14 ms·

Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

366 points by butwhy 12y ago

k-mcgrady 12y ago
He went to jail for creating a website that enabled people to download music and movies without paying for them. Jail is a harsh punishment IMO for that. ACTA/SOPA etc. are all terrible things that we can't allow and we can't allow the internet to become more centralised/controlled by government. But that's not why he went to jail. Enabling illegal downloads of content has little to do with those causes.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Agreed. Freedom on the Internet != Piracy. I can't really remember this guy doing anything for freedom, except freedom to download Hollywood entertainment for free. I mean, sure, I pirate, but I sure don't pretend it's virtuous.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    So the guy ran a website which greatly increased the chances of him going to jail, while at the same time being hardly the best way to increase his personal wealth (even just switching to a "locker site" would be much more profitable). It's fine to think it's wrong, but why is that so hard to believe he's sincere, and not just "pretending"?
    - pionar 12y ago
      Just because someone's sincere doesn't mean he's not an idiot. Just because something doesn't make a profit doesn't mean it's virtuous. The Doom floppies I gave out in high school didn't make me a profit (I only charged as much as the floppies cost), but that didn't make it virtuous. Which I don't see why everyone thinks TPB was a non-profit. They were pulling in hundreds of thousands a month via ads, way more than their costs, I would think. But we won't know, because there was no transparency.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    personally, the use for bittorrent is long tail, niche software that has become obsolete and is no longer viable commercially and therefore not available. the idea of the few people that have it being able to share it with the many that may eventually need or want it, is something that the centralised "cloud" based services cannot compete with. so you may think there's no virtue, but there is in spades. you are blinded by your own piracy.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      That's the theory. Turns out, though, that anything that's not really popular is hard to get hold of on TPB. It's usually easier to get hold of obscure content commercially.
      - throwawayaway 12y ago
        it's a fact not a theory in my experience. your experience differs. big deal, fact is - it works for me - it has virtue, the fact that it didn't work for you does nothing to change that. also i infer from the immediacy with which you changed from niche obsolete software, to "obscure content" leads me to conclude you are talking about ripping off producers of low volume content who are still in business - again - blinded by your own piracy.
        tormeh 12y ago
        Yeah, that's fair. I guess it's different for software.
      - maccard 12y ago
        > It's usually easier to get hold of obscure content commercially. Unfortunately, your definition of osbscure depends on where in the world you're located. iTunes don't provide the same catalogue in the US and the UK or Ireland, Netflix don't provide the same catalogue. BBC documentaries are freely available in the UK online, but extremely difficult to get in Ireland without buying a physical copy, and up until last year, I didn't have a DVD or Blu ray player in my apartment
  - solarc 12y ago
    Hollywood is just the testbed. If you can transmit Hollywood stuff to the masses without a way for them to stop you, then you can transmit other more important information when the time comes.
    - pionar 12y ago
      Tinfoil much?
- the8472 12y ago
  He believes that information should be free to share. And you also argue that basically providing links should be illegal. Since TPB doesn't do any of the copying, it does not host any copyrighted content itself, it's just a central index. So until the content industry got their way in the courts and laws were altered in various countries this wasn't illegal at all. And he is fighting against the meta-information being outlawed. Pretty much the same deal as illegal primes.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "And you also argue that basically providing links should be illegal" I specifically avoided saying this. By providing those links they 'enabled' downloading of content illegally.
    - the8472 12y ago
      And "enabling" copyright infringement was not illegal in many jurisdictions until the content industry either created case law or lobbied for laws to be altered. Policy changes he opposes.
    - Drakim 12y ago
      The issue for me is then, where do we draw the line of "enabling" copyright infringement? I'm pretty sure that if certain industries had their way in the 90s, peer2peer communication between regular people would be illegal for "enabling" copyright infringement. Considering that the US government forbade the export high level encryption, it's not hard to think they would also forbid any peer2peer communication not going though a "certified and approved" server, if the winds had gone that way. The bottom line is, crimes should be illegal, tools should not be illegal, even if they enable crime. If you have a tool that can ONLY be used for illegal purposes, you might have a good case, but even pirate bay had links to legal content, that got taken down along with the links to the illegal content.
    - phillc73 12y ago
      This whole argument disappoints me. Every manufacturer of a DVD or CD Writer has "enabled" illegal copying and potential distribution of copyrighted content. I haven't seen any of those entities reprimanded for their product manufacture.
- icebraining 12y ago
  What makes you think those causes are the ones he's talking about? There are more causes to promote besides the ones you like.
- tomp 12y ago
  And Manning went to jail for revealing government secrets about government crimes. And Snowden cannot return home because he revealed that people are being spied on. It's very easy to say, "he went to jail because what he did was illegal". It's harder to say "he went to jail despite what he did was right". I support TPB's cause. I believe that non-profit sharing of information should be free.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Wait wait. You're telling me Sunde is comparable to Snowden and Manning? Wat.
    - Quequau 12y ago
      The comment you're replying to defines both how Sunde's, Snowden's, & Manning's actions are different and provides context for the very limited comparison being made. If you don't agree, you should just argue your point because your straw man is just pathetic.
    - cturner 12y ago
      There is a watertight rights basis for opposing copyright. Copyright is a major structural threat to our freedoms. Our governments are founded generally on rights, which extend from a general principle of live-and-let-live. Copyright is an anti-right. Each time it comes into effect, it removes rights away from everyone except the copyright holder. You might say - that's just words. But it's not. Both in software and law, when you have permissions systems that mix up positive and negative rights with one side ruining the other one. That is what we see with copyright. A continuing encroachment on our positive rights on the basis of the state's desire to enforce the anti-right. The state will invade your house, jail and deport you... because of things you're doing with publicly released information and magnetic signals in the privacy of your own home. Once a positive right has been eroded by a single case of an anti-right winning, that serves as precedent for removing it in other cases. Have a think about it the next time you're working on a permission system and are tempted to create a permission that denies a right to someone. As you follow it through, you'll find you've created an unholy mess. Stick to positive rights. Update: hi, haters. Feel free to be constructive, too.
- realusername 12y ago
