[HN Gopher] "The Pirate Bay can't be stopped," co-founder says
___________________________________________________________________
"The Pirate Bay can't be stopped," co-founder says
Author : TangerineDream
Score : 170 points
Date : 2021-11-28 16:15 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| INTPenis wrote:
| The Foundation is out on Apple TV and I'm already paying for 4
| streaming services. Avast matey! Piracy isn't dead, it's just
| underground.
| mymythisisthis wrote:
| I wonder if copyright will still be around in 50 years? It's easy
| to record music. It's easy to share music. It's hard to untangle
| what inspired a piece of music, and how much an artist reused
| previous work. I wonder when the whole scheme of copyright will
| collapse under its own weight.
| smoovb wrote:
| As Chamath pointed out on the All In Podcast, Pirate Bay and
| torrenting serve as competition for rights holders, keeping
| Hollywood pricing and quality in check, and thus a net good for
| consumers.
|
| The 2013 TPB documentary -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOKXCEwo_8
| no_time wrote:
| Stopping it may not be possible but the change of hands killed
| everything that was nice about tpb. Quality plummeted very fast
| and the last time I checked extremely obvious malicious torrents
| with faked seeder counts were at the top of the games section for
| days. The whole site looks like it lost its community and also
| it's heaps of obscure content.
|
| I'm still grateful for the sysops of tpb and more importantly,
| Mininova for providing me with endless hours of entertainment
| before I had the means to stay in a private tracker.
| sli wrote:
| Maybe not, but its quality can tank so low that nobody recommends
| it anymore, which has long since happened.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Well the lawsuits were worth it mainly as a way to create a
| income stream for the lawyers
| shmerl wrote:
| _> It is a cultivated myth that we would not have any streaming
| services for music, film and TV series if Pirate Bay did not
| exist. Those who claim it do not understand how technology
| development works._
|
| Someone forgets how legacy copyright industry fights tooth and
| nail against any innovation, until they realize it's futile and
| then they try to start using technology instead of fighting it.
| This hasn't changed a bit. They literally do it every step of the
| way trying to slow progress down for the sake of their obsession
| with control.
| sjtindell wrote:
| With an occasional detour to try to push some sort of
| technology that nobody actually wants.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Wasn't the founder of Spotify the CEO of uTorrent?
| sslalready wrote:
| IIRC, the uTorrent guy (Ludde Strigeus) was employeed by
| Spotify and worked on, among other things, the P2P feature in
| Spotify.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Spotify pirated early content.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Kinda, Spotify bought uTorrent to get the head programmer then
| sold the company.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Hasnt the website been down for months?
| makeworld wrote:
| Nope.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/PirateBay_Proxy/comments/qkax5j/pir...
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Works fine on my end? The canonical domain is blocked by some
| ISPs around the world, but there's always the .onion site. You
| can find the links on Wikipedia probably.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >The piece doesn't go deep into detail but it shows that the
| entertainment industry lawyer doesn't regret going after the site
| and its founders, despite the mixed result.
|
| That lawyer is probably the person who has made the most money
| off of TPB. Of course they don't regret it.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I was at a Grammy luncheon a number of years ago and I somehow
| wound up seated with all of the entertainment attorneys for the
| labels/recording industry/whatever and it was a very
| interesting/bizarre conversation. I've spent much of my adult
| life (and even pre-adult life), speaking out and writing about
| the idiocy of those various campaigns to shut down P2P, DRM,
| etc., and then I was at this industry luncheon with some very
| nice people who believe the exact opposite of me. Interesting
| and civil discussions ensued (I was the odd-woman out, both for
| my position and because I didn't drive to the Beverly Hills
| Hotel in a $200,000 car), but I got the sense that as misguided
| as I personally think they are, many of the lawyers honestly
| think they are doing the right thing to try to protect against
| so-called infringement the ways that they do. I'm sure the
| money is definitely part of it (again, I took an Uber to the
| luncheon. They had valet service for their $200,000 cars), but
| I don't think that's most of it to be honest.
|
| It was helpful for me to meet and talk with people who have the
| opposite opinion and perspective of me. Not because we changed
| each other's minds (my mind wasn't changed), but because I saw
| that these were people who really thought they were protecting
| and fighting for the rights and protections of artists and
| creators. As I said, it didn't change my opinion about how
| misguided and ultimately harmful those fights have been
| (especially towards the parties they want to protect), but I
| did at least see that not all of them are evil boogeyman who
| just want to get money.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > They had valet service for their $200,000 cars
|
| > the lawyers honestly think they are doing the right thing
|
| Reminds me of:
|
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
| his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton
| Sinclair
| akudha wrote:
| _I personally think they are, many of the lawyers honestly
| think they are doing the right thing_
|
| They have tons of money, they're highly educated, well
| connected individuals, are they not? All they have to do is
| spend one Saturday reading up. With the money they have, they
| can even hire researchers to do some original research for
| them. My guess is that they don't want to know. Money has a
| way of suppressing one's good side.
|
| I am having a hard time sympathizing with these lawyers. They
| go after students, poor people for downloading a song or two.
| They're the reason for the sorry state of copyright laws
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > They're the reason for the sorry state of copyright laws
|
| Blaming lawyers for the state of copyright laws is doing a
| huge service to the legislators that pass them and the
| lobbyists who write them.
| jessaustin wrote:
| ...90% of whom are lawyers.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I don't disagree, but having pressed some of them on those
| exact issues (not all at that luncheon), it really is
| similar to talking to district attorneys who often
| prosecute low-level drug crimes (which I personally find
| even more egregious). These are people who really are
| convinced they are doing the right thing. As I said, this
| doesn't change my opinion, but it does make having a
| conversation more productive.
| kf6nux wrote:
| The people in the USA practicing eugenics thought they
| were doing the right thing. The people in the USA
| creating concentration camps for the Japanese (a.k.a.
| internment camps) thought they were doing the right
| thing.
|
| Belief in yourself and your cause is irrelevant. Most
| people have that regardless of what they do.
| Qub3d wrote:
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something,
| when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -
| Upton Sinclair
|
| Maybe a bit of a truism, but it is a popular quote for a
| reason
| akudha wrote:
| I can sympathize with someone who isn't educated or
| living in a rural area (cut off from the world) or raised
| in a cult etc. I _really_ can't believe the lawyers who
| went to Ivy League colleges are that naive. They're much
| smarter than an average guy like me.
