8 ms·

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, mo

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.
giarc 12y ago
>It tilted people's brains into knowing that tomorrow, their favorite TV show must be downloaded somewhere else. Not sure how I feel about this. Regardless of how things have played out, I don't think people should expect free TV shows especially in the day and age of PVR/DVR/TIVO etc. I still think creators should be credited/paid for their work. EDIT - To expand, I think you can disagree with the cable companies and how they distribute programs (large packages of channels you want and some you don't) but I don't think you can disagree that the actors, cameramen, writers, riggers etc shouldn't be paid for their work.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  They should be paid for their work. They (their bosses at least) shouldn't have the power to cripple technology, limit the free flow of information, or throw people in jail to get paid. Again, we're talking about entertainment. The people working on these works are doing really cool things, but they don't have a right to get paid to do cool things. On the other hand, people should have the right to copy arbitrary bits from point A to point B. If for no other reason than freedom of speech and freedom of privacy.
  - giarc 12y ago
    I agree that torrent technology should be allowed. The Pirate Bay allowed for that and likely should be able to exist, however let's call a spade a spade. Many of the material on torrent sites is copyrighted material, the founder in his piece says people can't download their TV show tomorrow, acknowledging the fact that copyrighted material drives the site.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      Yeah, it's copyright infringement, and there's a lot of wink, wink, nudge, nudge going on that adds up to dishonesty if not outright lying. I don't claim otherwise. I just don't think copyright is an inalienable right like freedom of speech is. And being duplicitous should make you unreliable or scummy, not criminal. Barring actual fraud, of course, and I don't think all this winking adds up to fraud.
mavhc 12y ago
given http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-forever/ http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-foreve... I doubt he's the one who put up all the porn/malware ads
humanrebar 12y ago
> I'm sorry, but downloading entertain is not a human right. Making money from producing entertainment isn't a human right. Maybe certain entertainment business models aren't sustainable in the internet age. It's not like we'll run out of entertainment. Most cat-based YouTube videos are better than the Real Housewives of Schenectady anyway. And to extort and imprison people for the sake of a business model is terrible.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  >Making money from producing entertainment isn't a human right. No, but at least in the U.S., and most of the rest of the world, it is a legal right. Does that count for nothing just because we're on the internet?
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Human rights exist regardless of whether a particular legal framework honors them. Everyone has the right to speech, including the right to the private transmission of data, the right to assemble to pursue common interests, etc. Those rights have limitations when it comes to harming people, but people aren't being harmed by any particular copy of Duck Dynasty S06E03. The thing being harmed here is a business model. I vehemently disagree that someone should be fined or imprisoned in the name of a business model, especially an entertainment one. If the law says that's what happens, the law is unjust. That being said, copying things that aren't yours without permission is a jerk thing to do. That shouldn't make you a criminal, however.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Do business models not pay people's salaries? Is this not an interest worth protecting? I think you're view is in trouble (or at least, extremely radical) if it depends on the premise that no law that protects only financial interests can result in imprisonment. I think this is actually the one (perhaps only) point where copyright infringement is actually analogous to theft. Why do we prohibit shoplifting? Because shoplifting prevents a business owner from profiting off of the thing he had intended to sell, in addition to depriving him of his investment in the inventory (of course, no business owner cares much about his inventory for its own sake, he cares about it because it represents potential profit). As many will be eager to point out, intellectual property is not finite. But this only means that you're depriving the IP owner of less profit than you would be if it were a tangible good, not that it deprives him of none. You might just as well say, oh well the thief would never have bought that DVD anyway, and the business owner has millions of them (and insurance!), so it's not really something the law should worry about... Also see mc32's sibling comment with some other excellent examples.
scrollaway 12y ago