  And what's the alternative ? The world is not the United States, in most countries of the world, there is simply no legal way to get a movie/tv show on the Internet. I'm not even talking about 3rd world countries here, Netflix (the only service which is good enough to compare to Torrents) just barely arrived in Europe and their list of movies is so poor, it's not even worth talking about it. Torrents are not working only because it's free but because it's the easier/only option in most places.
  - pionar 12y ago
    > there is simply no legal way to get a movie/tv show on the Internet. Yes, how dare someone not sell their widget everywhere! If Ford won't sell me a car in Argentina, I'll just go steal it! It's a freedom issue! I must be able to legally watch Friends!
    - icebraining 12y ago
      The correct analogy is: Ford doesn't sell a Ford in Argentina, but a legal owner of a Ford car offered to give you a copy of hers/his, and you accepted it.
      - jkaunisv1 12y ago
        Except that your friend can't just click a button and send you a copy of their Ford. Your analogy makes no sense, Fords aren't made of bits.
        icebraining 12y ago
        Exactly. I was trying to show that analogies between digital content and physical things don't make sense.
        jkaunisv1 12y ago
        Ah..that wasn't clear. My bad.
- FlyingSnake 12y ago
  Gandhi went to jail for picking up salt from a beach, which was also illegal. Legality of some act is not a fundamental law of science and shouldn't be treated as such.
  - company 12y ago
    So, now we are comparing online piraters to Gandhi?
    - forgottenpass 12y ago
      Yes! Comparisons exist for pointing out the similarities between two things and inviting some "compare and contrast" critical thinking. Comparisons don't have to assert equality, which is why people that say things like "Godwin's Law" are the worst. Either you can articulate the difference between an aspect of the Nazi regime and whatever you're arguing for, to move the conversation onto those differences, or you can't. Godwin is only useful when the conversation has run it's course and devolved into a flamewar. You're already implicitly comparing the two when speak dismissively of the idea of "comparing" them. There are better ways of nipping a tangent in the bud.
    - medecau 12y ago
      Wouldn't it be online pirates to tax evaders?
- pothibo 12y ago
  What a narrow view you have. Torrent makes it accessible to see things you have paid for but didn't have time/forgot to watch (TV series). They also make it accessible to get stuff you couldn't (Not because it's available in USA that it is in every country). That's crazy that someone went to jail for running TPB when the MPAA and RIAA are big monopolies that control how much we should spend on stuff. It's not a free market. Get your head out of the sand. The only reason the iTunes model has come to exist is because of torrents and illegal sharing. And people (myself included) buy a lot of stuff from the iTunes Store now. Netflix exists because of illegal sharing. And even though Netflix is pretty awesome, look at what all the established companies are doing to try to screw with Netflix. Such a narrow view.
  - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
    >Netflix exists because of illegal sharing. And even though Netflix is pretty awesome, look at what all the established companies are doing to try to screw with Netflix. And let us not forget that Netflix is still unavailable in many countries (pick any Eastern European Country, EU countries included). And where it is available, many titles from the US Netflix are not available. Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly.
    - danielalmeida 12y ago
      > Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly. I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Btw, there is no monopoly in the music or gaming industry (not that I know of, at least). There are laws for monopoly issues.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        It's "breaking the law" in the same way that violating the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is "breaking the law". The laws we're comparing have some interesting parallels too: * Usually they're way too strict given the conditions * They're not re-evaluated often enough * Their usefulness in modern society is debatable * Both are often not used for their original purpose * The consequences for breaking them are usually minimal, unless you're being flagrant, or: * The enforcers sometimes choose to crack down and make an example out of you, despite the fact that: * The supposed harm caused by disregarding them is dubious, and in fact: * Arguments can be made that disregarding them is a net positive * People who outsource their moral compasses to the legal system usually choose one of these to demonize people for (ignoring that obedience to law isn't an inherently noble thing) * Said people also usually compare the law to something it's not. (YOU'RE LITERALLY ENDANGERING CHILDREN/YOU'RE LITERALLY STEALING)
tomp 12y ago
I feel this is a very important article with a very important message, but I'm just not sure what I can do to help! They have money, guns, political support, media and very powerful, highly emotional rhetoric. The only thing I can do is hack on software, but most people don't care enough about "geeky stuff". I feel that the only way this issues will get resolved is if they get much, much worse first (i.e. high-profile people jailed for what they say, internet controlled China-style, disappearance of middle class, ...).
- scrrr 12y ago
  Well you can always hack on decentralised, encrypted, hidden peer to peer chat, or other open software alternatives of high quality for all the services we use every day and so forth. If media is a problem, work on solutions for anonymous publishing etc.. if the software is good enough (including having a good ui and whatnot), it's less geeky. After all, people adopted BitTorrent, which is quite geeky!
  - the8472 12y ago
    Providing technical workarounds for broken policy can only do so much. It doesn't fix policy. It can only help avoiding enforcement. Which might lead to court cases where they try to make an example of a poor sap they have caught. This has already happened to some extent with peer to peer file sharing. a) only few individual users get caught and dragged through the courts, but they get slapped with damages in the hundred-thousands[1]. b) there is no big mafia boss responsible for everything they could hold accountable. So now they go after companies making software[2] or after sites such as TPB. Not on the premises that they did anything illegal themselves but that they enabled others to do so. So who says that the net of what's illegal won't get cast even wider in the future if someone were to develop something that's even harder for them to prosecute? Or one could even argue that evasion through technology leads to policy becoming even more restrictive, even if that restrictive policy remains largely ineffective except for those few that actually get hit by it. I'm not saying that the technology shouldn't be developed, I'm just saying that it doesn't automatically make society more free by itself. It just provides an underground in which one may move. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_....
stolenip 12y ago
To Peter Sunde: "We..."? You are a profiteer from illegal intellectual property theft. When my work end up on your past websites, I lose money. With diminshing income from my labor, I lose freedom. Freedom to have a voice, to do what I love, to have access to the Internet/telephones/mail/transport/shelter... You are scum, not an activist. You have done fuck all but profited from fraudalent adverts.
lorddoig 12y ago
When did stealing other peoples' life work segue from a guilty necessity to a noble cause? I missed that.
- the8472 12y ago
  Stealing? Do we really need to rehash the old theft vs. copyright infringement argument?
  - rhino369 12y ago
