View Full Version : TorrentSpy shuts down
They've gone from blocking US visitors to now finally just shutting down.
Friends of TorrentSpy,
We have decided on our own, not due to any court order or agreement, to bring the Torrentspy.com search engine to an end and thus we permanently closed down worldwide on March 24, 2008.
The legal climate in the USA for copyright, privacy of search requests, and links to torrent files in search results is simply too hostile. We spent the last two years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, defending the rights of our users and ourselves.
Ultimately the Court demanded actions that in our view were inconsistent with our privacy policy, traditional court rules, and International law; therefore, we now feel compelled to provide the ultimate method of privacy protection for our users - permanent shutdown.
It was a wild ride,
The TorrentSpy Team
"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order [...] and the like." - Justice William O. Douglas
Yeah, I know I'm a month late, but I don't go there much anymore since they shut down search for US users.
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 03:07
Good, perhaps this will help stop people from stealing.
Good, perhaps this will help stop people from stealing.And a dozen more take its place. Coincidentally Demonoid was recently reopened.
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 05:05
And a dozen more take its place. Coincidentally Demonoid was recently reopened.
Perhaps as I noticed as well. But each time this happens it's still a victory for the law as steps of progress have been made.
I wish their was other means as to stoping these thieves without affecting the privacy of others as I'm a strict libertarian. But stealing is stealing, even if it's not phyical. But it goes to show how easy a human can go corrupt when the means are their to do it safely. Sad.
EDIT: Something else I would like to add, is that the more and more this continues on, the more people will lose rights. It's not fair for everybody. But it is bound to happen as this continues on. One example I can give is look how people have already lost their rights to their own operating system. It's going to happen to more and more digital devices and services as time goes on.
Good, perhaps this will help stop people from stealing.
You do realize that not all torrents are stolen, right?
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 06:44
You do realize that not all torrents are stolen, right?
I see this excuse pretty often. However I'm sure it's a very small minority if the case.
"Not all" does not make it "all" right.
I see this excuse pretty often. However I'm sure it's a very small minority if the case.
"Not all" does not make it "all" right.
Does "not all all right" make it "all wrong"? Where does that happen? Does 51-49 make it appropriate to throw out the entire enterprise? If not, where is that ratio and what evidence do you offer that TorrentSpy met that standard?
Perhaps you'd insist that if even one file was stolen that would be enough to shut them down? Is that your standard?
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 07:32
Does "not all all right" make it "all wrong"?
No, but it can certainly ruin it for the others. Any other means to stop the stealing?
And apparantly the ratio must be high enough to force government to get involved. So unless either you or I can provide the exact ratio(And I'm sure that is the last thing Torrent sites would want to provide to the public and government), it's hard to say with any clear cut accuracy. But I would say the odds are on my side If I had to guess. From personal testimony to being a whittness of others.
alt_nick
26-Apr-2008, 09:41
Not to be a negative nancy or anything, but I seem to have this curious habit of straight away labeling people throwing around the word 'stealing' (or 'sharing') as extremists.
If you want a decent discussion you might want to switch to a less loaded, and more correct, term like copyright infringement or unauthorized reproduction (Yes, I know it doesn't have that zing to it that some people like :)
On torrentspy's demise, I can only say good riddance. One of the worst ad-hells (Now with special crunchy spyware for no extra charge!) I've had the displeasure of visiting.
nutball
26-Apr-2008, 09:46
Any other means to stop the stealing?
Ban the Internet?
And apparantly the ratio must be high enough to force government to get involved.Governments quite readily get involved even in trivial matters if they sense that there's a political advantage to be had. Or if the requisite campaign donations are made by the right people or organisations.
So unless either you or I can provide the exact ratio(And I'm sure that is the last thing Torrent sites would want to provide to the public and government), it's hard to say with any clear cut accuracy.It's hard to say with any accuracy, but you're quite happy to make an arbitrary decision based on inaccurate data?
But I would say the odds are on my side If I had to guess. From personal testimony to being a whittness of others.Again, so you're guessing?
bigtabs
26-Apr-2008, 10:26
Surely nobody seriously believes that the majority of torrent traffic isn't copywritten?
epicstruggle
26-Apr-2008, 12:23
Does "not all all right" make it "all wrong"? Where does that happen? Does 51-49 make it appropriate to throw out the entire enterprise? If not, where is that ratio and what evidence do you offer that TorrentSpy met that standard?
