Fact Checking? Reporter Claims It Costs $27 To Use The Pirate Bay

from the fact-checking-is-for-sissies dept

Mon, Jul 6th 2009 11:43am — Mike Masnick

One of our readers, going under the name "slogger," pointed out that a recent column by PC World writer David Coursey had some amazing factual errors in it -- though, by the time I read the original it had been "corrected" without any mention of the correction. Apparently, the big professional press not only doesn't need to fact check, it also can just "disappear" the false info when it comes to light and pretend it didn't happen. Except... PC World syndicates its content to other publications, and the San Francisco Chronicle republished the mistaken column in full.

The two big mistakes? First, claiming that The Pirate Bay sells $27 lifetime memberships, and second, that The Pirate Bay's founders are in jail. Neither is true. The second mistake remains in the "corrected without a correction notice" column at the time of this posting -- but perhaps it, too, will soon disappear. The actual column is a misguided rant by someone who doesn't quite understand how The Pirate Bay actually works and what it does (basically: he thinks "stealing" is evil and he'll never support the site even if it goes legit because he can't support the brand). But, considering that he can't get the basic facts right, perhaps it's not surprising that he doesn't understand the difference between "theft" and "infringement" -- and, more importantly, doesn't seem to understand the difference between search engines/trackers and actual infringing content. These are the sorts of basic tidbits of info you'd think that a famed tech reporter/columnist like Coursey (who's been around for ages) would take the time to get right. After all, aren't we told that the professional press is necessary because it's the bloggers who make up stuff?

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: david coursey, fact checking
Companies: the pirate bay

90 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rob R. (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 11:58am

Facts have never been important to the major newspapers. Why should that change now? They're still making ad revenue, so why change anything?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:00pm

$27 lifetime memberships?
Sounds like a business model! (OK, not really)

Seriously, where the hell did that come from? I know that "journalists" these days are generalists who try to pass themselves off as experts, by and large, but that's just too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:07pm

$27
What I want to know is where he pulled the number 27 from?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:20pm

Re: $27
His ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:22pm

This shows the amount of dogmatism surrounding this issue. People like David Coursey are so emotionally attached to their side that the mere act of learning about the other side is tantamount to some sort of betrayal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:26pm

And who caught the mistake? Bloggers. Those evil amateurs who muck up the intertubes with fact checking, research, and nitpicking corrections. How dare we.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:34pm

Stating the obvious
No one knows Napster because they provide a shitty service.
Same will happen to TPB if they provide a shitty service.

And if this "reporter" wants to know what the guys from TPB plan on doing with the money, why not ask them? Peter Sunde has stated publicly what his plans are...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shane O'Gorman, 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:42pm

sad
It really gets old reading story after story putting down the pirate bay and completely getting wrong how torrents even work. Oh wait this is turning into a list of things that they (mainstream press) always gets wrong with just this one subject or the broader "pirating"

1. that no matter what its stealing
2. that peer to peer has no use except to steal
3. that pirates are thieves and nothing else and will never pay for anything
4. that "stealing" will lead to other crimes
5. that they are all criminals
6. that its even a crime
7. that the pirate bay is different than how other search engines such as google work
8. that only the pirate bay and other "illegal sites" provide ways to be a criminal
9. this goes on forever

geez it gets so old reading these half researched and fully damaging stories that reporting like this should be the crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackSombra (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:50pm

Haha, know where he got the $27 from...
Would say he went to http://www.piratebay.com/

So the article was kind of correct, he did get charged by a site called pirate bay, just not The Pirate Bay

Though fool will be probably really pissed when he figures he just gave his cc details to a scam site and his credit card company call up to ask about his 100's or 1000's of dollars worth of purchases in Russia or Nigeria
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:51pm

Whether it is theft or not, or a crime is irrelevant.
It is certainly immoral, and infringement, to do what Pirate Bay's users have been doing. The best defense is that Pirate Bay only makes it easier, and streamlines the process for infringing. This could have been written without trying to defend the Pirate Bay. The fact that it wasn't, and the comments above, speak volumes as to the real intent of the "freeists" of this generation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:52pm

Re: sad
Don't forget that it supports "Terrorism"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Norm (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:57pm

Re:
[Citation Needed]

Sorry, couldn't resist.
http://xkcd.com/285/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 12:59pm

Re:
It is certainly immoral, and infringement, to do what Pirate Bay's users have been doing.

Really? People downloading the latest Linux version are immoral and infringing?

Yes, certainly a lot of people infringe using The Pirate Bay, but be careful painting all users with too wide a brush.

And, I'm curious on how you claim it's "certainly immoral"? I didn't realize there was such certainty about morals.

But, more to the point, Coursey's article wasn't about the *users* but about the site itself. You're the one who shifted the direction to the users.

