The Pirate Bay has announced that it is dropping torrent files in favor of magnet links to keep up with current trends. “Magnet is now default, Download torrent is now where the magnet links used to be,’ said the group said on its blog. “The reason is the same as always: Magnets are now good enough to use, and it's not as easy …
Tbh "The Pirate Bay"'s name is also a lie, innit? The law in fact defines piracy as an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. No but seriously, look it up.
So please change the deceptive name of _your_ organisation, and stop lying.
Maybe this song will help:
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We pillage plunder, we rifle and loot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We extort and pilfer, we filch and sack.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Maraud and embezzle and even highjack.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
There's a hole in the world like a great black pit
and it's filled with people who are filled with shit!
And the vermin of the world inhabit it!
And it smells like an internet forum.
Oops. The lyrics to the pirate song appear to be copyright (Disney, 1967). I hope you obtained permission from the rights holder before copying them and sharing them on the Internet?
He shoots. He scores!
Well played, sir.
I think you will find that it was the 'entertainment' industries that attached the name pirate to copyright infringers to make it sound worse than it actually is going right back to the days of 'pirate' radio as they operated from ships where the law couldn't touch them. This has now backfired on them as the moniker has been adopted with pride.
How about this for a spell?
I've been busy writing a book.
You happen to give it an evil look.
One day what's taken me an age
has been copied from me, page for page.
I intended to sell it to make a dollar.
Now everyone has it without a holler.
A living lost, my money taken.
That's theft, if I am not mistaken.
Not interested anyway?
Why's my work seeing the light of day?
Oh, that cliffhanger at the end?
Don't bother waiting—I've hung my pen.
BTW, if you should ever find a copy of the old EA game Hard Nova, read the inside cover. Has its own interesting spin on the whole piracy deal, and it's the basis for this little poem.
YOU. WIN. THE INTERNET.
In the US, that would be covered by fair use. So, technically, he's not being a hypocrite.
*cue a bunch of people assuming this post means I want to fire a bazooka into a crowd of SOPA protesters*
"The Pirate Bay" name...
...is a piss-take of those who think merely SHARING something is equivocal to firing cannonballs into a ship, swinging across on a rope, running people through with a sword, hoisting the Skull & Bones, then sailing off into the sunset, singing "Fifteen Men On The Dead Man's Chest", whilst rogering the cabin boy.
The "Federation Against Copyright Theft", OTOH, is a bunch of gangsters in suits who peddle propaganda about copyright infringement being "theft" by, amongst other things, choosing a grammatically nonsensical name for themselves that actually suggests its possible to "steal a copyright".
This presumably entails planning a heist of the IPO office in Newport, forcing open a locked filing cabinet with a jemmy, then making off with a copyright application form in a high speed chase through Newport in a Mini Cooper.
Since this fictional scenario is quite comical, and thus fails to elicit the desired response of outrage and horror, F.A.C.T. needed to embellish it even further with images of cars being stolen and little old ladies being mugged, to stigmatise the act of sharing as something equivocal to committing violent crime, for the same reason the MAFIAA® liken it to looting a ship and killing its passengers.
Whereas in reality, sharing is not any sort of "violence", it isn't "piracy", it isn't "counterfeiting", it isn't "mugging", it isn't "theft", and moreover it isn't even any sort of "loss" whatsoever, since those who can pay invariably do pay, and those who can't - won't, irrespective of whether or not they can get this precious "IP" for free on The Pirate Bay. IOW the concept of a "lost sale" in this scenario is, much like the propaganda terms used to describe it, a work of utter fiction.
Aaarg! Ye sunk that landlubber wi' a single shot t' his bow, straight down t' Davy Jones locker.
Fair use? Nope.
He's not commenting on the song.
He's not critiquing the song
He's not parodying the song
He's not using it in a reporting of the news.
In fact he's using it as it was designed to be used.
No fair use provision at all. 100% infringement.
"...choosing a grammatically nonsensical name for themselves that actually suggests its possible to "steal a copyright".
A very wise man once told me that when you resort to arguing semantics, you've lost the point.....
It was not the entertainment industries that "attached the name pirate to copyright infringers", and certainly not going "right back to the days of pirate radio". Extended figurative uses of "piracy", including for unauthorised reproduction of creative works, have been around far longer, since at least 1606, which was before copyright was invented.