    The idea that theft can only happen to physical stuff is part semantics and part myth. Things like theft of service don't include physical goods. Stealing: to take another person's property without permission or legal right Intellectual property is property in every sense of the word. The argument, "BUT I'm copying not taking!" is treating the property as the digital file, but that file merely represents the intellectual property. So is the argument that the person isn't harmed because its merely a copy. First, stealing doesn't have to the mean the person suffered real harm. You can steal something I forgot I own, it won't hurt me but it is theft. But the major issue is that copyright infringement does in the aggregate hurt content creators. Shoplifting and copyright infringement are essentially the same level of harm to businesses.
- kefka 12y ago
  When did imprisoning people for standing up for free speech not become a noble cause? Also, show me one thing he copied without permission.
- butwhy 12y ago
  You could say the same thing about Youtube in the beginning. Except for the fact that Youtube was even worse because people were uploading copyrighted material there and it was actually hosted by them and existed in the US. Whereas TPB was in Sweden and only linked to files.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Well, lots of people did say the same thing about YouTube. That's why they were sued.
jfaucett 12y ago
I think the problem is that no one realizes the internet we grew up with and loved is changing fundamentally and we can't be passivist users of the medium anymore. If you are you're basically saying you're okay with a future where governments regulate which services you can use and ISPs control how fast you can download bits based on whether you're using their sponsored services or not. Its bullshit but its what's happening. At its core though, I think its a hardware problem. We REALLY need a decentralized networking solution to replace ISPs and DNS and if we don't get it, the road is going to be really hard going. This still doesn't solve the problem of intercontentinal networking, and I have no idea how we could solve that one without some monopoly/govt controlling everything.
- Swizec 12y ago
  It's not a hardware problem, it's a convenience problem. People like that there's somebody else worrying about this. They are willing to do almost anything it takes so they don't have to worry about issues of basic infrastructure. We already do this with water, electricity, and other infrastructure. Anything it takes as long as I can get water/power/trash-taken-out just by flipping a switch and paying a bill. We, as a society, do not want to think about this. As long as the internet is there when we open a laptop or a phone, we don't care how it got there.
  - jfaucett 12y ago
    I agree with everything you've said and might rephrase my statement into a its a "lacking service" problem. But I still think the hardware and technology has to exists - which as far as I know is currently not the case, so that startups and entrepreneurs can provide what you are talking about to customers. Anyone, who can choose between state survellianced/traffic prioritized internet and a survelliance free/encrypted/net neutral internet will take the later option all other things being equal.
  - ep103 12y ago
    I don't think we as a society don't want to think about this. I think that society at large just assumes that the internet IS regulated as a utility. Up until now, the major ISPs haven't taken an active role in speeding up, shaping or censoring content that non-geeks even really know about.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 12y ago
The man choosed to do what he did, but when they were heavily fined I already felt an obligation to pay a part of it, as I was a regular user before that. About the future of the web and other larger social questions, I find it hard to believe.. when it's mostly movies and tv shows (even though there was some hard to find vintage content on it sometimes). Lastly, as for anything, when technology N is unavailable, we go back to N-1. We won't stream the latest show from the other side of the planet right from peers in real time but well.
- rjaco31 12y ago
  >We won't stream the latest show from the other side of the planet right from peers in real time but well. Ain't that what Popcorn Time is doing?
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    But Popcorn relies on public trackers to do, or is it fully distributed ?
karmacondon 12y ago
Many don't agree with the principles of TPB, but Sunde was willing to take risks for what he believed in. He deserves a lot of respect for that no matter what people think about the morality of what he helped to create. Most people go their whole lives without caring strongly about any issue at all, and almost all of those that do care are willing to sacrifice exactly nothing. I'd like to think that I would be willing to give up everything for what I believe is right. But everyone likes to think that. And most of us will never find out, not how Sunde did. That said, everyone also wants to be a martyr. TPB wasn't about rights or freedoms or standing up to government oppression. People used it primarily to obtain media and software without paying for it. It does sound like a noble crusade when he expands the context to include SOPA or PIPA or net neutrality, but TPB isn't really related to those things and served only as a rallying point for people who feel strongly about them. The ideal of freedom of information is only tangential to fighting the good fights that he listed in the opening of the piece. The truth is that Sunde didn't have to go to jail. TPB's popularity gave him a platform and helped him to centralize an ideological movement. But there are other ways to do that, significantly more effective ways. Martin Luther King (as an example, not a comparison) went to jail too, but he also went to the right schools, wore a suit and influenced the right people. Creating a popular and morally dubious website is a quick way to put your ideas into the spotlight. But it doesn't last, and it doesn't really change anything. His effort and conviction are genuinely admirable but he's still a long way from winning the battles that matter.
- josu 12y ago
  The willingness to die for your ideas is the main subject of Camus's philosophical writeup "The Myth of Sisyphus".
  - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
    There are several elements that make up ethical, effective support for a cause. Willing to put the cause ahead of your own well-being is sometimes one of them. Also important is to change strategy/tactics as a result of new information; to consider new ideas/arguments; accepting that the ends don't justify the means; and be willing to live for the cause, rather than die for it.
etiam 12y ago
Do you think he's being ironic about the cell phones? Seems like a strange stance on them if he's all in favor of skipping Facebook, for similar reasons and with similar consequences.
thetmkay 12y ago
I don't agree with all (or most) of the principles of TPB, but I can appreciate his criticism of slacktivism. He had his beliefs, stood by them against the law, and served his time for it. It's unjustified to criticise a lack of action on his part. My only concern with his methods would be if he hurt people in the process (indirectly through TPB). Also I fail to see how it was an effective protest against the things he mentioned in the article (SOPA, PIPA etc).
josefresco 12y ago
Last paragraph was biting and very powerful - side note: Who sends a copy of 1984 to Peter Sunde in prison? "My feeling of some life-altering insight might be nothing but rants on the spoiled, lazy and naive parts of our internet community. And maybe I'm using those terms just to piss people off a little bit more. But hey. I went to jail for my cause and your TV shows. What did you do? You want that copy of Orwell's 1984 returned? I'll take one of the 25 copies I got sent to me in jail and send it back to you. Maybe you'll read it instead of just sending it to someone else to take care of."
jqm 12y ago
