Entertainment Industry Really Really Really Wants To Believe Pirate Bay Verdict Is A Win
from the this-is-what-we-call-delusional dept
As was easily predicted when The Pirate Bay verdict came out last Friday, the entertainment industry celebrated it as a big win. Amusingly, Arts+Labs, one of many, many entertainment industry lobbying groups (and run by a guy, Mike McCurry, who thinks that Google doesn't pay a dime for its bandwidth), was quick to praise the decision, with McCurry claiming that this is a turning point and that people will now realize that file sharing is "something both dangerous, criminal, and unfair." (I'll let the grammar nazis figure out which two of three things he meant when he said "both").I love these proclamations of turning points. Especially since there's absolutely nothing to support it. We've seen the entertainment industry shut down Napster, Aimster, Morpheus, Grokster, TorrentSpy, OiNK and others over the years, and none have been "turning points" in the direction the entertainment industry wanted. In every case, things actually went the other way. Every time they shut down one of these services, another one shows up to pick up the slack and turns out to be bigger and more popular than the previous ones. In the meantime, over in Sweden, the ruling had generated large protests and thousands rushing to sign up to be a member of The Pirate Party. If it's a "turning point" for anything, it seems to be the opposite of the what the industry wanted.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think that most file sharing is legal or right (and I don't participate in any of it). But, millions of people who know that it's illegal have absolutely no problem taking part in it, and no "education" campaign or shutting down of a particular site or service is going to stop that. Continuing to pretend it will doesn't help the industry at all. What helps the industry is to stop denying that this is something that can be stopped legally, and finally moving on to experimenting with business models that work -- such as the business models that we've been describing here for over a decade. It's not that hard, no matter what entertainment industry lawyers (and it's always the lawyers) insist.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: entertainment industry, file sharing, mike mccurry, tipping points
Companies: arts+labs, the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Turning Points
Exactly. The turning point in question: the population taking on better encryption and sharing methods, and file sharing being not at all slowed down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate Party member count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pirate Party member count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pirate Party member count
The people.
The kleptocrats(Big Entertainment, Big Banks, Big Pharma and Big Oil).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pirate Party member count
http://www.pirate-party.us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pirate Party member count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pirate Party member count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pirate Party member count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In polls,
In polls done in on-line news papers here in Sweden 70-80% ! thinks it was totally wrong conviction, it's a justice travesty and a clear marker that there is no problem to buy convictions in Sweden these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In polls,
The movie studios bought a judge so they could shout to the world "If you're a pirate you'll pay $4 million and go to jail!"...?
How very unsurprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be nice...
If these trade groups would understand that if they want to get paid for this crap, they need to make it easier than taking advantage these other "services" and at a reasonable price point. We have been screwed by this ridicuous pricing and access control for far too long, I really hope they figure this out soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One reporter even put forward the case quite firmly that this decision would change little, and it wasn't it really the industries business models that needed to change?
That sort of reporting wouldn't have happened a few years ago. I think that even if this is a legal loss for piracy, it is a massive PR win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did you expect from these idiots?
If anything, it looks to me as though traffic has increased, not decreased.
I'm also not surprised the number of donations has gone through the roof, either, based on the number of replies (around the web) of people who are contributing to the defense fund.
What's truly insulting here is the entertainment industry continues to spread the message of "We're in control of plastic disks. You're going to buy them or do without as we'll offer no other means for you to enjoy content. In addition, people who rent from Netflix are pirates because we can't figure out why a $8/mo subscription doesn't make up the cost of a $20 DVD."
What I can't figure out is how people continue supporting these distribution platforms.
I guess they just don't want to do without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal or Right?
What makes it wrong Mike? Obviously, the law isn't an ethical code - it would be absurd to suggest it is.
What is wrong with sharing published works with others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal or Right?
He has also never condoned copyright violations or ever said it was the right thing to do. Neither is he here to promote or romanticize breaking laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal or Right?
Violating the wishes of an artist is wrong, even if those wishes are wrong-headed.
Just because you can do something doesn't make it right.
Just because YOU think it could benefit the artist, doesn't make doing it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People do care...sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a law is unjust, then breaking it is not wrong. If he wants to argue that it is a poor strategy, that's one thing - but he continually suggests that sharing published works is unethical. I'd like to hear him explain his reasoning as to why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Legal is not always the same as moral, and illegal isn't always the same as immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If an artist like McCartney doesn't want you to share his works, it's wrong to do so against his will, even if it were legal.
Not in my view. Remember that artists learning and repeating each others' works from the start. The whole concept that you can lock something down is a relatively recent legal fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was going to mention Rosa Parks as a reply until I saw you already replied.