This could have been written without trying to defend the Pirate Bay. The fact that it wasn't, and the comments above, speak volumes as to the real intent of the "freeists" of this generation.

Actually, I'd argue your comment speaks volumes about the shortsighted nature of those who trash The Pirate Bay without understanding it at all. Who needs to understand when you can just paint everyone with way too broad a brush?

Is Google immoral? Based on your comments, I can't see why it's not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:08pm

I love the last comment on the real article
"neurostu says:
Mon Jul 06 12:52:21 PDT 2009

If you want to know the quality of the journalism in this article check out:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0302405455.shtml

This article contains fales information that has been changed without noting the changes.

PCWorld reporting, please hire good reporters who don't make stuff up and then hire good fact checkers to weed out bad authors likes this one."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:16pm

Coursey is a Chump(tm)
Coursey Writes:
Remember Napster, the original "we're not supporting theft of copyrighted material site"? Sure you remember, but have you thought about Napster lately? Didn't think so, but the site is still in operating, selling downloads and streaming music at discount prices.
...but wasn't it mentioned in some articles that just came out recently that the RIAA now laments going after Napster the way they did, and sees now that they lost a huge opportunity to learn from what Napster was doing and to co-op that technology for themselves?
Here...(http://techdirt.com/articles/20090629/1210575405.shtml)
Here...(http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/british-music-boss-we-should-have-embrac ed-napster.ars)
and Here...etc...(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/02/rosen_on_napster/)
Didn't see those articles David? Didn't think so.
You may self-righteously not want to go anywhere near Napster with a ten-foot pole, but apparently the RIAA wishes they could turn back time (save the Cher jokes for someone who cares) and make a deal.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:17pm

PC World is a part of that IDG Publishing group.

Most of the articles across a lot IDG's publications seem to have a certain "written in 10 minutes so I can go home an hour early" feel to them.

What, don't believe me? Go grab a few of their mags next time you're at the store, and see for yourself!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:21pm

I sent him and email
Laughing at him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:21pm

@Mike: I figured you might go after the "moral relativism" angle. You're right morals are generally decided on a societal, and personal level. That being said, the act of infringement doesn't exactly ring of high ideals.
I also LOL at your comment on Linux. So what? So people use the system to trade Linux. The name of the service is "The Pirate's Bay". Hmmm..I wonder why? Maybe they like sail ships? It couldn't be because it serves as a "bay" where "pirates" can come to gather in safety could it? Well the crown just caught up with the ships, too bad, so sad. If you can't see how that alone distinguishes it from "Google" then you need to pull your head out of your a$$.Yes, BTW, if someone is using a clearly tainted site with illegitimate traffic, then they risk being painted by my "broad brush". LOL...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:23pm

Congrats PC World
I have to cancel my PC World subscription. After reading the terrible ignorance of this writer of theirs, they are no longer a trusted source of info.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:23pm

I think he was thinking about a porno site that 'sells' live video for $27. I think there was a recent case where the owners did go to jail. But like the reporter I am too lazy to check so I will assume I am correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Psychic Nerd, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:28pm

Bet
20 bucks says that David Coursey has some sort of Sarah Palin groupie wares laying around. A poster on the wall, wall paper on his desktop... lock of hair he dug from her garbage maybe?

This terrible fact-checking and totally not knowing what he is talking about, before he opens his ignorant mouth to the public, just wreaks of a dildotic Palinite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:32pm

The following statement has been fact checked by PC World Editors
It costs $27 each time you visit the PC World website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:33pm

The reason I choose to stear the article towards the users of the sytem BTW Mike, is because I find writing like this troubling. What you don't seem to get is that you and the RIAA are playing the same game. The RIAA hides behind the infringement issue in order to justify high returns and pay offs. The people who run the Pirate Bay use the RIAA as cover for justifying infringment. Both are equally bad, and by standing up against the RIAA, you can end up defending the Pirate Bay. You have even gone so far in doing so as to make the laughable comparison of it to Google. My post was to make a point, not to completely highjack the thread. Be careful in defending Pirates, it might make you appear like one. I'm done here. Later..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:34pm

Re:
I don't trust bloggers anymore then I trust main line press.

They have an agenda also. They admit facts from their story that would skew the point they are trying to make.

my eyes, every single news source is full of shit. They lie about everything. From bloggers to the large organizations.

The only way to get the truth is to read BOTH sides of a topic and then look at what you read with a grain of salt.

Fuck em all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:38pm

LOL David Coursey
that dumbass went to piratebay.com

HAHAHAAHHA

I seriously can't believe that some one that writes for PC World is sooo far out of the loop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ogormask (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re:
You are confusing bias with deceit. There is a big difference as every person when writing is biased and its up to the reader to determine that but there is a big difference between bias and outright lying or in the case of this just plain not checking facts. But accusing everyone of being liars is not really fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:42pm

Re:
Welcome to the 20th century, where you can be deemed a criminal because you visit the same places that real criminals go to!

