minds of people who either don't know about these things or are on the fence about it, then your choice of words is going to drive away fence sitters and possibly discredit others who are on your side. This is exactly what RMS does, and it hasn't exactly worked well for him. Look at the phrases you use: "imaginary property", "attacking justice", "destroying the future". Those are strong words with loaded meaning- just using phrases like that is a rhetorical trick that most people are going to see through immediately. Those kinds of words should be reserved for things which are facepalmingly obvious; simple binary issues which have no gray areas, and are not things on which reasonable people can disagree in any respect. The fact that you present it in such a way is going to be interpreted by the audience in one of two ways: (1) You really believe that all (or almost all) IP law the world over is really one of those blindingly obvious binary issues relating to basic morality that has few or no gray areas, to the degree that you don't care about changing anyone's mind; in fact, you would like to shame anyone who disagrees with you or is on the fence about any aspect it. You put it up there with pedophilia and ethnic cleansing and all the other things for which there is pretty much absolute consensus on in most of the developed world. - or - (2) You know how complicated it all is, and the history and rationale for it and so on, but you think that the people you're talking to are lesser minds who are only going to be swayed by hyperbolic, emotional language and loaded terminology. Either way, it's not constructive, and may actually be destructive to the cause (again, see RMS/PETA/Earth First/etc.). I don't think that's where you're coming from- I think you mean well and are probably young and very passionate about this stuff, and for the most part I think you're on the right side and hopefully on the side of history. I just remember spending years with much the same mindset, without even realizing it, and it didn't help anyone. Another danger of using bile and invective and loaded terminology as a form of argumentation is that after a while you might start believing it yourself, in which case (1) and/or (2) become not just what you're mistakenly communicating but what you actually believe. And that is the path to the Dark Side. :(
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > ... decide privacy is the more worthy goal... Essentially you are saying, My information is mine and should be under my control because privacy. But your information is "imaginary property" and anyone should be able to take it whenever they wish, because dying business models corruption crooks. Hilarious!
  - zanny 12y ago
    There is a very real difference between people voluntarilly sharing the information they have, and breaking and entering into someones personal networks to steal stuff. When you torrent a file, you are never participating in an involuntary transaction. And very little torrented material is procured through breaking into secure networks - an example of that would be the half life 2 prerelease source break in. These are people performing legal valid transactions with businesses (be they physical discs, or digital downloads) and then they share the information they now posses, but under copyright do not own (you never own it unless you are the creator or rights holder) with others that want that information. Like I said, if you break the encryption on someones private network to steal their data that is still a violation of their property rights because you are breaking in. You aren't stealing, but the act of breaking in is still violating their property rights, or in this context their right to security. In movie terms, it would be fine for a movie studio to create a film, and never distribute it. Then it is theirs, privately, and nobody has the right to forcibly take it from them, even if the encoded information is valuable to someone or useful. But when they start selling DVDs outside the studios front door, and you buy one and go home with it, rip it and share it on TPB, there is never a violation of voluntary exchange or property rights besides you breaking an implied contract with the media distributor that nobody understands exists and thus no market in the world is operating without it. People also break contracts all the time, and that usually doesn't result in a jail sentence, it results in a secession of business. And IP is ridiculous in how you enter perpetual contracts by having a sequence of polarized magnetic splotches on a composite disk. Hell, when people try to release software public domain (like sqlite) there is a massive legal morass and their disclosure license is pages long just to cover all the corner cases.
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
clarry 12y ago
Sharing is at worst a victimless crime. At best.. well I don't know about best but I'd say something about living in the future where we have the technological means to give people anything they need or want. That if something is wealth. And progress. Thievery is an inappropriate description of making copies.
- anon4 12y ago
  At best it's free promotion. The thing is, piracy right now is rampant, but it doesn't seem to have a measurable effect on profits. As in, they aren't dropping. Edit: Here's a concrete example of "At best": http://anton.nordenfur.se/paulo-coelho-destroys-piracy-myths/ http://anton.nordenfur.se/paulo-coelho-destroys-piracy-myths... In 1999, when I was first published in Russia (with a print- run of 3,000), the country was suffering a severe paper shortage. By chance, I discovered a ‘pirate’ edition of The Alchemist and posted it on my web page. A year later, when the crisis was resolved, I sold 10,000 copies of the print edition. By 2002, I had sold a million copies in Russia, and I have now sold 12 million
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    Eh? Music industry sales have dropped off a cliff starting around the year 2000. It's been a bloodbath, they're now at something like a third of what they once were: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a0... Do you think people listen to a third of the music they listened to ten years ago? No way!
- mcintyre1994 12y ago
  I'm not making any judgement on whether it should be legal/illegal etc. but I think saying it's a victimless crime at worst is potentially incorrect. In the worst case, it's absolutely possible that you share something with someone, A, which A would have bought and then they don't buy it. In the worst case they don't in the future buy anything from the author/creator etc. In the worst case I'd consider that author/creator a victim in this case, they would have been paid whatever amount A would have paid but now haven't been. I'm not arguing that's often the case (I don't think it is) but to absolutely rule it out feels like too much of a simplification. There can be a legitimate victim, it almost certainly isn't the person suing you and in most cases there probably isn't - but there can be I think.
nitrogen 12y ago
Sure, some people just want free stuff, but a lot of people just think treating digital copying like violent crime is an unacceptable excess of the laws the copyright megaliths have lobbied for over the decades.
atmosx 12y ago
Sure, fine him 500 USD and make him to 100 hours of social work. Not 20 years and 45 millions essentially for movies that no one would ever pay for anyway, e.g. if I download 'Charlie's angels' doesn't mean that I'm willing to pay a ticket or a rent a DVD to watch the movie. Anyway, piracy is not good but the real price of renting an online movie, say from iTunes, should be about 0,30 USD. That way no one would bother.
- consz 12y ago