Perhaps you'd insist that if even one file was stolen that would be enough to shut them down? Is that your standard?
I would be shocked if the ratio wasnt 99.9999999999%pirated items to 0.0000000001 legal torrents.
I would be shocked if the ratio wasnt 99.9999999999%pirated items to 0.0000000001 legal torrents.
Of course you would be, Epic. So you should be shocked. Because what you just said is that you'd be shocked if one file out of every one hundred million was legit. Given that no site has ever reached one hundred million torrents, and I've personally downloaded more than one legitimate torrent (ones made available by their creators), it's a certainty that you're off by orders of magnitude.
epicstruggle
26-Apr-2008, 14:25
Of course you would be, Epic. So you should be shocked. Because what you just said is that you'd be shocked if one file out of every one hundred million was legit. Given that no site has ever reached one hundred million torrents, and I've personally downloaded more than one legitimate torrent (ones made available by their creators), it's a certainty that you're off by orders of magnitude.
Sorry for the confusion on my part, I meant to say downloads. Sorry, long night shift.
Copyright infractions are not the same as stealing.
Should the photocopy machine be banned because people can copy books and instructions on how to make atomic bombs with it?
bigtabs
26-Apr-2008, 14:58
Analogies often don't work - like that one. The time and effort it takes to do anything serious with a photocopier negates it's usefulness to those who wish to break copyright laws.
What we've ended up talking about here are ratios.
Do the needs of the legal sharers outweigh the needs of the copyright holders? One of them has to lose if the two options are allow / disallow torrent traffic.
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 15:54
Ban the Internet?
Why? No need to throw out ridiculas statements like that have no merit or meaning.
Governments quite readily get involved even in trivial matters if they sense that there's a political advantage to be had. Or if the requisite campaign donations are made by the right people or organisations.
I don't like government intervention either, so why do people invite it by their actions then hide behind it as an excuse?
t's hard to say with any accuracy, but you're quite happy to make an arbitrary decision based on inaccurate data?
Again, so you're guessing?
You can attack my credibility by just saying it's a guess, but I say it's damn good one and logical one.
The third largest torrent site is pirate bay. Is their something wrong with that? Pirate bay.... they call them selves pirate bay....
It's pretty obvious what is going on. These pirate sites understand the majority user base, they pat their back, because they pat theirs. One side get's their free digital content and services in which other wise would not be, and the other side gets ad money and lot's of it. The torrent sites show no absolute effort to stoping or slowing down the pirates either, because they are their customers and understand that.
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 16:18
[B]Copyright infractions are not the same as stealing.
Ahh, this is the lamest of them all. I see this used a bit often as well. It's stealing.
Should the photocopy machine be banned because people can copy books and instructions on how to make atomic bombs with it?
Nothing wrong with photo copying pages of a book so as long as it's not the whole and or a huge chunk of it. People do this a lot for writting report and so forth. They even go to the touble of legitly citing the sources like they should instead of claiming it as their own:razz:
The problem with your analogoy is that is that a photocopy machine is just not a tool used by pirates. Simply becuase it's not effective, or safe. Why would pirate Joe go to the touble of photocopying a book when pirate Joe can download the digital version someone but up on a torrent site? Also Pirates are cheapscapes, they would not pay 5 cents a paper.:lol:
But please don't hide behind that copy right infringement is not stealing. Pretty low.
If I burned a CD for my firend, and gave it to him, that is stealing. If I'm downloading the lord of the rings trilogy, that is stealing.
Ahh, this is the lamest of them all. I see this used a bit often as well. It's stealing.
No, it's not. Big Content wants it to be and dreams that it is, but it's currently not.
You should go study the law instead of being a shill for Big Content.
If I burned a CD for my firend, and gave it to him, that is stealing.
Nope, you can give a burnt CD to a close friend. It falls under fair use in America. Again, Big Content hates this.
They are basically going after the wrong people. They should be going after the ones profiting from the piracy. If you burn a copy of an audio CD that you bought and give it to your friend, you are actually losing money because you bought the audio CD and the blank CD.
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 18:26
No, it's not. Big Content wants it to be and dreams that it is, but it's currently not.
You should go study the law instead of being a shill for Big Content.
Nope, you can give a burnt CD to a close friend. It falls under fair use in America. Again, Big Content hates this.