Hooray for justice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crucible, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:48pm

David Coursey
To me this guy just sounds like another self-righteous moralizing piss-ant whose own shit don't stink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:49pm

Re: Re:
True, but you assume there are only two sides to a story. There are many many shades of gray separating the lies from the other lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:50pm

Re:
Beyond the your juvenile reply peppered with LOLs, you seem to be equating legality with morality. The two are not the same, unless you think Rosa Parks was a heinous criminal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_parks#Montgomery_Bus_Boycott) or that the Nazis were right to execute Poles that aided Jews(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#Punishment_for_aiding _the_Jews) or any number of other cases. Copyright exists solely as a public good, intended to compel innovation by granting limited rights over reproducible work. There are no moral issues at hand. You either agree or disagree with the public benefit of copyright, and so may choose to infringe or not. Much of current IP law is the result of incumbent interests lobbying self-serving politicians to protect their business(which indisputably occurs regradless of your copyright views), so I certainly have no problem with civil disobedience.

Additionally, your you're-either-with-us-or-against-us criticism only further betrays your emotional ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
Why isn't it fair? Is it going to hurt someone's feelings? If you start out assuming everyone that disseminates information is a liar you're more likely to go check the facts yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:07pm

@Ryan: Did you read my post or simply try to absord the content through Osmosis?

Beyond the your juvenile reply peppered with LOLs..

It's your opinion that my response was juvenile. I actually highlighted facts, such as, I don't know..THE NAME OF THE SERVICE IN QUESTION, to show how the comparison to Google was laughable, thus my use of LOL. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make my reasoning unsound, or juvenile.

", you seem to be equating legality with morality"

Actually, NO, I'm not, and my initial post makes that as clear as possible:
"by Anonymous_1 - Jul 6th, 2009 @ 12:51pm
Whether it is theft or not, or a crime is irrelevant.
It is certainly immoral, and infringement, to do what Pirate Bay's users have been doing."

"There are no moral issues at hand"

Actually, there are plenty, including artist intent of the work, and compensation. I'm not going to have that argument, suffice it to say, there are many, many people, technicalities aside, who consider infringement a form of theft, or stealing. Getting something that you might normally have to trade or pay for, for free, in this case. Yes, I know you don't see it that way, I do.

"further betrays your emotional ignorance."

WTH are you talking about? My emotional ignorance? STFU please, you're starting to ramble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:23pm

To further clarify, I meant it might not be theft under the LAW, but that morally, some could see it as an equivalent act, and that there are moral concerns for many, even if it is "only" "infrigement". Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, you are correct there. By the same token, just because something isn't illegal (which in this case it is, it's called "infringement"), doesn't make it right either. Your "argument" is total weak sauce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:23pm

To further clarify, I meant it might not be theft under the LAW, but that morally, some could see it as an equivalent act, and that there are moral concerns for many, even if it is "only" "infrigement". Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, you are correct there. By the same token, just because something isn't illegal (which in this case it is, it's called "infringement"), doesn't make it right either. Your "argument" is total weak sauce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:23pm

To further clarify, I meant it might not be theft under the LAW, but that morally, some could see it as an equivalent act, and that there are moral concerns for many, even if it is "only" "infrigement". Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, you are correct there. By the same token, just because something isn't illegal (which in this case it is, it's called "infringement"), doesn't make it right either. Your "argument" is total weak sauce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:30pm

Re:
Here's your SS shoulder boards. Good luck getting others to goose-step to your drummer's beat.

Really, just because you have such a broad view doesn't make it true. In our society, you must prove guilt. Not prove innocence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:46pm

Re:
Ok, I'll drop the ad hominem attacks.

Actually, NO, I'm not, and my initial post makes that as clear as possible:
"by Anonymous_1 - Jul 6th, 2009 @ 12:51pm
Whether it is theft or not, or a crime is irrelevant.
It is certainly immoral, and infringement, to do what Pirate Bay's users have been doing."

You provided no argument why you believe it to be immoral, only inferred that because it is infringing, it is immoral. "Infringement" is completely, 100% tied to an action's legal ramifications. It doesn't even really have a negative connotation. Regardless, file sharing copyrighted files is certainly not "certainly" immoral, unless you're judging by your own personal standards of morality, which I cannot speak for but do not apply to anybody else but yourself.

Actually, there are plenty, including artist intent of the work, and compensation. I'm not going to have that argument, suffice it to say, there are many, many people, technicalities aside, who consider infringement a form of theft, or stealing. Getting something that you might normally have to trade or pay for, for free, in this case. Yes, I know you don't see it that way, I do.