And "pirate radio" wasn't called that because of unauthorised copying, but because they were broadcasting without a licence. The name has historically been attached to just about anything illegal or even which the speaker merely disapproves of. For example, on 16 Jul 1897 the Prime Minister spoke in the House of Lords about "theological piracy" in the context of a debate about church schools and non-conformists in Wales.
There are other fair use qualifications - non-commercial use, excerpting, intent, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but afaik there aren't hard and fast rules saying, "This vannot be fair use because it does not fit these categories", but it -must- be fair use if it -does-. There is a near-zero chance that the post would be considered infringement here.
Hyperbole is fun (particularly when used to attack another country one dislikes, it seems) but in a discussion about an area where truth is stranger, and sadder, than fiction, exercising exaggeration to make a political point only muddies the waters.
Now, where's the required, "Haha I copywrite air, now you can't breathe LOL" post? I seem to have missed it..
Tell it to the Beaks
When you go to court tell the Beaks it's OK to violate copyright law and see how that works for ya.
"OK to violate"
I don't need to think it's "OK to violate" a law just to recognise that the law in question is not what propagandists try to portray it as.
If some "IP" troll thinks he's "lost" something, then he's more than welcome to try to explain to the Beaks exactly what it is he thinks he's "lost", but until the establishment of that fact, no actual loss can be assumed.
The fact of copyright (or any other "IP") infringement is not in contention, but in and of itself that doesn't mean very much.
Counterfeiting is illegal...
This is why printing your own banknotes is generally frowned upon.
When you make a copy of something that has inherent value, you _reduce_ its inherent value with the copy. You ARE taking something from someone: you're reducing the intrinsic value of the work they put into creating it in the first place. Make too many copies and the intrinsic value of that work effectively becomes zero. Which means the creator(s) of the work get nothing at all in return for their efforts. This is despite having *already put in the effort needed to create* the work. So they get _less_ than nothing: they _lose out_.
We've all got to eat, pay the rent, and buy clothes for ourselves and our families. How is someone whose primary talent is music or writing supposed to earn a living if you remove their ability to do so?
Why should someone be allowed to make money from building a house and leasing it at a monthly rate, while someone else is NOT allowed to make money from creating something like a novel, or a new orchestral or choral work and charging for that to pay _their_ bills? A house may last 100-200 years or so; a novel or a song can last _forever_.
Either our work has value, or it does not. Which is it? That's what this issue boils down to.
I think you're right, ive had a successful week and my employer should reap the benefit for years. Would be nice if I could charge them indefinitely. Oh wait I can't.
In your example the guy building the house will have fronted a lot of cash and is unlikely to cover that without selling/leasing. You also wouldnt get done if you built an exact copy, you've not deprived him of anything.
Whilst I agree creators should be paid, current copyright terms are far in excess of what they should be, media companies are trying to extradite and the quality of mainstream output seems to be declining. Is it any wonder people dont want to pay? Sure some will always chose free, but some want to pay for something decent.
An items intrinsic value is only what someone is willing to pay for it. Doesnt matter if the price tag says £10 if the majority think its worth less then thats all you can expect to get (you are of course free to just not sell in the first place)
"reducing the intrinsic value"
Someone takes a photo of your car. Is your car suddenly worth less than before? How about if they build a model, or a full-scale replica?
As for "how to feed your family": get a job you lazy git!
[snip quasi-Dickensian sob story]
Oh, and copyright infringement isn't "counterfeiting" either. It IS the same entity, not an attempt to recreate it in the same image, then fraudulently claim to be its authentic creator. The entity itself IS authentic, no matter where it is. The only part that ISN'T authentic is its distribution (unauthorised copying).
This is an unavoidable consequence of something ethereal like "IP", which unlike REAL property can simultaneously exist in many places at the same time, and yet still be the original, genuine article. If it weren't the same entity, then the "rights" owner couldn't claim copyright infringement. He'd have to look at trademark or patent law instead, if applicable.
This "counterfeiting" nonsense is the same bullshit propaganda as "theft" and "piracy".
