>> ^CaveBear:
Okay, let me do a closer analogy.
1. I hack every users computer on the sift and find each persons credit card number.
2. I build a website called "Steal Sifters Credit Cards" that points to your credit card number.
3. Since the website is so popular, I make serious revenue from ad placements.
4. A bunch of mafia guys go to the site and get your credit card number.
5. The Mafia guys go on a spending spree, and you pay.
You're saying that I did nothing illegal? Maybe this exact scenario is not spelled out in current laws, so the prosecutors have to to use existing laws and push their interpretation. Do you follow the letter of the law, or the Intent? The name of the Pirates Bay alone shows their Intent.


That is not a valid analogy. The Pirate Bay does not hack anything, they do not rip movies off DVDs, or games, or TV shows, or anything else.

To correct your analogy, it would be more like this:

1. I notice that people's Credit Card numbers are easily found through Google, Yahoo, and other search services. (Of course they're not, but just for the analogy, go with it.)
2. I find this fact entertaining, so I make a web site that makes searching even easier.
3. The site gets popular... and so on.

Another way of looking at it is this: I'm walking down the street and I notice that the back of an armored car is open and money is within easy reach. Of course it is illegal for me to take the money, but is it illegal for me to stand there and point at it? How absurd.

The Pirate Bay is not stealing anything, and any information found on their site can also be found through many other search engines.

Even if you can shut them down, other sites will simply absorb the traffic and do the same thing. Or another digital file share system will come along. Floppy disc -> FTP -> usenet -> Napster -> Gnutella -> eMule -> suprnova -> Pirate Bay -> ?

Services like The Pirate Bay highlight the need for a paradigm shift in digital distribution. If you lose money due to the theft of your video games, then you need to come up with a better business model, one that takes into account modern internet usage.

^Well, for one, patent law is a government sponsored monopoly so that doesn't mesh well with the free market or libertarianism. For two, if you have a copyright, you get to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property. If you copyright a book you effectively become a partial owner of every pen and paper in the jurisdiction of that law -- you get to tell other people what words they can and can't write with their own pen and paper in the privacy of their own homes; and that is very much at odds with freedom or liberty.

To use the example here: file sharing of mp3s, When you download a song you aren't trespassing, stealing, destroying, or otherwise utilizing another's property you are simply rearranging the surface of your OWN hard drive based on publicly available information. To claim that one cannot rearrange their own hard drive as they wish, is to claim that one does not really own that hard drive.

The same argument can be made for patents. Imagine if someone had patented the wheel, the house, clothes, or even cooking. Patents do not foster progress, they greatly inhibit it. Property law is, in my mind, intended to protect scarce (tangible) resources; which ideas, inventions, and patterns clearly are not.

As far as programming goes, don't you think the open source movement presents a strong argument against copyright? After all, I am typing this on an Ubuntu system.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sweden, Mpaa, Riaa, File Sharing' to 'Sweden, Mpaa, Riaa, File Sharing, nazis' - edited by MINK

You can tell he's cringing (while covering his British accent) at submitting to the Internet.

It's an about turn and plea for acceptance from Lars. Now finally willing to "share" and give up "control".

http://www.videosift.com/video/File-sharing-debate-between-Metallica-Public-Enemy-members

>> ^shuac:
Will they be able to continue to make movies as file sharing grows? It's not like they have another job they can fall back on. I realize I'm assuming that a shared file equals lost box office/DVD sales revenue, a super-simplistic equation but think about it: as file sharing grows, what will ultimately happen to the existing box office/DVD sales revenue? Surely, it must eventually shrink and given enough time, the dwindling revenue would collapse the industry altogether, wouldn't it?

The connection between downloaded copies and box office revenue is an interesting point. Let's take a look at a graph provided by the US branch of the pirate party: Link

Considering the almost definatly exponential growth of filesharing, one might argue that the detrimental effect it has on box office revenue appears to be somewhere between small and negligible or miniscule. The mentioned drops, or better lack thereof, in revenue when a new filesharing platform hits the scene further strengthens this impression, i'd say.
Not everybody has a home theatre and let's be honest, we're going to the movies for the experience, not the movie itself. It will remain a constant revenue stream, most likely even large enough for the actors to get a seven or eight figure paycheck.