  Why do you assume they are movies no would ever pay for? I've downloaded hundreds/thousands of movies from pirating sites that I'd be happy to pay for if I didn't have the alternative of pirating it -- that's easily $10,000+ in lost revenue just from me.
  - atmosx 12y ago
    Well, the prior statement was my case. Your case is probably different. I don't watch TV, just sports for which I happily pay when possible (e.g. NBA) and don't pay and search online-shitty-streaming services when not (e.g. F1). That said, I'm not sure you're the rule. Maybe neither am I, but either way... Software apart, digital media sharing/copying doesn't equal with stealing in THE REAL WORLD that's why people would always do it. Imagine if I could steal your car and the owner could find it on the parking the next day ;-)
gdulli 12y ago
> aren't these people essentially supporting theivery on a massive scale? By the letter of the law: unclear, probably not. By the spirit of the law: absolutely.
Zigurd 12y ago
> supporting theivery on a massive scale? That depends on your attitude. Only a very small minority of content creators make a living from that activity. Some people are always going to be cheapskates of varying degrees. Unless they are actually manufacturing and selling counterfeit copies of my books, in my view it doesn't rise to the level of a tort, much less a crime. Google indexes downloads of my books. What consequences should that have? Same as for Pirate Bay? If you are a poor person in Pakistan, how else are you going to get it? If you are a rich person in a developed country, you are just a jerk if you lack the creativity to ask for a review copy. I don't see a practical way to have a different view of the situation. I could rail against downloads, but what is that going to do? Publishing is a leaky bucket. If you take the advice of someone like Guy Kawasaki on how to promote a book, you should go with the flow and give away as many copies as you can. Every time I speak at a conference and give away a few dozen signed copies, sales go up. Someday that kid in Pakistan who torrented my book might work for a system integrator that hires me to train them. If I thought reality wasn't OK, what should I do? Many of the problems in the computing industry come from efforts to deny the reality that content can't be protected beyond the audience's willingness to be honest.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Many of the problems in the computing industry come from efforts to deny the reality that content can't be protected beyond the audience's willingness to be honest. And that's where the entertainment industry's efforts to brainwash people ("you wouldn't steal a car") and to make copyright violation a criminal offense (the longer the sentence, the better) come in: they are all efforts to try to make people so afraid that they'll be honest. What a way to treat their customers.
- mpyne 12y ago
  How would your comments apply to the use case of distributing GPL software derivatives instead of digital movies?
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Wut?
zz1 12y ago
You can watch the movie, it surely will provide you some more context. http://watch.tpbafk.tv/ http://watch.tpbafk.tv/ To reply to your answer: no, they just provide a distribution tool. Yes, it is very much used to bypass copyright, but they just provide a tool. In TPB AKF brokep says "file sharing is here to stay, if you (majors) could just stop fighting us, we could sit together and try to find a way to give money to the artists". And he did, indeed, with flattr.
codeshaman 12y ago
You mean watching movies for free is illegal ? Here are some considerations: - It is legal to watch movies for free on TV, as long as you accept to be brainwashed by advertising. - It is legal to lend your DVD to your friend and it's legal for him to give it to his friend and his friend and so on. - It is legal to bring 90 friends to your house and watch the movie together. Each of them can then borrow the DVD and invite 90 of their friends... - Movies drop in value considerably after being watched once. It's a very poor investment. Since obviously demand for free material exists, it means that: - there are no alternative legal channels with such diversity and simplicity of use or they have DRM or other restrictions (proprietary formats), which means that you actually rent, not buy. - the prices demanded are too high, especially for movies which you stop halfway through because they suck (a vast majority) As a developer, I do not agree with using commercial software for free and so I never download anything and always buy my software. thepiratebay is the largest distributed backup of cinematography and music in the world. What happens to all these movies if something happens to the Internet (lots of things can make Internet unusable or disconnect parts of the world from it) ? What if the global economy collapses, WW3 starts and Internet companies as well as movie studios go belly up ? Where would all these creations be ? Who would have the copies if there were no torrent sites like piratebay ? But it would be possible to re-create thepiratebay and republish all those movies and music from their hard-drives back to the Internet.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > It is legal to bring 90 friends to your house and watch the movie together. Technically it is not legal to do this. At that point, you're putting on a "public performance", and they may indeed sue you. Where is the line at which "having a few friends over to watch the game" a public performance? It's up to the NFL's lawyers and the corrupt judges that decades of copyright cartel lobbyists have schmoozed.
  - rurban 12y ago
    The limit is 15. Around this number
jakejake 12y ago
I have my own feelings about it which that it is not really theft, but perhaps it is worth considering that the work of musicians and artists is devalued. I hear a lot of rationalization about how the artists don't get any money anyway, but I personally think that is a separate issue from sharing music. It's an interesting question, especially when you mention software. Because here on HN and other forums I get the impression the majority are in favor of TPB. The more interesting thing is when somebody is caught appropriating a site design, graphics, violates GPL, etc there will be universal rage against them. I guess it is different when you are on the receiving vs. the providing side of things.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  This is just a mishmash of sentiments. Calling out a ripoff site design as unethical is very different that siccing the police on the people who made a torrent index. Start complaining about hypocrisy when someone goes to prison fro a GPL violation.
  - jakejake 12y ago
    I find both examples unethical. However, I never expressed an opinion on the unfairness of their prosecution. You argue a point that I never made. I don't think they should be treated like murders and neither should a GPL infraction. The degree of punishment is a different issue from whether or not I agree with what they're doing. I don't find that mishmash at all and if you do then that's your own problem. You do have a unique opportunity to support TPB, though, as all of your books are available there. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and replace your amazon links in your profile with TPB links.
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      Search for "Zigurd." The first download result appears on the 3rd page of Google's search results. You are implying hypocrisy where none exists, and comparing vile mafia-like tactics that pull police resources away from real crime to the way that most actual content creators deal with downloads.
zz1 12y ago
Also, on the same topic: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/studies-on-the-cultural-sector-in-the-file-sharing-era/ http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/studies-on...