|
| Doesn't mean they are evil, just that they're paid enough
| to set aside any moral concerns they have.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The legal profession self-selects for people who think
| this way, for a number of various reasons.
|
| 1. If you disagree with the base assumptions of
| copyright, you are going to misunderstand the law and
| fail your LSAT/bar exam/etc. You will be blinded by "it's
| just to keep big companies afloat" to notice the actual
| rules of things like fair use.
|
| 2. If you get a law license but disagree with the base
| assumptions of the law, you are going to be at a
| financial disadvantage by refusing to represent clients
| whose politics disagrees with yours.[0]
|
| 3. If you choose to represent copyright defendants, you
| can only do so to the extent that there is a legal
| argument that they can make. It is illegal for a lawyer
| to aid a client in the commission of a crime... and if
| your legal career is based around the idea that something
| _shouldn 't_ be a crime, then you will need to hold your
| tongue and pick your battles a lot.
|
| 4. If you somehow jump through those hoops and
| competently represent clients... you probably have
| sacrificed on your "abolish copyright" ideology a fair
| bit.
|
| [0] Remember that at this point you are probably deep in
| student debt - your legal career is predicated on you
| paying back your loans by charging your clients lots of
| money.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Most of the piracy sites are super scummy. I can see the
| appeal in trying to shut them down. I've always wondered how
| the economics of those setups that push you through a half
| dozen link shorteners / ad pages with captchas all over the
| place work. I bet there's ad fraud going on with the captchas
| being solved for bots that are doing less than respectable
| things.
|
| Look at Kim Dotcom / Mega Upload for an example of who the
| big winners are in the piracy space. Some of it is big
| business, so it's easy to see the lawyers' side. I'd still
| consider myself pro piracy because it creates a floor in
| terms of how bad big companies can treat us, but there are
| some participants that deserve to be chased by lawyers.
| superkuh wrote:
| No. Most of the piracy sites that are public and well known
| are super scummy. That is because only that kind of scummy
| income can protect and justify the exposure. Semi-private
| and private piracy sites are really nice, safe, and have
| better organization and UI than most big money for profit
| sites that attempt to distribute the same types of media.
| What.cd was way less scummy than any large commercial media
| distribution company.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes, but there's no guarantee that What.cd[0] remains a
| charismatic defendant in any scenario where they don't
| get shut down. Nor should the law be written around
| protecting charismatic defendants.
|
| The argument against copyright maximalism should not be
| made on the basis that "nice" pirate sites can exist - in
| fact, you should advocate for copyright reform or
| reduction on the basis of the least tolerable, most
| scummy site that should be allowed to exist.
|
| [0] insert any other non-scummy pirate site here
| [deleted]
| tokai wrote:
| People work very hard to not see themselves as a villain -
| especially when they are just that.
| mandmandam wrote:
| If their actions are indistinguishable from the actions of
| evil bogeymen, I do wonder what the real difference is.
|
| I think the truly worst people alive right now are really,
| really fucking charming and 'nice' to have dinner with in a
| fancy hotel - they get plenty of practice - but if kindly
| confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would
| immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get
| as far from you as possible.
| adjkant wrote:
| I think the issue here is with the conception of "evil".
| The one shown in most media is incredibly flawed, and it is
| why the best villians are the ones that can actually argue
| their point, make you understand where they are coming
| from, and potentially even come to their side. People are
| not evil, they are simply acting as all humans do most of
| the time: in self preservation of some form. What makes a
| person appear "evil" is simply the situations they have
| ended up in and the accompanying beliefs and knowledge.
|
| > but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of
| their harms they would immediately rationalize their
| actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible.
|
| This is not meant to excuse that response, but I do want to
| point out that it is the rational and "easy" path of
| response. When people make ideas the core of their
| personality and survival, threats to those ideas are now
| personal threats. The path of coming to challenge and
| change those ideas is a hard road in most cases. It takes a
| very strong and brave person to change their mind on a core
| belief.
|
| The better way IMO to approach it is to ensure people don't
| get caught in the position in the first place. Don't make
| beliefs the center of yourself, make values the center, and
| choose them carefully and with nuance. It allows you to
| change course on beliefs or ideas with much less pain and
| personal internal sacrifice. That needs to start early
| though, way before anyone at that table sat down for their
| meal. It's an education issue, an early one at that.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| this would be a funny youtube video, have all the RIAA lawyers,
| this lawyer, then all the haxxor TPB coders, passing around a
| blunt discussing the state of the industry
| emj wrote:
| You "don't do drugs" in Sweden so that won't happen, publicly
| almost everyone is against pot. This might be changing but
| not in the near future.
| Maursault wrote:
| FWIW, pot, or cannabis, _is not_ a drug, no more than
| nutmeg. They 're vegetables. Alcohol, on the other hand, is
| indeed a drug. So, no drinkers in Sweden? It always sounded
| like a pretty nice place to me, and now it sounds even more
| so.
| locallost wrote:
| In general these days I have mixed feelings about piracy, mostly
| because a lot of people don't want to pay because "everything is
| very commercial and they only want money", yet a lot of the
| pirated content are incredibly commercial mainstream things (e.g.
| blockbusters). This leads me to the positive aspect of it: I
| recently remembered an old Canadian movie from my childhood, and
| wanted to watch it with my son, but despite so many streaming
| services, tough luck finding it legally. I bet I could find it
| within minutes on torrent.
|
| So I would be happy if we were at least able to legally download
| things you can't really find "officially" because too few people
| care and nobody sells it.
| amenod wrote:
| This! I would say that if there is no simple way to find
| commercial content (for the location of the potential
| customer!), the law should treat the case as if the copyright
| owner waived their right to the copyrighted material.
| therealcamino wrote:
| So if you ever offer a work for sale, you're obligated to
| either sell it forever, or have it given away?
| brokenmachine wrote:
| Yes.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Yes, this is a huge positive. It serves as a kind of archiving
| enabler too.
|
| I'm sure many years from now we'll be thankful that we can find
| 'obscure' movies and TV shows from the early 2000/10/20s etc
| xbar wrote:
| "It is a cultivated myth that we would not have any streaming
| services for music, film and TV series if Pirate Bay did not
| exist. "
|
| This is false. Although, if someone wants to argue that other
| piracy services were more influential in breaking the old DRM
| systems, I will debate it with you.