You sure talk a lot about how he was putting malware into people's computer through ads, when he himself said he's glad TPB is gone mostly because of how horrible its ads were[1]. You have a point (to the extent that it can be a point - it's just not really worth talking about anymore): downloading entertainment is not a human right. You make a very poor case of arguing that point. But I don't think anyone really argues that "downloading movies" is a human right (and those that do are full of it). The problem is very much in reverse. The problem is the lengths that Hollywood and music studios will go to PREVENT people from doing those things. And the only defense is that those things are "morally dubious", and yet a lot of people do it. Hell, it's common knowledge that Spotify did it to get their business started. So you're arguing the wrong problem. Now you tell me, is it a "right" for those companies to go above and beyond everything to prosecute and intimidate people who want entertainment they provide but are not willing to pay for it? Keeping in mind that: - Said people are not directly costing the companies anything - It's impossible to know whether said people would have paid for the content otherwise - It's impossible to know whether said people would have even known about the content were it not for illegally acquiring it The following is my subjective opinion: You are a fool if you're angry about piracy on your pet project. You should be glad people go out and look for it. You have an audience. That audience may not be entirely composed of people willing to pay for your work, but looking for such an audience is not a viable business plan. What you're getting is free advertising. What you're seeing on torrent sites is the very primitive equivalent of what happens on, for example, YouTube where you have channels and networks making more than they can ever dream off ads and sales just because they have the ability to reach so many people at such convenience. Ears and eyeballs can directly translate to wallets, given the means. But instead of Hollywood/RIAA solving that problem, we have them prosecuting potential fans. We have them shutting down audiences by raiding sites that are full of actual fans. We have them corrupting judicial and political systems one after the other. We have them influencing international treaties and agreements, taking us all for brainless cashcows. Fuck that. [1]: http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-forever/ http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-foreve...
- patzerhacker 12y ago
  > You are a fool if you're angry about piracy on your pet project. I'll tell my employees that as our company folds from lack of revenue. I'll tell my wife that as we apply for food stamps. I'll tell the that to the next person interviewing me for a job because people didn't want to pay for the value I provided.
_almosnow 12y ago
Yeah, Sunde's far from being the martyr he's trying to portrait. "8 months in jail in Sweden" is not that much of a big deal, I mean, jail is still jail but he's writing it as if he were some kind of digital Mandela, far from it, I'd argue that the publicity associated with his sentence was extremely beneficial in terms of exposure of the site and thus economical revenue. Yesterday's post about him not being OK with what TPB had become (a sexist 10th anniversary party, a site full of ads) really show how twisted the guy's mind is; he truly believes (or wants the public to believe) that his ideals are good and pristine and that the business he created had spontaneously (and against his will, yeah) became something else. Well done is better than well said; I'll believe his statements the day he spends a major part of his wealth in supporting actual charity or at least some kind of net-neutrality non-profit projects. This guy is Kim Dotcom all the way.
newaccountfool 12y ago
You do understand that the Malware has nothing to do with the website? and by that I mean that it's an adnetwork that controls what adverts that are displayed, and that many many adnetworks have been used to malvertise.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  TPB chose the types of ads they are willing to display. I consider spyware and malware the exact same thing. TPB isn't a victim of the ad networks. They hired them to put up those misleading spyware and malware ads.
  - mcb3k 12y ago
    Well, it's TPB. They might not have had much of a choice about what ad networks they were allowed to participate in. I mean, if you're running an ad network, you need to appear respectable to get respectable clients. In that case, running ads on a torrent site is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Most companies are not going to want to be associated with TPB, so most ad networks are not going to want to assocaite with TPB. So, the bottom of the barrel, scummiest ad networks are going to be what it would have to use to keep the lights on. Just my two cents though.
newaccountfool 12y ago
You seem very caught up with the Malware and Adverts, why don't you just use adblock on those websites if you don't find it acceptable.
totony 12y ago
What's with people assuming TPB is only for porn and movies? There are SO MANY THINGS that can be found on TPB: books, code, courses, videos. I don't understand why people on HN only focus on one thing. Shouldn't information be freely accessible? Why should poor people or people that live in certain places not be able to access a book about, let's say, nanoparticular physics? Why can't these people watch Ironman and observe foreign values? I personnally don't really care that TPB is down, too bad for plebs. - Written from my Samsung Galaxy S3, cause I'm American, and am worth more than plebs. PS: Sometimes, people piss me off from all their selfishness.

