Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites
from the mole-wacking dept
Well, here we go again. Despite a near total lack of these kinds of activities helping anyone, apparently there's just been a European-wide set of raids on various file sharing operations. It's happening in at least 14 countries, with police showing up at various hosting firms, and trying to take down various private groups.I'm sure we'll hear the entertainment industry and/or law enforcement make some silly claim about how this represents a "significant blow" against file sharing. But, of course, the people saying that are the only people who actually believe it. Most people involved in file sharing via these sites will just move on somewhere else.
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: europe, file sharing, piracy, raids
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A Huge Milestone for Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Huge Milestone for Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Huge Milestone for Europe
All of these things have been said, more than once, publicly, by industry mouthpieces. All are swallowed uncritically by people in power. Even though a lot the war on piracy is well-known by netziens, it's still totally under the radar of nearly everyone in the world. Those who don't follow the issue have only a vague, unqualified, notion that copyright are great and pirates are criminals.
I think the biggest overall effect is that an entire generation is busy receiving an education on just how awful, malicious, and economically counterproductive organizations like the RIAA are. Really big social change takes a generation or more to take effect, and the people following the matter and getting shakedown lawsuit notices from big law firms today will grow to be our next generation of senators, judges, legislators, and police.
The times, they are a changin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TPB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Automobile driving" had a nice ring to it too, but "destroying the buggy business" was more accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is supposed to target "the scene"
it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, is affected. security among these types is supposed to be fairly tight and the distribution supposedly happens via darknets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missed me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p.s. they do this every year bout this time
THEY dont understand its cellular nature makes it virtually impossible to stomp it out and its viral nature in spreading.
Anyways back to upping and downloading.
this public service announcement brought you by the letter S and the word SHOVEL, cause you know they are just digging a grave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message brought to you by Big Media
If you're really bored, go decode this message from the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Message brought to you by Big Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Message brought to you by Big Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Message brought to you by Big Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Message brought to you by Big Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are after the scene and after 40 years they found 14 suspects this will show the scene who is boss for sure LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
stealing copyrighted music, movies is wrong, ends up hurting artists and creative people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
stealing copyrighted music, movies is wrong, ends up hurting artists and creative people
Seems obvious - but not in practice true - just like the earth is flat the sun goes around it and things only moved when pushed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subject
The corporations are controlling the police and politicians. Does anyone know the type of groups that are powerful enough to actually control the police and politicians? Hint: the name starts with "m".
Yes, the corporations will trumpet a "significant blow" in the presses (that they of course are partnered with). This will bring a smile to the faces of stockholders who will all finally believe that piracy is ended and all is well in the obsolete business models of the corporations and are once again thriving and flourishing and the good old day are back. Champagne glasses will be clinking and the executives and lawyers will be handshaking with grateful and blissfully ignorant stockholders.
No jobs by any artists have been saved. Those that are allegedly hurt by piracy don't notice a change in their own lives. The only changes that occur are; the lawyers are handsomely paid, and thanks to the relief of stockholders--the corporate executives can finally pay off their two-helicopter platform yacht in Monaco.
However, the reality is nothing else has changed and people are still sharing files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because I know I'm not renting(they call it buying but I don't believe them) anything from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see it as a victory for the good guys. Let them gloat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Greed is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A bunch of punks who thought they were above the law got taken down. From what I've read, these weren't end-users. They were higher up on the illicit file-sharing food chain. I imagine they're sitting in their cells now realizing that they aren't above the law.
I value people's rights and the law. They don't. They will be held to pay for what they purposely did, and that is as it should be.
That's my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Valuing the people's rights and supporting groups like the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, etc are completely contradictory. These groups support nothing but oppression, greed, and violating every right they can get away with if it means they will make a quarter. This site is chock full of posts about how the various license groups and labels have made massive efforts to completely trample on any right to privacy you might have. They constantly try to bully people around. And lastly, they are the most anti-artist groups out there, even though they claim to be for the little guy, they are anything but. They are on record time and time again as not paying the artists whenever possible. Pirating may, maybe, hurt labels (there is still no solid proof of this, only claims from industry paid for studies), but it sure doesn't hurt the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If downloading hurts artists so much you need to explain to me why so many artists are purposefully releasing tracks as free downloads or offering up entire albums and are doing great with it. The thing is, its not just the big name artists that do it. Its not just the small ones either. Artists from all areas are offering them up for download (small, big, medium, and even movie producers). Can you also explain how some of the biggest movies in the theatres were also the most downloaded?