| posttool wrote:
| Torrents tied to a digital wallet is a clear next step. Creators
| could get paid and no need for a "distributor". Anyone could host
| pointers, we could download and pay when we watch.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Since we are already paying for all the media we _might_ pirate,
| in the form of a tax on empty media lobbyed by the media
| conglomerates - new hard drives included; And our attention and
| consciousness are constantly exploited by a barrage of malicious
| advertizements and spyware; And our tools and computers are
| gradually stripped of our freedoms and capabilities of expression
| in favor of inescapable consumerism and engagement;
|
| I feel absolutely justified employing whatever technological
| means available to bring equality and democratization to digital
| arts. I'm a political pirate.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Piracy was cool when I was a college student with barely enough
| money to buy McDonalds, nowadays however I believe in paying for
| people's work. It just seems fair. I don't work for free and I
| don't expect others to either.
|
| And yes, this includes publishers and content providers, they're
| providing something of value too.
| quadrangle wrote:
| The Pirate Bay provides value also. So, how does that fit into
| your logic?
| cute_boi wrote:
| Many people doesn't realize the value provided by pirate bay.
| Without sites like piratebay, scihub or libgen only rich
| privileged people would be able to enjoy the fruits. But thanks
| to sites like them poor people living in any places can enjoy the
| privilege.
|
| I understand there are some downsides like small creators getting
| destroyed. But as with any technology we know digital piracy has
| various advantage. Also music, movies etc offered by torrents can
| be far reliable because Netflix etc can remove content at any
| minute according to their wish.
|
| DRM is the main issue in piracy and I hope we can bypass this
| easily. And I also think many piracy doesn't have any dent on so
| called big producers. They are just mad that they can't suck few
| bucks from poor people.
| franciscop wrote:
| > "small creators getting destroyed", "piracy doesn't have any
| dent on so called big producers"
|
| Quite the opposite, one of the very few scientific articles on
| the topic piracy has been found to help small-mid level artists
| (but hurt big artists), explanation here:
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-can-help-music-sales-of-many...
|
| For instance and as said in the article artists like Ed Sheeran
| became popular thanks to piracy among college students.
| _peeley wrote:
| Content preservation is a seriously underrated aspect of
| piracy. Prior to getting shut down in 2016, what.cd was
| practically the modern-day Library of Alexandria of music.
| Literally anything you could ever want to listen to was
| available in lossless FLAC format, made available by anonymous
| volunteers purely out of a love of music.
|
| Now it's gone, and who knows how much music has been lost to
| time as a result.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Shutting down what.cd should be considered a crime against
| humanity. I will never forgive copyright holders for that.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Small creators aren't destroyed by piracy, because people who
| have money generally want to support artists that they like
| when they feel like that support will actually make a
| difference to that artist's livelihood, and will allow the
| artist to keep creating. A perfect example of this is Stardew
| Valley. I know people who pirate the vast majority of the
| things they consume, but have purchased multiple copies of that
| game so they could give it to friends.
| 1_player wrote:
| It's a little different with video games, since platforms
| like Steam have changed the face of video game piracy. Gabe
| Newell himself said that piracy is a service problem, not a
| pricing problem. Steam removed any barrier to publishers to
| put their game on the platforms and players to buy the games,
| and game piracy is pretty much dead in the water and Valve is
| worth billions of dollars.
|
| Whereas the music industry and even worse, the movie
| industry, still have their heads up their arses and are
| losing hundreds of billions of dollars if they just provided
| a single platform where everything is available to stream,
| everywhere in the world, with no restriction but a single
| monthly fee.
|
| DRM is a problem, but the need to subscribe to a dozen
| different services to have access to most, but not all,
| media, is the biggest issue.
|
| I haven't downloaded a video game since the early 2010s, I
| have given Valve thousands of dollars since, and I will keep
| paying for my torrenting VPN for music and movies for the
| foreseeable future. Long live The Pirate Bay.
| dbbk wrote:
| Why are small creators inherently more entitled to 'support'
| than larger creators though? Why do we just decide that at a
| certain threshold, it's fine to take things for free?
| scghost wrote:
| The value of the money made is relative to how much money
| the person has. A person going from $0 -> $5 gets more
| value than a person going from $1,000,000 -> $1,000,005.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Small creators don't lobby the government in order to
| extend copyright duration for the nth time.
| LocalH wrote:
| Once a creator reaches a (likely fuzzy, undefined, needs
| more study) threshold, they gain the ability to negatively
| influence the laws in their favor, against the laws'
| original intent. Regulatory capture and all. Look at all
| the lobbying that happened by the Walt Disney Corporation,
| among others, to extend the copyright term to the insanity
| we see today. Some people/corporations also want
| _perpetual_ copyright that never expires, and they tend to
| be the larger ones (although not all, so that is sort of
| almost orthogonal).
| akudha wrote:
| I watched a YouTube video on the creation of Stardew valley.
| He did everything himself, including music and graphics. He
| also didn't compromise on anything. Took him years to finish.
|
| I don't play games, I still spent 5$ (I think) on the game,
| just because he is an impressive individual and I wanted to
| do my part so he stays that way.
|
| Companies underestimate how much love fans have for creators,
| when they're sincere and their work is very good. The only
| way companies know to make money is treat their users like
| shit, use lawyers all the time etc etc
| sli wrote:
| > I don't play games, ...
|
| Stardew Valley is a load of fun and very much built with
| non-gamers in mind. It's pretty accessible (though you may
| want to keep the wiki handy). It's also really relaxing.
| You should try it out, you might really enjoy it.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > I understand there are some downsides like small creators
| getting destroyed
|
| Do they? I was vaguely under the impression that the
| overwhelming majority of people pirating stuff wouldn't have
| paid, and that whenever actual studies are run they show piracy
| benefiting the original creators.
| realusername wrote:
| Indeed, to my knowledge, nobody ever managed to prove in a
| proper study that the creators actually lose money with
| piracy.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| To provide a single data point, here[0] is an article about
| one such study. "EU study finds piracy doesn't hurt game
| sales, may actually help. Results suggest a positive
| effect, but there's a huge margin of error."
|
| [0] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/eu-study-finds-
| piracy...
| zionic wrote:
| For me the breaking point was when Netflix removed the entire
| stargate series. That was a real wake up call for me personally
| and I canceled my subscription. 100+ TB later...