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.

giarc 12y ago

>It tilted people's brains into knowing that tomorrow, their favorite TV show must be downloaded somewhere else. Not sure how I feel about this. Regardless of how things have played out, I don't think people should expect free TV shows especially in the day and age of PVR/DVR/TIVO etc. I still think creators should be credited/paid for their work. EDIT - To expand, I think you can disagree with the cable companies and how they distribute programs (large packages of channels you want and some you don't) but I don't think you can disagree that the actors, cameramen, writers, riggers etc shouldn't be paid for their work.

humanrebar 12y ago
They should be paid for their work. They (their bosses at least) shouldn't have the power to cripple technology, limit the free flow of information, or throw people in jail to get paid. Again, we're talking about entertainment. The people working on these works are doing really cool things, but they don't have a right to get paid to do cool things. On the other hand, people should have the right to copy arbitrary bits from point A to point B. If for no other reason than freedom of speech and freedom of privacy.
- giarc 12y ago
  I agree that torrent technology should be allowed. The Pirate Bay allowed for that and likely should be able to exist, however let's call a spade a spade. Many of the material on torrent sites is copyrighted material, the founder in his piece says people can't download their TV show tomorrow, acknowledging the fact that copyrighted material drives the site.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Yeah, it's copyright infringement, and there's a lot of wink, wink, nudge, nudge going on that adds up to dishonesty if not outright lying. I don't claim otherwise. I just don't think copyright is an inalienable right like freedom of speech is. And being duplicitous should make you unreliable or scummy, not criminal. Barring actual fraud, of course, and I don't think all this winking adds up to fraud.

mavhc 12y ago

given http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-forever/ http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-foreve... I doubt he's the one who put up all the porn/malware ads

humanrebar 12y ago

> I'm sorry, but downloading entertain is not a human right. Making money from producing entertainment isn't a human right. Maybe certain entertainment business models aren't sustainable in the internet age. It's not like we'll run out of entertainment. Most cat-based YouTube videos are better than the Real Housewives of Schenectady anyway. And to extort and imprison people for the sake of a business model is terrible.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
>Making money from producing entertainment isn't a human right. No, but at least in the U.S., and most of the rest of the world, it is a legal right. Does that count for nothing just because we're on the internet?
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Human rights exist regardless of whether a particular legal framework honors them. Everyone has the right to speech, including the right to the private transmission of data, the right to assemble to pursue common interests, etc. Those rights have limitations when it comes to harming people, but people aren't being harmed by any particular copy of Duck Dynasty S06E03. The thing being harmed here is a business model. I vehemently disagree that someone should be fined or imprisoned in the name of a business model, especially an entertainment one. If the law says that's what happens, the law is unjust. That being said, copying things that aren't yours without permission is a jerk thing to do. That shouldn't make you a criminal, however.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Do business models not pay people's salaries? Is this not an interest worth protecting? I think you're view is in trouble (or at least, extremely radical) if it depends on the premise that no law that protects only financial interests can result in imprisonment. I think this is actually the one (perhaps only) point where copyright infringement is actually analogous to theft. Why do we prohibit shoplifting? Because shoplifting prevents a business owner from profiting off of the thing he had intended to sell, in addition to depriving him of his investment in the inventory (of course, no business owner cares much about his inventory for its own sake, he cares about it because it represents potential profit). As many will be eager to point out, intellectual property is not finite. But this only means that you're depriving the IP owner of less profit than you would be if it were a tangible good, not that it deprives him of none. You might just as well say, oh well the thief would never have bought that DVD anyway, and the business owner has millions of them (and insurance!), so it's not really something the law should worry about... Also see mc32's sibling comment with some other excellent examples.

