But watch out in case u get a 'letter from America' and a trip on the EXTRADITION EXPRESS, flying twice weekly from an airfield close to you, to destinations all over the world.
As we all know rendition does not exist.
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 …
But watch out in case u get a 'letter from America' and a trip on the EXTRADITION EXPRESS, flying twice weekly from an airfield close to you, to destinations all over the world.
As we all know rendition does not exist.
I am just wondering, whether it is the case that you like the Pirate Bay specifically because you support neo-nazism and the neo-nazi who funds it, or if you are against neo-nazism but find that getting stuff for free is more important. Or is it the case that you are simply indifferent to neo-nazi agenda?
About neo nazis, you need to get out more. It's about freedoms and censorship.
From the good old US of A, neo nazis? WTF has that got to do with freedoms and censorship
Eh??! Whatever you want for free without paying for it you mean??
Unless your torrent's blowing up buildings or shooting at people, I dont think you're getting rendered or extradited. You might get prosecuted in your home country though and if I was you id worry about that a whole lot more than what the US will do to you.
Lay off the paranoid sauce there guy.
...unless 'your torrent' sets up a website which helps people watch films and television programmes for free, of course.
Don't listen to the news much, do you?
You have some gravely disturbing ideas and i suspect some of your own neo-nazi ideologies slowly starting to emerge.
Seriously, how the fuck did you arrive at that conclusion!!!
"you want for free without paying"
That presumes a. a consensus over b. the existence and c. enforcement of a kind of property none of which exists.
The undemocratic laws which establish this property right are clearly contentious and contended. Not so much in the sense this kind of property may exist, but in the sense of its highly contentious extent and means of enforcement.
Why undemocratic ? Because until the formation of political Pirate Parties, big media (which if you've been following the news recently helps us decide who gets elected) have decided there is only 1 side to this argument - their side, and you need to look elsewhere to find the other side.
Some people invested considerable time, effort, skill, and probably money as well, in creating something. They would like to receive some recompense for all that. Now you could argue that what they created was crap, in which case cool: don't listen/watch/consume it.
Otherwise cough up.
Last Sunday I went to B&Q and "invested" a shed-load of money on lots of tools and materials for my garden, then I came home and engaged in hours of "hard work" in my garden.
During the course of the day several passers-by admired my garden, for free!
So where's my Goddamn money?
I demand to be paid for all my "hard work" and "investment".
I am just wondering if Mr Turtle is German. The only reason I ask that is that his/her use of commas is surprisingly typical of the punctuation I have seen from many friends/colleagues from there.
Can you clarify this point please.
Is the truth:
A )a 'neo nazi fund it'
b) 'it makes millions in profits off it's adverts
You can't have both. (Unless the Advertising company is a neo-nazi...)
Well, logic isn't your strong point. The correct analogy would be if you had the fruit and a veggies you grew in your garden for sale, but your neighbors wandered in and took them out of your patch and didnt pay you for them.
That would only hold true if my neighbours came in and took a copy of my carrots
Except, of course, that you are referring to theft. His neighbour has deprived him of physical items, whilst downloading something is usually a breach of copyright and involves no theft. If you're going to criticise someone's analogy, you could at least illustrate your point with a valid one yourself.
because when they take your vegetables from your garden you no longer have your vegetables.
If they copied your vegetables then you might have a point.
Not really - since I think the original poster was making the point that, once the fictional Neighbours had filled their eyes, he had lost nothing. With your physical vegetables, the garden-owner would no longer have the vegetables.
A more accurate analogy may be that, having invested time and effort in making your garden beautiful, do you want people to treat it is a public park? Are you justified in charging for admission? Are you justified in charging people who enter without paying with tresspass?
So much of the copyright debate is muddied by one side equating copying with stealing a physical object (it isnt) and the other claiming that a film/book/recording should be free to copy as it costs nothing to do so (conveniently forgetting initial production costs).
Blind to what's going on.
The hard work and expense created a garden beautiful to the eye.
Neighbours came and took photos - they copied the beautiful sight.
Should they pay for their _copy_ of the beautiful sight.?