While I realize that equating file sharers to Rosa Parks is a bit of a stretch, the idea is there that some laws are stupid and need to be broken to make a point.
In the case back then, Rosa Parks became a symbol that people could rally behind to help change the stupid law(s).
This pirate bay trial seems to be becoming quite a symbol for our generation. While I do not suspect anything too great will happen too soon (industry still has too much money to buy politicians with), it has at least bolstered the ranks of those who wish to see the poor laws wiped from the book.
Hey industry folks, the internet is here, adapt or die bitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never break a bad law?
If a law is wrong, then morality dictates finding a way to allow yourself and other to at least circumvent it. Outright breaking of a bad law may be personally costly, but as Ms. Parks demonstrated, sometimes that is a good way to get it changed.
--
www.chl-tx.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never break a bad law?
Indeed, but let's be honest: downloading a file for civil disobedience is quite different than refusing to move to the back of the bus.
The two aren't even close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Never break a bad law?
Indeed, but let's be honest: downloading a file for civil disobedience is quite different than refusing to move to the back of the bus.
The two aren't even close.
I don't know. They're both crimes for acting like a rational human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Never break a bad law?
Therefore, if you're really engaging in civil disobedience, you should be prepared to accept the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question begging
I make music. I think it's unethical for people to pay for music, because this payment supports the RIAA, which indirectly decreases peoples' freedom to share and communicate information online. My reasoning is based on a utilitarian argument: it's more important that many people be happy, and feel free to share what they want, even if this makes a few people (musicians) seek employment in a different manner.
I think it's ethically mandatory that people download music illegally. I've been urging my friends to boycott the music organizations for years, and I haven't bought any music in the last 7 years. So it's perfectly logical and consistent for ethics to be opposed to the law. That's how slavery got overturned, after all. I see it as a similar phenomenon, only here the slavery is intellectual, rather than physical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why we should have STAYED British colonialists.
God Save The Queen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any lawyer who would send out a cease and desist letter or the like without the knowledge and consent of the client would be subject to discipline by the cognizant state bar(s), not to mention the strong likelihood of a malpractice action (almost a certainty if the recipient responds by filing a declaratory judgement action).
Of course, all professions include idiots within their midst, but the likelihood of such any "stories" actually being true is extremely remote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The top level management of the RIAA and the MPAA are both made up of mostly lawyers. It's not the lawyers they've hired, it's the lawyers they've put into management. The lawyers *are* the clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is my belief that it is the downloaders of copyrighted material who are the real 'villians' not those who simply 'index' the available files in the way that any search engine does.
However that said, I also strongly believe that those very downloaders are the same members of the digital generation that are also legitately downloading legally, certainly in many cases. The real message should be that to discourage people from downloading illegally, legal downloads should be made more affordable. Why does a digital album on say iTunes cost the same as a physical one in the shops. If it is blamed on hosting and bandwidth costs then maybe the very business model of digital downloads just doesn't work yet?
I think the entertainment industry could do far more good in re-evaluating their legal download costs and make them available to more people. They can win this battle and the next and even the one after but can they win the war when technology is one step ahead and people have a reason to demand free source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAFIAA is so densely stupid
With online downloading, they could target advertise better than ever, know EXACTLY how many viewers they have, and make more money than ever.
Instead they keep fighting progress and technology, and it's a losing battle. They are so idiotically stupid, it's hard to believe that so many of them can't see the obviousness that is smacking them in the face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw it
I now want to go see the movie at the theater to see the special FX that were not part of it.
What's funny is that I would not normally have wanted to see the movie at the theater, but now I do.
Odd, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps Not So Easy
But, once again, Mike, I must disagree with this: It's not that hard, no matter what entertainment industry lawyers (and it's always the lawyers) insist.
I'm not an entertainment industry lawyer...or any other type of lawyer for that matter...and changing instantly or even quickly to the business models you champion is not quite as easy as you seem to think it is.
Here's a rather longish (fair use) quote from a Slate article where the author would like to see just the new paradigm you advocate:
Experimentation is good, and I support it. But completely changing a multi-billion dollar industry, one with long-standing contracts, not only with distribution channels, but also with a variety of unions whose members compensation is tied to revenues from distribution, is not a simple thing to do. And even if it starts happening, it's not going to happen overnight or even within the next few years.
You'll start to see some freer distribution models, but it's going to be a long, long time before you get to the promised land of "give digital content away for free and sell the scarcities." Especially in the movie business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps Not So Easy
Its also hard to conjure up much sympathy seeing that they had to have seen this coming years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perhaps Not So Easy
It's not a matter of sympathy. The movie business has adapted to new technology to a point and will do so even more (and more quickly) in the future. But my point is that you don't turn a multi-billion dollar industry, one that has layer upon layer of entangling contractual obligations, to a new business model overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps Not So Easy
I mean, they've only had what, over 10 years to make any advancement at all?