If the government passes a law requiring me to immediately purchase ten copies of Microsoft Windows, am I acting immorally if I decline to do so? After all, I am depriving Microsoft of the proceeds from ten copies that they are legally obliged to receive from me. What if I decide to download an artist's song that I otherwise would not have bought? There is no lost sale; they are denied nothing. I am not even receiving the file copy from an unwilling artisit, but from another who voluntarily decided to share it. There is nothing inherently wrong with file-sharing copyrighted content.

And regardless of how much you want it to be, infringement is not theft. Theft, by definition, entails depriving another of his own property.

To further clarify, I meant it might not be theft under the LAW, but that morally, some could see it as an equivalent act, and that there are moral concerns for many, even if it is "only" "infrigement". Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, you are correct there. By the same token, just because something isn't illegal (which in this case it is, it's called "infringement"), doesn't make it right either. Your "argument" is total weak sauce.

Again, infringement is entirely a legal issue; copyright law is not a moral code(unless you chose to make it your own, which seems kinda weird to me). That "some could see it as [theft]" and "there are moral concerns for many" means nothing to me. There are many crazy Arabs in the Middle East that feel a woman should be stoned to death if she holds hands with an unrelated male. Depriving an artist of his income I can see, but infringement does not deprive anybody of anything; you could even say that overly strict IP laws infringe upon the consumer's right to act with their own property as they desire.

I never said that because something isn't illegal, it is right...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SRS2000, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:50pm

Re:
And whose version of immorality?
Now how many things do you do that others consider immoral?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re:
..and do the same things the criminals do, and profit from the same things the criminals profit from.

Hooray for reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:59pm

@Ryan: This isn't really that hard a concept, but I'll try one final time.If you took the file, and listened to it, you got something for nothing. You didn't purchase it, and besides downloading it illegally, that is the only other option. So you took the option not to purchase something, but to gain it from other means. You don't see that as wrong. Many, many people including myself equate that to recieving stolen property at best. Say a buddy of yours takes a bike by breaking off the chain, then gives it to you. You know how he got it, but you didn't actually steal it. By your argument, that is perfectly morally fine. By my standard it isn't. Sorry. You're trying to have it both ways, and your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Infringement is not entirely a legal issue. I see however, you remain silent on my other points, as you got completely shot down. Your example is also a straw man of my argument, because most people would agree that the government compelling purchase of a product which is optional would be immoral. I agree with that. That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Pirate Bay. NOTHING. You went from calling me being emotionally ignorant, and when that didn't work, started using useless analogies. Good luck out there, you need all the help you can get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BigKeithO, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:05pm

Re:
Here you go;

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma&ie=UTF-8&q=&sa=Sea rch

Now Google is exactly like The Pirate Bay for you. Man that is laughable!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re:
The only way to get the truth is to read BOTH sides of a topic...

Heh, that's funny. You seem to think stories only have two sides. Well trained, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:11pm

Re:
"If you took the file, and listened to it, you got something for nothing. You didn't purchase it, and besides downloading it illegally, that is the only other option. So you took the option not to purchase something, but to gain it from other means. You don't see that as wrong."

Well, no. There's radio, MTV/VH1, borrowing the album from a friend... Very, very narrow views do not help your case at all, and personal opinions have little bearing on the legality of an issue.

As to morality, that cannot be solidly defined for any set group of people. Morals are very personal, and as such they defy quantification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: sad
Don't forget that it supports "Terrorism"

Don't forget to think of the children too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:13pm

@AC: As to morality, that cannot be solidly defined for any set group of people. Morals are very personal, and as such they defy quantification.

Which is always a convenient excuse to steal. Nicely done.
=)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:15pm

Re:
Who said jack shit about stealing? You. Not me. Nice way to avoid the topic, jackass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:15pm

Re:
Who said jack shit about stealing? You. Not me. Nice way to avoid the topic, jackass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:17pm

Well, no. There's radio, MTV/VH1, borrowing the album from a friend...

Borrowing from a friend is boarderline. Borrowing is usually done for a very small amount of time. Also, while I admit to having borrowed albums from friends, it was very rarely. If I had borrowed the album and then made a copy, that wouldn't be good. That's what happens with file sharing. Radio/TV are both advertising supported, so bad examples all around. Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:18pm

Re:
If you can't see how that alone distinguishes it from "Google" then you need to pull your head out of your a$$.