No, if they keep their copy on the mantle piece at home.
Yes, if they sell the photos for a profit.
Sure. I bet you're the type of guy who opposes Walt Disney cartoons for ideological reasons, too.
The repeated comments here that it isn't theft because making a copy doesn't deprive the owner of the original are disingenuous. The situation is called *copy*right not because it affects the original, but because it affects the right to make copies of that original. It is theft of those copies which is at issue.
When a band plays a song live at a concert, it is clear that no amount of copying of that performance is going to detract from the experience of those who paid to see it live. The original has indeed arguably lost nothing.
However, copyright allows the band to make THEIR OWN COPIES of that performance, and to distribute them for money. The availability of unauthorized copies will obviously reduce the number of copies that the band will sell, and could depress the price of those copies. In that sense it is very much theft, since making 500 unauthorized copies and selling them yourself is the same as breaking into the band's warehouse and stealing 500 legitimate copies to sell. Just because there are a potentially unlimited number of copies avaiable doesn't make stealing them less of a crime.
There is the argument that someone who takes a pirate copy isn't necessarily someone who would have bought a legitimate copy, so the losses cannot be equated to 100% of the unauthorized copies. That is true, but it is equally true that *some* of those pirate copies will correspond to a lost sale of a legitimate copy, so the loss is not 0% either.
> The repeated comments here that it isn't theft because making a copy
> doesn't deprive the owner of the original are disingenuous
Not so. They are a statement of the law as it stands.
> The situation is called *copy*right
Indeed it is. Note that the word "copyright" doesn't include the word "theft" or even "property" at any point. So focussing on what it is - the right to determine which copies are made - doesn't actually help your proposal that theft is involved in any way in making unauthorised copies.
Really - check up on what the law says, rather than pontificating on what you'd like it to say.
 This is specifically UK law I'm speaking about. I believe the US law says something very similar, but my expertise in that jurisdiction is significantly less.
"Really - check up on what the law says, rather than pontificating on what you'd like it to say."
And perhaps you'd care to look up "disingenuous" ?
If you want money from people to see your garden, you should build a wall around it and ask an entrance fee for people to come in and look at it. Exactly as the music industry does (but they call it copyright and DRM and such) ...
The "get all stuff there is for free" argument is what is bogus : you didn't take the tools & materials to do your gardening without paying now did you ? So, what is the difference to you then ?
Both sides seem to have missed the point. On the one hand, taking physical items really is theft, it's not the same at all. This should be utterly obvious to anyone who can be bothered to actually think about it for a moment. On the other hand, the analogy of letting people see your garden isn't accurate either, because there's no loss incurred whatsoever.
It's far more like you spending ages preening your garden and making it look lovely, and then charging a tenner for people to wander around and look at it. If someone then visits your garden, and makes an absolutely perfect replica of it somewhere else and lets people visit for free, that's more in the ballpark. People who might have visited your garden decide it's easier to go to the free one instead, or that it's just too expensive to visit yours.
The difficulty is that this is a very simplistic view of human behaviour, in reality people might decide that they want to view your garden because it's the original. Or that they want to pay to view yours because they feel guilty about just looking at it for free. Or they decide to pay to visit your other gardens because of the experience of the free one. That is a little closer to the truth of it. Then imagine that with every person who visits your garden they also get far better service, they're taken around in a golf cart by you, explaining every inch of it, so the experience is actually better, but not everyone places that high a value on the experience (I would equate that to buying a physical album with box art etc.).
Let's also say that in order to stamp out these other gardens you screened a large presentation to the people who DID pay to go to yours all about how the other gardens were hurting yours before letting them in, and then you randomly picked some of them and threatened to hunt them down for stealing your ideas.