Instead the only advancement we see out of them is any advancement where they can either try to force people to pay them for nothing, or where they have complete 100% control.
Part of the whole downloading thing is that it is drm & control free.
These things should not take more than a year to learn. And even with tons of previous agreements they could start all new deals with the new styles.
They obviously are too stupid to know or understand anything.
10 years is more than enough time (way more) to adapt to a digital age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal or Right?
True. Time for a revolt. I'm an author of books, audio programs and iPhone apps (currently top 40 in lifestyle category in iTunes)... I abhor copyright law the way it is now. It is NOT written to protect the original creators. If you really think it is, you are NOT an original creator. It is created by and for the big media whorehouses and their servants, the RIAA, MPAA, and there villianous ilk.
>Violating the wishes of an artist is wrong, even if those
>wishes are wrong-headed.
I am an original content creator. My wish is that if you buy my book or listen to my audio progams, that I get your first born to be put into child slavery in the middle east making clothes. How is that wish right, legitimate or even legal? Just because someone WISHES something, doesn't make it right, good or legal. And remember, it's not the original content creator who is usually MAKING the wishes... it's the big media whorehouses, and their wish has nothing to do with the ARTIST'S wishes.
>Just because you can do something doesn't make it right.
Just because you can't do something, doesn't make it wrong.
>Just because YOU think it could benefit the artist,
>doesn't make doing it right.
In general, we original content creators are not as technological savy as most, and we're a bit...um... full of ourselves - some more than others. In general, I'm for anything that gets my name out there, but some have been so brain-washed by media and other sources that they blindly accept what they are being told, instead of listening to the people who REALLY matter - our fans, followers, etc.
John Raven, CHT, CSH
Certified Hypnotherapist
www.johnraven.info
www.pockethypnosis.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treatise On the Origin of the Website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Creative Commons music? No amateur-made movies? No Linux distributions? You don't know what you're losing...
@John Raven "I abhor copyright law the way it is now. It is NOT written to protect the original creators. If you really think it is, you are NOT an original creator."
Seconded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I *will* and have downloaded that stuff, if the content creator is okay with it.
I should have been more clear on that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I agree. The IFPI has just made the first step in our next technological advancement, and they're calling it a win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A pyrrhic victory...
But the war goes on, as it has done for a while. And this is a war they cannot, MUST not, and WILL not be allowed to win, for humanity ALWAYS wins it's battles against tyranny in the end, even if the war continues...
The war of corporation vs humanity. This particular aspect in that war, has been ongoing ever since copyright was invented - (to protect book factories profits), and this is merely the latest battle.
The internet is humanities greatest ever information distribution, storage and copying system - and as such it was an inevitable development, from language, wired and wireless communication after computers were invented.
Unfortunately for these companies - they were built up by making money from the monopolistic distribution of information, and now the internet means humanity has no actual need for them for that particular reason.
Which means the ONLY way these companies can survive, is to USE the internet as bast as they can, and give humanity as many reasons as possible in order to use their company, as opposed to others.
But most are failing to do this.
If a company fails to supply enough of humanity with the service and product it needs to keep them in business, then WHY should they deserve to exist?
They have failed to understand, that because of the internet, information, in itself, now has very little inherent value. The ease of access, and the right price to certain information, however, HAS been shown to contain SOME value - (see itunes etc.).
Unfortunately for humanity, (and therefore for the companies themselves), they have not seen fit to use the internet as a main distribution system for their entire catalogue, and, as I said before, are therefore failing in their job to distribute their content/information. Why? It's why they're supposed to exist? If they wish to succeed, then they must follow the market humanity has created for them. If they cannot, then they should go out of business and be replaced by someone who can.
Unfortunately, here is where the copyright laws FAIL in their job. In the grand scheme of things, the copyright laws have only guaranteed a short-term spur in profits - but in the medium term - everyone loses, and humanity will not allow itself to lose - hence the existence of TPB et al..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A pyrrhic victory...
Those are particularly strong words to use for an issue that to a large degree consists of music and movie "lovers" trying to grab a freebie copy of something they know darn good and well is not being provided as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to understand...
I'm a Sharer. Allways have been. Really. From Cassete Tapes, Photocopied books, to the recent media. I even learned to read in a library.
So, for all my life, 44 years now, I have been following the same principles and never had reason to EVEN question them.
Why do I share?
Since last Friday, I've been trying really really hard to figure this out.