He mentions Snowden and Manning, but he left Dread Pirate Ulbricht off the list of comparative figures. A real shame because that may actually be a more accurate comparison.
danielalmeida 12y ago
> "What people reveal, what people fight for, are major causes. Freedom of information. Liberty. Democracy. Governmental transparency and due process." I have a really hard time trying to link this with my experience on TPB. It's all about downloading stuff without paying for it. Honestly, that's it. I'm not proud of that, I'm not saying it's a noble thing to do. I really don't get what trying to "determine" what should or shouldn't be free by sharing other people's stuff without their permission has to do with freedom.
- marknutter 12y ago
  Well, to be pedantic, TPB never actually shares content with anybody. It just links people to other people who are sharing content. And it isn't always copyrighted content. The point isn't to help people steal stuff, it's to help people share information, regardless of whatever arbitrary laws exist about sharing information. That's a worthy cause, IMO.
  - danielalmeida 12y ago
    I'm not going into the "sharing links vs sharing content" debate. > And it isn't always copyrighted content. True, it isn't ALWAYS, but I guess it's mostly copyrighted. > The point isn't to help people steal stuff, it's to help people share information, regardless of whatever arbitrary laws exist about sharing information. That's a worthy cause, IMO. I do think we should be able to share information freely, not necessarily share whatever I want. My problem is with the "regardless of whatever arbitrary laws exist about sharing information" part.
    - marknutter 12y ago
      > I'm not going into the "sharing links vs sharing content" debate. That's fine, because I see no problem with sharing content either. I'd rather debate on those terms. If you don't want information shared, don't release it to the public. If your livelihood is based on placing artificial constraints on the work of artists for profit, then maybe you should consider a career change. The middle men are becoming increasingly useless as we become more connected. Artists can raise money on their own and distribute their art for free, and they can still earn a living charging for actual physical things like merchandise and seating at venues.
SixSigma 12y ago
What I did was finance a feature film and get it released on DVD. Shame some people think that they can just take all my investment and piss it on to the internet.
smoyer 12y ago
“The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.” - Wilhelm Stekel I think we need Peter Sundes in this world to keep the rest of us vigilant ... I'm not sure going to jail for a cause really helps much either. While I admire him for sticking to his principles, I'd rather he was out in the world doing his work.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
This is a complex issue. While I believe copying without compensation is bad, and not something to feel proud of, I also understand the position of a Chinese or a person from Ghana that have to work 15 times more to be able to access the same item than an American. The West has used countries like Ghana to dump technological trash that make children get malformations and cancer. Think on this for a moment: what does 20 dollars means for you, now multiply it x15. Now if you want to access an important resource for you or your family like a book, what do you do? You pirate it. Most of the people in this world economic power is closer to the people of Ghana that to the people in California. Copyright is out of control, it should be like patents 20 years, with the extensions it is becoming eternal and making impossible to reuse any work legally.
mrfusion 12y ago
Some similar thoughts: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
I'm sorry, but downloading entertainment is not a human right. He didn't exactly feed starving people by breaking the law. He put up a torrent aggregator to, mostly, Hollywood movies and shoved aggressive and high-revenue porn and malware ads into every nook and cranny of that site. HN and those passionate about internet freedoms deserve better heroes than guys like Sunde, Dotcom, and Ulbricht. These guys very much enriched themselves via what was essentially a web based business and any "freedom fighter" argument is pretty disingenuous at this point. Personally, I see malware coming from ad networks and other dirty tricks TPB did as a bigger issue than being able to watch Spiderman 3 without paying. Honestly, now he's painting himself as a some anti-spying hero when his site was the #1 vector of aggressive spy and malware onto people's computers? I mean, it fucking took over the search box when you clicked on it and launched a download to suspicious-toolbar.exe immediately. What link actually took you to the torrent? Not the dozen of so "DOWNLOAD NOW" buttons Sunde happily populated his site with. We need less of that stuff, please.
- edgarallenbro 12y ago
  > I'm sorry, but downloading entertain is not a human right. Yes, it is. You know why? Because innovation is essential to humanity. Like the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey, we are the ones who use tools to overcome. It's how we survive. This is true whether its a better way to store clean water in Africa or a better way to acquire entertainment to keep us from killing ourselves in America. Before TPB, media monopolies were more than willing to take their sweet time moving away from overpriced physical media into digital distribution. With TPB around, all the sudden media distributors had to compete with free digital distribution, which paled physical media in comparison. Rising to the challenge, we got Netflix, Steam, and Spotify. Competing with them now we have things like Hulu, GOG, and Google Play. TL;DR Fuck off with your lawful-good nonsense
- debacle 12y ago
  I think if you're doing something illegal, you should assume that you are putting yourself in danger. TPB is like walking down a dark hallway to score some drugs. There are loose women, people trying to scam you, and people trying to lead you astray.
- 12y ago
swamp40 12y ago
Subtitle: "Even bad guys are Heroes in their own Story."
tambourine_man 12y ago
I went to jail for my cause. What did you do? A bit tu quoque, not the best way to engage people, IMO
_lce0 12y ago
Wow all I see here is top-paid man-hours being used to produce a wall of text. I'm not against discussion, but look at what are we doing, arguing to each others instead of just producing something valuable.
gglitch 12y ago
I see many people in this thread debating (1) whether Sunde is some sort of freedom fighter, and (2) the ethics of intellectual property law. In my interpretation Sunde is mainly arguing that people who are criticizing him for not defending TPB should instead get their hands dirty and make something that sidesteps the established internet control structures, for better or worse. I don't think that's such a controversial idea.
joesmo 12y ago
I think what most people here are missing is that TPB didn't actually host any illegal content and yet it still got shut down and its members sent to jail. Sunde went to jail for free speech and distributing completely legal files. I think that's implicit and am rather surprised that it's a point missed by so many people. In that sense, it's a lot more egregious than Manning or Snowden because, AFAIK, he did not commit any crimes. Perhaps he wants it to be a warning to people like many of the commenters here who are deriding or belittling his actions yet still claim to support free speech. If the files he distributed contained freely available chemistry information, would he have been sent to jail for assisting others in making bombs or poison? That seems rather ridiculous, but that's essentially what equating his actions with piracy is actually doing.
Marazan 12y ago
I like the way he selflessly teamed up with a Neo-Nazi. How noble. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay_neo_nazi/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay_neo_nazi/
GoldenHomer 12y ago
This sucks, I didn't get to download a car.