Now, DVD sale revenue will decline, no doubt about it. But it would not cease completely. They'd have to offer some additional gimmicks, a nicely styled box or maybe some James-Bond-condoms inside, who knows. People will keep buying them, because people are collectors and love to have nice things to show. It might not be enough to keep up the 20+ million dollar wages paid these days, but they'd survive.


Not helping matters is the movie industry itself: they seem to be fighting file sharing in the same way the music industry did, making all the same mistakes, desperately clinging to the old model because it's in their comfort zone. How much longer will it take for them to start suing individual file sharers?

The music industry already did, the videogame industry as well ... not sure about the movie industry though. Some have realized just how pointless it is, but they'll keep clinging to their monopoly as long as the legislation lets them. Seeing how popular, wide-spread and easily accessible filesharing has become, i'd say even the most bullheaded executive will realize sooner than later that it's a lost cause.

Once the governments stop caving in to their demands and stop producing one unconstitutional law after another, the media industry will eventually have to adapt.

I've seen some interesting alternative business models for the media industry over the last few years that might work rather nicely, once private copies (every non-commercial use) are fully legalized - and they will be, eventually. They have to be if we want to keep our right of privacy.

One or two of them might even be worth a discussion over here if anyone's interested. There are always some weakness to be found, some points that were not taken into account (correctly).

I'm ambivalent on the issue of so-called "illegal" file sharing of music and movies.

On the one hand, it really is just a continuation of Gutenberg's printing press of 1439, a device that radically altered global communication. There were serious obstacles to this device since, practically overnight, it created the publishing industry, something that never existed before. It took a while for those in power to adjust to the "new way" of the world, but they eventually did. Not only did the powers that be adjust, but they took over this "new way" to serve their interests and we can see that happening with the internet today. If someone told you back in 1995 that Apple Computer would be the de facto music distribution outlet in ten years, you'd slap them silly.

On the other hand, the movie industry is basically the only industry America has left. That and tobacco. And say what you want about Hollywood, they do provide a lot of entertainment. Will they be able to continue to make movies as file sharing grows? It's not like they have another job they can fall back on. I realize I'm assuming that a shared file equals lost box office/DVD sales revenue, a super-simplistic equation but think about it: as file sharing grows, what will ultimately happen to the existing box office/DVD sales revenue? Surely, it must eventually shrink and given enough time, the dwindling revenue would collapse the industry altogether, wouldn't it?

Not helping matters is the movie industry itself: they seem to be fighting file sharing in the same way the music industry did, making all the same mistakes, desperately clinging to the old model because it's in their comfort zone. How much longer will it take for them to start suing individual file sharers?

A mere two years ago, I remember talk of simultaneous DVD and Theater releases, the thinking being: let pure demand for the product shape the direction the industry goes. What ever happened to that idea? The natural progression of this idea would be to enable downloading of movies from a website, charging a nominal fee of course. But this cuts out far too many middle-men, hence the reason for clinging to the old model.

To summarize, I think as time passes, they'll all eventually adjust to the "new way" just like they did back in the mid-1400s. Until then, we'll see a lot of hand-wringing and brow-sweat.

I feel very bad for the British, that there is really nothing I can do to help.

It wont take long for something like this to happen in the US, keep your eyes open and don't let the man sneak a Trojan in.

BTW doesn't p2p net like the blizzard downloader count as file sharing? The fools this will only drive piracy deeper underground, and will only hurt their constituents. Besides, doing this will create underground Internet Providers. The internet is like a leak that cant be stopped, its like sand that gets into every thing, you cant stop it. Nor can you stop its followers from finding a way to get to its glorious heaps of information.