OK, check this:
http://www.google.com/intl/xx-pirate/
Seems to me that you're the who needs to pull his head out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Innocent Reader, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:19pm

For the sake of innocent reader
Anonymous_1, PLEASE learn to use paragraphs. We want piles of stupid to be in small quantities as to be easy to tolerate. I am sure that the English 101 class you are currently struggling to pass has covered their usage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:22pm

Re:
The reason I choose to stear the article towards the users of the sytem BTW Mike, is because I find writing like this troubling.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:25pm

Re:
To further clarify, I meant it might not be theft under the LAW, but that morally, some could see it as an equivalent act, and that there are moral concerns for many, even if it is "only" "infrigement".

Some have argued that it is morally equivalent to murder and piracy too. That doesn't make it so though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:36pm

Re:
So you took the option not to purchase something, but to gain it from other means. You don't see that as wrong. Many, many people including myself equate that to recieving stolen property at best.

I sell air for breathing (only $0.99/breath). Now, I haven't had any customers all day long, so I assume that you've been breathing air today that you got somewhere else since you didn't pay me for it. Now by your own standards you are a thief, so STFU and pay me!

Or are you just a sanctimonious hypocrite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:40pm

@AC: The ENTIRE purpose of Google's existance is not to engage in pirate acts. The history of Google shows this.
It came about as a competitor to Yahoo. The founding (the name provides a hint) of The Pirate Bay is to have a place to use torrent bit files to infringe. The founders of the site admit as much, and NO I won't link to this, and NO that doesn't make me wrong. The MAJORITY of content traded/bit-torrented (since nothing is technically traded) on the Pirate Bay, was in the past, just that, Pirated (hence the name!). To argue otherwise and compare that to a legitimate search engine is beyond absurd, from a logical, fact based analysis. Trying to engage in absolutely worthless argument like that is one of MANY reasons to LOL.
So: LOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:43pm

Re:
So the pirate party over in Sweden is full of thieves, rapist, and murderers?

So what that people use rifles for hunting, others use them for killing. Make sure to get on your soapbox about that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:43pm

@AC: Another worthless argument. You didn't create the air, so no I won't pay you. The act of paying people for their work, creative or manual labor, has developed throughout human history. It's not going to disappear because you want to listen to the latest Metallica album for free (AND yes I know the history of this band and file sharing).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:49pm

Something else to think about...
... is this: how many subscribers and readers does PC World have? What is the typical tech-experience/ education of these readers?

The big issue is that this guy's disinformation will be spread to all their readers without so much as a differing opinion. How many people will be convinced that Pirate Bay costs $27 (and whatever else he claims) simply because they read it in PC World? And, obviously, if PC World printed it, it must be true. After all, the magazine must have fact-checkers and editors and senior editors who look over this stuff, right? So it must be true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:49pm

@Chornno S. Trigger: I didn't say the Pirate party supported rape and murder . I said they supported infringement. They do.
The history of the founding of the Pirate Bay supports this view.

A gun is a tool that has mutiple purposes, true. So does the Pirate Bay site. Wow. There's a catch. Just because something CAN be used for something else, doesn't mean it is being used that way. Now your gun anology works for torrent-bits in general. True. That can be good or bad. The intended purpose of the specific site the Pirate Bay however, is to encourage, engage in infringement. So your anology doesn't quite work. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:49pm

Re:
The ENTIRE purpose of Google's existance is not to engage in pirate acts.

Well, neither is TPB's.

The founding (the name provides a hint) of The Pirate Bay is to have a place to use torrent bit files to infringe. The founders of the site admit as much, and NO I won't link to this, and NO that doesn't make me wrong.

If it isn't true, then that just makes you a liar. So what else is new?

To argue otherwise and compare that to a legitimate search engine is beyond absurd, from a logical, fact based analysis.

A "logical, fact based analysis"? Now that's really funny coming from you. Maybe you should try doing that sometime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:51pm

@AC:If it isn't true, then that just makes you a liar. So what else is new?

RIGHT, but IT IS TRUE. Yawn....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:52pm

Re:
I read through your comment string, anonymous_1(about 15 comments after you claimed you were "done here"), and it's quite apparent that you are either an immature child or legally retarded. You are constantly misrepresenting our arguments, making childish and unfounded personal attacks, and obviously are convinced of the superiority of your own moral discretion over everybody else, with little to no sound logic or factual information to back up anything.

Come back when you've lost your virginity and expanded your library from Everybody Poops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:56pm

Re:
You didn't create the air, so no I won't pay you.

Let's see, "you took the option not to purchase something, but to gain it from other means." Yep, that would apply to you, alright. Now pay up you sanctimonious, hypocritical thief!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:58pm

you are either an immature child or legally retarded..

making childish and unfounded personal attacks...

Kettle calling Pot black, Kettle calling Pot black...LOL.
are constantly misrepresenting our arguments...
NO. I answered you point by point.

are convinced of the superiority of your own moral discretion over everybody else...