Did you read my entire post above? The labels are on record time and time again as not paying artists. How is that not anti-artist? Why have they been sued so many times by their own artists if they are doing a great job?
Copyright is not working as is evidenced that all the useful tools that come up online, that the consumer market wants, the big labels sue to shut down. That right there is evidence enough that it is entirely broken. Even when the services want to work with labels, the labels go through great lengths to put such severe restrictions on the services that they must shut down.
Take the case of ASCAP threatening a lady for playing music to her horses saying she needs to pay them for it. WTF? If that is justified than the group needs to be disbanded or have some employees there reprimanded for being severely out of line.
I cannot understand how anyone can possibly support them unless they are making money from them (which, if an artist, is only the super big of the big, and even Eminem is suing his label). I really don't understand how anyone can say that they are for the artists. Nor do I understand the argument that copyright isn't broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, some artists and filmmakers allow their works to be shared. That is their right. Some artists and filmmakers don't allow sharing. That is their right. I like that they can choose how to release their works, and I respect their choice, whatever it may be.
I can't really comment about artists suing the labels unless I know exactly which case you're referring to. I'm sure every case is different. I imagine there are lots of people who are happy with the trade groups. This would explain why people choose to do business with them.
I don't find it problematic that certain people choose to enforce their exclusive rights under copyright. That is their choice. Others choose not to do so. That is also their right. Copyright gives them the right to choose the level of protection they want within the law. And it's not like copyright locks it all up. Only the expressions are protected, not the ideas. I think the safety valves are working.
I'm not familiar with the horse lady story. The fact is though that when a work is copyrighted, you are using that work under a license most of the time. The license controls how you can use the work. I respect the licenses and the choice that the rights holder made in deciding how to license their work.
What it boils down to, for me, is the fact that I don't get to decide how other people exercise their rights. If I disrespect other people's rights, then I am putting my needs above theirs, and that's not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lady, plays radio, for her horses. You know what a radio is right? Is has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with enforcing rights. It is broadcast for free over the airwaves. There is no reason playing a radio that is broadcast for free (radio stations already pay for licenses) should ever require you to pay an additional license.
Make sense now?
If any artist chooses to not give customers what they want, then I say they relinquish all rights to be whiney about customers getting what they failed to give em. If they don't want to make money that is their choice, you are right. So they cannot then turn around and whine about not getting money when they have failed the marketplace. Can't have it both ways. And it is more often the labels being whiney bitches, not the artists. Sure, there are some artists, but its more the labels and collection beaucracies. So quit trying to make this sound like it is only an artist decision when most of the time it isn't.
Thank gawd that it is becoming more and more of an artist decision these days. One generation from now not many artists are going to sign up with those shitty labels if they don't clean up their act and stop screwing artists.
Then again, that is part of what the labels lobby for. Laws that will prevent new and independent start ups from reaching their fans. (see my above point about them suing new internet ideas)
I must say that it feels like you more dodge my questions than ever answer them. All you ever do is say "yes some can" and then never answer back with any logical rebuttal. It is more you just go on about "their choice under the law". Yah, we know you feel that way, you said that.
Here, let me quote you:
Nor do I understand the argument that illicit file-sharing doesn't hurt artists.
I replied about how lots of artists make money that way. Your response was Sure, some artists and filmmakers allow their works to be shared. . Soooo, you contradicted yourself then. Either that or you have to admit that you do Now understand how file sharing doesn't hurt them.
I will tell you how about everyone in the public thinks: Artists who use internet to their advantage and don't whine about it are with the times and not outdated. Those who whine about downloading are looked upon as being old and outdated. Haven't met anyone under 30 who doesn't feel that way (except for a select few whose goal it is is to make music and use it as a welfare system, which is not what copyright is meant to be).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because an artist doesn't give you what you want doesn't mean you can then just take it. Society doesn't work that way. Can I just decide to trample on your rights if I believe you aren't exercising them as you should? Nope. Not legally anyway. It is an artist's decision. Artists don't have to contract with labels if they don't want to. They enter into the contract willingly. I don't see a problem here.
