It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Gotta Love These Pirate Bay Protesters...(101 posts)(101 posts)
(101 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Namur: And remember that those 'criminals' that 'feel entitled to what others create', are the people who actually download the content. Our friends, family members, co-workers, clients, etc, millions of people all around the world. Do they all deserve to go to jail or have their lives burdened with heavy fines that in many cases they'll never be able to afford ?
avatar
Weclock: the law is the law regardless who breaks it. :/
If you want to see a movie, earn the right to do so.
If you wish to listen to music, use the radio.
There's no reason to share copyrighted material to just anybody. if it's the case that you actually wish to do something creative with it, talk to the copyright holders and see if they'd allow you to do so.
Otherwise, when you share copyrighted material, you are allowing the material to be accessed without those people paying the price. Even if you don't share, using the link, keeps the link alive for people who will share, or who didn't buy the product to begin with.

That's why no one disputes the fact that piracy is against the law. It is.
But i do have to ask why millions of law abiding citizens all over the world who don't break any other laws, choose to break this particular law, over and over and over...
I'm not arguing that since there are so many people doing it, it's legal. It's not.
It's against the law, they know it, they keep doing it every day. Why?
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: the law is the law regardless who breaks it. :/

Apparently not, as TPB has not broken Swedish law. So the law appears to be whatever the ones with the most money says it is.
Posted April 19, 2009
Because it is easier than steal something physical.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: the law is the law regardless who breaks it. :/
avatar
Wishbone: Apparently not, as TPB has not broken Swedish law. So the law appears to be whatever the ones with the most money says it is.
Well, unfortunately I am not the authority, if I was things would be much more consistent. And if I became the authority, I would put the same judge/jury against google. Because I have found more torrents thru google than I ever would through TPB.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
klaymen: Because it is easier than steal something physical.

You honestly feel that the reason (perhaps the majority of) pirates don't steal physical objects is because it's difficult?
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: it's like if I ask to ride your bike, you say no, and then I ride it any farkin' way. :P
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Wouldn't it be more like creating an exact duplicate of the bike and then riding that?
No, it wouldn't be.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Namur: There are many laws that are not decent or moral, or that when applied tend to lead to indecent or immoral outcomes, either because they were made that way or because they failed to adjust to a new world and a new reality. Nevertheless, those laws must be respected untill decent and moral laws are written to replace them.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Actually it is often the case that the only reasonable way to get a law changed is to have enough people breaking it that politicians can no longer pretend that there's no problem with the law. Additionally, when looking to challenge laws through the court system you typically don't have standing to challenge the law unless you can claim you've been harmed by it, which typically means that you've violated the law and someone is attempting to punish you for doing so.

I really enjoyed reading your views on IP on the other thread. You really make some very good points. Good stuff.
About that bit you quoted, i was trying to make the point that if a law doens't work for whatever reason, there's no justification for trying to bypass it with money or politics. It must be replaced with one that works. Until it doens't, it's the law. But i do understand what you mean about actually replacing that law, and i agree with you.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Wouldn't it be more like creating an exact duplicate of the bike and then riding that?
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be.

I'm sorry but yes it would. Besides, no analogy between digital content and physical products will ever fully work.
Post edited April 19, 2009 by Namur
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Wouldn't it be more like creating an exact duplicate of the bike and then riding that?
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be.

It certainly wouldn't be like your original suggestion as the owner would no longer have the bike. Physical and intellectual property are two distinctly different things, treating them as the same doesn't work.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Actually it is often the case that the only reasonable way to get a law changed is to have enough people breaking it that politicians can no longer pretend that there's no problem with the law. Additionally, when looking to challenge laws through the court system you typically don't have standing to challenge the law unless you can claim you've been harmed by it, which typically means that you've violated the law and someone is attempting to punish you for doing so.
avatar
Namur: I really enjoyed reading your views on IP on the other thread. You really make some very good points. Good stuff.
About that bit you quoted, i was trying to make the point that if a law doens't work for whatever reason, there's no justification for trying to bypass it with money or politics. It must be replaced with one that works. Until it doens't, it's the law. But i do understand what you mean about actually replacing that law, and i agree with you.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Wouldn't it be more like creating an exact duplicate of the bike and then riding that?
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be.
avatar
Weclock: I'm sorry but yes it would. Besides, no analogy between digital content and physical products will ever fully work.
No, it wouldn't be, because I'm assuming the bike would be returned after the ride, as per the original request.
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be.
avatar
Nafe: It certainly wouldn't be like your original suggestion as the owner would no longer have the bike. Physical and intellectual property are two distinctly different things, treating them as the same doesn't work.
It certainly would be, because the request was just to ride, not own. Do you have issues understanding context?
Post edited April 19, 2009 by Weclock
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be, because I'm assuming the bike would be returned after the ride, as per the original request.

