7 ms·

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 p

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.
egocodedinsol 12y ago
fwiw, he might concede that illegal downloads are theft, but assert that digital property is also theft. In that case, I could see TPB defending those goals, or at least attacking their opposition. (not an endorsement just pointing it out, blah blah blah)
- humanrebar 12y ago
  I don't anyone should concede that copying data is theft. Since theft implies an unlawful transfer of ownership. Copying data and deleting the original is theft.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I don't know about that. When Target or Walmart or whatever credit card processor experiences a data breach and customer data is exposed it's considered data theft and treated as such as well. While we can't compare digital goods with physical goods in a 1:1 manner because they have different properties, so far, aspects as it concerns the law treat them similarly. Aspects of this may or may not change over time, however, in the meantime they are what they are. It's like physics. Till the consensus changes, current accepted theory applies, even if there are gaps. In the end, "theft" is just reapplying old nomenclature to new phenomena. We could call it something else, give the behavior a new name and then have society turn around and apply the same laws, would that make things any better?
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      The actual crime is the fraud committed when someone pretends to be someone else and runs up debts in their name with "stolen" credit card numbers. There are ancillary crimes that revolve around trying to keep credit card numbers secure, but taking my credit card number doesn't mean I don't have it anymore. That's not to say it isn't a scummy thing to do.
      - mc32 12y ago
        My examples could result in fraud, but aren't the kind you're talking about. You getting a hold of thousands, millions of credit cards without consent or some other agreement is a criminal offense. Let's get away from CC numbers. Just get a hold of thousands, millions of people's PHI through the same means. Get a hold of BEA's secret blue prints for future products.
agmcleod 12y ago
So, so agreed.
boracay 12y ago
You act like one of those guys he talks about in the article. Judging people from the sidelines and telling them what they should have done without remotely knowing the story.
- mseebach 12y ago
  But on the other hand "I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?" judges me from the sidelines without remotely knowing my story because I didn't go to jail.
  - boracay 12y ago
    Not really since he is a participant in the subject at hand i.e. he is not on the sidelines.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>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. // I think there is an issue of rights and freedoms. With a capitalist economy certain elements of culture are effectively reserved for the wealthy. In other state structures those making the cultural artefacts that we use to express our selves, to link, to coalesce on common sentiment, those could be sufficiently supported to make all cultural artefacts free-gratis and free-libre. The democratisation of media particularly through availability of music and film - which are so central to our cultural experience - means that many who would otherwise be [partially] excluded from participation in today's culture (for better or worse) can take part. Moreover, copyright was initially set up with a view to ensuring that eventually the wealth locked up in shared experience, cultural introspection, confrontation with new ideas and different aspects of the culture would be freed in to the public domain. The actions of media corporations, the use of DRM, these things (amongst others I'm sure) act to prevent entry to the public domain. DRM in particular breaks the copyright deal, if we the people aren't going to get our side of the copyright bargain why should we uphold the side that suits those financial interested in media production? Usually with a contract if one side breaks the terms then the contract is nullified - surely this morally should be true too of copyright. In short, I think to assume that this is solely an issue of 'people who could pay to consume media choosing not to' is wrong, that there is a greater depth to this and that the likes of TPB have made a change to the access to the culture of the age making it [more] available to those of restricted means. I think this can make for more cohesion in society. Possibly too it makes for more homogeneity, that may not be a good thing however if the principle messages being passed (and shared) in society are those coming from Hollywood. I feel there's much more to say on this. But I'll stop. /rant Edit: cleaned up some verbosity.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Moreover, copyright was initially set up with a view to ensuring that eventually the wealth locked up in shared experience, cultural introspection, confrontation with new ideas and different aspects of the culture would be freed in to the public domain. That's not the only theory of copyright. In Europe, copyright has traditionally been viewed in terms of the moral rights of creators to control their work. In many European countries, authors have perpetual rights to, e.g., prohibit alterations of their creative works.
humanrebar 12y ago
> 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. And he was making a moral argument founded in religious principles. He was literally risking martyrdom in order to fight for justice in the name of his God. And he ultimately was murdered for his work. It might not sound relevant to an agnostic or atheist, but I don't see how you can get there from here if "there" is Dr. King and "here" is a secular argument for the right to share files. At the end of the day, in his theology, King would have enjoyed success just for fighting even if his efforts changed zero minds and were swept away in a flood of racism and indifference. It's the difference between "we can make a difference" and "we are making a difference... let's see how much more we can do".
mbillie1 12y ago
> 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 I find this argument completely fallacious. Does it change the value of a thing if someone takes a risk for it? Ought we respect the causes of suicide bombers, since they gave their lives for them?
- mathetic 12y ago
  Yes, it does. I will never advocate violence but if you look at the reasons that lead to that horrific moment in the suicide bomber's life, then you might see something even more terrifying than the act itself. Sure, you can blame it on bigotry or ignorance, but it turns out suicide bombers on average are more intelligent and well-educated than those in their society [0]. Camus attempts to explain this in his essay The Rebel. He says a person keeps saying yes until the moment that he says no. The person who rebels is one who thinks the consequences of his actions are less important than those produced by conforming. So maybe you should consider respecting someone who thinks taking his life and innocent lives to make a point, or at least respect the point he is trying to make. You can find all sort of things wrong with what I stated above but you cannot possibly ignore the fact that Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right. He didn't hurt anyone except himself. Unless you can explain all these with insanity, which I don't think you have the qualifications to do, you shouldn't completely find this fallacious. [0] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289823327.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289823327.html
  - rev_bird 12y ago
    > He didn't hurt anyone except himself. I'm not sure which side of this I'm on, to be honest, but I haven't seen any evidence that there isn't _any_ economic damage done by illegal downloading. > Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right This may be true, but it's not like this wasn't a winning venture for him. At a certain point, it could have just been a question of whether he was willing to gamble that he'd gain millions of dollars rather than get locked up.
tzakrajs 12y ago
> He deserves a lot of respect for that no matter what people think about the morality of what he helped to create. One could respect a lot of bad people with this poor reasoning. Is respect the word you mean? Or do you mean awe?
ElComradio 12y ago
> 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. This is so very true and why I can't stand it when people say things like "I may disagree but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That person will do no such thing. She will not go risk her life for the right of Westboro Baptist Church, the Klan or Bill Cosby to have their say. If a law was passed muzzling Dick Cheney, she would not be in the streets rioting. It's melodramatic, preening, self-serving nonsense.