I come out with: because I can, because otherwise I couldn't possibly ever had read so many books, because I would never had seen so many movies, etc...
But, the real reason was still escaping me.
I feel completely legitimized to share anything that I have received the same way. I wasn't the one that actualy made the copy. So, downloading and sharing content has never even bothered me, why does it raises questions now?
Because, my friends, I finally realized that what I was doing had a bigger meaning then my own self-interest.
By downloading, and sharing, works of art, I am participating in it. Giving it a broader and wider audience, discussing it, using it, evolving from it. Art, in whatever form, should never have a price tag. Even, if artists do have to eat and pay bills. Copyright laws were meant to protect artists, not the ones profiting from their (usualy) underpaid work.
When you go to a theater watch a movie, you don't pay for the movie, you pay for the rental of the chair to sit on. You pay for the sound system, the projection equipment, and for the smiles (lol) of the employees. Who pays for the movie then? The person that wants you to buy the tickets.
When I was a kid, there were public outdoor projection of movies, for free. We never missed one. My father allways complained, that it was more expensive to watch movies there, because it was surrounded by cafes and other inviting and alluring things, that allways made him spend more money then he would buying tickets.
The same thing applies here. What we are sharing is the means for a businness, it was never meant to be the businness itself. Just look at the TV's. The only interest they have on showing this or that show, is for the value of the advertising they can sell.
TV shows only exist because of advertising. They aren't the businness, they are what lures us to do businness.
Same thing with music. And everything else.
But, artists got quickly addicted to the new rules, who wouldn't ? Lot's of money, fame, and even through intermediaries some form of control over their product. I can't really blame them. I'm also human.
In all this rant, I'm trying to say this:
The content, only exists in order to sell THE BOX.
So, sharing the content, isn't wrong. And since the box is unsharable and usualy the worst part of the product, no one would want it anyway.
So, I'll share has much has I can, in anyway I can, with or without laws.
Want to make money, good, find more ways to sell boxes.
P.S.: Please excuse any grammar and spell mistakes, I'm self thaught in english in a non-english country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The two aren't even close."
Essentially, you've just admitted that you don't see anything ethically wrong with file-sharing. If you believe it is not right to file share, then you can't claim it to be civil disobedience.
So which is it Mike?
I really, really, *really* respect your research and opinion on the economics of sharing but each time you morally prop yourself up with the caveat that you don't "condone" it, it irks some of us - especially because you can't explain yourself. Again, if you want to argue that civil disobedience is the wrong strategy for getting change, fine - but please stop sending the message that those who share are doing something immoral...unless you are prepared to explain clearly your reason for thinking so. Do you honestly believe that authors should have the right to put people in jail for sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Allowing free non-commercial private copying is 'free advertising' which promotes the sales of physical goods such as CDs and DVDs. This was suggested even in the napster days, when it was observed by some that CD sales tended to be higher, not lower, in areas where napster use was high. It's since been 'proven' by the likes of Radiohead, NiN, Janice Ian, Baen, O'Reilly, Cory Doctrow, and many other writers and musicians that have been mentioned here over the years. (And I believe video will eventually fall into the same category, the technology's just not quite there yet)
We don't want to help the RIAA or MPAA by giving them free advertising and promotion. Instead, share the work of someone who understands, and is making an effort to develop 'new business models' that allow sharing. If those business models are consistently proven successful over the traditional 'all rights reserved' big-label model they'll become the norm instead of the exception. But we won't get there if we're helping promote media that's being distributed under the old models, even against their wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh hell no. I don't think it's *morally* wrong, and I certainly think it's ridiculous to punish people for it. I think the law should be changed, but I think that there are better ways to have the law changed.
I think there's a time and a place for civil disobedience, but I don't think it applies here.
That said, I'm also quite sure that most people will continue file sharing because they don't think it's wrong at all, and it seems like a good thing, and I respect that.
I just prefer to follow the wishes of the artists who create the music. But I'm not going to try to impose that view on others.
Instead, I hope to convince the artists that *they're* better off embracing the culture and giving the content away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grouping & Alternatives
#2 ... they fail to explore other reasons why their sales may be declining - they seem to be always spouting that everything is the fault of file sharers and all file sharers are pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise. Even Mike said essentially the same thing in the article, and coming from him it's SAD. How can it be "piracy" when the author himself has slapped a license on the content saying essentially please share this? Creative Commons, anyone? How about open source software? Techdirt keeps posting examples of people who earn big by explicitly (and legally!) allowing their works to be shared.
Peter Sunde said during the trial that by his estimation 80% of the torrents tracked by The Pirate Bay are perfectly legal. And you know what? I believe him. Not only what we do isn't wrong, in many/most cases doesn't even break the law.
