It's just that I get this feeling that we're mostly preaching to the choir as most contacts (that would read it) already kind of know about these issues.
I sincerely hope the anti-piracy center goes down hard.
A 17-year old boy in Finland was ordered to pay 400 000 euros in payments for allowing 1600 users to download music and movies for free. They effectively ruined his life before he even reached adulthood. This was the anti-piracy fuckers' doing.
Finland, same country where the police raided a 9-year old's home at 8am to confiscate her Winnie the Pooh laptop.
One wonders if Finland even has anything like a prosecution service authority that decides whether the cost and public interest of justice in individual cases outweighs the benefits...
Also be aware that this is a misleading hoax (or worse). They had a "kopimi" sign on the page forever. "kopimi (copyme), symbol showing that you want to be copied."
While mitigating in a law suit, I would not rely on a image as an copyright license. It doesn't actually say what content is covered by it (every link? css? javascript? images? ...). Wikipedia describe it as something like CC0, but is unsourcesed and thus nothing I would rely on for legal advice.
At first I thought this must have been a joke. But then:
> While The Pirate Bay recognizes the irony of the case, they feel that they have to pursue this matter. ... “While The Pirate Bay may have a positive view on copying, it will not stand by and watch copyright enforcing organizations disrespect copyright,” Pirate Bay’s Winston says in a comment.
So basically, their stance is copying is good, unless it's done by a copyright organization? I mean, I guess I can see that, that they're anti-hypocrisy, not anti-copying, although it's a fine line.
What would their opinion be of a site copying their CSS or JS, which had nothing to do with anti-piracy -- I assume they would be fine with that then?
Reminds me of an idea in Schopenhauer's "The Art of Being Right".
He says that, when you argue against someone who is part of a cult, you can use his cult's beliefs in the argumentation against him (because he's supposed to admit them as truths). However, he cannot use his cult's beliefs in arguing against you.
So, TPB can reprimand a copyright organization for violating copyright, but it doesn't work the other way around. It's not hypocrisy.
It says that if they win, they'll donate the winnings to that 9 year old girl who had her Winnie the Pooh laptop taken and if they lose, it will reinforce the right to make parody websites, which is apparently in question under Finnish law due to issues over the author's moral rights.
This, too, a case where their moral rights come into play, because their design is being used to promote something they are strongly opposed to.
Ignoring the finer detail of Finnish law - I think The Pirate Bay have fallen into a PR trap.
From the perspective of the average man, I like parodies. Parodies are used to highlight an alternate point of view - often with damaging affect. In general, when someone complains that a parody is offensive, it simply makes the person complaining look bad.
The only other legal/moral argument relates to copying code. Winning that argument will make The Pirate Bay look like hypocrites. And I suspect that is the trap The Pirate Bay will fall into.
So who is the bigger hypocrite? It doesn't matter. The other side does not care about their PR image.
I think the correct response would have been to copy the other groups site right down to the CSS, and making the copy a torrent site. Then let the enemy initiate a lawsuit, and follow up with a counter lawsuit.
>I think the correct response would have been to copy the other groups site //
Disagree. This presupposes that they will get equal treatment under the law, that doesn't seem likely and I can't really see any external pressure being put on Finland to find in favour of TPB (but very much the other way).
By pressing the current suit they either get money and a PR win or they get a relaxation, via precedent, of copyright laws. Looks to me they win either way.
Anything that exposes the rampant hypocrisy of big media, I'm for in principle.
Also, reading through the first several child comments, I'm struck by the thought: A legitimate lawsuit (edit: or criminal prosecution, as the case may be) as parody. If that's what they're after (at least, in part), that's brilliant.
(Edit: That would be separate from the defense of parody directly described. As I read it, if this organization can copy TPB code for use in a site opposing TPB and contrary to TPB's moral sentiment, then examples of parody that do the same or similar things in other contexts should also be permissible/legal. And this circumstance would also potentially bolster current and/or proposed law that codifies this.)
Part of the longer term goal in all this is education. As people -- the public -- become more aware of and informed about how they are being screwed, pressure will build to correct, or at least improve, the underlying circumstances.
The ACTA protests, for example, did not happen in isolation.