They are basically going after the wrong people. They should be going after the ones profiting from the piracy. If you burn a copy of an audio CD that you bought and give it to your friend, you are actually losing money because you bought the audio CD and the blank CD.
Oh you are in that would fall under fair use. But if I was to burn 50 CD's and hand them out? "Fair use" can ultimently be decided by judges. Mass distributing copyrighted digital content is not something that would fall under "fair use".
You were the one mentioning burning a CD.
Anyway, mass distribution of copyrighted digital content wouldn't fall under theft either.
nutball
26-Apr-2008, 18:35
Why? No need to throw out ridiculas statements like that have no merit or meaning.
It's called a parody. (It's also a semi-serious question - are you denying that closing down the Internet wouldn't solve the problem of the unauthorised distribution of copyright content over the Internet?)
Up to the advent of youtube it was widely held by major ISPs that the largest share of their traffic was P2P traffic. Next is web traffic (the bulk of which is porn). After that is NNTP (the bulk of which is the same stuff you get on torrents).
If the argument goes that any transmission medium which is predominantly used for distribution of copyright content should be shut down, why should the same not be applied to the Internet as a whole?
I don't like government intervention either, so why do people invite it by their actions then hide behind it as an excuse?That's a seriously silly argument. Are there any actions which the Government can't randomly decide it doesn't wish to intervene against which can't be justified by what you've just said there?
You can attack my credibility by just saying it's a guess, but I say it's damn good one and logical one.You yourself said it was a guess. You undermined your own credibility. Personally I have my own guesses, but to have an informed debate some hard figures might be nice. Hard figures not produced by interested parties or their paid familiars I might add.
The third largest torrent site is pirate bay. Is their something wrong with that? Pirate bay.... they call them selves pirate bay....It's called Pirate Bay as a parody. They're labelled as Pirates by the lawyers of the music and movie industries. So the pick up the torch and run with it. In that respect, good for them.
(By the way Pirate Bay is not a torrent site, it's a torrent search site. See? More blurring of the semantics.)
You know what though, I don't even use torrents, except for receiving WOW patches and fetching the latest SUSE releases. It just annoys the hell out me that people catch the sound-bites from the lawyers representing a few vested interests and then go all non-linear.
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 18:39
You were the one mentioning burning a CD.
Anyway, mass distribution of copyrighted digital content wouldn't fall under theft either.
I think you misunderstand here. The guy giving out the content may not be a thief, even though he is breaking copyright laws. The people that choose to download the content (aka pirates... well they are pirates...) are stealing the content. You can call it what you want and sugar coat by what ever means, even though they are getting the content from someone that is handing out freely, your still stealing from the original author of the content/media.
Copyright infringement is not stealing! http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi1.htm
digitalwanderer
26-Apr-2008, 20:17
Theft is taking away someone else's property and hence depriving them of the ownership and use of it.
/me applauds
bigtabs
26-Apr-2008, 20:45
If someone shines your shoes, and you leave without paying, is that stealing?
epicstruggle
26-Apr-2008, 20:47
/me applauds
Why doesnt this surprise me?
If someone shines your shoes, and you leave without paying, is that stealing?Services cost them time/money for every person they service. There is a tangible loss for people not paying up considering money/time was invested in each person for payment.
http://thepiratebay.org/user/stealthisfilm
http://stealthisfilm.com
Jawed
Sound_Card
26-Apr-2008, 22:35
/me applauds
Give him an inch and he'll take a yard.
-Unknown proverb.
digitalwanderer
26-Apr-2008, 22:41
:lol:
Anyone else get the feeling some people were just waiting for me to post up in this thread? ;)
But Digi! No B3D thread is complete until you've posted in it!
I don't really care so much personally, but ethically I find it frustrating that torrents have been on the kibosh radar.
They are really a superb method of disseminating large files and I wish they were used legitimately more often regardless of other issues. I like the fact that they are more open unlike Steam or other methods to do the same thing. Basically you are subsidizing Valve when you use steam b/c you are paying to do their work for them. With torrents who are you subsidizing? The content creator who doesn't have to pay to distribute their work (if they want it distributed :) )?
Anyway I just like the idea and wish they were used legitimately more often. To do that though I guess you need policing and then you end up with out it being so open.
I don't really care so much personally, but ethically I find it frustrating that torrents have been on the kibosh radar.
They are really a superb method of disseminating large files and I wish they were used legitimately more often regardless of other issues.