I didn't contradict myself. Some artists choose to share, and some don't. Those that don't are exercising their rights. When people infringe on their rights, they are harmed. If I infringed on your rights, would you feel like I had harmed you? When the rights are infringed on a massive scale, the potential for the market is harmed. Courts have no trouble finding this to be true in infringement cases. Just because somebody else successfully used a different business model that involved sharing, this doesn't mean that all file-sharing is necessarily beneficial for somebody else who isn't using that business model. People get to choose their model, and the law protects them no matter what that choice is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a very very horrible way for any government to work. That is incredibly socialist. The government should not be guaranteeing business, only fostering it. Passing laws to protect specific business models is guaranteed to prevent innovation and the advancement of technology.
You said you couldn't understand how file sharing doesn't harm artists. I list out an (non specific) example. You acknowledged. So you must no longer not understand, right? You do understand now how file sharing is not guaranteed harm. Right?
Here is the horse lady article.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml
Perusing this sites archives for even the shortest length of time shows today's collection societies to be incredibly short sited and not with the artists best interest in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, I don't have all the facts in the horse case, and I am certain that you are leaving material facts out. I would be happy to learn more if you could point me in the right direction.
Unfortunately though, you've shown yourself to be too puerile to talk with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Allow me to bold a section for you:
Oh, and I will grant you that I didn't clearly say radio in my post you just replied to, but it cannot possibly be misinterpreted as anything other than "lady playing music for her horses" and if you think that requires an additional license to a collection agency then I just cannot listen to you anymore because you have no logic skills and base your arguments on greed.
You jumped to conclusions there pretty quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
Are you kidding? They tried to make all works works for hire owned by the Labels. They did this in a sneaky and underhanded way and tried to essentially hide it in the shadows of other legislation.
"Hollywood account" is another good one. Plenty of artists and even former executives are willing to speak out about the nonsense that goes on.
Then there's that whole "Glee" nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
Because it was a law, it superceded any current contracts the artists had signed with the labels. In other words, they did not willingly get what they contracted for.
Fortunately, a bunch of artists found out, made a stink about it, and got the law repealed.
That staff member is now Chairman and CEO of the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/music/feature/2000/08/28/work_for_hire
(It is linked in the Wikipedia article.)
Lots of good stuff in there. For example: The ostensible reason that artists' rights were taken away, is so that they'd be protected under anti-"cybersquatting" legislation. (It turns out they were protected anyway.)
In other words, artists' rights were taken away, under the guise of protecting their rights in the digital realm. Sounds pretty familiar...
Also note that the man behind the Featured Artists Coalition, the artists' group that fought the law, was Don Henley. He has recently made some rather wrong-headed statements about copyright, e.g. that the DMCA allows YouTube to "steal" content, and how the copyright office doesn't support copyright owners. It backs up my theory about why established artists don't understand file sharing:
I think that traditional musicians are so used to dealing with labels, they simply can't wrap their heads around the notion that people getting their music without payment could be anything other than people screwing them over.
That seems to be reflected in this Henley quote:
On the one hand, RIAA creates all this flap about Napster and copyright infringement, while with the other hand, they've taken away artists' copyrights.
There are also lots of nice quotes from artists about how labels have always worked against them, e.g.: "All we've done is gotten them to take their foot off our throats."
It sort of rebuts your assertion that "I don't even begin to understand how anyone can say these groups are anti-artist." But you're not a musician, so I'll forgive you. This is only the tip of the iceberg; if you'd like more stories, I'll be glad to oblige.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
If piracy somehow was gone, you still would not see money from me LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until then, they have done nothing except make people look for an alternative file sharing resource that's less likely to get shut down - just like they have when every other resource has been targeted.
But, you're too busy making money from the broken system to care, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've bought a fair amount of music over the last few years from AmieStreet - especially after eMusic because prohibitively expensive after the major labels got involved. The content was variable (regional restrictions again), but some things I wanted were there, and cheap.
While writing the above message, I got an email from AmieStreet saying they will be shutting down and forwarding their customers to Amazon. As a "gesture", they offer a free $5 Amazon voucher.