The reason these propagandists have such difficulty articulating an accurate analogy to copyright infringement (especially one that elicits sympathy for a supposed victim's "loss"), is because there isn't one. "IP" is an unnatural aberration without equal, for which there is never any actual "loss", except the highly naive and actually quite arrogant presumption of a "lost sale", usually accompanied by sob stories, rhetoric and meaningless statistics.
"This is why printing your own banknotes is generally frowned upon."
I thought that was called "Quantitative Easing"
Banks do it all the time. No problem.
Re: "reducing the intrinsic value"
Talk about missing the point.
Of course taking a photo of your car doesn't reduce its value. Neither does taking any photo of any car reduce either the value of the cars being photographed or the value of other photographs of cars. Why not? Because photographs of cars, and, indeed, cars themselves are extremely common these days. Most photographs (and certainly photographs of cars) in and of themselves don't contain much intrinsic value anymore. Cameras, like cars, are plentiful and any Muppet with half a braincell can point a camera at a car and take a picture. It is possible to make money from photography, but probably not as much these days as it was, say, seventy years ago.
Contrast taking a photo of a car, to painting a picture of a car. Yes, most people could, given enough time, paint something which 99% of the population would probably be able to recognise as a car. But only a few people, let's call them 'Artists', are capable of creating truly brilliant paintings of cars on canvas. These unique creations are worth money. Potentially lots of money - depending on how good the painting is, and how popular the artist happens to be at the time. Now, let's assume one well known artist, creates a modern masterpiece which is deemed to be worth 'a lot of money'. Taking a photo of that painting, doesn't reduce its value. Taking a million photos doesn't either. No matter how many photos are taken and reproduced, there's still only one painting, which is worth 'a lot of money'. However, if someone invented a machine that could reproduce an atomically identical, indistinguishable copy of that painting, what would its value then be? If you mass produced atomically identical duplicates, nobody would be able to tell which was the original, and all copies would become worthless. (If you can't prove your version of the painting is the original, you wouldn't be able to sell it for any more than the person next to you, the prices would plummet, the value would be lost.)
The same principle is true for all forms of creativity, but it's a little harder to appreciate the value of a piece of music or a film in this digital age of ours, where there is no original copy that can be readily identified as such. Original copies of sheet music of yesteryear have recognisable value, as do reels of film, or handwritten manuscripts. But when something is created on a computer, or shot with a digital camera it's not so easy to identify. It's still there though.
"Atomically identical copies make it worthless"
If making "atomically identical" copies of something makes it "worthless", then please explain how content providers make money on the sale of digital music, video, books and software, every copy of which is "atomically identical".
Surely all those copies should be FREE! After all, they're "worthless".
Welcome aboard, ma Buccaneer!
Most income, certainly in the music and film industries, is received through sales of related merchandise. The small (percentage wise) revenue obtained through the sales of the original works comes from the fact that the vast majority of people who want a copy of "whatever" are willing to pay for it, and, in most cases, not willing to break whatever copyright laws exist that prohibit the free duplication of such works. Up until very recently there was no digital option for books (and indeed, owning a physical copy of a book will always be considered more valuable than owning a digital copy), and most software developers spend large sums of money implementing licensing systems and copy protection mechanisms to prevent the free copying of their products.
The original point I was making, is that the actual (and perceived) value of most modern, digitally produced works of art is incredibly low. I would argue software (excluding games) is probably valued higher than the other genres you mentioned because it usually returns its user value through reducing time spent on whatever job is being performed.
> This is why printing your own banknotes is generally frowned upon.
But counterfeiting is *not* theft.
So it is with copyright infringement; many of us frown upon it, and many of us support the enforcement of copyright, but we still object to the outright lies that are peddled about it being theft.
In the UK, theft is defined by the Theft Act 1968. You will not find copyright infringement listed within it - indeed, the definition of theft quite clearly precludes copying becoming included in it.
So spare us your false dichotomies.
"Most income derived through merchandise"
"IP" is a license to print money, and you know it.
