World’s First Pirate ISP Launches In Sweden(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
World’s First Pirate ISP Launches In Sweden
http://torrentfreak.com/worlds-first-pirate-internet-provider-launches-in-sweden-100720/
61 comments
Why would I pay $10 a month to watch old TV shows with ads in a Flash-only player when I can pirate and get hours-old ad-free HD TV shows that play anywhere?
Fuck DRM. When the video-distribution industry gets rid of DRM, then I'll buy video online. When my favorite TV shows are available for $10 a season in 1080p without DRM (and with episodes released before the official airtime, preferably), I will be the first to sign up. Until then, the pirates provide a significantly better product. For free.
The music industry figured it out. I have no trouble buying music I like in a lossless format these days, and there is never DRM. So why not the video industry? Their product is significantly more disposable than music, and yet it costs more and they use more "technology" to "protect" it. It doesn't make sense.
(I listen to songs over and over again. I watch a TV show once, and then delete it to free up hard drive space for more TV shows.)
Fuck DRM. When the video-distribution industry gets rid of DRM, then I'll buy video online. When my favorite TV shows are available for $10 a season in 1080p without DRM (and with episodes released before the official airtime, preferably), I will be the first to sign up. Until then, the pirates provide a significantly better product. For free.
The music industry figured it out. I have no trouble buying music I like in a lossless format these days, and there is never DRM. So why not the video industry? Their product is significantly more disposable than music, and yet it costs more and they use more "technology" to "protect" it. It doesn't make sense.
(I listen to songs over and over again. I watch a TV show once, and then delete it to free up hard drive space for more TV shows.)
Why do you care about DRM on the TV show if you only watch the TV show once?
Because DRM'd files do not play on my phone, under Linux, etc.
Plus, I want to decide how many times I watch something, I don't need some shitty computer program to do it for me.
Plus, I want to decide how many times I watch something, I don't need some shitty computer program to do it for me.
ah, yeah well that makes sense.
Personally I only watch 2 tv programs and just buy them at iTunes because it's easier than dealing with all the bittorrent crap.
I used to do the pirate stuff but then I got old and stopped caring about music, entertainment, etc.
Personally I only watch 2 tv programs and just buy them at iTunes because it's easier than dealing with all the bittorrent crap.
I used to do the pirate stuff but then I got old and stopped caring about music, entertainment, etc.
Not every player/device plays DRM'd stuff?
I'm in canada and pirating is the only way to get the content on my phone.
I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source license like the GPL gets demonized like they are a criminal.
Being mistrustful of copyright laws seems to be a hacker ethic. The price of an open web is to tolerate a certain amount of piracy. Sure, you could stamp out 99% of piracy on the web, by logging usage, throttling traffic, suing teenagers and deploying other heavy-handed tactics. But at what cost? I would argue that having an open web is better than trying to prune it to perfection. You will snuff out innovation and kill future Googles (do you think Google who have grown and thrived in AOL's walled garden?). Of couse, this isn't even factored into the equation when arguing against piracy because it's all 'what if'.
How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. Remember Jobs and Woz used a 'blue box' to get free long distance calls on AT&T's network. Their next idea was the Apple I. Fast forward to the 2000's and the iPhone is making At&T billions. If this scene played out today, they would've probably been sued into oblivion or arrested by the FBI., and Apple would never have been.
Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things).
Pg talkes about this much better than I can in his essay about the nature of hackers:
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
"Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night, I'd want to go out and investigate. Hackers are not stupid, and unanimity is very rare in this world. So if they're all squawking, perhaps there is something amiss.
Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America, will actually harm it? Think about it."
I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web.
How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. Remember Jobs and Woz used a 'blue box' to get free long distance calls on AT&T's network. Their next idea was the Apple I. Fast forward to the 2000's and the iPhone is making At&T billions. If this scene played out today, they would've probably been sued into oblivion or arrested by the FBI., and Apple would never have been.
Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things).
Pg talkes about this much better than I can in his essay about the nature of hackers:
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
"Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night, I'd want to go out and investigate. Hackers are not stupid, and unanimity is very rare in this world. So if they're all squawking, perhaps there is something amiss.
Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America, will actually harm it? Think about it."
I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web.
"How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. "
Possibly. But there aren't really any real stats to back this up.
"Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things)."
The GPL is becoming its own dictatorship and when people like Chris from thesis go against the ideals, he is treated like a criminal. The GPL is no different than proprietary software licenses. Companies and people involved in both want people to abide by their rules. However, only one seems to be supported here on HN and other communities. It's very hypocritical and it's one of the reasons why I can't take the community seriously.