Great, except: 1. Most of the world can't buy MP3s from Amazon thanks to moronic region restrictions (CDs are fine for whatever reason), 2. The voucher is only for the US Amazon store, so nobody outside the US can use it, even if they're allowed to buy from Amazon under normal circumstances.
Meanwhile TPB and other will happily give me any album I want. I am willing to pay for f***ing music, and Joe's moronic clientele won't let me. That's why this is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have no clientele. I have no idea what clientele I will actually have one day. Period.
Give it a rest.
Why do you guys have to make up lies about me? Can't you debate me on the issues without exaggerating so much?
Mike can't, that's for sure. I doubt you can either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be so surprised or angry then when the consumers try to find a way to get what they want. If a content maker fails to address the public, they deserve to go out of business and have more successful folks take over. That is the way of things. Begging for more laws to protect something that nobody in the general public wants is lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not surprised people "steal" content. Those people who do so are putting themselves above the law though. I think it's hilarious that when they get busted they claim that they are the "victims."
I agree about letting the market sort things out. Not sure which laws you're referring to, so I can't comment on that part. I will say though that there are lots of laws I don't agree 100% with. That doesn't give me license to ignore those laws. That's not how society works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I quote you: I agree about letting the market sort things out.
Copyright laws these days are very much so anti free market. They attempt to force a lot of things. All of the services (trying to) pop up online are the free market at work. New business models are the free market at work. The massive collection agencies and labels trying to get more laws from the government is not the free market. Would you agree or disagree? And if you disagree can you elucidate some for me how laws from the government regulating more and more are free market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This gets brought up almost every time and seems to be the key sticking point for many anti unauthorised file sharing people. To me, as well as I would presume to most people who share copyright protected files, the law is just a means to an end. Many who are against unauthorised file sharing present the law as an end in itself by citing its authority as the basis for their arguments. Because they never seem willing to explain the reasoning behind the premise I can only conclude that it is merely a crutch for their argument and a means to an end for their agenda.
Relying on laws for moral direction is a certain spiral into 'nothing good has come of this'. It's all very Orwellian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This does not make sense. The ability to choose what you like or dislike seems impossible to lose.
"You can't just follow the laws you agree with."
Probably not, there are a lot of unpopular laws so nearly everyone would end up in jail sooner or later. A fear of consequences hardly seems a compelling reason to agree with something, only to comply with it. I wasn't suggesting breaking the law anyway, just that the law isn't a reason to believe something is right or wrong.
"If you don't like the law, work to change it."
Sound advice.
I fail to see how any of this amounts to more than 'don't infringe copyright because you might be caught', which would admittedly be better than 'don't do it because it's against the law'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and I bet you're allowed to buy it too! My point, exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> content he wants in whatever form he wants whenever
> he wants it.
It seems like you want to deny the First Sale Doctrine.
This isn't just about whether or not artists get a pay day. This also is about the rights of individuals being trampled in favor of the non-rights of Media Moguls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and they lose the right to complain if I illegally download something that they refuse to offer me legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet if you get busted you'll think you are a victim. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please, point out where I told a lie. You claim to work as an IP litigator, or at least aiming for a career in said industry. Therefore, your clientele - present or future - is what I consider to be the problem.
So, either you're lying about yourself, or you're pointlessly defending a broken system to which you have no tie. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you and Mike wait until I actually do something before you hold it against me.
Blaming me for something I haven't done yet is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because I'm considering a career in IP doesn't mean I'm going to do all of the worst things in IP you can think of. That's a huge jump in logic that Mike makes, and it is completely without basis. Of course that doesn't stop Mike from saying it.
Why let the truth get in the way when you are trying to discredit someone you don't like, right, Mike? So, so sad.
Drink Mike's Kool-Aid and believe in his fairytales if that's what you want to do. I'll focus on the real world, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shame, you were actually making somewhat more sense than some of the other darryls out there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, I'm an open book. I've shared the fact that I'm in law school.
I'm in a four-year program and I've got two years left. I'll sit for the bar in July of 2012. That's 22 months away.
I have no idea what kind of law I'll practice after that.
I enjoy learning about IP and I'm interested in practicing it. I'm helping to get the IP law group back together at my school.
Maybe I'll do IP, maybe I won't. I really don't know.