| Chirael wrote:
| Yeah, "show I finally have time to watch, isn't available any
| more" is really irritating; every time it happens is one more
| push back to TPB
| philliphaydon wrote:
| > When Wadsted was asked whether it was worth the time and money,
| she replied with "Absolutely!"
|
| > "Even though it was the American film companies that paid for
| my work, that work benefited all the authors and copyright
| holders. This is a very important but often forgotten aspect,"
| Wadsted told M3.
|
| It really didn't benefit film companies tho, it exposed TPB to
| probably 100's of millions of people who didn't know about it
| previously. I wouldn't be surprised if more people know how to
| pirate content as a result.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| She wasn't really answering whether it benefited film
| companies. Notice her answer immediately focuses on "paid for
| my work". The only way she can conceive of the question is "Did
| I personally profit from the campaign?", and that defines her
| moral horizons too.
| jquery wrote:
| Won't stop them from trying. The DRM folks have plenty of help
| from the evangelical "moral police" who want to wipe out
| obscenity online, even where there is no victim.
| vmception wrote:
| They believe the content creators are the victims
| input_sh wrote:
| DRM will never stop the pirates. As long as you can reproduce
| something, you can always record the output. For example, you
| can always record your audio output from Spotify or video
| output from Netflix.
|
| DRM is a minor annoyance and nothing more.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > and nothing more
|
| I strongly suspect DRM is not a way to stop someone but a
| security theatre serving as way to make money off the
| licensing and hardware. That's why the industry does and
| always will require it - not because they're stupid to
| believe it protects something (though it nominally does) but
| simply because it greases their other hand.
|
| Also, yeah, it kills the second hand market.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| Let me give you an alternative view: DRM is a highly
| effective way for the movie industry to make money. No, it
| is not perfect, but DRM creates a system where:
|
| 1. Sharing is hard. Plenty of people legally purchase a
| movie, and then want to give it to their friends; DRM makes
| that difficult and thus generates at least some additional
| sales.
|
| 2. Forced obsolescence -- people who buy media legally can
| be forced to buy it again and again every time they buy a
| new entertainment device.
|
| 3. Creative business models -- in a world without DRM, you
| could not offer "rental" downloads, "streaming" would just
| be a form of "downloading," and the industry could not
| offer special "deals" like "family" passes that permit more
| than one account holder to view a purchased movie. All of
| these are ways to make money that could not happen in a
| world without DRM.
|
| Yes, DRM is always broken after enough time -- that is not
| as much of a problem as you might expect. As long as the
| time between a DRM system being deployed and being broken
| is long enough that the industry makes back more than the
| cost of developing the DRM system, the system worked.
| Developing new DRM systems from time to time is just the
| cost of doing business, not really a problem for anyone in
| the industry, and as you point out it may even work to the
| benefit of certain participants.
|
| I am not a big fan of DRM (in fact, I would argue that the
| entire movie industry needs to rethink its business model,
| embrace the true power of file sharing as a means of
| distributing movies and focusing more on using movies as a
| draw or value-add for other lines of business), but it is
| not as if the movie industry executives are a bunch of
| buffoons who continue to waste their money after decades of
| broken DRM. If DRM was not adding to the industry's profits
| they would have stopped bothering with it -- see e.g. the
| music industry, which has a somewhat different business
| model and which has largely given up on their DRM dreams.
| mdoms wrote:
| The analog hole.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole
| squarefoot wrote:
| Which is one of the reasons behind the removal of the
| headphone analog output from various devices.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| Which only raises the price of exploiting the analog hole
| by a relatively small amount -- it is not hard to buy
| better audio recording equipment to record the audio as
| it is being played, and the postprocessing needed to make
| it sound like the original is not very complex. A few
| thousand dollars (maybe low tens of thousands) wuold be
| enough to get you a rig that records a high-def movie
| with little noticeable loss, and anecdotally I have heard
| of such systems being used to rip TV shows as they air.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > buy better audio recording equipment to record the
| audio
|
| Huh?! You can just buy a sound card or even a DAC for
| very little.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Just wait until Apple decides to "protect" its users from
| piracy by running a Content ID system client side. Then even
| if you can download a pirated file, your OS won't play it. If
| you're lucky, it will just delete the file, rather than
| informing the police.
| l33tbro wrote:
| How would Apple determine between an mp4 that is a pirated
| movie or a personal video you've downloaded to edit in
| Final Cut?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| The same way that YouTube determines whether there is
| copyrighted music playing in the background of the video
| you upload, or the way Apple determines if you are trying
| to upload illegal images to iCloud.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Apple don't give two shits about piracy.
|
| Their own pro grade software that is paid for (logic, final
| cut) is always cracked basically day 1 of release and
| they've never made any attempt to tighten up authentication
| pell wrote:
| Wasn't Apple one of the major vendors _removing_ DRM back
| in the iTunes days?
| anon9001 wrote:
| That's just another DRM to be disabled.
|
| If we can't disable it somehow, we'll switch operating
| systems.
|
| Keep in mind that we're still seeing jailbreaks for iPhones
| after all these years.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > If we can't disable it somehow, we'll switch operating
| systems.
|
| I admire your optimism. Unfortunately, once Apple has
| shown it is possible to prevent the playing of unlicensed
| copyrighted works, Windows and Android will have to match
| this or be treated as second-class platforms by the media
| industries.
|
| Very few people will be willing to buy dedicated Linux
| computers (with custom Secure Boot keys) for watching
| torrented videos, and such devices will then become
| subject to more and more regulations, like having to pay
| an annual fee to the government.
| anon_cow1111 wrote:
| Streaming-exclusive games are a notable exception to this,
| which is why it's so important to smash things like Stadia
| before they can gain a foothold.
|
| Not even from a piracy standpoint, just a "I want to play
| this after the server/company shuts down" standpoint.
| thekingofravens wrote:
| I know I won't spend a penny on a service like stadia or
| xbox game pass. Even if it does have good here and now
| offerings. Games are the last category of software you can
| still generally "buy" these days and get permanent access
| with a one-time payment.
| toxik wrote:
| In actual fact, games need to be kept up to date in order
| to run okay on newer OS versions, and most of them are
| trying to get you to subscribe or otherwise DLC /
| microtransact you to death. Shame really
| hyperman1 wrote:
| DRM has nothing to do with pirating. Piracy is just a nice
| excuse.
|
| DRM is about killing the second hand market. About keeping
| the market segmentation between countries. About killing fair
| use.
|
| It has been very succesful in all of this.
| freewizard wrote:
| It's crazy DRM today has made screen capture almost impossible on
| consumer devices, and I see people use one device to photo the
| other just to share a screenshot to friends. If it turns out
| pirate can't be stopped by this, why bother anyway?