scrollaway 12y ago

You sure talk a lot about how he was putting malware into people's computer through ads, when he himself said he's glad TPB is gone mostly because of how horrible its ads were[1]. You have a point (to the extent that it can be a point - it's just not really worth talking about anymore): downloading entertainment is not a human right. You make a very poor case of arguing that point. But I don't think anyone really argues that "downloading movies" is a human right (and those that do are full of it). The problem is very much in reverse. The problem is the lengths that Hollywood and music studios will go to PREVENT people from doing those things. And the only defense is that those things are "morally dubious", and yet a lot of people do it. Hell, it's common knowledge that Spotify did it to get their business started. So you're arguing the wrong problem. Now you tell me, is it a "right" for those companies to go above and beyond everything to prosecute and intimidate people who want entertainment they provide but are not willing to pay for it? Keeping in mind that: - Said people are not directly costing the companies anything - It's impossible to know whether said people would have paid for the content otherwise - It's impossible to know whether said people would have even known about the content were it not for illegally acquiring it The following is my subjective opinion: You are a fool if you're angry about piracy on your pet project. You should be glad people go out and look for it. You have an audience. That audience may not be entirely composed of people willing to pay for your work, but looking for such an audience is not a viable business plan. What you're getting is free advertising. What you're seeing on torrent sites is the very primitive equivalent of what happens on, for example, YouTube where you have channels and networks making more than they can ever dream off ads and sales just because they have the ability to reach so many people at such convenience. Ears and eyeballs can directly translate to wallets, given the means. But instead of Hollywood/RIAA solving that problem, we have them prosecuting potential fans. We have them shutting down audiences by raiding sites that are full of actual fans. We have them corrupting judicial and political systems one after the other. We have them influencing international treaties and agreements, taking us all for brainless cashcows. Fuck that. [1]: http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-forever/ http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-foreve...

patzerhacker 12y ago
> You are a fool if you're angry about piracy on your pet project. I'll tell my employees that as our company folds from lack of revenue. I'll tell my wife that as we apply for food stamps. I'll tell the that to the next person interviewing me for a job because people didn't want to pay for the value I provided.

_almosnow 12y ago

Yeah, Sunde's far from being the martyr he's trying to portrait. "8 months in jail in Sweden" is not that much of a big deal, I mean, jail is still jail but he's writing it as if he were some kind of digital Mandela, far from it, I'd argue that the publicity associated with his sentence was extremely beneficial in terms of exposure of the site and thus economical revenue. Yesterday's post about him not being OK with what TPB had become (a sexist 10th anniversary party, a site full of ads) really show how twisted the guy's mind is; he truly believes (or wants the public to believe) that his ideals are good and pristine and that the business he created had spontaneously (and against his will, yeah) became something else. Well done is better than well said; I'll believe his statements the day he spends a major part of his wealth in supporting actual charity or at least some kind of net-neutrality non-profit projects. This guy is Kim Dotcom all the way.

newaccountfool 12y ago

You do understand that the Malware has nothing to do with the website? and by that I mean that it's an adnetwork that controls what adverts that are displayed, and that many many adnetworks have been used to malvertise.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
TPB chose the types of ads they are willing to display. I consider spyware and malware the exact same thing. TPB isn't a victim of the ad networks. They hired them to put up those misleading spyware and malware ads.
- mcb3k 12y ago
  Well, it's TPB. They might not have had much of a choice about what ad networks they were allowed to participate in. I mean, if you're running an ad network, you need to appear respectable to get respectable clients. In that case, running ads on a torrent site is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Most companies are not going to want to be associated with TPB, so most ad networks are not going to want to assocaite with TPB. So, the bottom of the barrel, scummiest ad networks are going to be what it would have to use to keep the lights on. Just my two cents though.

newaccountfool 12y ago

You seem very caught up with the Malware and Adverts, why don't you just use adblock on those websites if you don't find it acceptable.

totony 12y ago

What's with people assuming TPB is only for porn and movies? There are SO MANY THINGS that can be found on TPB: books, code, courses, videos. I don't understand why people on HN only focus on one thing. Shouldn't information be freely accessible? Why should poor people or people that live in certain places not be able to access a book about, let's say, nanoparticular physics? Why can't these people watch Ironman and observe foreign values? I personnally don't really care that TPB is down, too bad for plebs. - Written from my Samsung Galaxy S3, cause I'm American, and am worth more than plebs. PS: Sometimes, people piss me off from all their selfishness.