I work for a federal judge as an intern. I do research for the court, and I've got an all access pass to the behind-the-scene action.
I really enjoy working for the court, and I'm considering getting a job as a clerk at the Court of Appeals once I graduate.
Maybe that won't happen though. I don't know.
I'm not sure how any of that makes me a troll. I post what I honestly believe to be true, and my posts usually have substance to them.
If that's trollish, then I don't really understand why.
I don't many other posters being so honest about themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Flag it if it has nothing to do with the topic.
Report early and often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People don't need to see you doing it, they know already the path you chose will lead you to it so you will be as bad as the other ones if not worst.
You are part of growing cancer that destroy societies, culture, impoverishing people and destroying economies.
You are just another a-hole in a big line of a-holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you wait until I actually do something before you criticize me for doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not changing much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It slowed me down..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more about stoppen revolution's like Chillwave.
If you can't kill the revolution, stop the infrastructure it depends on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was actually going to answer your question until I read that last line.
Why is that people who disagree with you are wrong? That's high-school thinking. In the real world, there are good arguments on either side of a given issue. It's not black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still waiting for actual evidence, and not an interpretation of the law on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you feel that is the only point to a debate then that is a shame and seems rather arrogant. You should only need to communicate your point of view clearly enough for other people to understand it. The rest is their choice whether to agree with you.
You seem to put all your energy into citing authority to back up your claims rather than getting to the bottom of an argument. I don't see the point in claiming that you are right if you can't be bothered to try and communicate why you believe so. If the answer is so obvious then why would you rather waste your time repeating how obvious it is instead of explaining it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Labels have been "giving away a work for free" for eighty yers. It is called radio. It did not hamper the ability for labels to make money. In fact, it helped them make money so much, that for decades the labels illegally paid the radio station to get their music on the air (and to not play music that was not on a major label).
Likewise, tons of studies over the past ten years have suggested that file sharing does not result in "lost sales." On the other hand, the only studies that do show piracy losses are put out by the recording industry themselves, and are so flawed that even the government's copyright agencies criticised them for being innaccurate.
Some reading material:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249 .stm
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/21/study-fin ds-file-sharers-buy-ten-times-more-music/
http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-1130.html
http://www.ivir.n l/publicaties/vaneijk/Ups_And_Downs_authorised_translation.pdf
I have not found a single study which shows how prosecuting infringers would increase sales.
Plus, there is one industry that can answer your question. That is the movie industry. Infringement is currently happening on a widespread scale, and has been for a few years now. Yet Hollywood studios made more money last year than they ever did in their entire history.
Not only is it not "res ipsa loquitur," it is probably outright false.
But really, you're asking the wrong question here. The fundamental question is this: By granting the "right" to make these raids on behalf of copyright holders, is society better off?
The answer is clearly no. Res ipsa loquitur. And if you put it to a vote, I'll bet that the majority would agree with me.
So, following the Constitutional purpose of copyright law, these rights should be taken away. They're not inalienable; they're only granted through the will of the public.
...Well, if this happened in the United States, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, according to the law, the actual damage done to the plaintiff is irrelevant. You infringe, you're guilty, even if the infringement harmed nobody. That's the reason courts "cut right through" that argument. It has nothing to do with "res ipsa loquitur."
It's also the reason that all lawsuits against peer-to-peer infringement have asked for statutory damages rather than actual damages. Nobody can prove there are any actual damages. If the USCG had to ask for actual damages, you can bet that "res ipsa loquitur" would only make the judges laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if copyright infringement cannot be proven to be more harmful than the rights lost due to enforcement, then enforcement is not justified at all.
Just as it would be if these raids were conducted to prevent people from ripping the tags off of mattresses.
And the burden of proof rests on the enforcers. So if people enforcing the law can't prove that breaking the law produces significant harm, then the law shouldn't be enforced. Even if legal, it is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, for now. Fifty years from now, it will not be. And everyone (Hollywood studios included) will be better off for it.
I'm already arguing with Nina Paley in a separate thread about how CC-BY-NC should be interpreted (or abandoned). In the very near future, current copyright law is going to be eliminated (by artists foremost) and replaced with some sort of CC license, and we'll be able to build a new structure from the ground up.