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| I know that screen capture is impossible on mobile phones. I
| use Linux and screen capture is definitely possible on linux.
|
| Is screen capture possible on windows/mac?
| mproud wrote:
| It'll stop me if the certificate is invalid.
| swayvil wrote:
| Consider the good that a piece of copyable art does. The
| happiness, insight and highness that it creates.
|
| It's food for a person's soul. Multiplied a million times. The
| world is definitely made better.
|
| Compare that good with the good of "the owner gets paid".
|
| Pirating is clearly the _much_ greater good. Pirating is a moral
| necessity.
| tdhz77 wrote:
| I was in high school during the beginning of tpb. I leaned
| towards the Pirate Bay's ideas and philosophy of what- digital
| good was and where ownership exists.
|
| I'm thankful that I followed the arguments and merits of both
| sides.
|
| If I was in high school now, I don't think I would be as lucky as
| to get to be apart of good faith arguments. Instead, I might end
| up believing in Qnon.
|
| I'm so thankful that the original web was much more pure, good
| hearted than what it has become today.
| tjr225 wrote:
| Something awful, 4chan, and Ogrish were all started 2003 or
| earlier.
| dannyw wrote:
| don't let the n words fool you; 4ch is very actively
| moderated; both by janitors but also it's users.
|
| It's politically incorrect, but not as bad as Facebook in
| terms of damage to society.
| anon9001 wrote:
| 4chan is like a focus group for unacceptable ideas.
| belorn wrote:
| I have always seen 4chan to be more like a youth center
| than a focus group, with the associated criminal aspects.
| In both cases the suggested universal solution tend to be
| an increase in supervision.
| sweetbitter wrote:
| At least on anonymous imageboards or even pseudonymous
| forums you can learn your lesson of how foolish/incorrect
| you are about something with no future repercussions, no
| embarrassment, no one to use it against you in the future-
| you can just up and change your entire perception at the
| drop of a hat frictionlessly, without paying a personal
| cost to do it.
| zionic wrote:
| The Qanon psyop was primarily targeted towards neocon and right
| wing boomers, not teenagers. You wouldn't be at risk of
| "falling" for it today as a high schooler. It's also been dead
| since 2019 or so.
|
| I say psyop because it was essentially boomer catnip. "Good
| guys are in control" "sit back and do nothing, we have them
| right where we want them" "it's all going according to plan"
| etc etc.
|
| As far as psyops go it was wildly successful, posting cryptic
| messages anyone following the news heavily would know then
| "reveal" them later as proof. This manufactured false
| credibility as an insider, then their "instructions" were to
| essentially sit back and do nothing while the deep state was
| taken town for you.
|
| They also sprinkled in religious references to further appeal
| to evangelical boomers, again playing off the "X will save me,
| I don't need to get off my butt and do anything" angle.
|
| I say all this because the overwhelming consensus among the
| crowd most associate with Q (center right to far right) is that
| Trump was a traitor and Q was a tool to keep his more radical
| fans from doing anything during his term.
| throwoutway wrote:
| I've never followed this. Are you saying that Q was a psyop
| by left-wing against right-wing to convince them not to vote?
| emerged wrote:
| The difference IMO is the scale of individual social networks.
| It used to be relatively smaller independent forums which had
| all their own particular rules and populations. Things were
| more truly distributed in an organic way.
|
| Now we have these massive scale social networks who attract all
| the absolute worst scum of the earth, botnets, etc. The
| companies running these networks are super massive and formed
| connections to political parties and financial interests.
|
| The saddest thing is we could all just decide to get off these
| massive networks and use the smaller ones again, but the genie
| is out of the bottle and a critical mass of people can't be
| convinced to leave the new networks.
| jd115 wrote:
| No, the difference is that social media has been very
| successfully weaponised, by the nation-state/mafia syndicates
| which communism gave birth to. So successfully, in fact, that
| it has made traditional warfare practically obsolete.
|
| The social networks of today are to the world what the
| "Pravda" newspaper was to the Eastern Bloc in the 20th
| century. A weapon of mass subversion. (Oh the magnitude of
| trolling and shade in the name of that newspaper... Nothing
| in the past 100 years has surpassed that!)
| dm319 wrote:
| Media is a weapon of mass subversion in any society. Look
| at Murdoch.
| anon9001 wrote:
| This is the right take.
|
| Also, every hacker online pre-facebook realized that it
| wouldn't take that much effort to do social engineering on
| a mass scale, but there was a brief period before any large
| organizations actually got involved and started doing it.
|
| I think we got a glimpse of something special in the early
| internet, and I think we can build toward that again.
| codezero wrote:
| It can't be built towards unless the nation state actors
| and bots are accounted for and routed around. I don't see
| that happening.
| jd115 wrote:
| This is a start: https://www.voanews.com/a/australian-
| government-vows-to-unma...
| codezero wrote:
| I thought that in their case it was to out people who
| oppose government officials? That seems like the opposite
| of I'm understanding correctly.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > I think we got a glimpse of something special in the
| early internet, and I think we can build toward that
| again.
|
| I mean, you are writing on HN, a specialized community of
| practice which is the polar opposite from massive social
| media sites like Facebook or Twitter. And if HN is not
| exclusive enough for you, there is Lobsters where you
| need an invite to even post or comment. To me, these
| dynamics are pretty close to what went on on the "early
| internet" pre social media. Though it would be nice if
| federation standards were more widely adopted, to enable
| optional interop across sites.
| aborsy wrote:
| There is an interview with co-founders of Pirate Bay on darknet
| dairies.
|
| The founders come across as very arrogant, making childish
| arguments and apparently unaware of how modern society in which
| they live functions. Also lots of F words.
|
| I was put off.
| sweetbitter wrote:
| They have always been like this, yeah. Here is a link to their
| legal section on their anonymous VPS / anonymous DNS registry
| service:
|
| http://njallalafimoej5i4eg7vlnqjvmb6zhdh27qxcatdn647jtwwwui3...
| dS0rrow wrote:
| clearnet link : https://njal.la/blog/t/legal/
| trevyn wrote:
| Keep in mind that you also may have just come across as very
| arrogant and apparently unaware of how modern society
| functions.