When it comes to infringemet you're damn right I am.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 3:59pm

Let's see, "you took the option not to purchase something, but to gain it from other means."

OBVIOUSLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SOMETHING THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN ASSIGNED WORTH, LIKE A CREATIVE ASSET, LIKE RECORDED MUSIC. Duh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 6 Jul 2009 @ 4:02pm

Re:
I agree 100%. The author and/or editors of the article in question need to print a retraction/clarification ASAP.
It is bad, but so is TPB.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
coursey (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 4:13pm

Mea culpa
Hello:

You're right. It was 4 a.m. and I looked at piratebay.com rather than thepiratebay.org. Not the worst mistake in the history of journalism, but a pretty good one. In this case, doing less research would have prevented the error. Odd how that happens sometimes. And, no, I did not give piratebay.com any money.

Most of the world seems to have put the founders in jail, as did I. (And I look forward to when they actually are in jail).

I regret the errors.

David Coursey
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 4:36pm

Re: Mea culpa
I regret the errors.

Yeah, now that you got caught.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 5:44pm

Re: Mea culpa
So will you be happy when the founders of google, yahoo search, and all the rest are in jail as well? Or have convienently missed the fact that you can find torrents there just as easily as on the pirate bay?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 5:53pm

Umm... How would doing less research have prevented the mistake? If you just type 'pirate bay' into any search engine, the real site comes up. So, maybe 2 seconds of research would have been the key to preventing the first error.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easily Amused, 6 Jul 2009 @ 6:30pm

Re: Mea culpa
sorry, but that's bullshit.

If you had ever been to the correct site before, you would immediately have recognized that you were in the wrong place for research. Someone who knows that little about what they are bashing is not worth reading. If you were ignorant, you should have educated yourself instead of being a jackass.

If you have any pride in your work at all, maybe you shouldn't wait to begin researching a topic that so many people on both sides are very passionate about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fiercedeity (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 6:36pm

Re:
"If you just type 'pirate bay' into any search engine, the real site comes up."

Funny how this works. The Pirate Bay is an index of torrents. Google indexes the indices of torrents. So really Google indexes torrents, too. If it's logical to say that TPB is guilty of CI, then any site who links to them should be guilty too, no?

Quite the slippery slope, there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eldakka (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 6:55pm

Re:
You are basing the fact that they have a sense of humour and named their site humoursly as proof that they are immoral/criminals?

I've known builers who have a sense of humour and named their building company "bodgy" or words to that effect, because they have a sense of humour.

I know someone who named a business "beaver", and they aren't talking about the animal. Doea it make them porn obsessed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 6 Jul 2009 @ 7:30pm

Well, no...
"So will you be happy when the founders of google, yahoo search, and all the rest are in jail as well? Or have conveniently missed the fact that you can find torrents there just as easily as on the pirate bay?"

Well, since hypocrisy and fashionable sound-bites rule this arena, then no. You see, you arent allowed to rebel in any way. Picking a name like "The Pirate Bay" was inflamatory and intentionally, to "stick it" to everyone. File sharing and infringement arent even "piracy" as its defined, that belongs to people like the Somali pirates who killed crew, kidnapped people, and stole real, actual, non-virtual goods. Everyone, both sides, just use the term to inflame and forward their agenda.

So, they will focus on the Pirate naming and not the fact that Google, Yahoo, et al provide links to the EXACT SAME material. They will insist that because they call themselves "The Pirate Bay", that means they are somehow all completely wrong and Google is completely right.

If the true aim was to STOP file sharing, then EVERY SITE THAT PROVIDES LINKS should be attacked. TPB is easier: its smaller, less able to defend legal actions, and an emotional appeal on a hot-button issue. Google has DEEP pockets and would smoke anyone stupid enough to try to sue them over this stuff, and they know it. Hence, you go after the weaker, low-hanging fruit.

But Google et al are guilty in the SAME manner, and probably WORSE since they index so much more of the web. But that is swept under the rug in favor of an emotional reaction to the name "The Pirate Bay."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The candlestick maker, 6 Jul 2009 @ 8:25pm

We all grew up admiring pirates
Me thinks that Disney has been immoral since 1967 by profiting from piracy? Theme park rides, books records (remember them?) movies (that you will not copy or share) They have generated a world wide business extolling the virtues of stealing (We pillage plunder, we rifle and loot.), glorifying murder (Walk the plank), alcoholism (Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum) The list goes on
...... just look at the lyrics of their theme song:
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.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We kindle and char and in flame and ignite.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We burn up the city, we're really a fright.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

We're rascals and scoundrels, we're villians and knaves.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We're devils and black sheep, we're really bad eggs.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

We're beggars and blighters and ne'er do-well cads,
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Aye, but we're loved by our mommies and dads,
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.