I just think it's a travesty that so many innocent people (e.g. defendants in USCG suits) will be destroyed in the meantime. I know you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but I still sympathize with the eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34122318/Sony-v-Tenenbaum-Damages-Ruling
The argument is couched in terms of the Due Process Clause, which is the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth.
I hope the ruling withstands the appeals process. We'll see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Massive infringment, was being done since the introduction of tape recorders did the market suffer?
Nope, actually if we take the top 100 artists and plot their earnings they all make more money then they were making 10 years ago, where is the f.ing negative effects you are talking about?
The only thing falling like a meteor is plastic disk sales which is normal, where was the last time anybody saw a discman?
And there is the small matter of what is the market, and what happens when markets change?
Radio gives something for free did it negatively affect the industry? no the industry even keeps getting into scandals over it.
So your assumptions are BS and so are your conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cookie jar syndrome...
Human nature is such that the more you condemn something the more it will spread. We need laws, but, people can tell instinctively when they are moved by justice, and when they are moved by greed. This stuff is moved by greed.
And remembering the Sony rootkit virus that SONY PUT ON A CD that infected your computer if you PLAYED it on your computer gives me a bit more sympathy for the pirates. What do you do, buy a CD that will CERTAINLY infect your computer or download pirated mp3s that MIGHT infect your computer? After having to remove this crap from a retired ELDERLY COUPLE'S computer it almost made me a rabid pirate. That's not protecting artists, that's greed designed to force compliance on the innocent.
And Killer_Tofu is right. This isn't about artists rights, this is about greedy corporations using governments as enforcers. I'm an artist (not musical) and I recognize one fact of life in the digital world: anything digital can be pirated. If I insist on being a jerk and offering substandard fare, for ridiculous prices, then my customers won't pay for the work. They'll do an end run around me and it for free, and it's my fault for shorting my customers.
These are facts of life. This solves nothing, and it's not going to save the conventional music industry. The more they post guards on the cookie jar, the harder the pirates will work to circumvent them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Why are so many members of Mike's Army so morally void? You've got a great group of followers here, Mike. Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Also, morals are relative. My morals are not your morals. SLK8ne says it perfectly with people can tell instinctively when they are moved by justice, and when they are moved by greed.
More and more of society is seeing copyright laws as greed, not justice. And the percent will only grow faster the more they lobby for anti market protectionist laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
2) Vague statements about "missing the point".
3) Appeal to majority
You have now officially devolved into TAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
4) Agreeing with the first person who says anything bad about Mike, even if that person is a known troll and idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
I have a feeling of deja vu. When will you stop resorting to the law as an absolute authority, do you believe it to be some sort of deity?
If your argument were just that everyone should obey the law then fine, I can accept that and disagree. My problem is that you use that as a premise to argue that because copyright is part of law then it is a moral right. You can say that infringers are immoral for breaking the law, but the argument is over copyright and not its legal status so the point is irrelevant. Something being part of law does not make it a moral right, even if you believe following the law is a moral imperative. I fear that this is a similar distinction to the one causing problems in our previous discussion.
I look forward to being dismissed as boring again. It is high praise from a law student.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
I'm in class at the moment... gotta go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
I guess you're just allergic to semantics then, not logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
I made this point above, but:
Since copyright is a statutory right - granted solely through the will of the people - then yes, collectively we absolutely do.
And I'd probably take it easy with the "morally void" insults. Glass houses, and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
It's not a matter of "whose rights," it's a matter of what laws. If those same users would flip out if their own creative works were shared, then you might have a point, but I don't see that happening.
that's different than what I'm talking about.
Maybe not as much as you think.
All the people who share infringing files (hundreds of millions, last I heard) are in a sense practicing civil disobedience. They don't agree with the law, but they're powerless to change it, so they break it.
Also, since copyright is a "negative right" - it's only the "right" to prevent others from doing something - then those who are prevented from action are parties to the law as much as rights holders are. It's shouldn't simply be a question of whether those users are respecting copyright. It should also be a question of whether copyright is respecting those users.