I feel ya, bro. They are a technically elegant solution that by design brings more resources without bringing more costs to large volume distribution scenarios. From a technical pov, they aren't any different than seti@home or folding@home or other distributed computing solutions.
There is a ton of expensive servers with major bandwidth and such out there being replicated unnecessarily because they have to be designed for max load scenarios. Torrenting (again, *by design*) brings the resources where they need to be, when they need to be there, without adding marginal cost. Really quite brilliant.
Sound_Card
27-Apr-2008, 02:35
I don't think anybody has a problem with torrents them selves. It is a great idea.
The problem is that people need to stand up and fight againt using it for the wrong reasons. People need to stop supporting the idea of freely going and stealing copyrighted material in which other wise they would of paid for or not use at all! Torrent sites need to take action against pirates instead of embracing them(as they are a nice source of their ad money), and they need to be held responsible if they don't. Other wise they are just providing a free gateway to pirated content(and they are).
Richard
27-Apr-2008, 03:51
Another one megabytes the dust.
Puns involving computer terminology? Are we in Reboot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBoot)?
I would be shocked if the ratio wasnt 99.9999999999%pirated items to 0.0000000001 legal torrents.
On many of the torrent sites I've been too, the ratio was more like 90-10. I've seen torrents distributing emulators, patches(And by patches I mean an actual patch, not a frigging crack), trials of programs(without cracks included or links to cracks), free apps, home made videos(For example, a speed run of a game), etc etc.
BT is used legitimately far more than people realize. Of course, that's not to say that BT isn't used illegally most of the time. It is. But putting the ratios at 99.9999999999% to 0.0000000001% is overstating it.
Isn't BT protocol used directly by Blizzard to distribute all the World-of-Warcraft patches? That alone would skew the numbers for legitimate use.
Of course using the torrent protocol is quite different than using some torrent tracker search site.
On many of the torrent sites I've been too, the ratio was more like 90-10. I've seen torrents distributing emulators, patches(And by patches I mean an actual patch, not a frigging crack), trials of programs(without cracks included or links to cracks), free apps, home made videos(For example, a speed run of a game), etc etc.
Youguys remember Q2DQ? That was amazing I loved that. Sorry the speed run thing reminded me of it. Myabe that is nostalgia talking though...
Quake 2 runs? speed demo archive has a crapload of those...
Richard
27-Apr-2008, 20:16
(Legit) Torrents for games here (http://www.gameupdates.org/). This site has demos, patches, trailers, mods, free games, etc. 100% legit.
Some people seem to be arguing is that if a website has both legal and illegal torrents it should not be shut down. Sorry, I disagree. If a website knowingly hosts links to illegal torrents (or ftp, http, emule, whatever) then copyright holders are within their rights to sue them. I don't know where this ratio argument came from but it's irrelevant.
Except most of the anti-torrent crowd haven't done the least bit of homework on what sites are good or bad. They want the baby thrown out with the bath water at the highest level.
Quake 2 runs? speed demo archive has a crapload of those...
I was talking about a specific one. I just thought it was very cool at the time. Not saying I wanted to see more of them :)
Copyright infringement is not stealing! http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi1.htm
And this is absolutely correct. There are lots of unclear points regarding software and copyrights from the law's point of view; and everyone tends to interpret them as he wants.
eastmen
28-Apr-2008, 11:50
I use torrents for catching up on my tv shows.
My question is , is it stealing if the item in question is not made avalible through other means ? I was in florida this past week and couldn't watch smallville. I've downloaded it. Is that theft ? The cw was no longer airing it and thus not making money on it and its not avalible on their website to watch or on a dvd box set.
The same goes for movies. When Iron Man leaves thearters but is not yet on dvd its the companys fault for loosing sales by not supplying the product. I don't hear Microsoft sueing because they are loosing sales by not releasing whats called windows 7.
I agree with these companys on music issues though. If the music is avalible on cd at a store then its theft. Though these companys should be held accountable for the crappy storage medium they use. I've taken cds out of the case just once after opening to rip them for my zune (perfectly legal) and before putting them in my dvd drive they had a scratch. Right out of the packaging !
I was in florida this past week and couldn't watch smallville. I've downloaded it. Is that theft ? The cw was no longer airing it and thus not making money on it and its not avalible on their website to watch or on a dvd box set.