And in that period the owner is without the bike. It's not a particularly helpful analogy.
Post edited April 19, 2009 by Nafe
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be, because I'm assuming the bike would be returned after the ride, as per the original request.
avatar
Nafe: And in that period the owner is without the bike. It's not a particularly helpful analogy.
I'm talking about using a product for creativity sake, not to permanently listen/watch as much as you like, two very different things.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: the law is the law regardless who breaks it. :/
avatar
Wishbone: Apparently not, as TPB has not broken Swedish law. So the law appears to be whatever the ones with the most money says it is.

Sweden is not isolated country. it signed international treaties, it belongs to various trade unions etc.
the country and its citizens must respect international laws.
So even if Swedish law is not clear on how to treat TPB and similar websites international law is (well kinda. it is still very hard to accuse someone.)
just an opinion. don't have enough info on trail and swedish law and sweden trade agreements (as well as EU's) to objectively decide which side is right.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: It certainly would be, because the request was just to ride, not own. Do you have issues understanding context?

Cute, you make a flawed analogy and then get tetchy when people point out its inadequacies.
avatar
Nafe: And in that period the owner is without the bike. It's not a particularly helpful analogy.
avatar
Weclock: I'm talking about using a product for creativity sake, not to permanently listen/watch as much as you like, two very different things.

Irrespective, the analogy simply does not help your case, as is frequently the case when one tries to compare physical and intellectual property.
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Wishbone: Apparently not, as TPB has not broken Swedish law. So the law appears to be whatever the ones with the most money says it is.
avatar
Weclock: Well, unfortunately I am not the authority, if I was things would be much more consistent. And if I became the authority, I would put the same judge/jury against google. Because I have found more torrents thru google than I ever would through TPB.

Wow, i misssed that one. Well i can only say, thank God you're not the authority, because if you were i have the feeling that anyone who created a good, legal technology, would be tossed into jail the moment someone else decided to use that technology for something illegal.
avatar
Namur: I really enjoyed reading your views on IP on the other thread. You really make some very good points. Good stuff.
About that bit you quoted, i was trying to make the point that if a law doens't work for whatever reason, there's no justification for trying to bypass it with money or politics. It must be replaced with one that works. Until it doens't, it's the law. But i do understand what you mean about actually replacing that law, and i agree with you.
I'm sorry but yes it would. Besides, no analogy between digital content and physical products will ever fully work.
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be, because I'm assuming the bike would be returned after the ride, as per the original request.
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be.
avatar
Nafe: It certainly wouldn't be like your original suggestion as the owner would no longer have the bike. Physical and intellectual property are two distinctly different things, treating them as the same doesn't work.
avatar
Nafe: It certainly would be, because the request was just to ride, not own. Do you have issues understanding context?

No, but you seem to. You'd be deprived of the use of your bilke untill the guy decided to return it. But again, this kind of analogy will never work
Post edited April 19, 2009 by Namur
Posted April 19, 2009
avatar
Weclock: Well, unfortunately I am not the authority, if I was things would be much more consistent. And if I became the authority, I would put the same judge/jury against google. Because I have found more torrents thru google than I ever would through TPB.
avatar
Namur: Wow, i misssed that one. Well i can only say, thank God you're not the authority, because if you were i have the feeling that anyone who created a good, legal technology, would be tossed into jail the moment someone else decided to use that technology for something illegal.

I was just pointing out how silly a case against TPB is, because it is effectualy google with a BB.
avatar
Weclock: No, it wouldn't be, because I'm assuming the bike would be returned after the ride, as per the original request.
It certainly would be, because the request was just to ride, not own. Do you have issues understanding context?
avatar
Namur: No, but you seem to. You'd be deprived of the use of your bilke untill the guy decided to return it. But again, this kind of analogy will never work
That was the original point, the guy asked if he could ride the bike, while the guy is riding the bike, the original owner of the bike clearly cannot fucking ride it at the same time, what is it you idiots don't understand about space?!
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Gotta Love These Pirate Bay Protesters...(101 posts)(101 posts)
(101 posts)