Clearly, those users believe it does not. I believe that the majority agrees with them. The problem is that the majority universally believe that their opinion is irrelevant. They believe that copyright is there only to protect rights holders, and if they get screwed, tough shit for them. They have no idea that copyright is supposed to exist solely to benefit them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Youtube alone is a testament to that these days. Countless people putting videos online for free. IP laws are largely unnecessary. I can only see them being useful for prevent people from claiming your work to be theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
This is a good place to start: http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/index.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
The causality chain has a link missing.
Here's another argument. Infringement has exploded in the last few years, and creativity is alive and well. Therefore, infringement is responsible for creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Creating works is only half the equation. The public ownership of those works is the other half. Both halves must be satisfied in order for copyright to be successful.
If more people create art, but the public is prevented from claiming ownership of those works, then copyright is still broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Also, you fail to realize that the cost of making movies is going down more and more. Movies don't have to cost hundreds of millions to make to be good, and they don't have to come from the major studios or any studio at all to do so, either. There is art and media outside the major industry systems, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Yes, some movies can be made for much cheaper, but the ones with really awesome effects like Avatar are not cheap to make. I simply cannot imagine those films being made unless the makers were secured in their investment by copyright.
And if people want to make cheap movies that aren't copyrighted, they can choose to do so. Nothing is stopping them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
Except that every time works are about to enter the public domain, the mega-corporations that own the majority of the world's expressions then lobby Congress to get copyright extended retroactively. (That the Supreme Court OK'ed this is a disaster.) So, the chance of any work ever entering the public domain is now remote - it's far more likely it'll be lost forever.
And the public gets some benefit from the work. It cannot get the full benefit of artistic expression until it is granted all of the rights (to which it is Constitutionally allowed). For example, until a work enters the public domain, nobody else is free to use it in any sort of derivative fashion - commercially or otherwise.
Copyright does not EVER lock up "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Yes, the "idea-expression divide." That divide seems to be crumbling lately. See e.g. the Catcher In The Rye "sequel," which is infringing not because any expressions were used, but because it had the same characters. In our old friend music, that divide doesn't seem to work too well, when John Fogerty can be sued for infringing on his own work, and George Harrison can be sued for writing a song that sounds similar to another song.
There were lots of reasons why copyright was extended and why it was extended retroactively.
None of those reasons directly benefit the public, though.
I simply cannot imagine those films being made unless the makers were secured in their investment by copyright.
That's like living in Ancient Egypt, and saying, "I simply cannot imagine pyramids being built without the existence of slavery."
In any case, movies make the vast majority of their money within a year or two of being released. (Most make their money on opening weekends). So, if we went with the original copyright terms (14 years), I doubt that blockbuster movies would be effected all that much. But the benefits to society would be enormous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
I don't buy the Fogerty argument. If he was the rights holder in the work, then he couldn't infringe on it. Obviously he chose to assign the rights to someone else. He has to live with that choice.
The effect of extending copyright can benefit the copyright holder and the public. Read the filings behind Eldred to see the arguments for this.
Maybe society would benefit more with shorter copyright term for movies or maybe it wouldn't. There are good arguments on either side of the debate. I haven't seen an argument for one side that made me think the debate was over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
The public benefits, insofar as it gets the ability to pay for access to that work. That's not "a lot" in my book. But if you buy the theory behind copyright, all rights to the work are the public's by default. They are temporarily granted to artists by the public (via Congress), in return for eventually gaining the rights to a greater number of works.
So let's do a thought experiment. Picture a world exactly like ours, except the copyright clause never existed. Would all the works that exist in that world, be less than all the works in the public domain in ours? If the answer is "no," then copyright is broken.
I don't buy the Fogerty argument. If he was the rights holder in the work, then he couldn't infringe on it.
In case you're wondering, I'm referring to Fogerty v. Fantasy. In that case, Fantasy accused Fogerty of writing a song ("The Old Man Down The Road") that infringed on a different song which he also wrote ("Run Through The Jungle"). This is the same case that decided innocent copyright defendants could be awarded attorney's fees, because copyright is not a civil right.
The effect of extending copyright can benefit the copyright holder and the public. Read the filings behind Eldred to see the arguments for this.
I've read a few of the documents that I found here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/legaldocs.html
They're mostly about whether, by law, retroactive copyright extension violates the "limited times" part of the Clause, and whether it violates the First Amendment. A couple of them argue for the economic benefits to rights holders. I couldn't find one that even suggests that it benefits the public, or helps grow the public domain.