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| > unaware of how modern society in which they live functions
|
| how so?
| rightbyte wrote:
| > Also lots of F words.
|
| They are not native English speakers. Learning english from
| American pop-culture makes you swear alot.
| [deleted]
| cheese_van wrote:
| Recently saw a movie, liked the soundtrack, and decided to buy
| the mp3 (On the Run - Naz Tokio). Found it, of course, on Amazon,
| good deal, and made the purchase.
|
| Tried to download it after the purchase, but the mp3 was ONLY
| available in the cloud for various devices, not for direct
| download. There was language that might have implied this was the
| case, but it was not clear or I was oblivious, probably the
| latter.
|
| I was refunded my $1.29 and went straight to a pirate site and
| got it for free. I would rather have paid. Occasionally, the
| availability of piracy is a check on bad ideas, in this case,
| cloud walled gardens.
| nelblu wrote:
| THIS! I had similar problem with watching a movie trilogy on
| Google play movies. The movie won't play on my computer but
| only played on android app (no i didn't have any firewall or
| special ad blocker on my PC). I called google customer service
| and asked them to fix, it took them 3 days to get back and the
| problem was still not fixed, needless to say I was mad and they
| refunded instantly. Next thing I just downloaded it....
|
| I'd have loved to pay but if movie studios (or whoever is
| responsible for this sh#tshow) will go out of their way to not
| give me a mp4 or similar device/service independent playable
| format then I couldn't care less about their loss.
| ecf wrote:
| It took me about half an hour of constant retries for the
| rented Apple TV movie I downloaded for offline use to play.
| Each time, for some reason or another, was blocked with the
| error message "This movie can only be played on displays that
| support HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection)".
|
| I was on a plane with no internet, so troubleshooting the error
| was impossible. Furthermore, I can't test playback of a movie
| in the future because doing so starts the three day expiration
| timer.
|
| In the future I guarantee I'll be torrenting.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Plus if you go on holiday for a few days, you will likely
| have crappy wifi, and you don't know in advance what movie
| you will be in the mood to watch. These streaming services
| just do not work for me.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Torrenting + crossing a border... Not a good idea. Even
| having "photos for personal use" while crossing the boarder
| isn't a good idea. I'm so afraid of TSA...
| jimktrains2 wrote:
| The TSA handles neither customs nor border patrol.
| goodpoint wrote:
| "crossing A border" is not the same thing as "crossing the
| US border".
| geraltofrivia wrote:
| I've stopped relying on offline downloads (on netflix) since
| upon crossing national boundaries, the offline content is
| deleted. As an expat who travels back to India once a blue
| moon (and has shitty internet back home), I now pirate any
| content I plan to see during my vacations.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| Wow, that's terrible.
|
| To paraphrase Chris Rock talking about OJ, "now I'm not
| saying you should have pirated... But I understand!"
| donmcronald wrote:
| I have Apple TV for the year because I got a new iPad and I
| still "pirated" Foundation because the Apple TV app for Roku
| isn't very good. I hate the interface, the playback skips
| (very infrequently), and the subtitle support is pretty bad.
|
| There's no way Plex and Emby should be better than Apple's
| equivalent, but they are IMO.
| vetinari wrote:
| On the other hand, I was actually impressed, that Apple TV
| appeared on Android TV in the first place and that it is
| actually decent (at least on Nvidia Shield).
|
| My only nitpick is, that for some reason the default
| subtitles are "language + SDH" and not just "language".
| ligerzer0 wrote:
| I recently bought some hardware which came with license for
| software ( vst plug-ins).
|
| After registering the hardware, then making an account with the
| third party who provides the software, I was able to download a
| demo version which I should then have been able to unlock into
| a full version using the serial number and license file
| provided to me...but this was not the case.
|
| After about an hour of tinkering, restarting, and googling, I
| decided to try and pirate a copy of the software that I was
| entitled to the full working version of.
|
| Took about two minutes to download and have it running.
| r00t4ccess wrote:
| How are you liking cubase?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > There was language that might have implied this was the case,
| but it was not clear or I was oblivious, probably the latter.
|
| For what it's worth, the language and layout was probably A/B
| tested and painstakingly tuned to maximise the probability of
| you making that mistake. Don't blame yourself when there's this
| unfair power imbalance, blame them for using their power
| against you maliciously.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > For what it's worth, the language and layout was probably
| A/B tested and painstakingly tuned to maximise the
| probability
|
| This sort of belief (that corporations do extensive testing
| and tuning of language) seems quite widely held, but I've
| never seen much support for it.
|
| I've frequently seen claims that Amazon must have "A/B tested
| and painstakingly tuned" the company name, whereas it was
| really just the founder's whim after watching a documentary,
| and never received any testing of any kind.
| rp1 wrote:
| Have you ever worked at a large corporation like Facebook
| or Amazon? They have extensive internal A/B testing
| frameworks that record a wide variety of user metrics for
| arbitrary control and treatment exposures. It's very easy
| to set up an A/B test and pretty much necessary for almost
| all changes. Additionally, employees are expected to have
| concrete artifacts when they go up for promotion, and A/B
| test results are often a large part of that.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Have you ever worked at a large corporation like
| Facebook or Amazon?
|
| Employee #2 at amzn.
|
| But sure, that doesn't count because I got out before the
| company hit 20 employees.
|
| I don't doubt that large corporations with heavy
| technology dependence engage in what you're describing to
| cover _some_ aspects of their operations. I do doubt that
| is covers _all_ aspects, and in particular, I very much
| doubt if amzn A /B tested the language described in the
| GP for the purposes claimed by the parent of my comment.
| rp1 wrote:
| That's pretty impressive! Having worked at Amazon much
| later, I do think that most copy changes do go through an
| A/B test. I remember an instance where we tested 20
| different versions of a minor UI change. Interestingly,
| there was a wide spread in the performance of the
| different treatments.
| standardUser wrote:
| Even the small startups I have worked for A/B test
| everything they can within inches of its life to eke out an
| extra penny and a half. This is standard operating
| procedure.