Called the "Streisand effect"

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon on the Internet where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples are attempts to censor a photograph, a file, or even a whole website, especially by means of cease-and-desist letters. Instead of being suppressed, the information sometimes quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks. Mike Masnick said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005, “to describe [this] increasingly common phenomenon.” The effect is related to John Gilmore's observation that, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Press Ctrl + Alt + Del and hit "end program", then turn off firewall and disable anti-virus, then join every file sharing site you can and download everything you find. That should do the trick.

QM: A much larger universal problem of life is how to satisfy unlimited wants with scarce resources...

There's a solution to that: file sharing on the internet.
Reasonable people don't have unlimited wants of *physical* goods.

>> ^HadouKen24:
Moreover, it also ignores the rapid increase of religiosity in areas like China, where Islam and Christianity are finally starting to make inroads in some areas.


link
Though religiosity may be on the rise in some areas, in the top 30 or so countries on the HDI it's on the decline. As a percentage of the total population of Europe, atheism has increased more than Islam in the last 50 years.

This is all very interesting. I wonder how this will affect music when 10, 15, 20 years from now every artist will have had major exposure to all kinds of music thanks to file sharing.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I make my living as an artist, and part of my income comes from royalties, but I am very much opposed to current copyright and patent laws. The record industry isn't suffering because of piracy. The record industry is suffering because it is bloated, stagnant and boring.

The film makers and songwriters who are popular enough to be mass downloaded are too busy sniffing coke off a hookers ass through thousand dollar bills to give a fuck (Maddona and Lars excepted). The film makers and songwriters who are not popular enough to be downloaded would kill for the amount of exposure mass downloading would provide. This issue isn't really about the artists. It's about record execs who need a third yacht or a summer home on the French Riviera.

When the major record labels die, I will dance on their grave.

I also have a major problem with the concept that certain combinations of notes and words can be claimed as property by individuals. I have an even bigger problem with medical patents that allow drug companies to hold a monopoly on life saving drugs, allowing them to play extortionist or executioner to the misfortunate of the world. Our concept of economics is completely out of whack.

I have to respectfully disagree. Firstly, the sheer fact that major record/distributing institutions have survived is because they are an unfortunate necessity. Smaller artists simply cannot pull off a Radiohead/NiN and distribute their work single-handedly. The onerous costs and social networking involved in trans-continental product proliferation and promotion far exceed the capacity of a group of twenty-something year olds out of high school. Perhaps sometime not too far ahead in the future when high speed internet subscription reaches a certain level globally, file sharing promotion may play a pivotal role but as of now any such capacity is all too evidently dwarfed by the lucrative publicity big record companies can offer. If anything, traditional distribution companies will likely be replaced by online counterparts such as iTunes which will make previously culturally segregated media available to the world. In addition to that big record companies also act as financial lending institutions to unrealised artistic talent, usually in return for exclusivity deals and nowadays further encroaching upon merchandise and concert returns for years to come.

I think the real question should be, are record companies abusing the leverage in a predominantly oligarchic industry structure? I wholeheartedly agree that the methods being used by the RIAA and their associates are counter-productive, but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that these measures have come about due to affluent corporate executives scouring for additional earnings.

As for medical patents, again an even more apparent necessary evil. The costs involvement in clinical research and in particular testing and safety verification are exorbitant. Extortionate, even for the mammoth pharmaceuticals industry. Were it not for the presence of patents, then nobody would undertake such an 'investment' and medical breakthroughs would stagnate.

What I don't get, is ipods that are able to hold 40,000 songs. Does Apple really expect somebody to drop 40 grand filling this thing with legally purchased music? Thats ridiculous. Obviously some kind of file sharing is going to take place, even borrowing a friends CD and ripping it falls into that classification.

>> ^Crosswords:
surprised it hasn't been sifted before.


I'm pretty sure it has. I'm calling *dupe.

:: off to search ::

Tags for this video have been changed from 'downloading, is, genocide, godwin, rcaa, miaa, file, sharing, pirates, argh' to 'downloading, is, genocide, godwin, riaa, miaa, file, sharing, pirates, argh' - edited by jwray