No longer airing it? Maybe your local one, but mine showed it thursday. They have a web site for it too, but they don't put the full episodes up on it.
Richard
28-Apr-2008, 15:13
My question is , is it stealing if the item in question is not made avalible through other means ? I was in florida this past week and couldn't watch smallville. I've downloaded it. Is that theft ?
It's never theft; it's copyright infringement.
The cw was no longer airing it and thus not making money on it and its not avalible on their website to watch or on a dvd box set.
The same goes for movies. When Iron Man leaves thearters but is not yet on dvd its the companys fault for loosing sales by not supplying the product. I don't hear Microsoft sueing because they are loosing sales by not releasing whats called windows 7.
This argument comes up a lot but it doesn't hold water. You do not have a God given right to watch whatever sitcom you want. If you missed it, your local cable provider doesn't carry it, the publisher doesn't allow you to watch on its website nor have any more DVD sets to sell you, then tough. They own the copyright, they control who gets to watch and when.
In fact, suppose the publisher does not want to sell the movie anymore, perhaps they've found a technical problem with it, or they themselves have infringed on someone else's copyright and want to "withdraw" their movie/game/whatever from sale worldwide. You do not have the right to bypass their right to do this.
You may shrug it off and still do it but please don't be in any illusion as to whether your act is lawful.
I'm sure people would behave differently if they produced movies/wrote software for a living. There's a severe lack of empathy in today's society and it seems we can't walk a mile in another's shoes.
Mintmaster
28-Apr-2008, 15:36
Services cost them time/money for every person they service. There is a tangible loss for people not paying up considering money/time was invested in each person for payment.Can you honestly tell me that you can't see nearly the exact same argument about copyrighted material?
How about drugs that are almost free to manufacture but cost huge amounts to research/invent/test? Is it okay to steal those?
What about sneaking into the theater or a stadium/arena without buying a ticket? That's not stealing to you?
Mintmaster
28-Apr-2008, 15:45
No, it's not. Big Content wants it to be and dreams that it is, but it's currently not.
You should go study the law instead of being a shill for Big Content.Moral arguments are never about existing law. What's right and wrong is a completely different discussion from what's legal and illegal. Hopefully society has good correlation between the two, but whether they do or not is irrelevant.
I don't even know if law refers to "stealing", as it's always called theft. Stealing is obtaining anything - goods, services, entertainment, information, etc - without paying the negotiated compensation to its creator/owner.
Can you honestly tell me that you can't see nearly the exact same argument about copyrighted material?
How about drugs that are almost free to manufacture but cost huge amounts to research/invent/test? Is it okay to steal those?
What about sneaking into the theater or a stadium/arena without buying a ticket? That's not stealing to you?
If you are in a theater that is empty you are not costing them anything. If it is full you cost them a ticket sale theoretically, but that would not actually even happen as they would still sell the tickets.
Why do drugs cost different amounts depending on where you get them? If they change the price massively when you move something digital to an arbitrarily chosen political entity then their argument of intrinsic value goes out the window.
PellePlutt
30-Apr-2008, 10:27
I don't even know if law refers to "stealing", as it's always called theft. Stealing is obtaining anything - goods, services, entertainment, information, etc - without paying the negotiated compensation to its creator/owner.
Exactly. So if I own a bunch of CDs, copy them, and distribute them, most people wouldn't call that stealing, since I, the owner, consent. I'm fairly sure this also agrees with the law in most countries. There are, however, copyright laws which would be broken.
You can of course disagree, arguing that the creator always sort of owns any CD of his music, which might make copying them stealing.
The bottom line is, pirating = stealing is arguable. Stating it as fact is inflammatory, and keeps ruining these threads all over the internet.
The bottom line is, pirating = stealing is arguable. Stating it as fact is inflammatory, and keeps ruining these threads all over the internet.
May we assume you'd prefer "rape" as the more technically accurate term then?
digitalwanderer
02-May-2008, 19:48
Intellectual property rape, sure. :)
Intellectual property rape, sure. :)
DRM is their way of not being accused of dressing like a slut. :razz:
Betanumerical
04-May-2008, 14:07
DRM is their way of not being accused of dressing like a slut. :razz:
uncovered bytes deserve to be stolen.
Mintmaster
06-May-2008, 05:27
If you are in a theater that is empty you are not costing them anything. If it is full you cost them a ticket sale theoretically, but that would not actually even happen as they would still sell the tickets.So what? You're saying that going into a theater that isn't full is not stealing?