It's not a clear-cut argument either way, whatever some people would like to think (people who are on the freetard side who think it is tend to be doing so to justify their own actions, and those opposing it tend to like the idea that they are morally superior to someone), and that's why important questions about the way that music is distributed and the way that copyright law works have to be answered, rather than just taking one viewpoint and arguing it until you're blue in the face. I download things, as I've said before, and I don't do it that often. 90% of the things I download are things that I wouldn't pay money for (either I can't really afford it, or it's not something I would consider buying. Say about 40% of that I buy at a later date when things change (i.e. I can afford it, or I realise it's worth it after all), mostly because I like physical goods. The other 10% are things that I intend to buy, but want sooner, and there's no digital distribution service for them available, and usually I buy all of these things eventually. I accept that what I'm doing is technically wrong, but by doing this I really do buy more things at the end of the day.
So can we all just grow up a bit, and admit that it's a fuzzy issue, instead of trying to be all tabloid about it?
> And perhaps you'd care to look up "disingenuous" ?
I know what the word means. I am very carefully and deliberately making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft - which is a true statement - whilst simultaneously *not* making the statement that copyright infringement is acceptable - which would be an untrue statement.
This is not disingenuous; it is a statement of fact, and it is important because it has a significant effect both on the hyperbole of the pro-enforcement camp and on the position that politicians will be backed into if we accept the untruth.
There is an attempt here to declare property rights when none exist. That is a line that must not be crossed.
 We all know that pols have a tendency to react without thinking. Giving them false premises upon which to hang their prejudices is just going to be awful.
 Just look at the support SOPA is getting in some areas: SOPA is a clear dereliction of due process, yet the pols think they're protecting the world...
(The opinions below are mine, and purely conjecture)
I believe that the reason that copyright infringement and theft are deliberately conflated by interested parties is that the word steal can be used for both ideas and physical items in a tense that means that you have taken them from their rightful owner. (Dictionaries back me up on that one)
In academic circles this is called plagiarism, in the physical world it's called theft, in the artistic world it's copyright infringement, and in the engineering (and bleeding over to artistic/business) world it's called patent infringement.
They all describe a situation where someone has obtained something that is legally yours without your permission (which may include a fee), and either profited (not necessarily in a monetary fashion) from it, or kept it for themselves. So the act of taking the copy is directly comparable in the English language to taking a CD from a shop, it's the consequences that differ (as many people have pointed out, stealing a physical item results in the original owner being down 1 item, while stealing a copy results in the original owner still having their own copy)
"I am very carefully and deliberately making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft - which is a true statement"
I disagree. Your statement would only be true if the value of a copy did not depend on the number of copies that exist, which is rarely the case. In practice, making an unauthorized copy will reduce the value of authorized copies, or will reduce the market for sales of authorized copies.
In practice there is no difference between making an unauthorized copy of something, and stealing an authorized copy, the net effect is the same. Both are theft of property.
> I disagree.
Under UK law, theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968. Go and read it. You will find that you are simply wrong. Repeating the same fallacy does not correct that.
I'm not making up the definition; it's the one used by law. So it doesn't really matter how many provisos you can make up, you're not changing the definition laid down in the Act. And the Act says that copyright infringement is not theft.
However (as I mentioned in another reply) the word steal is used in both contexts as well as a few others.
> Under UK law, theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968. Go and read it. You will find that you are simply wrong.
OK, I've read it, and I still disagree. Some excerpts:
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation,
“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights
It is clear that usurping someones right to make copies of their work, with the intention of treating such a copy as if it were your own, amounts to theft.
That analogy is just as incorrect as the one of someone admiring the garden.
The original analogy is incorrect because in that case the gardener is working the garden for his own benefit, not for the entertainment of others. Now if he built a wall around it and charged admittance at the gate and people climbed over the wall instead of paying, then the analogy would be correct.
Your analogy is incorrect because there's a clear difference between copyright infringement and theft, despite what big media would have us think. In your analogy, something is lost by the gardener and therefore theft has occured, but in file sharing nothing is actually lost. Many people have tried to claim lost sales, but that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, unless you think that a 16 year old kid is going to go out and buy several thousand dollars worth of music. Which is not to say that it's not still wrong, but it is NOT theft.
Two definitions in your excerpt:
Now, these 2 words fit in the first sentence, which is the encompassing definition of theft. This sentence also includes the words "permanently depriving".