"I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web."
This is a little extreme. The alternative is not a "police state". The alternative is respecting someone's rights, even if you don't agree with it (don't pirate something you don't want to pay for).
Possibly. But there aren't really any real stats to back this up.
"Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things)."
The GPL is becoming its own dictatorship and when people like Chris from thesis go against the ideals, he is treated like a criminal. The GPL is no different than proprietary software licenses. Companies and people involved in both want people to abide by their rules. However, only one seems to be supported here on HN and other communities. It's very hypocritical and it's one of the reasons why I can't take the community seriously.
"I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web."
This is a little extreme. The alternative is not a "police state". The alternative is respecting someone's rights, even if you don't agree with it (don't pirate something you don't want to pay for).
The problem with clamping down on piracy is where do you draw the line? On one end of the continuum is the 'totally-open' model that has been there since the advent of the web, and the other end of the continuum is China, which employs an army of workers (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/03/...) to censor content that the government deems 'inappropriate'. Starting to apply measures to clamp down on the web in any way is stepping onto a slippery slope. Look at the McCarthy communist witch hunts of the 1950s or the USA PATRIOT Act for examples of how power is abused in the name of protecting us from 'communists' and 'terrorists'. Who is to say that 'Pirates' won't the the next label to be vilified?
Granted, neither end of the continuum is ideal, but I know which side I'd rather be on. The web has been a magnificent haven for innvovation in the twenty or so years it's been with us, let's not do anything to f%%k it up (Butterfly Effect and all that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)
Granted, neither end of the continuum is ideal, but I know which side I'd rather be on. The web has been a magnificent haven for innvovation in the twenty or so years it's been with us, let's not do anything to f%%k it up (Butterfly Effect and all that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)
"The problem with clamping down on piracy is where do you draw the line?"
Why should the GNU get any more attention or rights than anything else? If people can't respect my copyrighted work, I sure as hell won't respect GNU licensed software.
Why should the GNU get any more attention or rights than anything else? If people can't respect my copyrighted work, I sure as hell won't respect GNU licensed software.
China may not be the best example. They pirate almost as an institutional policy.
> How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app?
I would expect this number to be close to 0. What does this even mean?
I would expect this number to be close to 0. What does this even mean?
A way of saving money. Thinking about this again, its probably extremely presumptuous of me to guess that a lot HN users use pirated software, just as it is presumptuous of you to say that the number is close to 0. There's no way of knowing. I doubt people would come out and admit it....time for a poll maybe?
I recall seeing a TechStars video a few moths back where one of the guys in the program all but admitted he was a software pirate.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1524318
I recall seeing a TechStars video a few moths back where one of the guys in the program all but admitted he was a software pirate.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1524318
Me. I will.
My modus operati when I need an expensive piece of software is to pirate half a dozen different packages that claim to do what I want, evaluate them, then purchase the one that best does the job.
Wrong? Maybe. But there is a whole lot of hype when it comes to that sort of thing and I can't afford to weed it out at full price right now. Better (less crippled) evaluations (or evals at all) would help.
Sometimes I even find that what I thought I was trying to do was not what I wanted to do after all, but I usually end up buying something.
My modus operati when I need an expensive piece of software is to pirate half a dozen different packages that claim to do what I want, evaluate them, then purchase the one that best does the job.
Wrong? Maybe. But there is a whole lot of hype when it comes to that sort of thing and I can't afford to weed it out at full price right now. Better (less crippled) evaluations (or evals at all) would help.
Sometimes I even find that what I thought I was trying to do was not what I wanted to do after all, but I usually end up buying something.
"I would expect this number to be close to 0. What does this even mean?"
What do you even need to pirate to make a web app?
Rails, php, apache, mysql are all free
What do you even need to pirate to make a web app?
Rails, php, apache, mysql are all free
Since you asked (and even though I'll probably be downvoted for this but)...I virtualised OS X on vanilla PC hardware to save money (I'm a recent college grad), as OS X seems to be the OS of choice for Rails development. I'd rather do this and have more money saved up for living expenses when I do launch a product. Is this right? That's a matter of opinion. It's definitely a grey area. If I fail, Apple didn't lose a sale since I can't really afford a shiny new MacBook. If I succeed, everyone in the company will use Macs and therefore Apple, and I, win.
And YES I could just use Linux, before you ask, but I'm getting quite used to TextMate.
That's not to justify anything....but since you asked...