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.

egocodedinsol 12y ago

fwiw, he might concede that illegal downloads are theft, but assert that digital property is also theft. In that case, I could see TPB defending those goals, or at least attacking their opposition. (not an endorsement just pointing it out, blah blah blah)

humanrebar 12y ago
I don't anyone should concede that copying data is theft. Since theft implies an unlawful transfer of ownership. Copying data and deleting the original is theft.
- mc32 12y ago
  I don't know about that. When Target or Walmart or whatever credit card processor experiences a data breach and customer data is exposed it's considered data theft and treated as such as well. While we can't compare digital goods with physical goods in a 1:1 manner because they have different properties, so far, aspects as it concerns the law treat them similarly. Aspects of this may or may not change over time, however, in the meantime they are what they are. It's like physics. Till the consensus changes, current accepted theory applies, even if there are gaps. In the end, "theft" is just reapplying old nomenclature to new phenomena. We could call it something else, give the behavior a new name and then have society turn around and apply the same laws, would that make things any better?
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    The actual crime is the fraud committed when someone pretends to be someone else and runs up debts in their name with "stolen" credit card numbers. There are ancillary crimes that revolve around trying to keep credit card numbers secure, but taking my credit card number doesn't mean I don't have it anymore. That's not to say it isn't a scummy thing to do.
    - mc32 12y ago
      My examples could result in fraud, but aren't the kind you're talking about. You getting a hold of thousands, millions of credit cards without consent or some other agreement is a criminal offense. Let's get away from CC numbers. Just get a hold of thousands, millions of people's PHI through the same means. Get a hold of BEA's secret blue prints for future products.

agmcleod 12y ago

So, so agreed.

boracay 12y ago

You act like one of those guys he talks about in the article. Judging people from the sidelines and telling them what they should have done without remotely knowing the story.

mseebach 12y ago
But on the other hand "I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?" judges me from the sidelines without remotely knowing my story because I didn't go to jail.
- boracay 12y ago
  Not really since he is a participant in the subject at hand i.e. he is not on the sidelines.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