The global internet is about to become as segmented and jagged as a windshield hit by a baseball at 100Mph.
"We're sorry, the content you requested is not available to you, if you would like to tune-in to our awsome channel, please press the payment button". You didn't pay your linkedin and hacker news surcharge yet, it's gone up, but we think this is in the best interests for corporations who want to own information.
RIP Internet. (1970-2015), a formal funeral will not be held.
22 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadToo bad this news item doesn't get attention from a wider audience.
I've just emailed it to about 200 people (ironically two of them work for the business software alliance).
It's just that I get this feeling that we're mostly preaching to the choir as most contacts (that would read it) already kind of know about these issues.
Still worth sharing, of course.
A 17-year old boy in Finland was ordered to pay 400 000 euros in payments for allowing 1600 users to download music and movies for free. They effectively ruined his life before he even reached adulthood. This was the anti-piracy fuckers' doing.
One wonders if Finland even has anything like a prosecution service authority that decides whether the cost and public interest of justice in individual cases outweighs the benefits...
Also be aware that this is a misleading hoax (or worse). They had a "kopimi" sign on the page forever. "kopimi (copyme), symbol showing that you want to be copied."
Here is the last copy in archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20130128163826/http://thepirateba... . See the icon and its link at the very bottom.
Please do not give misleading hype like this any further coverage.
edit: I swear, the icon was not on the live page a minute ago.
> While The Pirate Bay recognizes the irony of the case, they feel that they have to pursue this matter. ... “While The Pirate Bay may have a positive view on copying, it will not stand by and watch copyright enforcing organizations disrespect copyright,” Pirate Bay’s Winston says in a comment.
So basically, their stance is copying is good, unless it's done by a copyright organization? I mean, I guess I can see that, that they're anti-hypocrisy, not anti-copying, although it's a fine line.
What would their opinion be of a site copying their CSS or JS, which had nothing to do with anti-piracy -- I assume they would be fine with that then?
He says that, when you argue against someone who is part of a cult, you can use his cult's beliefs in the argumentation against him (because he's supposed to admit them as truths). However, he cannot use his cult's beliefs in arguing against you.
So, TPB can reprimand a copyright organization for violating copyright, but it doesn't work the other way around. It's not hypocrisy.
This, too, a case where their moral rights come into play, because their design is being used to promote something they are strongly opposed to.
From the perspective of the average man, I like parodies. Parodies are used to highlight an alternate point of view - often with damaging affect. In general, when someone complains that a parody is offensive, it simply makes the person complaining look bad.
The only other legal/moral argument relates to copying code. Winning that argument will make The Pirate Bay look like hypocrites. And I suspect that is the trap The Pirate Bay will fall into.
So who is the bigger hypocrite? It doesn't matter. The other side does not care about their PR image.
I think the correct response would have been to copy the other groups site right down to the CSS, and making the copy a torrent site. Then let the enemy initiate a lawsuit, and follow up with a counter lawsuit.
Disagree. This presupposes that they will get equal treatment under the law, that doesn't seem likely and I can't really see any external pressure being put on Finland to find in favour of TPB (but very much the other way).
By pressing the current suit they either get money and a PR win or they get a relaxation, via precedent, of copyright laws. Looks to me they win either way.
Also, reading through the first several child comments, I'm struck by the thought: A legitimate lawsuit (edit: or criminal prosecution, as the case may be) as parody. If that's what they're after (at least, in part), that's brilliant.
(Edit: That would be separate from the defense of parody directly described. As I read it, if this organization can copy TPB code for use in a site opposing TPB and contrary to TPB's moral sentiment, then examples of parody that do the same or similar things in other contexts should also be permissible/legal. And this circumstance would also potentially bolster current and/or proposed law that codifies this.)
Part of the longer term goal in all this is education. As people -- the public -- become more aware of and informed about how they are being screwed, pressure will build to correct, or at least improve, the underlying circumstances.
The ACTA protests, for example, did not happen in isolation.
"We're sorry, the content you requested is not available to you, if you would like to tune-in to our awsome channel, please press the payment button". You didn't pay your linkedin and hacker news surcharge yet, it's gone up, but we think this is in the best interests for corporations who want to own information.
RIP Internet. (1970-2015), a formal funeral will not be held.