 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Two pieces of good news lately. Well, I'd not consider death of people
earlier, pirates or not, a good thing, but at least the world is showing
some intestinal fortitude. First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
the spirit, and not the letter of the law:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm
I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/19/pirate.attack.foiled/index.html
Curiously, the legal situations are similar as well, as there is a legal
vacuum about piracy on and off the seas, which will eventually get filled as
pirates mess with the "wrong" people and wills are tested.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] y com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm
What I find disturbing about that is that the damages are awarded to
entertainment companies, not to software companies, even though pirate
bay distributes as much illegal software as illegal music/movies.
From the point of view of piracy, software is in a similar position
as music: It's easy to copy, and people copy it a lot without a second
thought.
However, software is only namely protected by law. There are no
institutions a la RIAA to protect the rights of software authors, to
lobby governments into passing draconian laws protecting software, to
extort people money for downloading illegal software. Cases of people
getting sued and/or fined because of music piracy outweight similar cases
of software piracy at least 100/1 (in the US probably 10000/1).
This pirate bay case follows the same pattern: The admins of the biggest
online piracy community gets fined. Who gets the money? Music companies.
As a software developer this grinds my gears.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
> the spirit, and not the letter of the law:
I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they
aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame)
and have the legislature clarify the situation. As it stands, nobody can
really be sure now whether it's safe to run a search engine without
massively lawyering up first.
People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent server
because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually distributing
something copyrighted.
> I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:
I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent server
> because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually distributing
> something copyrighted.
Hey, if it's bittorrent, it *must* be illegal, right? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 20.04.2009 19:03, Warp nous fit lire :
> Hey, if it's bittorrent, it *must* be illegal, right? ;)
>
Hey, if it's a RIAA copyrighted original CD, it *must* be good, right ?
(no, sincerely, I got it Warp, just too funny to resist)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49ecaa1a$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
> > the spirit, and not the letter of the law:
> I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they
> aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame)
> and have the legislature clarify the situation.
What more clarification is needed when their raison d'etre is openly and
publicly stated as to facilitate media and software piracy? They are called
"the PIRATE bay". Almost all their traffic is targeted towards piracy. What
clarification do you need?
Sometimes, the law needs to stop playing dumb and recognize that if it
smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that it is indeed
a duck without needing gazillions of DNA analyses.
> As it stands, nobody can
> really be sure now whether it's safe to run a search engine without
> massively lawyering up first.
I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.
> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
server
> because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
distributing
> something copyrighted.
There are recourses for mistakes within the confines of legal system. If
RIAA does that, *THEN* they can be counter sued for damages. That's what the
courts are for. The possibility of mistakes is never an excuse for not
taking positive action. Or else, we would never give scalpels to doctors.
What if they don't bother to check if what they are severing is the aorta or
not? Sure, let's all sit on our hands because anything we can do can lead to
mistakes or abuses. Right.
> > I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:
> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
Two wrongs do not make a right. And even if intentions are noble at the
beginning (doubtful), money corrupts. It's romanticly appealing to think the
pirates are acting on ideological grounds, but nobody extorting millions of
dollars will remain an idealist when they see the green.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
The value of that article is that there is another side to this that
isn't reported and that people pretend don't exist. That they're
committing piracy is not really in dispute.
If they were to commandeer ships involved in fishing in areas that are
supposed to be Somali waters, or ships dumping industrial wastes there,
I can see the point.
I guess they're trying to claim that they're using the ransom money for
compensation (although I'd really like to see which fishermen who lost
their job are getting how much of that money), and perhaps they're
desperate, so I won't really judge too harshly as I may not have all the
info. However, it's just plain "wrong" in that they're punishing the
wrong folks.
If my neighbor does something wrong, I shouldn't have to pay
compensation for his misdeeds simply because the law can't get hold of
him. I have friends and relatives living in countries where this happens
(illegally, of course). Some guy has a beef with the cable TV company
(perhaps what he considers an overpriced bill or whatever). He cancels
his account and then proceeds to steal the cable from his neighbor,
without asking him and disrupting his service. When confronted, he
simply says "I'm only taking what's rightfully mine - the cable company
owes me!". Examples like this abound - the law is pathetic at handling
this, and you usually give up or get some big guys to talk to the neighbor.
To me, what the Somali pirates are doing sounds just like this.
--
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they
>> aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame)
>> and have the legislature clarify the situation.
>
> What more clarification is needed when their raison d'etre is openly and
> publicly stated as to facilitate media and software piracy? They are called
> "the PIRATE bay".
So, we convict people to jail based on what their company is named?
I guess that means the Pirate Party governmental party should all be put in
jail too?
> Almost all their traffic is targeted towards piracy.
Had that been shown, sure. Nobody on the prosecution showed that, AFAIK.
Remember that both betamax and xerox fought the same battles.
> What clarification do you need?
AFAIK, they didn't do anything but run a tracker and a public search
service. Granted, that's what Napster did too.
I think the clarification needs to be in the laws, not the court cases. I'm
not saying it's right to pirate the stuff. I'm saying the law ought to be
written in a way that makes clear what "contributory copyright infringement"
means in an age where automation can contribute to copyright infringement
without you even knowing it. How closely do you have to watch what people
post to your server?
In the USA, we have the DMCA, which is pretty abusive, but it's *still* up
to the copyright owners to tell the ISP that there's something copyrighted
there. And if you police it yourself and miss some things, then you're in
more trouble than if you don't police it at all.
> Sometimes, the law needs to stop playing dumb and recognize that if it
> smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that it is indeed
> a duck without needing gazillions of DNA analyses.
Sure. Looks like a terrorist, sounds like a terrorist, better lock him up!
> I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
> engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.
> There are recourses for mistakes within the confines of legal system.
Only if you have money and the RIAA didn't put you out of business before it
goes to the courts. Remember Steve Jackson? Phil Zimmerman?
>>> I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:
>
>> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
>> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
So, someone bombs your country, you shouldn't shoot back?
> And even if intentions are noble at the
> beginning (doubtful), money corrupts. It's romanticly appealing to think the
> pirates are acting on ideological grounds, but nobody extorting millions of
> dollars will remain an idealist when they see the green.
Agreed. I'm just thinking that it's much less black vs white than the media
is portraying it, is all. I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I'm
just pointing out that probably nobody has the whole story.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
> distributing something copyrighted.
Do you mean a torrent server distributing Linux distributions? Cause
that's copyrighted and legal.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
>> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
>> distributing something copyrighted.
>
> Do you mean a torrent server distributing Linux distributions? Cause
> that's copyrighted and legal.
Obviously I meant to imply copyrighted by the RIAA, silly man.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