EDIT (can't reply to comment below directly): Yes, that's true. However you would still be in violation of Apple's EULA which states that you cannot run their OS on anything other than Apple hardware. So you are still being naughty by doing this ;-)
And YES I could just use Linux, before you ask, but I'm getting quite used to TextMate.
That's not to justify anything....but since you asked...
EDIT (can't reply to comment below directly): Yes, that's true. However you would still be in violation of Apple's EULA which states that you cannot run their OS on anything other than Apple hardware. So you are still being naughty by doing this ;-)
"And YES I could just use Linux, before you ask, but I'm getting quite used to TextMate."
So because you can't be bothered with using something that's free, you are going to disrespect apple's license. There are plenty of free text editors for Windows and Linux that supports most of not all of textmate's features.
Many companies decide to use GNU code in their apps. They don't get the same luxury as you. Many are sued in court and others are forced to release their own code.
So because you can't be bothered with using something that's free, you are going to disrespect apple's license. There are plenty of free text editors for Windows and Linux that supports most of not all of textmate's features.
Many companies decide to use GNU code in their apps. They don't get the same luxury as you. Many are sued in court and others are forced to release their own code.
"So because you can't be bothered with using something that's free...."
You are making presumptions again here. I've tried Linux, I prefer OS X is all. As I've said already, OS X seems to be the best environment for Rails development. If I sell my startup for millions, Apple wins big through additional sales.
I'm going to bow gracefully out of this thread now, as I've said my piece. I'll leave you with a few words of wisdom from a guy a little bit richer and more successful than either of us:
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropir...
You are making presumptions again here. I've tried Linux, I prefer OS X is all. As I've said already, OS X seems to be the best environment for Rails development. If I sell my startup for millions, Apple wins big through additional sales.
I'm going to bow gracefully out of this thread now, as I've said my piece. I'll leave you with a few words of wisdom from a guy a little bit richer and more successful than either of us:
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropir...
"You are making presumptions again here. I've tried Linux, I prefer OS X is all. As I've said already, OS X seems to be the best environment for Rails development. If I sell my startup for millions, Apple wins big through additional sales."
How will they get additional sales if you "sell your startup for millions"?
"I'm going to bow gracefully out of this thread now, as I've said my piece. I'll leave you with a few words of wisdom from a guy a little bit richer and more successful than either of us:"
Are you from China? If not, you don't really have a point beyond that you like to use commercial software, not pay for it, and make excuses that one day when you make it big (which statistically speaking won't happen), you will decide to pay for them.
I wish I could use the same excuses about my credit card bills and business loans.
How will they get additional sales if you "sell your startup for millions"?
"I'm going to bow gracefully out of this thread now, as I've said my piece. I'll leave you with a few words of wisdom from a guy a little bit richer and more successful than either of us:"
Are you from China? If not, you don't really have a point beyond that you like to use commercial software, not pay for it, and make excuses that one day when you make it big (which statistically speaking won't happen), you will decide to pay for them.
I wish I could use the same excuses about my credit card bills and business loans.
...or you could buy OS X 10.6 for $29 if you really need it.
29$ is an upgrade license only.
Yes, but it works as a standalone installation, you don't need to have 10.5 installed.
How is better to spend 29$ to break a license? Because I suposse the upgrade license needs a "base" license.
No, it doesn't physically need a base license. Buy the DVD, install the OS and that's that. To clarify what I implied: if he really likes OS X so much, he can at least pay a small amount of money to keep using it with a somewhat clearer conscience. That's what I'd do at least.
$29 for tehnical support can be a good deal.
'Are you a software pirate?' poll
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532394
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532394
Noone would care?
The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement.
The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement.
"The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement."
Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL.
You also bring up another good point. The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL.
You also bring up another good point. The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie?
I think you forgot a verb there?
It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.
I'm not really sure what you're ranting against, but the whole point of the GPL is to force "give some, get some", and to stop people from profiting off of other people's work.
Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL.
Good for you?
The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
Which community are you talking about now? The "pirate" community or the "free software" community?
Also, the FSF is of the position that copyrights suck, but that doesn't stop them from making the GPL using existing copyright law. The GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Copyright law is as it is, and therefore we have the GPL as it is. If copyright law was different, for example if software couldn't be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the GPL at all.
I think you forgot a verb there?
It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.
I'm not really sure what you're ranting against, but the whole point of the GPL is to force "give some, get some", and to stop people from profiting off of other people's work.
Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL.
Good for you?