Years ago, some boffin deduced the material costs (i.e. everything including marketing, distribution and salaries) of a CD was (IIRC) about 20p per unit, on the sale of an album costing upwards of £15. The remaining £14.80 was all "IP" money, i.e. your "license" to listen to that music - a "license", BTW, that seems to magically disappear whenever you need to replace the physical media, or obtain it in a new format (Why don't we just have to pay material costs? Are we "licensed", or aren't we?). Now multiply that by however many millions of copies are sold, across the world, for a period of time that extends to "death plus 70 years", with never-ending extensions to that copyright - essentially making it perpetual, plus all the third-party royalties for using that music in films, television, advertising, live performances, etc.
"Merchandise" my ass.
Claiming that the act of copying something makes it "worthless" is highly disingenuous, given that it's the mass reproduction of "IP" that makes it so valuable to "content providers" in the first place.
In the grand scheme of things, given the obscene margins and vast scale of reproduction, a few million "stray" copies, taken by those who, in all likelihood, would never have paid for it anyway, won't even make a dent in that industry.
The MAFIAA® keeps promising it'll go "bankrupt" because of "piracy". And yet here we are, years later, still waiting patiently.
Of course those who bleat the loudest are the music biz freeloaders who have been relentlessly ripping off artists for years. Now they find themselves losing the ability to scam the punters for 90% of the value of a CD and look to their lawyers.
If we can all easily have copies of the beautiful work, that makes the world a better place. The artist has fame for the recognition of his/her talent, and is able to make money from being commisioned to produce more. Win win.
If you were able to make atomically accurate copies (including software) of the latest car that Ford were trying to sell and for less money than they could sell it for and maintain R&D, then you would lower the value of that model of ford down to the cost of copying it after a while, as you'd probably be selling them for around the production cost of about £2-3K rather than the 20-30K they currently charge (and that's for a fully specced model). However you wouldn't have deprived Ford of any stock at all. It could also be argued that most of the people that bought your copy wouldn't have bought an original Ford anyway due to the cost. However in real terms, the value of Ford's new car would in fact plummet to match the cost that you could produce it for.
In digital media the same is true, as almost everyone agrees that the people that do the work of producing the music deserve to be paid (song writer, musicians, sound crew, editors, venue owners (where it was recorded), etc.). Some of these people will be paid up front (sound crew, and venue), which means that these costs have to be recouped before the song writer, musicians and editors start making any money. If they had to take out a bank loan, then this needs to be paid every month.
Now standard business logic says that your break even point is the point where money coming in from the items you've sold matches your costs to produce and sell those items (whether it's cars, cokes, buttons, or music) (google break even chart for an explaination).
If our mythical 4 person band is selling through Apple, then they've got a fixed price point of around 99p/song and apple take about 30% of that (let's call it £1 and 30p for easy maths) so the song produces 60p towards covering expenses. If a sound crew of 5 people costs £35/hour/person and a song takes 1 hour to get right, then that means that the cost of the crew is £175, which means that JUST to pay their wages you need to sell 292 copies of your song on apple. Doing a quick google, a recording studio in London charges between £30 and £90/hour so if we go for the mid point that's £60 which is another 100 copies (bring our total up to 392). And this is just for the fixed costs of producing the initial recording. From the same website that I got the cost of the recording studio, they also charge £130 for mastering (which I assume is the production of a master copy that is a high enough resolution to create any feasible subsequent copies from). And £130/hour for post production. So let's assume our band doesn't have someone that can so the post production, and they don't own their own mastering software/hardware, that's another £260 minimum added on which is another 434 sales (bringing our total up to 826). Once they've sold those they then start making money to pay the people they didn't have to pay up front. So if the band needed to practice the song for 30 hours before it was ready to be played and they "pay" themselves £10/hour then that's £40/hour for the band which comes to £1,240 (1 hour to produce the song) that needs to be covered by the music, which is another 2067 copies (bring our total up to 2893). The editor/manager probably charges around £20/hour (plucked from thin air with no research what so ever) and spent 4 hours arranging thing and making sure the recording happened properly. This is another £80 that needs to be covered which is another 134 sales needed (current total 3027). And finally the song writer also likes to be paid £10/hour and spent 6 hours (being nice) writing the song which is another 100 sales (current total 3127).
So Just to cover the cost of selling their song on apple, our band needs to have sold 3127 copies of that song. If that song doesn't do very well and they only sell 1500 copies then they need to sell an additional 1627 of other songs after covering the costs of producing those songs to break even.