Can you give a good reason why it would?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
I'm not sure if I buy that argument, but there it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?
Im sure Europe wide raids in 14 countries, would be considered by many (especially those raided) as a significant blow.
I would most certainly say its a significant blow, very significant, it certainly turned up on your radar quickly.
I would say a coordinated international set of raids, and the crippling of TPB, and other torrent sites that either no longer exist or exist in a highly neutered form.
That is significant, by 'most' peoples standards. that with lawsuits to individual up/downloaders, and the sites.
People (who think) are going to think twice before they engage in activities that 1. are against the law and 2. has an active and effective enforcement authority.
As for getting to pick and choose what laws you want to abide by and what you intend to break, you have that choice, but if you break laws you violate the law that society has defined. And you are guilty of said crime.
As AJ said, if you dont like a law, all you can do is seek to change it, you have NO RIGHT to disregard or break any laws just because you dont agree with them.
For every law that you disagree with, there are hundreds that are essential for your existance and for a stable society and economy. You dont get to pick and choose..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?
Depends on your definition of "blow".
By the standards most intelligent people would use (i.e. the actual effect on levels of file sharing), it's insignificant. Most major trackers are still active, "piracy" is largely unaffected. The only real "blow" is on the taxpayer's wallet, after god knows how much money has been pissed away, yet again, on a pointless P.R. exercise.
"People (who think) are going to think twice before they engage in activities"
No, they're not. that's why it's pointless.
"As AJ said, if you dont like a law, all you can do is seek to change it, you have NO RIGHT to disregard or break any laws just because you dont agree with them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
"For every law that you disagree with, there are hundreds that are essential for your existance and for a stable society and economy. You dont get to pick and choose.."
Except, we all do - every single day. Stood by an empty street and don't want to wait for the green light? You cross, illegally. On a familiar road with light or no traffic? You drive a couple of MPH over the speed limit. There's hundreds of silly laws out there that nobody realises they are breaking, and hundreds of others that nobody cares that they are breaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?
No, they're not. that's why it's pointless.
So based on that one would have to assume the file sharers are stupid as well as criminal !.
"For every law that you disagree with, there are hundreds that are essential for your existance and for a stable society and economy. You dont get to pick and choose.."
Except, we all do - every single day. Stood by an empty street and don't want to wait for the green light? You cross, illegally. On a familiar road with light or no traffic? You drive a couple of MPH over the speed limit. There's hundreds of silly laws out there that nobody realises they are breaking, and hundreds of others that nobody cares that they are breaking.
This is not a strong argument, what your saying is (like copyright laws) road laws are not necessary, the fact that you routinely break those laws, does not mean you therefore have the RIGHT to break any laws that you deterine you dont agree with.
Speed limits for the road, are there for a reason, just as traffic lights are, so you would be pissed off if someone ran a red light, while you were crossing on a green (WALK), and run you over and killed you..
Even if it was "just crossing" against the light signal.
Does not make you any less dead, but laws are laws, they are there for a reason, and you dont get to choose the ones you want to obey and the ones you dont..
Anyhoo, I just wanted to say, if you think file sharers wont take note of these raids, then you have to conclude they are stupid as well as willing to flaunt the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?
Well, I think it blows. Significantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just give me my stuff!
Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just give me my stuff!
When you upload, you are distributing, and thereby infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution.
Google 17 U.S.C. 106 to see the list of exclusive rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and another question. Do you even understand that just because something is a law, doesn't make it right?
Sometimes, due to a horribly broken system (you may have seen the recent article about US voting machines being able to be easily reprogrammed to play Pac-Man, for instance, not to mention the numerous other problems those machines are deliberately allowed to have), the only recourse most people have to bad laws is civil disobedience. Think on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legalese is entirely unnecessary, in my opinion - laws and documents can and should be written in simple English that anyone can understand. But then that would mean less work for lawyers, and they will never allow that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I haven't billed anyone for anything, and I am not responsible for the complexity of the law, but blame me personally if that's how you roll. Makes you look like a total douche, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've never ripped anyone off in my life. I have no idea why you think I'm going to start now.
Lots of professions charge by the hour. Not sure why you're such a hater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]