366 points by butwhy 12y ago

He went to jail for creating a website that enabled people to download music and movies without paying for them. Jail is a harsh punishment IMO for that. ACTA/SOPA etc. are all terrible things that we can't allow and we can't allow the internet to become more centralised/controlled by government. But that's not why he went to jail. Enabling illegal downloads of content has little to do with those causes.

tormeh 12y ago
Agreed. Freedom on the Internet != Piracy. I can't really remember this guy doing anything for freedom, except freedom to download Hollywood entertainment for free. I mean, sure, I pirate, but I sure don't pretend it's virtuous.
- icebraining 12y ago
  So the guy ran a website which greatly increased the chances of him going to jail, while at the same time being hardly the best way to increase his personal wealth (even just switching to a "locker site" would be much more profitable). It's fine to think it's wrong, but why is that so hard to believe he's sincere, and not just "pretending"?
  - pionar 12y ago
    Just because someone's sincere doesn't mean he's not an idiot. Just because something doesn't make a profit doesn't mean it's virtuous. The Doom floppies I gave out in high school didn't make me a profit (I only charged as much as the floppies cost), but that didn't make it virtuous. Which I don't see why everyone thinks TPB was a non-profit. They were pulling in hundreds of thousands a month via ads, way more than their costs, I would think. But we won't know, because there was no transparency.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  personally, the use for bittorrent is long tail, niche software that has become obsolete and is no longer viable commercially and therefore not available. the idea of the few people that have it being able to share it with the many that may eventually need or want it, is something that the centralised "cloud" based services cannot compete with. so you may think there's no virtue, but there is in spades. you are blinded by your own piracy.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    That's the theory. Turns out, though, that anything that's not really popular is hard to get hold of on TPB. It's usually easier to get hold of obscure content commercially.
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      it's a fact not a theory in my experience. your experience differs. big deal, fact is - it works for me - it has virtue, the fact that it didn't work for you does nothing to change that. also i infer from the immediacy with which you changed from niche obsolete software, to "obscure content" leads me to conclude you are talking about ripping off producers of low volume content who are still in business - again - blinded by your own piracy.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        Yeah, that's fair. I guess it's different for software.
    - maccard 12y ago
      > It's usually easier to get hold of obscure content commercially. Unfortunately, your definition of osbscure depends on where in the world you're located. iTunes don't provide the same catalogue in the US and the UK or Ireland, Netflix don't provide the same catalogue. BBC documentaries are freely available in the UK online, but extremely difficult to get in Ireland without buying a physical copy, and up until last year, I didn't have a DVD or Blu ray player in my apartment
- solarc 12y ago
  Hollywood is just the testbed. If you can transmit Hollywood stuff to the masses without a way for them to stop you, then you can transmit other more important information when the time comes.
  - pionar 12y ago
    Tinfoil much?
the8472 12y ago
He believes that information should be free to share. And you also argue that basically providing links should be illegal. Since TPB doesn't do any of the copying, it does not host any copyrighted content itself, it's just a central index. So until the content industry got their way in the courts and laws were altered in various countries this wasn't illegal at all. And he is fighting against the meta-information being outlawed. Pretty much the same deal as illegal primes.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "And you also argue that basically providing links should be illegal" I specifically avoided saying this. By providing those links they 'enabled' downloading of content illegally.
  - the8472 12y ago
    And "enabling" copyright infringement was not illegal in many jurisdictions until the content industry either created case law or lobbied for laws to be altered. Policy changes he opposes.
  - Drakim 12y ago
    The issue for me is then, where do we draw the line of "enabling" copyright infringement? I'm pretty sure that if certain industries had their way in the 90s, peer2peer communication between regular people would be illegal for "enabling" copyright infringement. Considering that the US government forbade the export high level encryption, it's not hard to think they would also forbid any peer2peer communication not going though a "certified and approved" server, if the winds had gone that way. The bottom line is, crimes should be illegal, tools should not be illegal, even if they enable crime. If you have a tool that can ONLY be used for illegal purposes, you might have a good case, but even pirate bay had links to legal content, that got taken down along with the links to the illegal content.
  - phillc73 12y ago
    This whole argument disappoints me. Every manufacturer of a DVD or CD Writer has "enabled" illegal copying and potential distribution of copyrighted content. I haven't seen any of those entities reprimanded for their product manufacture.
icebraining 12y ago
What makes you think those causes are the ones he's talking about? There are more causes to promote besides the ones you like.
tomp 12y ago
And Manning went to jail for revealing government secrets about government crimes. And Snowden cannot return home because he revealed that people are being spied on. It's very easy to say, "he went to jail because what he did was illegal". It's harder to say "he went to jail despite what he did was right". I support TPB's cause. I believe that non-profit sharing of information should be free.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Wait wait. You're telling me Sunde is comparable to Snowden and Manning? Wat.
  - Quequau 12y ago
    The comment you're replying to defines both how Sunde's, Snowden's, & Manning's actions are different and provides context for the very limited comparison being made. If you don't agree, you should just argue your point because your straw man is just pathetic.
  - cturner 12y ago
    There is a watertight rights basis for opposing copyright. Copyright is a major structural threat to our freedoms. Our governments are founded generally on rights, which extend from a general principle of live-and-let-live. Copyright is an anti-right. Each time it comes into effect, it removes rights away from everyone except the copyright holder. You might say - that's just words. But it's not. Both in software and law, when you have permissions systems that mix up positive and negative rights with one side ruining the other one. That is what we see with copyright. A continuing encroachment on our positive rights on the basis of the state's desire to enforce the anti-right. The state will invade your house, jail and deport you... because of things you're doing with publicly released information and magnetic signals in the privacy of your own home. Once a positive right has been eroded by a single case of an anti-right winning, that serves as precedent for removing it in other cases. Have a think about it the next time you're working on a permission system and are tempted to create a permission that denies a right to someone. As you follow it through, you'll find you've created an unholy mess. Stick to positive rights. Update: hi, haters. Feel free to be constructive, too.
realusername 12y ago
And what's the alternative ? The world is not the United States, in most countries of the world, there is simply no legal way to get a movie/tv show on the Internet. I'm not even talking about 3rd world countries here, Netflix (the only service which is good enough to compare to Torrents) just barely arrived in Europe and their list of movies is so poor, it's not even worth talking about it. Torrents are not working only because it's free but because it's the easier/only option in most places.
- pionar 12y ago
  > there is simply no legal way to get a movie/tv show on the Internet. Yes, how dare someone not sell their widget everywhere! If Ford won't sell me a car in Argentina, I'll just go steal it! It's a freedom issue! I must be able to legally watch Friends!
  - icebraining 12y ago
    The correct analogy is: Ford doesn't sell a Ford in Argentina, but a legal owner of a Ford car offered to give you a copy of hers/his, and you accepted it.
    - jkaunisv1 12y ago
      Except that your friend can't just click a button and send you a copy of their Ford. Your analogy makes no sense, Fords aren't made of bits.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Exactly. I was trying to show that analogies between digital content and physical things don't make sense.
        jkaunisv1 12y ago
        Ah..that wasn't clear. My bad.
FlyingSnake 12y ago
Gandhi went to jail for picking up salt from a beach, which was also illegal. Legality of some act is not a fundamental law of science and shouldn't be treated as such.
- company 12y ago
  So, now we are comparing online piraters to Gandhi?
  - forgottenpass 12y ago
    Yes! Comparisons exist for pointing out the similarities between two things and inviting some "compare and contrast" critical thinking. Comparisons don't have to assert equality, which is why people that say things like "Godwin's Law" are the worst. Either you can articulate the difference between an aspect of the Nazi regime and whatever you're arguing for, to move the conversation onto those differences, or you can't. Godwin is only useful when the conversation has run it's course and devolved into a flamewar. You're already implicitly comparing the two when speak dismissively of the idea of "comparing" them. There are better ways of nipping a tangent in the bud.
  - medecau 12y ago
    Wouldn't it be online pirates to tax evaders?
pothibo 12y ago
What a narrow view you have. Torrent makes it accessible to see things you have paid for but didn't have time/forgot to watch (TV series). They also make it accessible to get stuff you couldn't (Not because it's available in USA that it is in every country). That's crazy that someone went to jail for running TPB when the MPAA and RIAA are big monopolies that control how much we should spend on stuff. It's not a free market. Get your head out of the sand. The only reason the iTunes model has come to exist is because of torrents and illegal sharing. And people (myself included) buy a lot of stuff from the iTunes Store now. Netflix exists because of illegal sharing. And even though Netflix is pretty awesome, look at what all the established companies are doing to try to screw with Netflix. Such a narrow view.
- NotOscarWilde 12y ago
  >Netflix exists because of illegal sharing. And even though Netflix is pretty awesome, look at what all the established companies are doing to try to screw with Netflix. And let us not forget that Netflix is still unavailable in many countries (pick any Eastern European Country, EU countries included). And where it is available, many titles from the US Netflix are not available. Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly.
  - danielalmeida 12y ago
    > Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly. I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Btw, there is no monopoly in the music or gaming industry (not that I know of, at least). There are laws for monopoly issues.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      It's "breaking the law" in the same way that violating the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is "breaking the law". The laws we're comparing have some interesting parallels too: * Usually they're way too strict given the conditions * They're not re-evaluated often enough * Their usefulness in modern society is debatable * Both are often not used for their original purpose * The consequences for breaking them are usually minimal, unless you're being flagrant, or: * The enforcers sometimes choose to crack down and make an example out of you, despite the fact that: * The supposed harm caused by disregarding them is dubious, and in fact: * Arguments can be made that disregarding them is a net positive * People who outsource their moral compasses to the legal system usually choose one of these to demonize people for (ignoring that obedience to law isn't an inherently noble thing) * Said people also usually compare the law to something it's not. (YOU'RE LITERALLY ENDANGERING CHILDREN/YOU'RE LITERALLY STEALING)