The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
Which community are you talking about now? The "pirate" community or the "free software" community?
Also, the FSF is of the position that copyrights suck, but that doesn't stop them from making the GPL using existing copyright law. The GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Copyright law is as it is, and therefore we have the GPL as it is. If copyright law was different, for example if software couldn't be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the GPL at all.
"I'm not really sure what you're ranting against, but the whole point of the GPL is to force "give some, get some", and to stop people from profiting off of other people's work."
My point was that Richard Stallman for years claimed that this wasn't the reason. I also don't really think there was a problem with people "profiting off of other people's work" before the GPL became popular.
When you release something for free, it shouldn't matter if someone makes a profit from it. If you do care, then don't call it "free".
"Which community are you talking about now? The "pirate" community or the "free software" community?"
This community, for starters. Check out the lasted post about the guy from Thesis VS Wordpress. The majority of the people here on HN support Wordpress.
"Also, the FSF is of the position that copyrights suck, but that doesn't stop them from making the GPL using existing copyright law. The GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Copyright law is as it is, and therefore we have the GPL as it is. If copyright law was different, for example if software couldn't be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the GPL at all."
The whole point of the GPL is so people have the freedom to tinker with the source code (this has been said by Stallman many times). If we had no copyright laws, there would be nothing stopping people from releasing binaries only. The difference would be that you could share the copyrighted works with anybody.
Would this really benefit the community?
My point was that Richard Stallman for years claimed that this wasn't the reason. I also don't really think there was a problem with people "profiting off of other people's work" before the GPL became popular.
When you release something for free, it shouldn't matter if someone makes a profit from it. If you do care, then don't call it "free".
"Which community are you talking about now? The "pirate" community or the "free software" community?"
This community, for starters. Check out the lasted post about the guy from Thesis VS Wordpress. The majority of the people here on HN support Wordpress.
"Also, the FSF is of the position that copyrights suck, but that doesn't stop them from making the GPL using existing copyright law. The GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Copyright law is as it is, and therefore we have the GPL as it is. If copyright law was different, for example if software couldn't be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the GPL at all."
The whole point of the GPL is so people have the freedom to tinker with the source code (this has been said by Stallman many times). If we had no copyright laws, there would be nothing stopping people from releasing binaries only. The difference would be that you could share the copyrighted works with anybody.
Would this really benefit the community?
The whole point of the GPL is so people have the freedom to tinker with the source code (this has been said by Stallman many times). If we had no copyright laws, there would be nothing stopping people from releasing binaries only. The difference would be that you could share the copyrighted works with anybody.
Would this really benefit the community?
The flipside is also that everyone would be free to reverse-engineer everything, which is a pretty powerful good, but I see your point and I agree with it, it's probably better to have copyright than to not have it.
Then again, you could of course have a completely different society where all software must be available in source form by law, but I have a hard time seeing that happen anywhere. :-)
Would this really benefit the community?
The flipside is also that everyone would be free to reverse-engineer everything, which is a pretty powerful good, but I see your point and I agree with it, it's probably better to have copyright than to not have it.
Then again, you could of course have a completely different society where all software must be available in source form by law, but I have a hard time seeing that happen anywhere. :-)
Have you read the writings of RMS and the FSF on why they created the GPL and what it is supposed to protect? What they say is nothing like what you say is the whole point.
I think it's a lot like Robin Hood. Piracy is viewed in some ways as "rob from the rich and give to the poor" which people in general can get on board with. However, breaking the GPL would be more like the opposite. Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right.
You draw an unusual bow there (ahem). If I was going to bring Robin hood in, I'd have made the analogy between Robin Hood and the defenders of copyright, not the infringers.
Copyright and Robin Hood ethics both breach the principle of live-and-let-live.
Robin Hood's takes away from some people. He justifies this with claims about the welfare another group.
Copyright applies the same principle. Defenders of copyright will say that in order to protect artists, engineers, etc, all of the rest of us should have less rights. We are not allowed to do certain things with magnetic signals on pieces of metal the we own, even in the privacy of our own homes.
It's not clear that it gives actual benefit to the recipient group. In practice, these people aren't defended well if at all, and the cost to the system is huge.
There'd also be a cost to the local economy if you had a brigand raiding merchants. I wouldn't operate in a region with those issues. Maybe if the people didn't have trading difficulties they'd have been able to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than being pushed into the arms of a revolutionary-come-nobleman.
Copyright and Robin Hood ethics both breach the principle of live-and-let-live.