What an abomination!!! This stuff is for four year olds???
Disney has made billions from piracy probably much more than the historical pirates.
I think we should take the moral high ground and refuse to visit this ride at their theme parks, Refuse to buy their movies and refuse sing their drunken songs . It is time we target the pirate ethic being propagated through the media, at Wal Mart and even at our public libraries.
We have been told by our beloved Disney that “its a pirate's life for me” since we could watch TV, now if we go to The Pirate Bay and download Black Perl, Disney’s lawyers will descend from the yardarm with suits through the RIAA.

What a interesting world we live in today, they programmed us to buy it, they don't want us to live it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2009 @ 10:22pm

Re:
OBVIOUSLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SOMETHING THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN ASSIGNED WORTH, LIKE A CREATIVE ASSET, LIKE RECORDED MUSIC. Duh...

If air has no value, then why are you bothering to "steal" it? I also suggest you try living without it if it has no value. I think your attitude just might change. (Or if it doesn't, I'm sure we'll be better off without you.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 12:49am

Re: Mea culpa
You're right. It was 4 a.m. and I looked at piratebay.com rather than thepiratebay.org. Not the worst mistake in the history of journalism, but a pretty good one.

Can I ask, then, why you did not issue a correction, but merely made the error disappear? And why the other sites running your story have not issued a correction?

Most of the world seems to have put the founders in jail, as did I. (And I look forward to when they actually are in jail).

It's still a pretty massive error of fact, and you are wrong on what "most of the world" seems to have done. I'm curious why you think those who have built a search engine deserve jailtime for the actions of some of their users? That's a very odd position for someone to take, and really does require some elaboration.

Your initial column falsely implied that The Pirate Bay was involved in theft. That shows a gross misunderstanding of the site. It's clear you don't know much about the site (esp. given the fact that you didn't even know anything about how it operated).

Since you're a well known professional reporter, is it common for you to write about subjects that you know little about, and rather than taking the time to understand, do a little random research at 4am instead?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 2:04am

be done already
"Did you read my post"

We did read your "I'm done here.", yet still you keep posting. What's that all about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 2:11am

Re: Mea culpa
"I regret the errors."

And we regret having wasted time reading uninformed, biased BS cobbled together at 4 am. Don't worry, won't happen again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SunKing, 7 Jul 2009 @ 5:44am

Re:
Oh dear! No matter what the discussion is about, or what your views and opinions are, as soon as you use the phrase "total weak sauce", you've lost. Only a lengthy period of laughter, scorn and derision can purge you from your embarrassing mistake. I'll leave you now to painfully rebuild the WHOLE of your internet credibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1DandyTroll, 7 Jul 2009 @ 6:13am

Trollin'Trollin'Trollin'
Rawhiiide.

ooops.

@Anonomous_1 '@Chornno S. Trigger: I didn't say the Pirate party supported rape and murder . I said they supported infringement. They do.'

Oh, you did not, wasn't any -ed to support. However you seem to get supporting a revised copyright legislation, to actually be supporting infringement.

This might be somewhat of news to you, but it's not infringement if it is legal to share your own copies.

'The history of the founding of the Pirate Bay supports this view.'

Darn, now I get it, the lefty brain don't connect with the righty half, that's why you mix and match, like you can't keep two and two separated?

Not really an eye opener, but I figure you don't know much about the 'founding' of The Pirate Bay, nor the Pirate Party.

Infomercial:

So you want it to be property?

Selling copies and deriving the buyer of the fundamental right to do with their own bought property as they see fit, is an affront to an honest capitalistic civilized society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 7 Jul 2009 @ 8:55am

@everyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pirate_bay

Some key quotes: "Initially established in November 2003 by the Swedish anti-copyright organization Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau), it had been operating as a separate organization since October 2004."

It was founded by anti-copyright people, not "we really think this whole copyright thing is overdone" people, but apparently those who feel it is OK to infringe on ALL copyrights, and do NOT GIVE A $HIT if anyone is paid for it.
Keep playing your stupid semantical games or you can kindly STFU now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 9:22am

Re: Mea culpa
"""Most of the world seems to have put the founders in jail, as did I. (And I look forward to when they actually are in jail)."""

Objective journalism at its finest! No agenda here!

"""I regret the errors."""

I don't believe that because if so you would not have just "disappeared" the mistakes but would have issued a proper retraction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 10:57am

Re:
It was founded by anti-copyright people, not "we really think this whole copyright thing is overdone" people, but apparently those who feel it is OK to infringe on ALL copyrights, and do NOT GIVE A $HIT if anyone is paid for it.
Keep playing your stupid semantical games or you can kindly STFU now.

Anti-copyright does not mean you believe it's okay to infringe. Please understand this key difference. You can believe that the laws are bad and do more harm than good without believing that everyone should violate the law.