Why do drugs cost different amounts depending on where you get them?Why does a 2000 sq. ft. house cost different amounts depending on where you buy it?
Sound_Card
06-May-2008, 05:38
So what? You're saying that going into a theater that isn't full is not stealing?
Why does a 2000 sq. ft. house cost different amounts depending on where you buy it?
I don't know what makes these people believe they have a given right to steal...opps, excuse my language, I mean to say infringe.
Mintmaster
06-May-2008, 06:02
Exactly. So if I own a bunch of CDs, copy them, and distribute them, most people wouldn't call that stealing, since I, the owner, consent. I'm fairly sure this also agrees with the law in most countries. There are, however, copyright laws which would be broken.When you buy software or music, you don't own the information on it. You purchased a piece of plastic and the ability to use the information on it when you want to in the way the creator allows, and that's it. Moreover, the person you are distributing that CD to is not compensating the owner/creator of the information on it, so they are stealing.
That's why they call it intellectual property. It's like getting a lifetime pass to an amusement park or a museum. You can visit and enjoy them as much as you want, but you don't own the property. Likewise, if someone who looks like you uses your pass, it's stealing.
The bottom line is, pirating = stealing is arguable. Stating it as fact is inflammatory, and keeps ruining these threads all over the internet.No it's not, and only a myopic view of property causes any debate. Software even spells it out for you in the license agreement. If you don't agree to the terms, too bad, because that's all you paid for.
You can debate how morally wrong it is to steal anything (e.g. a loaf of bread vs. a Ferrari), but you can't debate whether it is stealing or not.
Why does a 2000 sq. ft. house cost different amounts depending on where you buy it?Desirability from the number of people buying homes in the area and from the neighborhood the house is in.
When you buy software or music, you don't own the information on it. You purchased a piece of plastic and the ability to use the information on it when you want to in the way the creator allows, and that's it. Moreover, the person you are distributing that CD to is not compensating the owner/creator of the information on it, so they are stealing.
That's why they call it intellectual property. It's like getting a lifetime pass to an amusement park or a museum. You can visit and enjoy them as much as you want, but you don't own the property. Likewise, if someone who looks like you uses your pass, it's stealing.
No it's not, and only a myopic view of property causes any debate. Software even spells it out for you in the license agreement. If you don't agree to the terms, too bad, because that's all you paid for.
You can debate how morally wrong it is to steal anything (e.g. a loaf of bread vs. a Ferrari), but you can't debate whether it is stealing or not.This is not arguable. It is a fact that software piracy is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. Software piracy is a matter handled in civil court. Stealing is a matter handled in criminal court.
And FYI a lot of the stuff in the EULA will not hold up in court. They put everything and the kitchen sink in those to cover their own asses.
So what? You're saying that going into a theater that isn't full is not stealing?
Why does a 2000 sq. ft. house cost different amounts depending on where you buy it?
Because there is a difference in the value of real estate. There is not a difference in the value of a pill as you can easily transport it.
You cannot buy a 2000sq. ft house in Indiana and then just set it down in Manhattan for free.
I wish people would stop this silliness of equating copyright infringment with theft. It's not theft, that's why there's an entirely different category of laws, IP laws, dealing with that kind of stuff. It cannot even be subsumed conceptually under traditional property laws.
The goods we're talking about are immaterial and, that's the important part, non-rivalrous. They can be copied and distributed without taking anything away from the owner. Pirating software or any other immaterial good does not deprive the owner of his usage of the immaterial good, and that's the key difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods. If I steal you car, you can't use it anymore. If I warez your software, preciously little changes for you, at least not as a direct consequence of my action - you're still having the copyright of your IP and can do with it as you please.
The owner of IP does not have property rights in the traditional sense, he has a mere copyright. Copyright means that he has the sole control over the reproduction and distribution of the good, at least to a certain extend - there are limits. If someone pirates software, he doesn't steal, he is merely infringing on the owners copyright.
If it was theft, it would be treated as theft and the reason why it's not treated is because it's something fundamentally different. The only reason why copyrights even exist is because the traditional rules and laws of property cannot be applied to non-rivalrous goods. The failure of traditional property laws in dealing with non-rivalrous goods is what led to the creation of "IP" laws in the first place. Applying the language of traditional property rights to non-rivalrous goods is absurd. If traditional property laws and the associated property crimes, like theft, could be applied to non-rivalrous goods, there would have been no need for the creation of IP laws.