Robin Hood's takes away from some people. He justifies this with claims about the welfare another group.
Copyright applies the same principle. Defenders of copyright will say that in order to protect artists, engineers, etc, all of the rest of us should have less rights. We are not allowed to do certain things with magnetic signals on pieces of metal the we own, even in the privacy of our own homes.
It's not clear that it gives actual benefit to the recipient group. In practice, these people aren't defended well if at all, and the cost to the system is huge.
There'd also be a cost to the local economy if you had a brigand raiding merchants. I wouldn't operate in a region with those issues. Maybe if the people didn't have trading difficulties they'd have been able to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than being pushed into the arms of a revolutionary-come-nobleman.
"Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right."
It's strange that you say this, because no matter how many times someone creates a proprietary app based on the GPL license, nothing is lost. The original work is out there for all to enjoy (with credits to all the authors).
The only thing you don't get are the changes (which weren't yours in the first place). Forcing changes to be under the GPL isn't for freedom, but political ideology.
It's strange that you say this, because no matter how many times someone creates a proprietary app based on the GPL license, nothing is lost. The original work is out there for all to enjoy (with credits to all the authors).
The only thing you don't get are the changes (which weren't yours in the first place). Forcing changes to be under the GPL isn't for freedom, but political ideology.
Agreed, with a minor refinement:
Robin Hood taxed the tax men ("Robin Hood," Disney, 1973). It was less a matter of rich vs. poor than of beneficiaries vs. victims of oppressive taxation (similar mechanics, opposite direction). The GPL attempts to use the weight of copyrights in general as leverage against abusive copyrights.
Robin Hood taxed the tax men ("Robin Hood," Disney, 1973). It was less a matter of rich vs. poor than of beneficiaries vs. victims of oppressive taxation (similar mechanics, opposite direction). The GPL attempts to use the weight of copyrights in general as leverage against abusive copyrights.
If you think of it as a question of ethics, not law, it's perfectly logical. That is; breaking the GPL does not make you a demon because you are breaking the law, but rather because you are being nasty to nice people. Illegally copying a movie is easier to accept, because it is easy to imagine that you are being nasty to the MPAA (if you are at all nasty).
The Pirate Party is not dedicated to piracy. It's dedicated to privacy and personal integrity, fighting the patent system and maintaining an open, free internet.
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen. "But you've got a bloody black flag!" "Its the flag of fighting the patent system!" "And you want to host torrents out of Parliament!" "They're personal integrity torrents!" "And movies!" "Doubtlessly movies about personal integrity!"
The whole pirate theme is intended as humour, and a lot of us love Monty Python. The point of defending the Pirate Bay is that it is in fact not the site itself but it's users that distribute files with copyright-protected content. The Pirate Bay is a neutral medium.
Earlier you said that an important point of the Pirate Party is supporting privacy. Yet the Pirate Bay goes out of its way to be against privacy, yet you defend them too. For example, if someone steals someone personal and intimate photos and makes them available via a torrent, and the person whose privacy is thus being massively invaded asks TPB to please stop indexing that torrent--TPB will mock them in public, calling more attention to the availability of the invasive photos.
That's far beyond being neutral. That's condoning and encouraging privacy violations, and they are doing it to draw hits for advertising.
That's far beyond being neutral. That's condoning and encouraging privacy violations, and they are doing it to draw hits for advertising.
Is the first sentence in the linked article also intended as humour? "The Swedish Pirate Party, who are at the forefront of anti-copyright lobbying in Sweden, are (...)"
The Swedish Pirate Party is indeed trying to reform copyright. Of course, you might argue that they are doing other things as well, so they are not "dedicated" to anti-copyright. But you can't deny that this is one of the party's policies.
The Swedish Pirate Party is indeed trying to reform copyright. Of course, you might argue that they are doing other things as well, so they are not "dedicated" to anti-copyright. But you can't deny that this is one of the party's policies.
Of course, the party also wants to -modify- copyright law, but that's a different point. I did not intend to summarize party policy with my previous comment.
[deleted]
Like the Republican Party in the US is dedicated to fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and maintaining a free society?
Depends whether you think of law as being the ultimate good, or something else.
If you had civil-rights objections to copyright then you'd perceive the GPL as a neat hack around it but be looking for something to destroy it.
Thinking about the rule of law as an ultimate good is a valid position.