tomp 12y ago

I feel this is a very important article with a very important message, but I'm just not sure what I can do to help! They have money, guns, political support, media and very powerful, highly emotional rhetoric. The only thing I can do is hack on software, but most people don't care enough about "geeky stuff". I feel that the only way this issues will get resolved is if they get much, much worse first (i.e. high-profile people jailed for what they say, internet controlled China-style, disappearance of middle class, ...).

scrrr 12y ago
Well you can always hack on decentralised, encrypted, hidden peer to peer chat, or other open software alternatives of high quality for all the services we use every day and so forth. If media is a problem, work on solutions for anonymous publishing etc.. if the software is good enough (including having a good ui and whatnot), it's less geeky. After all, people adopted BitTorrent, which is quite geeky!
- the8472 12y ago
  Providing technical workarounds for broken policy can only do so much. It doesn't fix policy. It can only help avoiding enforcement. Which might lead to court cases where they try to make an example of a poor sap they have caught. This has already happened to some extent with peer to peer file sharing. a) only few individual users get caught and dragged through the courts, but they get slapped with damages in the hundred-thousands[1]. b) there is no big mafia boss responsible for everything they could hold accountable. So now they go after companies making software[2] or after sites such as TPB. Not on the premises that they did anything illegal themselves but that they enabled others to do so. So who says that the net of what's illegal won't get cast even wider in the future if someone were to develop something that's even harder for them to prosecute? Or one could even argue that evasion through technology leads to policy becoming even more restrictive, even if that restrictive policy remains largely ineffective except for those few that actually get hit by it. I'm not saying that the technology shouldn't be developed, I'm just saying that it doesn't automatically make society more free by itself. It just provides an underground in which one may move. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_....

stolenip 12y ago

To Peter Sunde: "We..."? You are a profiteer from illegal intellectual property theft. When my work end up on your past websites, I lose money. With diminshing income from my labor, I lose freedom. Freedom to have a voice, to do what I love, to have access to the Internet/telephones/mail/transport/shelter... You are scum, not an activist. You have done fuck all but profited from fraudalent adverts.

lorddoig 12y ago

When did stealing other peoples' life work segue from a guilty necessity to a noble cause? I missed that.