>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. // I think there is an issue of rights and freedoms. With a capitalist economy certain elements of culture are effectively reserved for the wealthy. In other state structures those making the cultural artefacts that we use to express our selves, to link, to coalesce on common sentiment, those could be sufficiently supported to make all cultural artefacts free-gratis and free-libre. The democratisation of media particularly through availability of music and film - which are so central to our cultural experience - means that many who would otherwise be [partially] excluded from participation in today's culture (for better or worse) can take part. Moreover, copyright was initially set up with a view to ensuring that eventually the wealth locked up in shared experience, cultural introspection, confrontation with new ideas and different aspects of the culture would be freed in to the public domain. The actions of media corporations, the use of DRM, these things (amongst others I'm sure) act to prevent entry to the public domain. DRM in particular breaks the copyright deal, if we the people aren't going to get our side of the copyright bargain why should we uphold the side that suits those financial interested in media production? Usually with a contract if one side breaks the terms then the contract is nullified - surely this morally should be true too of copyright. In short, I think to assume that this is solely an issue of 'people who could pay to consume media choosing not to' is wrong, that there is a greater depth to this and that the likes of TPB have made a change to the access to the culture of the age making it [more] available to those of restricted means. I think this can make for more cohesion in society. Possibly too it makes for more homogeneity, that may not be a good thing however if the principle messages being passed (and shared) in society are those coming from Hollywood. I feel there's much more to say on this. But I'll stop. /rant Edit: cleaned up some verbosity.

rayiner 12y ago
> Moreover, copyright was initially set up with a view to ensuring that eventually the wealth locked up in shared experience, cultural introspection, confrontation with new ideas and different aspects of the culture would be freed in to the public domain. That's not the only theory of copyright. In Europe, copyright has traditionally been viewed in terms of the moral rights of creators to control their work. In many European countries, authors have perpetual rights to, e.g., prohibit alterations of their creative works.

humanrebar 12y ago

> 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. And he was making a moral argument founded in religious principles. He was literally risking martyrdom in order to fight for justice in the name of his God. And he ultimately was murdered for his work. It might not sound relevant to an agnostic or atheist, but I don't see how you can get there from here if "there" is Dr. King and "here" is a secular argument for the right to share files. At the end of the day, in his theology, King would have enjoyed success just for fighting even if his efforts changed zero minds and were swept away in a flood of racism and indifference. It's the difference between "we can make a difference" and "we are making a difference... let's see how much more we can do".

mbillie1 12y ago

> 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 I find this argument completely fallacious. Does it change the value of a thing if someone takes a risk for it? Ought we respect the causes of suicide bombers, since they gave their lives for them?

mathetic 12y ago
Yes, it does. I will never advocate violence but if you look at the reasons that lead to that horrific moment in the suicide bomber's life, then you might see something even more terrifying than the act itself. Sure, you can blame it on bigotry or ignorance, but it turns out suicide bombers on average are more intelligent and well-educated than those in their society [0]. Camus attempts to explain this in his essay The Rebel. He says a person keeps saying yes until the moment that he says no. The person who rebels is one who thinks the consequences of his actions are less important than those produced by conforming. So maybe you should consider respecting someone who thinks taking his life and innocent lives to make a point, or at least respect the point he is trying to make. You can find all sort of things wrong with what I stated above but you cannot possibly ignore the fact that Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right. He didn't hurt anyone except himself. Unless you can explain all these with insanity, which I don't think you have the qualifications to do, you shouldn't completely find this fallacious. [0] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289823327.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289823327.html
- rev_bird 12y ago
  > He didn't hurt anyone except himself. I'm not sure which side of this I'm on, to be honest, but I haven't seen any evidence that there isn't _any_ economic damage done by illegal downloading. > Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right This may be true, but it's not like this wasn't a winning venture for him. At a certain point, it could have just been a question of whether he was willing to gamble that he'd gain millions of dollars rather than get locked up.

tzakrajs 12y ago

> He deserves a lot of respect for that no matter what people think about the morality of what he helped to create. One could respect a lot of bad people with this poor reasoning. Is respect the word you mean? Or do you mean awe?

ElComradio 12y ago

> 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. This is so very true and why I can't stand it when people say things like "I may disagree but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That person will do no such thing. She will not go risk her life for the right of Westboro Baptist Church, the Klan or Bill Cosby to have their say. If a law was passed muzzling Dick Cheney, she would not be in the streets rioting. It's melodramatic, preening, self-serving nonsense.