I've actually tried this, and you get into contrived situations like this one: the boss shows you a four line perl script in use at a client site that another company wrote ten years ago, and asks you to modify it in a trivial way to solve an important problem. You'll respond that you aren't allowed to do that for breach of copyright - unless the client company specifically relinquished the code then the rights vest with them. Further, you will explain that you can now no longer write code to replicate the functionality of it because you have been influenced by having read the code of the client company.
Advocates of the rule of law should oppose laws that are selectively enforced, and absurdly complicated.
If you had civil-rights objections to copyright then you'd perceive the GPL as a neat hack around it but be looking for something to destroy it.
Thinking about the rule of law as an ultimate good is a valid position.
I've actually tried this, and you get into contrived situations like this one: the boss shows you a four line perl script in use at a client site that another company wrote ten years ago, and asks you to modify it in a trivial way to solve an important problem. You'll respond that you aren't allowed to do that for breach of copyright - unless the client company specifically relinquished the code then the rights vest with them. Further, you will explain that you can now no longer write code to replicate the functionality of it because you have been influenced by having read the code of the client company.
Advocates of the rule of law should oppose laws that are selectively enforced, and absurdly complicated.
The ones who usually violate the GPL are companies trying to profit from it. I don't care if an individual breaks a licence or copyright laws, it just tells that markets don't work¹. For example, I pirate HD movies only because nobody sells me them over the net as on-demand.
[1] ... and the industry actively breaks it by creating artificial market regions and distribution restrictions. Hard to see why I'm not allowed to rent a movie from iTunes due to my physical location.
[1] ... and the industry actively breaks it by creating artificial market regions and distribution restrictions. Hard to see why I'm not allowed to rent a movie from iTunes due to my physical location.
Actually, there has been some discussion[1] about how the Pirate Partys platform would affect the GPL. But as most people involved have some understanding of the issues, you get less of the "x is theft", "x can't survive because of y", etc.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
It's perfectly normal. Double standards are core of our society :)
i hope they will get a US branch.. eventhough i believe its wishful thinking..
As soon as they get set up in my city, I'll be switching my ISP.
I appreciate the positives and the logical motivation behind this move but does this not provide an opportunity for end-users to torrent more nefarious files?
Surely Swedish pedophiles are having a field day? Am I missing something?
Surely Swedish pedophiles are having a field day? Am I missing something?
There are enough technologies out there that, if you want anonymity, you can have it (check out Tor and Proxify).
Governments that are saying "we need to monitor your every move to save you from the .5%" are playing on your fears to take your freedoms away.
Governments that are saying "we need to monitor your every move to save you from the .5%" are playing on your fears to take your freedoms away.
Are you willing to give up all manner of personal privacy if that means you're able to more easily apprehend criminals of various kinds?
Is monitoring filesharing sites the most effective way of fighting pedophilia?
Is monitoring filesharing sites the most effective way of fighting pedophilia?
I was hoping the comment wouldn't come across as scaremongering but on reflection I probably should have worded it better.
All valid points and I humbly stand corrected.
I wasn't suggesting that this will directly increase that form of activity but I was more curious as to the possible negative applications an annonymous IP service would subsequently provide to those looking to take advantage of the system. I still am curious to be honest.
All valid points and I humbly stand corrected.
I wasn't suggesting that this will directly increase that form of activity but I was more curious as to the possible negative applications an annonymous IP service would subsequently provide to those looking to take advantage of the system. I still am curious to be honest.
If you're the police, and if you have evidence that a user of this ISP is distributing child pornography, and if you ask nicely, I'm sure they'll help out.
But if you want blanket surveillance, or if it involves some teenager downloading music, they'll (rightly) tell you to go away.
But if you want blanket surveillance, or if it involves some teenager downloading music, they'll (rightly) tell you to go away.
"But if you want blanket surveillance, or if it involves some teenager downloading music, they'll (rightly) tell you to go away."
And sadly, they would currently be breaking the law in doing so in Sweden.
And sadly, they would currently be breaking the law in doing so in Sweden.
Who cares? Seriously, even if they are, who cares? The biggest problem with child pornography is that customers drive production of it which drives creation of it. But if some guy is using an anonymous ISP to anonymously download a file for free what possible impact can that have?
You might say that some people would get off on creating it and putting it up on the internet for free, but what's stopping them from doing everything but that last step now?
I don't think torrenting has an effect on it either way, but if you do please provide your argument.
You might say that some people would get off on creating it and putting it up on the internet for free, but what's stopping them from doing everything but that last step now?
I don't think torrenting has an effect on it either way, but if you do please provide your argument.
If your in the US I wonder why are you still pirating copyrighted material? Im curious to hear...