| tux3 wrote:
| Sometimes this happens as a sort of 'evolutionary' process.
| If a dodgy company has better wording for a misleading
| product, its deception will work better, so you can have
| highly tuned wording without anyone having to run an
| explicit A/B test.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| Gabe Newell: "Piracy is an issue of service, not price."
| elcomet wrote:
| I mean if you would rather have paid you could have left the
| money to the author and pirate the mp3 anyway.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| How much of that money goes to the author instead of amazon?
| another_story wrote:
| I do wish all artists had a donate page. Most do not.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| How long ago was this? I bought an mp3 from Amazon (The Touch -
| Stan Bush) in 2019 and I'm still able to download the mp3.
| pengaru wrote:
| We just need the technology improved slightly to solve this
| problem.
|
| Artists should be seeding high quality files to the torrents
| themselves, in formats that are signed and include a crypto
| wallet for sending "donations". Then the playback software just
| needs to check the signature to ensure you're giving money to
| the actual creator and not some imposter if you want to throw
| money their way, through a payment ui the players conveniently
| make available to you.
|
| There's just no need for the middle-men who make it all
| miserable, and exploit control of the audience for their own
| gain via advertising/"recommendations"/propaganda etc. Torrents
| have fixed the distribution problem, and no consumers are
| really interested in depriving their favorite artists from
| making a living. It's just a glaring omission that the torrent
| system doesn't incorporate a reliable artists compensation
| circuit, like it's just unfinished.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| That's a very interesting thought, but the one thing I think
| would be a problem is fake torrents with other parties
| bitcoin wallets embedded.
|
| Also some bands don't want to operate on "donations" and want
| to set a price for the download. I wonder how that would work
| to be able to set a price.
|
| Of course you could avoid this by only getting the torrent
| from the official band's website, but fakes would certainly
| be a problem.
| cute_boi wrote:
| And the problem with downloading using cloud is you have to use
| their apps and requires them to supply your phone data forever
| which is no no in my book. Imagine the dystopia there would be
| if there were no piracy.
|
| You got refunded but in my country many sites have implicit
| rule "Once you purchase it, we can't return it back".
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >You got refunded but in my country many sites have implicit
| rule "Once you purchase it, we can't return it back".
|
| Do they specify what you actually purchase, I can't figure
| out what is it you purchase in such cases.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Don't they have your data as part of the Amazon account
| anyway? Why does that even matter?
| busymom0 wrote:
| Had a similar experience recently. Tried to buy 3 songs from a
| particular artist on Apple Music and for some reason, my Mac
| got the downloaded music and can play it but my iPhone refuses
| to recognize any of my purchases tracks despite being logged in
| the same account. Ended up pirating then tracks even though I
| had also paid for them already.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >went straight to a pirate site
|
| Pirates rob ships in the see and use guns for that purpose I
| presume. What a web site providing access to the music has to
| do with it?
|
| The whole 'buy mp3' idea always have been troubling for me
| because I can't figure out exactly what I actually buy there.
| What is it I purchase?
|
| The right to listen for some composition?
|
| The right to listen it in that specific mp3 format ?
|
| The right to listen it more then one time because I have access
| to the file?
|
| What do I actually possess after the purchase that I didn't
| possess before?
|
| If it's my property then what is it? Is it a property at all if
| the usage of it is limited? For instance it belongs to me but
| somehow there are some limits to play it in my own restaurant,
| isn't it?
|
| It's all presented as you buy something and it's clear what you
| buy. But if you are trying to think about it's more and more
| unclear.
|
| It looks more like some bully simply blocks access to something
| he got using some leverage over the author then sells you
| 'unblock' feature while author is stripped away from any rights
| by the same bully and have no ability to sell it directly to
| you. Isn't it a case now days of redundant MIM?
|
| Another issue is with how long it is blocked by paywall. The
| initial idea was how much? 10 years ? 15 years? How come that
| let's say Beatles are still protected from public? How that
| even possible and why nobody rises the issue of abusing initial
| idea?
| muspimerol wrote:
| All of your questions have to do with copyright, which has
| little to do with the format of the thing you're purchasing
| (an mp3).
| mistrial9 wrote:
| We travel in ships, further than most
|
| Raiding and pillaging, from North to South coast
|
| We steal _only metal_ like guns, tanks and toasters!
|
| We melt them all down, and make .. roller coasters!
|
| -anonymous
| danachow wrote:
| This does not even rise to high school level discourse. All
| of the points you bring up have been discussed more
| critically and insightfully on Body building forums. I'll
| start with that you seem to be hung up on that the only thing
| money can be exchanged for is property.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >This does not even rise to high school level discourse.
|
| I am asking basic questions because I do not see basic
| answers which are consistent with logic. It would be more
| useful and helpful to provide those answers if you know
| them of course.
|
| >All of the points you bring up have been discussed more
| critically and insightfully on Body building forums.
|
| Unfortunately in practice it is hard to observe
| _impressive_ results of "what was discussed more
| critically and insightfully". So again perhaps sharing
| their line of thoughts would be useful.
|
| My concern of course that "what was discussed more
| critically and insightfully" did not produce something
| logically consistent and that might explain why we do not
| see actual answers.
|
| >I'll start with that you seem to be hung up on that the
| only thing money can be exchanged for is property.
|
| If we put aside "hung up on that the only thing money can
| be exchanged for is property" part which is irrelevant then
| probably we can see the real answer to the question : What
| one actually gets for his money and what is purchased when
| one "buys" some mp3?
| taejo wrote:
| Thanks for the info. Next time I want to know what Amazon
| means when they sell me "MP3 Music", I will remember to go
| to body building forums before clicking "Buy"
| behringer wrote:
| Amazon does provide the MP3 files themselves.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?node
| Id=...
|
| They surely make it difficult to find, though.
| cheese_van wrote:
| I tried to follow those convoluted instructions to no
| avail. Did it not like my Linux box? Who knows. But a
| company that made its fortunes making buying convenient
| should know better.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| "The whole 'buy mp3' idea always have been troubling for me
| because I can't figure out exactly what I actually buy there.
| What is it I purchase?"