Even the most idiotic retard knows instinctively that there is neither a legal nor a moral equivalency between downloading a copy of Daikatana and stealing some grandma's purse. That's the reason why content piracy is so widespread even amongst people who'd never steal anything.
I wish copyright holders would stop this so transparently inappropriate equation of copyright infringment and theft. It doesn't help their case in the slightest and it destroys their credibility in the same way in which telling kids that smoking weed will ruin ruin their lives destroys the credibility of anti-drug campaigns.
Lets propose a law to make it theft to copy copyright material, that will make the ignorant "thiefs" take it more seriously and think over what they are doing. Though so far it is good to see large torrent hosting sites go down, Piratebay and Mininova next please and thanks!
Then a Usenet cleanup....
nutball
06-May-2008, 16:31
Lets propose a law to make it theft to copy copyright material
Fine, so long as every time we buy a Brittney Spears tune, Brittney turns up at our house and performs for us in person. Turns up whenever we feel like listening to the tune that is, not just the first time.
Fine, so long as every time we buy a Brittney Spears tune, Brittney turns up at our house and performs for us in person. Turns up whenever we feel like listening to the tune that is, not just the first time.
Be prepared to pay 10x more then and you might get sued for sexual harassment if she is low on money... :razz:
Lets propose a law to make it theft to copy copyright material, that will make the ignorant "thiefs" take it more seriously and think over what they are doing.
You can't "make" something theft that isn't theft simply by calling it that. Theft has a fixed definition, which is, basically, to unlawfully take something you own away from you and thereby depriving you of it. It has been that way since mankind first started to codify property rights in laws a couple of millennia ago. Making a copy of a non-rivalrous good does not deprive you of that good. It's not theft.
You can legislate copyright infringment to be a crime, certainly, but it's still not theft. The point is, it doesn't even make sense to call it theft. Doing so would make as much sense as referring to assault and battery as "murder", so people "take it more seriously". What utter nonsense. I don't understand why we even have to argue about that.
nutball
06-May-2008, 16:43
Be prepared to pay 10x more then
Why should I pay more? All I'm getting is to listen to a song.
A) I put a CD in my hi-fi, put a tune on then go into the kitchen to cook whilst listening to the song in the background
B) Brittney turns up and stands in my living room singing, I go into the kitchen to cook whilst listening to the song in the background
What's the difference?
They can still call it 'copyright infringment' and apply the consequenses to the pirate masses. Not just a few selected ones but lots to send a signal to the people that the chance to get caught is very big. Should also bring in some nice sacks of gold.
Anyways a good way to start is to close down the "black markets" whre anyone can enter and get their stuff the wrong way. Without those "markets" it will be far harder for people to get a hold of pirated stuff. Sad yes but it seems people need to have someone telling them and preventing them from doing illegal stuff.
Fine, so long as every time we buy a Brittney Spears tune, Brittney turns up at our house and performs for us in person. Turns up whenever we feel like listening to the tune that is, not just the first time.
Why should I pay more? All I'm getting is to listen to a song.
A) I put a CD in my hi-fi, put a tune on then go into the kitchen to cook whilst listening to the song in the background
B) Brittney turns up and stands in my living room singing, I go into the kitchen to cook whilst listening to the song in the background
What's the difference?
Well then you cant expect to have a live perfomance show come for free with that tune! :lol:
I don't want a live show, all I want to do is listen to the tune.
Alright then it is normal price!
nutball
06-May-2008, 17:05
Well then you cant expect to have a live perfomance show come for free with that tune! :lol:
I don't want a live show, all I want to do is listen to the tune.
bigtabs
27-Jul-2008, 16:31
I'm afraid your argument fell down when you said you wanted to listen to Britney Spears. I don't think anyone buys that.
Lets propose a law to make it theft to copy copyright material, that will make the ignorant "thiefs" take it more seriously and think over what they are doing.
I applaud your tough stance nebula, copying is stealing just like selling a product that is faulty or has things missing is fraud. I like the fact that and along with pirates being punished for stealing you also want the devs and publishers to be punished for fraud for selling software that doesnt work correctly. many people may not like you for this stance but at least you can look yourself in the mirror and know your not a hipocrit...
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.