So, no copyright infringement isn't theft, however it is still depriving someone of the income to for the work they've done.
I suppose we could always go back to the days pre recording, where if you wanted to hear music you had to actually hire the musicians and pay them up front for their work, but then how many people would be willing to sacrifice their music libraries for that?
> So, no copyright infringement isn't theft
Thank you. That was the point under discussion.
> however it is still depriving someone of the income to for the work they've done.
That was not the point under discussion.
Nor is it something protected by law; depriving someone of the income they had expected (but not yet realised) is not unlawful. The means by which that is achieved might be.
But that is a tangential discussion. What we were heading towards is the point agreed above - copyright infringement is not theft.
Erm, there were 2 parts to the OP, the part that I was reponding to was about intrinsic value, and recooping money spent
"If some "IP" troll thinks he's "lost" something, then he's more than welcome to try to explain to the Beaks exactly what it is he thinks he's "lost", but until the establishment of that fact, no actual loss can be assumed."
So my post was to explain the value of the copyright, why it has value, and thus what the loss is. As it is something that appears to pass by many people when they start on the copyright infringement isn't theft crusade, and also on the copyright infringement doesn't cost the originator anything.
> So my post was to explain the value of the copyright
This was never at issue.
> it is something that appears to pass by many people when they
> start on the copyright infringement isn't theft crusade,
No. That is exactly the false dichotomy I keep highlighting.
Just because we say that copyright infringement isn't theft, we are *not* saying that it is OK.
Do I need to repeat that?
Just because we say that copyright infringement isn't theft, we are *not* saying that it is OK.
No-one is ignorant of the value of copyright. We all know that copyright infringement is at least unlawful. We are not arguing that it is a Good Thing(tm) to do.
What we are arguing is that conflating it with theft is wrong. There are many reasons for such conflation, and none of them are good.
"In the grand scheme of things, given the obscene margins and vast scale of reproduction, a few million "stray" copies, taken by those who, in all likelihood, would never have paid for it anyway, won't even make a dent in that industry."
Ah, so it's OK to steal stuff as long as you only steal a little, since the honest folks who pay for the rest will more than cover the costs? Thieving twat.
You must have missed the part where the law clearly fails to define copyright infringement as theft.
The only thing that's been "stolen" is a non-existent opportunity to make money from a sale that would never have happened, where the "object" being sold is a fictitious bottle of snake oil, and the "thief" dares to imagine his own fictitious bottle of snake oil.
The "rights holder" still has the same money and material goods he had before this "infringement". Nothing has been "stolen". Nothing would have been sold. Nothing has been "lost".
This is the problem you, and other "IP" fanatics, are having with this whole "copyright infringement is theft" propaganda: IP is not REAL property. This is why it's impossible to steal it, no matter how you spin it.
"IP" is an unnatural privilege that should never have been granted. The difficulties associated with enforcing that unnatural privilege are therefore not exactly surprising. It's like claiming "ownership" of a specific two cubic inches of the Pacific ocean, trying to stop it from mixing with the rest of the ocean, then suing anyone who happens to use what you claim is your two cubic inches water, for all the "hard work" it took you to claim it.
It's rather silly, and would be hilarious if it weren't for the viciousness with which "IP" extortionists pursue their bogus claims.
You could see this coming from a mile away. It seems that torrent files are going by the wayside. Especially with DHT and PEX you hardly need the torrent file anymore anyway. Magnet links are only harder to use when there are not very many people in a swarm, or if the people in the swarm use crap clients that don't give out the meta info. I hate when various clients don't give out the meta info. I am glad that the client I use, Tixati, hands out meta info and does a great job with magnet links.
Still spamming tixati?
and probably posting via tor nodes too...
" I am glad that the client I use, Tixati, hands out meta info"
So does every client that handles magnets. It's what we in the know call "part of the specification".
The more and more tixati spam I see, the LESS likely I am to try the client.
Who cares about the loss of torrent files
Who really needs torrent files now. All good websites, like TPB, that offered torrent files already offer magnet links. And all good clients. like my fav Tixati, handle magnet links great.
