10 ms·

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/S

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)

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)