the8472 12y ago
Stealing? Do we really need to rehash the old theft vs. copyright infringement argument?
- rhino369 12y ago
  The idea that theft can only happen to physical stuff is part semantics and part myth. Things like theft of service don't include physical goods. Stealing: to take another person's property without permission or legal right Intellectual property is property in every sense of the word. The argument, "BUT I'm copying not taking!" is treating the property as the digital file, but that file merely represents the intellectual property. So is the argument that the person isn't harmed because its merely a copy. First, stealing doesn't have to the mean the person suffered real harm. You can steal something I forgot I own, it won't hurt me but it is theft. But the major issue is that copyright infringement does in the aggregate hurt content creators. Shoplifting and copyright infringement are essentially the same level of harm to businesses.
kefka 12y ago
When did imprisoning people for standing up for free speech not become a noble cause? Also, show me one thing he copied without permission.
butwhy 12y ago
You could say the same thing about Youtube in the beginning. Except for the fact that Youtube was even worse because people were uploading copyrighted material there and it was actually hosted by them and existed in the US. Whereas TPB was in Sweden and only linked to files.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Well, lots of people did say the same thing about YouTube. That's why they were sued.

jfaucett 12y ago

I think the problem is that no one realizes the internet we grew up with and loved is changing fundamentally and we can't be passivist users of the medium anymore. If you are you're basically saying you're okay with a future where governments regulate which services you can use and ISPs control how fast you can download bits based on whether you're using their sponsored services or not. Its bullshit but its what's happening. At its core though, I think its a hardware problem. We REALLY need a decentralized networking solution to replace ISPs and DNS and if we don't get it, the road is going to be really hard going. This still doesn't solve the problem of intercontentinal networking, and I have no idea how we could solve that one without some monopoly/govt controlling everything.

Swizec 12y ago
It's not a hardware problem, it's a convenience problem. People like that there's somebody else worrying about this. They are willing to do almost anything it takes so they don't have to worry about issues of basic infrastructure. We already do this with water, electricity, and other infrastructure. Anything it takes as long as I can get water/power/trash-taken-out just by flipping a switch and paying a bill. We, as a society, do not want to think about this. As long as the internet is there when we open a laptop or a phone, we don't care how it got there.
- jfaucett 12y ago
  I agree with everything you've said and might rephrase my statement into a its a "lacking service" problem. But I still think the hardware and technology has to exists - which as far as I know is currently not the case, so that startups and entrepreneurs can provide what you are talking about to customers. Anyone, who can choose between state survellianced/traffic prioritized internet and a survelliance free/encrypted/net neutral internet will take the later option all other things being equal.
- ep103 12y ago
  I don't think we as a society don't want to think about this. I think that society at large just assumes that the internet IS regulated as a utility. Up until now, the major ISPs haven't taken an active role in speeding up, shaping or censoring content that non-geeks even really know about.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 12y ago

The man choosed to do what he did, but when they were heavily fined I already felt an obligation to pay a part of it, as I was a regular user before that. About the future of the web and other larger social questions, I find it hard to believe.. when it's mostly movies and tv shows (even though there was some hard to find vintage content on it sometimes). Lastly, as for anything, when technology N is unavailable, we go back to N-1. We won't stream the latest show from the other side of the planet right from peers in real time but well.

rjaco31 12y ago
>We won't stream the latest show from the other side of the planet right from peers in real time but well. Ain't that what Popcorn Time is doing?
- agumonkey 12y ago
  But Popcorn relies on public trackers to do, or is it fully distributed ?

karmacondon 12y ago

Many don't agree with the principles of TPB, but Sunde was willing to take risks for what he believed in. He deserves a lot of respect for that no matter what people think about the morality of what he helped to create. Most people go their whole lives without caring strongly about any issue at all, and almost all of those that do care are willing to sacrifice exactly nothing. I'd like to think that I would be willing to give up everything for what I believe is right. But everyone likes to think that. And most of us will never find out, not how Sunde did. That said, everyone also wants to be a martyr. TPB wasn't about rights or freedoms or standing up to government oppression. People used it primarily to obtain media and software without paying for it. It does sound like a noble crusade when he expands the context to include SOPA or PIPA or net neutrality, but TPB isn't really related to those things and served only as a rallying point for people who feel strongly about them. The ideal of freedom of information is only tangential to fighting the good fights that he listed in the opening of the piece. The truth is that Sunde didn't have to go to jail. TPB's popularity gave him a platform and helped him to centralize an ideological movement. But there are other ways to do that, significantly more effective ways. Martin Luther King (as an example, not a comparison) went to jail too, but he also went to the right schools, wore a suit and influenced the right people. Creating a popular and morally dubious website is a quick way to put your ideas into the spotlight. But it doesn't last, and it doesn't really change anything. His effort and conviction are genuinely admirable but he's still a long way from winning the battles that matter.

josu 12y ago
The willingness to die for your ideas is the main subject of Camus's philosophical writeup "The Myth of Sisyphus".
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  There are several elements that make up ethical, effective support for a cause. Willing to put the cause ahead of your own well-being is sometimes one of them. Also important is to change strategy/tactics as a result of new information; to consider new ideas/arguments; accepting that the ends don't justify the means; and be willing to live for the cause, rather than die for it.

etiam 12y ago

Do you think he's being ironic about the cell phones? Seems like a strange stance on them if he's all in favor of skipping Facebook, for similar reasons and with similar consequences.

thetmkay 12y ago

I don't agree with all (or most) of the principles of TPB, but I can appreciate his criticism of slacktivism. He had his beliefs, stood by them against the law, and served his time for it. It's unjustified to criticise a lack of action on his part. My only concern with his methods would be if he hurt people in the process (indirectly through TPB). Also I fail to see how it was an effective protest against the things he mentioned in the article (SOPA, PIPA etc).

josefresco 12y ago

Last paragraph was biting and very powerful - side note: Who sends a copy of 1984 to Peter Sunde in prison? "My feeling of some life-altering insight might be nothing but rants on the spoiled, lazy and naive parts of our internet community. And maybe I'm using those terms just to piss people off a little bit more. But hey. I went to jail for my cause and your TV shows. What did you do? You want that copy of Orwell's 1984 returned? I'll take one of the 25 copies I got sent to me in jail and send it back to you. Maybe you'll read it instead of just sending it to someone else to take care of."

jqm 12y ago

He mentions Snowden and Manning, but he left Dread Pirate Ulbricht off the list of comparative figures. A real shame because that may actually be a more accurate comparison.