If Apple think I would have bought an iPad if the Galaxy hadn't come along----wrong so samsung didnt stop a sale
If i copied something then I really had no intention of buying it, again, no sale lost
Like ways, I've seen some films that I would never have thought about or watched but saw a OK downloaded copy at a friends so went bought the DVD, so they actuallu gained a sale where there would not have been one if not for piracy.
Works both ways
The Pirate Bay is insignificant in the big scheme of life
I mean does anyone really care if they fold their tent?
From pretty much everyone on earth's perspective, you are (as am I) insignificant in the big scheme of life. Yet I suspect that you prefer strongly that your tent not be folded.
The internet needs magnets?
Is it like one of they special bracelet things that give you magic powers? Confused as usual
"How is someone whose primary talent is music or writing supposed to earn a living if you remove their ability to do so?"
They get out of bed and present themselves at the place of gig and play their set to the paying audience. if I could record myself doing a day's work and send it in from bed I shoorley wood.
So are you saying that there should be no more films and the actors should tour the world putting on a stage play of what would have been the film?
Or for that matter how does it work if you are a writer of fiction? Book readings?
Or how about if you are a writer of non fiction? How do you tour putting on a show of a Haynes manual or a Physics text book?
The Statute Of Anne
Look it up.
A fair period of content monopoly followed by rights being transferred into the public domain.
Content corporations (not artists) have successfully extended copyrights to the point where they now are extremely biased towards business interests.
Why should I pay some media corporation a fee to listen to T-Rex when Marc Bolan died 25 years ago?
If you can't make a decent quid in 14/28 years of monopoly and then invest your profits for the future then you are doing something wrong and need to get a proper job.
The media corporations want perpetual copyright and they will not stop until they get it.
While the bleating continues, still they come. The musicians, artists, authors, actors, producers, directors and crew, still they come.
About Freedom and Censorship?
Probably a tiny fraction of "Pirate Bay" is about "Freedom and Censorship". Most of it is about people who are parasites and justify it because some big companies do bad stuff.
Well, people overcharging or not providing suitable downloads gives no-one the right to break International Conventions, deprive creators and basically be parasites. If a large majority did it all the time there would be no decent new content.
As it is, fortunately, less than 30% are parasites and maybe only 1% are dedicated 24x7 parasites (who are also responsible for about half the drop of your Internet speed).
SOPA is wrong and should be opposed. But a better Pirate Bay only plays into the court of the Lunatics that want SOPA.
I personally have around 150 hours of audio on TPB, a few videos, OH, and a BOOK on there as of next week.
All legal for download, and perfectly legal for anyone to torrent. My relation to those files? Why... I created those files. from scratch.
I'm far from alone in this too.
There's about 150,000 torrents on ISOhunt that are the same, thanks to their partnership deal with Jamendo.
A different perspective
I see it as coming from the Puritan work ethic standpoint. That is, it's immoral to get anything for free.
Whether it's P2P ifle sharing or copying computer program disks or movie DVDs or using a box to decrypt cable TV or satellite TV, it's all the same: We should have to pay for anything that we get.
It's not about lost revenue -- it's about morality. That's why rational arguments on either side of the so-called piracy issue never go anywhere -- they are irrelevant.
What the opponents of so-called piracy are really saying is that it is a sin, and that so-called pirates are sinners.
Sharing is "immoral" now?
Dear God, the propaganda is getting worse!
Well please explain how we somehow managed to produce art and inventions for thousands of years without this thing called "IP", before the the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies in 1624 (primarily patents) and the Statute of Anne, a hundred years later (primarily copyrights)?
Are you saying there was no science and art prior to that time?
It may surprise you to learn that the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies more or less exactly coincided with the END of an era called the Renaissance, a three hundred year period of mankind's greatest accomplishments in science and the arts (hint: Leonardo de Vinci), all without the slightest whiff of "IP".
Those scientists and artists all got paid though, despite no one ever being prosecuted for "IP" infringement.
The results of their work was subsequently shared by the rest of the world, and built upon in a process of accretion, just as those scientists and artists had done before them, of course. Or did you think their knowledge simply dropped from the sky, like a divine gift from God?
ALL knowledge is derivative, and therefore any claim to exclusive "ownership" of it is a blatant lie.
THAT is the REAL immorality, not sharing.