Furthermore, being anti-copyright does not mean being anti-content creator as you seem to suggest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adept-Slacker (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Re:
I fail to see how I'm profiting off TPB (or doing anything criminal) by downloading open source software or public domain materials. The only benefit to me is increased download speed versus other sources. Your reality and mine are obviously different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 7 Jul 2009 @ 11:23am

@Mike Masnick: "Anti-copyright does not mean you believe it's okay to infringe. Please understand this key difference. You can believe that the laws are bad and do more harm than good without believing that everyone should violate the law.

Furthermore, being anti-copyright does not mean being anti-content creator as you seem to suggest."

I'll put it to you then Mike. If that's the case, then why set up the Pirate's Bay in the first place? Why not leave it on an intellectual level? What you said may generally be true (as in your case perhaps), but when you then go on to found a torrent site where infringement routinely takes place, and seems to be (by reasonable standards) to be the main purpose, then it kind of takes the air out of that balloon. No one needed the Pirate's Bay to do torrent exchanges Mike. THEY proclaimed their purpose on their own web site. The association is damning, to put it mildly.
Can't you see the slippery slope, in going from defending copyright reform (which surprisingly I 100 % support), to defending infringement? That's my position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous_1, 7 Jul 2009 @ 11:32am

@Adept-Slacker: You're not. Imagine that inside a crack house they also sold candy. You buy candy, and not crack.
The funds however, all go to supporting to the selling of crack in your neighborhood. That is the Pirate's Bay, IMHO.
They are (or were at least) advertising supported. Now I know I've heard the argument about how people aren't pirates all the time. That even pirates will buy things sometimes, or in this case, that crack heads may end up with a taste for candy. That's all well and good. It seems like it follows common sense however, that people who don't pirate won't do so the majority of the time, and that people who do pirate (infringe) will do so the majority of the time. So without the "legitimate" traffic on TPB, there would be no support for TPB. Places like Google, and Yahoo OTOH, (and I'm sure you could crunch the numbers) make most of their money off legitimate searches (not for illegal activity) on advertising dollars. While they may have pirate, hacker stuff to be found, they don't espouse it as their core mission or goal. That constitutes in my mind, and the minds of many others, a key difference. This is why the comparison between say, Google, and TPB is not very factual, or rational, an argument to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2009 @ 3:22pm

Re:
It was founded by anti-copyright people, not "we really think this whole copyright thing is overdone" people, but apparently those who feel it is OK to infringe on ALL copyrights, and do NOT GIVE A $HIT if anyone is paid for it.
Keep playing your stupid semantical games or you can kindly STFU now.

If you're an example of a typical copyright supporter, then I'd say that the sooner we get rid of it, the better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2009 @ 3:30pm

Re:
THEY proclaimed their purpose on their own web site.

You've been called out on lying about what they "proclaimed their purpose on their own web site" already. You seem to be a big believer in the Goebbels' theory that a lie will become true if you repeat it enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2009 @ 3:53pm

In Principle
This isn't really that hard a concept, but I'll try one final time.If you took the file, and listened to it, you got something for nothing. You didn't purchase it, and besides downloading it illegally, that is the only other option. So you took the option not to purchase something, but to gain it from other means. You don't see that as wrong. Many, many people including myself equate that to recieving stolen property at best.
Let me ask you about the moral, not legal, aspect of your position, Anonymous_1:

Suppose that I had some magic that I could use to duplicate anything I wanted to. Further suppose that I then go to, say, a fish sandwich shop and get a fish sandwich and then go out and stand on the sidewalk and begin making copies of that sandwich and sharing the copies with people for free. Would that be immoral in principle? What that be thievery in principle? Why or why not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 3:54pm

Re:
I'll put it to you then Mike. If that's the case, then why set up the Pirate's Bay in the first place?

Because it's an interesting and useful piece of enabling technology?

The fact that it *can* be used for infringing is hardly a reason not to do it. If it were, you wouldn't be using a computer today and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What you said may generally be true (as in your case perhaps), but when you then go on to found a torrent site where infringement routinely takes place, and seems to be (by reasonable standards) to be the main purpose, then it kind of takes the air out of that balloon.

Not at all. By setting up such a site, you show how the technology works and what it enables, and you make a statement about the sillyness of today's IP laws, without doing any infringing yourself. It actually seems quite reasonable.

THEY proclaimed their purpose on their own web site. The association is damning, to put it mildly.

How so? I don't see that at all, but maybe I'm missing what you're talking about.

Can't you see the slippery slope, in going from defending copyright reform (which surprisingly I 100 % support), to defending infringement? That's my position.

I don't see a slippery slope here at all, but perhaps I'm missing what you see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]