oellegaard 12y ago

Svartholm hacked the Danish Police IT systems, including the driver license database. I don't think that should be allowed even in a role country.

adamtulinius 12y ago
.. but apparently the police haven't uncovered any evidence, and refuse to let him free because of fear of him tampering with evidence. His trial is scheduled to september, so basically the danish police has nothing on him (or they would just get the trial over with), and use some bogus claim to keep him in custody. So no, scandinavian countries aren't the worst, but they certainly aren't bright shining stars either. -- another dane.
- Tangokat 12y ago
  As I understand it, the evidence is a chatlog and an encrypted container. The police have had a hard time proving that he was one of the people in the chat. The encrypted container, which the police somehow broke (wonder how they did that), had data from the Danish hack and private documents which doesn't look too good. Also he avoided a sentence for hacking into Nordea in Sweden by claiming that his computer was remote controlled and they couldn't prove that it was not. I'd say it looks fairly likely that he had something to do with these crimes. Also I wouldn't say they have no evidence just that they probably don't have enough to convict. The arguments for continuing to hold him are pretty thin. He already had unsupervised meetings with family and friends so holding him because they are afraid of evidence tampering seems questionable.
- Kiro 12y ago
  Everyone knows he did it.
  - Kiro 12y ago
    People downvoting me obviously have no idea who anakata is. Stuff like this is what made him famous long before The Pirate Bay.

vinkelhake 12y ago

Sunde was tried and sentenced. He's been on the run since and hasn't served the time. Are sentences from trials ignored in role model countries?

mpyne 12y ago
> Are sentences from trials ignored in role model countries? Only sentences that we personally consider unjust. That's how the law works, isn't it?
Excavator 12y ago
He's been busy campaigning¹ during the EU elections. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fModmx3U8HI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fModmx3U8HI

marvin 12y ago

There's plenty to criticize in the Scandinavian judicial systems. Norway in particular has been criticized by the United Nations and various human rights organizations for decades, due to the indiscriminate use of long-term solitary confinement of suspects under criminal investigation. (Just today, a police officer accused of corruption was finally released after three months of solitary confinement - court-ordered as part of the police investigation). Speaking of Norway in particular, there is also the question of less clear-cut rights against regarding invasion of privacy etc. than the United States constitution provides. The counterweight is a very educated and well-respected police force. There is plenty to criticize in our contries, criticism which should definitely have a more prominent place than it does today. And I am saying this as a pretty strong supporter of the way Norway does things. The "damages" conviction of the TPB guys is another case in point: The ruling is in effect (1) a sentence to lifelong economic slavery or (2) a sentence to lifelong banishment from Sweden. Take your pick. This is not the way a modern democratic legal system should function. Similarly, criticism could also be made for the way these cases (and also the Julian Assange case, for instance) were started through external pressure rather than the regular state of affairs. Plenty of stuff that should be discussed more openly.

belorn 12y ago
Criticism was raised quite loudly when the court rewarded damages and justified it in the court document as "punishment". Damages is not allowed to be used as such, which was raised by the lawyers (if I remember right) when they appealed to the supreme court. It was also sad that the bribed policeman who did the investigation was not only given a free pass, but the police chief said "it shown that the policeman work in the case was appreciated".