We have to end this myth that file-sharing is only good for "piracy" (I can't use this word without quotes). Automatic distributed backups? Lightening the load on Linux distro mirrors? Publishing your work online without a website, server, domain name or anything resembling a centralized distribution point? We're still discovering legitimate uses for file-sharing. And yet, because there's ONE illegitimate use, people are blasting this technology from all sides. This must stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now if Mike was saying that it is ethically wrong to share unauthorized works because it benefits those who use the law to attack social solidarity - then he may have a point.
In a similar way, one should not use unauthorized Microsoft software. Doing so helps Microsoft by bolstering their network effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike. And on the flip-side, I certainly respect the approach of obedience to the artists wishes. The notable thing about this approach however, is that the vast majority of lawsuits are rarely being brought about by artists. They are brought about by organizations like the RIAA who have bought the copyrights.
Should we respect an artists' wishes when they no longer hold the copyright? If they don't even wish to retain control over their work, should their opinion be given any weight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to some of the comments above, I think convincing more artists to share is more likely to succeed than convincing the public to boycot the Big Media, simply because there are far less artists out there than members of the audience.
As for artists signing over copyright, well, can they be forced to do that? Because I was asked once or twice to sign over exclusive distribution rights on a magazine article for a period of 5 years (the closest thing we have to yielding copyright here in Europe) and I simply refused. Guess what: nothing bad happened. They even sent me a token payment - the article had already been published. The magazine lost a potential collaborator, and it must have failed altogether, as I never heard of it again. Whereas another magazine, with a completely informal collaboration policy, has gone on for a long time, and I still remeber them fondly (not to mention I have an almost-complete collection).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about backup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Win Win is the way to go!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Number 29
IANAL either, but it seems to me that if Hollywood can push through the Bono Act and try for the golden goose with ACTA, they could just as easily push for a world-wide agreement that regulates media shared across networks, and even put in a grandfather clause (right term?) negating all those pesky contracts.
For the sake of argument, let's call it the SHIP agreement. (Safe Harbor Internet Protocol.) since they are so fond of acronyms.
People worldwide contribute a 'tax' on their internet connections, and in exchange they can share anything they want across any network across any national boundary.
Companies, people, etc, register their work, and get a hash for their file. When somebody transfers a file with that hash, the creator gets a point. Those points will translate into their local currency at the end of the month, and the creator will get a check. (this would be based on complicated mathematical formulas but basically the files that get transferred the most get the most money kicked back to the creator)
They 'could' do this, but they don't. They want control and containment even more then they want money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
war trial for crimes against humanity anyone?
their obsolete business model.
who's the criminal now, bitch :P
see you in court a few years from now..
Also, time to bring back some chemical waste to where it belongs, their office. thats right, cds, dvds and tapes ARE chemical waste, just dump them in their office as they clearly state they are their "property" :P
The world can't do without internet, the world can very well do without the "big 5" enemies of the free world.
We have reached the point where most ISPs including us maintain a zero tolerance policy towards "the entertainment industry" as they clearly act hostile, we may have to engage in some censorship ourselves and just block them of our parts of the internet to stop them from promoting their shit for free over our networks (and backs) as well.
see how they like being disconnected themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other trackers following suit
But it seems many tracker sites are now running scared - not just in sweden, but even taiwan i heard...So this ruling DOES have some global implications.
But again, i agree with alot of you on the point that this case also highlights and raises the awareness of other filesharing options people have at their disposal - darknets, iPredator and other VPN apps.
Was this the correct way about curbing piracy - no way. This increases the sympathy the market feels toward those poor 4 nedry lookin swedish dudes and increases the hatred they feel toward multinational music corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
real problem
I guess it comes down to the overall idea that the media companies try to squeeze every last cent they can out of there product instead of working with the consumer and working towards a better business model/future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Both"
The only difference is in the allowed number of 'things'. Keep in mind that when I say "difference", I don't mean "divergence from the norm", I mean "difference between two socially acceptable norms". As far as I can tell, the older "both" can theoretically take any number of 'things' as its arguments, but a legislative body might have fallen sound asleep if the filibustering asshat listed four or more; obviously, within the 20th century, the new "both" took firm command. I was thinking about this because yesterday I nearly set my printout of the Anarchist FAQ's Section I on fire because they quoted some dude as saying "both this, that and the other thing will happen", or whatever. In other words, it's a vaguely-timed generational gap. I could picture Kurt Vonnegut whipping out one of these three-pronged boths back in the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Male enhancement today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Climinax Premature Ejaculation Pills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]