This is were copyright is not theft (or piracy or terrorism or assault.) There is a reason there are 2 (very) different words for 2 (very) different actions: Here, the original owner is not "permanently deprived" of the property. He still has it after the infrigement, unlike say a stolen car.
Not to say infringing is legal of course, but it is not theft or rape or murder. It is what it is.
This is what words are for: convey a precise meaning. Is that so hard?
>This is what words are for: convey a precise meaning. Is that so hard?
No, and if you read the act you'll see that (as was posted) there are clear definitions of those two words:
appropriation: Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation
property: “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other INTANGIBLE PROPERTY. [my emphasis].
As far as "permanently deprived" is concerned, the act goes on to say:
"A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
Your personal *interpretation* may differ, but this is what an Act of Parliament is for, to convey a precise definition of the law. Is that so hard?
Fuckin' magnets, how do they work!?
Magic everywhere in this bitch!
What we need here are some mormons... magnets love mormons..
Damnit.. must not cross the mimeme..
I don't know how they work but, apparently, lobster sticks to magnet.
Who here remembers the days of gnutella, gnutella2 and the Donkey network, where the same concept was used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed2k_URI_scheme for more info).
I always thought bittorrent went somewhat backwards with requiring central management and tracking via the torrent files. Nice to see that now we'll have both the benefits of bittorrent with the distributed nature of the old P2P networks.
Perhaps next it's time to develop a distributed search system, so you don't even need to host a website with the links (as I'm sure they'll try to shut you down and extradite you for running it, no matter how much you point out you're doing the same a google). Then we would've really gone full circle :-)
Both Overnet and Kadmelia (Serverless variants of EDonkey and EMule, respectively) are completely serverless and rely on other clients to establish a mesh by which one can funnel search requests and the like. The trick is that this decentralized nature inevitably has hiccups. People may not be on all the time, breaking parts of the mesh. Meanwhile, searches have to be bounced through node after node, taking time.
The protocol was just designed as a way to distribute stuff fast and without straining the bandwidth of the originator too much.
It's become a cliche to talk about linux ISOs in relation to bittorrent, but this really was the targeted use-case - allow organisations like linux distro-makers to distribute disc images to many, many people without having to pay for the associated bandwidth, as the downloaders distribute to each other.
I won't disagree - it did always seem odd to me that it took off for P2P, when it requires a tracker - but that's more to do with the folks adopting it than the design.
I agree that bittorrent was a step backwards in terms of decentralization. The speeds it offered were just too good to pass up, though.
It is worth pointing out, however, that Emule's Kademlia has essentially succeeded, powering virtually the entire Emule network with a million users on it every day, offering a billion different files. Not as many users nor files as during the heydays, sure, but this is another consequence of bittorrent's success.
And Emule continues to be superior to torrents for finding rare, obscure files. I can still find files on it that are 10 years old - not just the same content but the same exact files - good luck doing that with all but the most popular torrent files, which more likely will have been abandoned by their seeds ages ago.
...and it won't change anything.
And the biggest laugh is that they rely on expensive lawyers to save themselves money. lolwut?
Goodnight muzac industry. Goodnight.
These clowns won't be around much longer.
Been hearing that for 8 years now.
Oh look, a member of the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" dropped in for a chat!
OK, let's talk about how F.A.C.T.'s very NAME is actually a lie, since the law does not in fact define copyright infringement as theft. No but seriously, look it up. Copyright infringement is NOT theft, and doesn't even assume any sort of loss. "Losses and damages, if any" (as my learned friend might say) must be demonstrated to the court, and are not presumed by the mere establishment of copyright infringement.
So please change the deceptive name of your organisation, and stop lying. That goes for your "You wouldn't download a car" crap too. No, I wouldn't steal a car, but then I wouldn't BE stealing a car if I could somehow download it, because downloading isn't theft either.
Maybe this song will help:
Copying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more; that's what copying's for.
Copying is not theft. If I copy yours you have it too
One for me and one for you. That's what copies can do
If I steal your bicycle you have to take the bus,
but if I just copy it there's one for each of us!
Making more of a thing, that is what we call "copying"
Sharing ideas with everyone. That's why copying is FUN!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017