danielalmeida 12y ago

> "What people reveal, what people fight for, are major causes. Freedom of information. Liberty. Democracy. Governmental transparency and due process." I have a really hard time trying to link this with my experience on TPB. It's all about downloading stuff without paying for it. Honestly, that's it. I'm not proud of that, I'm not saying it's a noble thing to do. I really don't get what trying to "determine" what should or shouldn't be free by sharing other people's stuff without their permission has to do with freedom.

marknutter 12y ago
Well, to be pedantic, TPB never actually shares content with anybody. It just links people to other people who are sharing content. And it isn't always copyrighted content. The point isn't to help people steal stuff, it's to help people share information, regardless of whatever arbitrary laws exist about sharing information. That's a worthy cause, IMO.
- danielalmeida 12y ago
  I'm not going into the "sharing links vs sharing content" debate. > And it isn't always copyrighted content. True, it isn't ALWAYS, but I guess it's mostly copyrighted. > The point isn't to help people steal stuff, it's to help people share information, regardless of whatever arbitrary laws exist about sharing information. That's a worthy cause, IMO. I do think we should be able to share information freely, not necessarily share whatever I want. My problem is with the "regardless of whatever arbitrary laws exist about sharing information" part.
  - marknutter 12y ago
    > I'm not going into the "sharing links vs sharing content" debate. That's fine, because I see no problem with sharing content either. I'd rather debate on those terms. If you don't want information shared, don't release it to the public. If your livelihood is based on placing artificial constraints on the work of artists for profit, then maybe you should consider a career change. The middle men are becoming increasingly useless as we become more connected. Artists can raise money on their own and distribute their art for free, and they can still earn a living charging for actual physical things like merchandise and seating at venues.

SixSigma 12y ago

What I did was finance a feature film and get it released on DVD. Shame some people think that they can just take all my investment and piss it on to the internet.

smoyer 12y ago

“The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.” - Wilhelm Stekel I think we need Peter Sundes in this world to keep the rest of us vigilant ... I'm not sure going to jail for a cause really helps much either. While I admire him for sticking to his principles, I'd rather he was out in the world doing his work.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

This is a complex issue. While I believe copying without compensation is bad, and not something to feel proud of, I also understand the position of a Chinese or a person from Ghana that have to work 15 times more to be able to access the same item than an American. The West has used countries like Ghana to dump technological trash that make children get malformations and cancer. Think on this for a moment: what does 20 dollars means for you, now multiply it x15. Now if you want to access an important resource for you or your family like a book, what do you do? You pirate it. Most of the people in this world economic power is closer to the people of Ghana that to the people in California. Copyright is out of control, it should be like patents 20 years, with the extensions it is becoming eternal and making impossible to reuse any work legally.

mrfusion 12y ago

Some similar thoughts: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

I'm sorry, but downloading entertainment is not a human right. He didn't exactly feed starving people by breaking the law. He put up a torrent aggregator to, mostly, Hollywood movies and shoved aggressive and high-revenue porn and malware ads into every nook and cranny of that site. HN and those passionate about internet freedoms deserve better heroes than guys like Sunde, Dotcom, and Ulbricht. These guys very much enriched themselves via what was essentially a web based business and any "freedom fighter" argument is pretty disingenuous at this point. Personally, I see malware coming from ad networks and other dirty tricks TPB did as a bigger issue than being able to watch Spiderman 3 without paying. Honestly, now he's painting himself as a some anti-spying hero when his site was the #1 vector of aggressive spy and malware onto people's computers? I mean, it fucking took over the search box when you clicked on it and launched a download to suspicious-toolbar.exe immediately. What link actually took you to the torrent? Not the dozen of so "DOWNLOAD NOW" buttons Sunde happily populated his site with. We need less of that stuff, please.

edgarallenbro 12y ago
> I'm sorry, but downloading entertain is not a human right. Yes, it is. You know why? Because innovation is essential to humanity. Like the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey, we are the ones who use tools to overcome. It's how we survive. This is true whether its a better way to store clean water in Africa or a better way to acquire entertainment to keep us from killing ourselves in America. Before TPB, media monopolies were more than willing to take their sweet time moving away from overpriced physical media into digital distribution. With TPB around, all the sudden media distributors had to compete with free digital distribution, which paled physical media in comparison. Rising to the challenge, we got Netflix, Steam, and Spotify. Competing with them now we have things like Hulu, GOG, and Google Play. TL;DR Fuck off with your lawful-good nonsense
debacle 12y ago
I think if you're doing something illegal, you should assume that you are putting yourself in danger. TPB is like walking down a dark hallway to score some drugs. There are loose women, people trying to scam you, and people trying to lead you astray.
12y ago

swamp40 12y ago

Subtitle: "Even bad guys are Heroes in their own Story."

tambourine_man 12y ago

I went to jail for my cause. What did you do? A bit tu quoque, not the best way to engage people, IMO

_lce0 12y ago

Wow all I see here is top-paid man-hours being used to produce a wall of text. I'm not against discussion, but look at what are we doing, arguing to each others instead of just producing something valuable.

gglitch 12y ago

I see many people in this thread debating (1) whether Sunde is some sort of freedom fighter, and (2) the ethics of intellectual property law. In my interpretation Sunde is mainly arguing that people who are criticizing him for not defending TPB should instead get their hands dirty and make something that sidesteps the established internet control structures, for better or worse. I don't think that's such a controversial idea.

joesmo 12y ago

I think what most people here are missing is that TPB didn't actually host any illegal content and yet it still got shut down and its members sent to jail. Sunde went to jail for free speech and distributing completely legal files. I think that's implicit and am rather surprised that it's a point missed by so many people. In that sense, it's a lot more egregious than Manning or Snowden because, AFAIK, he did not commit any crimes. Perhaps he wants it to be a warning to people like many of the commenters here who are deriding or belittling his actions yet still claim to support free speech. If the files he distributed contained freely available chemistry information, would he have been sent to jail for assisting others in making bombs or poison? That seems rather ridiculous, but that's essentially what equating his actions with piracy is actually doing.

Marazan 12y ago

I like the way he selflessly teamed up with a Neo-Nazi. How noble. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay_neo_nazi/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay_neo_nazi/

GoldenHomer 12y ago

This sucks, I didn't get to download a car.