|
| You purchased convenience -- not having to deal with
| filesharing systems that are polluted with various
| misidentified files, not having to try to figure out if the
| thing you are downloading is actually malware (for non-
| technical users this is often a challenge), not having to
| correct / create tags for the MP3 (artist/album/etc.), not
| having to guess at the quality of the audio (sometimes
| "lossless" actually means "preserved loss from some other
| format"), etc. For most people the convenience justifies the
| price.
| lelandfe wrote:
| > Pirates rob ships in the see and use guns for that purpose
| I presume. What a web site providing access to the music has
| to do with it?
|
| "Piracy" has been a term of art in the copyright world for
| over 100 years.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyrightpirates.jpg
|
| > Is it a property at all if the usage of it is limited?
|
| If you buy a copy of a book, you are not eligible to reprint
| that book and sell it yourself. There are limits on what
| folks can do with copyrighted works they buy.
|
| It might be worth reading, for instance, about the American
| concept of first-sale doctrine:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
| lovelyviking wrote:
| It's unclear why ' _monopoly over making copies_ ' is
| called in your comment by confusing term ' _copyright_ '.
| Why something that is not ' _right_ ' and cannot exist as '
| _right_ ' called by this strange term? How one can have '
| _right_ ' over what others do? May be you can explain also
| that?
|
| If such 'right' even exist then it belongs to people who
| wish to make copy of something isn't it?
|
| It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to
| prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy as long
| as a person who makes copy doesn't present such copy as
| original.
| lelandfe wrote:
| > It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled
| to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy
|
| The how and who are easy: the Constitution[0], and the
| American government.
|
| The _why_ is trickier, but the idea at least is that
| restricting copies means more people buy the "real"
| thing, which means more money goes to the owner, and
| creators are therefore more incentivized to make and
| copyright things in America.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The "why" is that distribution is always cheaper than
| production of creative works. In other words, people who
| make new works are stuck with all the costs, while people
| who sell copies get all the profit. This also tends to be
| an asymmetric relationship: creators tend to be
| individuals while publishers tend to be large corporate
| enterprises with the ability and know-how to bury you.
| Copyright exists to force publishers to negotiate with
| creators that would otherwise have no leverage[0].
|
| The idea that copies are supposed to be scarce is an
| invention of Disney marketing, and I'd argue contrary to
| the spirit of the law. The stated purpose of copyright is
| to _increase_ the amount of works on the market (by
| giving creators some negotiating leverage with
| publishers), not to make individual copies more valuable.
| That 's just a side effect, one that is supposed to be
| bounded by limited term lengths[1].
|
| [0] For those wondering, this is also what drove
| copyright harmonization over the last century. Any
| difference in law between countries creates an avenue for
| publishers to find a way to cheat creators. Before the
| era of international copyright it was quite common for
| publishers to race creators to foreign markets, since
| translation was not yet an exclusive right of the creator
| and most countries did not recognize each other's
| copyright interests.
|
| [1] Please stop laughing. I know life+70 is practically
| forever.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >Copyright exists to force publishers to negotiate with
| creators that would otherwise have no leverage[0].
|
| In my experience when I was thinking to publish something
| on phtostock I was presented with automatic contract
| stripping me from all of my "leverage" and if I disagree?
| it's their way or highway. Of course I could not agree to
| that. So experience was rather short as you might guess
| and no live person was even involved on their behalf.
|
| So in my experience it seems that you need some other
| "leverage" to force publishers to negotiate with
| creators.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| Copyright is as much a "right" as mineral rights are a
| "right." It is just a system for regulating a particular
| industry. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all
| "rights" are "natural rights."
| quadrangle wrote:
| No rights are "natural rights".
| quadrangle wrote:
| "right" is the right word, the point here is that it is
| *exclusive.
|
| Speech rights and copy rights are both rights. Great that
| speech rights are universal in most democratic countries.
| Awful that copy rights are exclusive.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The default in the USA is that nobody has the right to
| make a copy of something created by someone else. The
| right to make copies is limited to the creator of the
| work. We say "the creator owns the copyright".
|
| Since the legal system in the USA (and elsewhere) has
| "evolved" to consider copyright to be property in most of
| the same senses as anything else you can own, it follows
| that copyright can be transferred to others.
|
| You are welcome to disagree with either premise ("no
| copying of someone else's creation", "right to copy is
| property") but that's the situation at present, and it's
| not obviously wrong unless you adopt some philosophical
| positions that the USA (and most of western Europe) does
| not (in aggregate) hold.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| "Piracy" has been a propaganda term in the copyright
| world...
|
| FTFY
| akomtu wrote:
| The correct term is probably greed: not giving back to
| the author of music, movie, software you use. But greed
| is also the foundation of our economy, so copyright
| owners had to come up with a different word.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| Piracy implies theft and sounds more serious; where as
| copyright infringement does not sounds as exciting...
|
| (from wikipedia...)
|
| Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by
| copyright law without permission for a usage where such
| permission is required, thereby infringing certain
| exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as
| the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform
| the protected work, or to make derivative works
|
| Theft is the taking of another person's property or
| services without that person's permission or consent with
| the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >"Piracy" has been a term of art in the copyright world for
| over 100 years.
|
| So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to see
| logical connection there.
|
| In our power to reconsider false and confusing terminology.
| lelandfe wrote:
| > So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct
|
| Sure, that's a good enough of a descriptivist basis for a
| definition to be "correct."
|
| I'd wager most folks on here don't see the name "The
| Pirate Bay" and question what it has to do with literal
| seafaring scallywags.
| Levitz wrote:
| >So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to
| see logical connection there.
|
| Well... Yes? That's how words work, really. If enough
| people agree a word means something, then it does.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| When healthy discussion is needed wrong terms do not help
| because they become propaganda terms masking the real
| meaning. In that case they should be reconsidered and
| corrected for discussion to have any chance for success.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| No, that's how words lose their meaning: when they are
| used in inappropriate context to describe something
| completely unrelated.
|
| Another modern example of a word that rapidly loses its
| meaning is "fascism": these days it is used as a general
| term for any policy not supported by the person that uses
| it. BLM fascists, left fascists, ultraright fascists,
| antifa fascists. On the subreddit about new Apple
| "Foundation" show someone described the depicted Empire
| as fascist. Everybody are fascists, especially the US who
| have fascias everywhere in state imagery!
| [deleted]
| teddyh wrote:
| http://piratebayo3klnzokct3wt5yyxb2vpebbuyjl7m623iaxmqhsd52c...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-28 23:01 UTC)