Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Why Web Pirates Can't Be Touched

Posted by Zonk on Thu May 17, 2007 02:44 PM
from the except-by-elliot-ness dept.
gwoodrow writes "Forbes has a brief article about, essentially, the ultimate futility of fighting online pirates. From the article: 'As the world's largest repository of BitTorrent files, ThePirateBay.org helps millions of users around the world share copyrighted movies, music and other files — without paying for them ... That's illegal, of course — at least it is in the U.S. But when Time Warner's (nyse: TWX — news — people ) Warner Bros. studio accused them of breaking U.S. copyright law in 2005, the pirates gleefully reminded the movie company that they didn't live in America, but rather in the land of vikings, reindeer, Aurora Borealis and cute blond girls.' The article also touches on the many YouTube clones and AllofMP3.com."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by u-bend (1095729) on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:47PM (#19166581) Homepage Journal
    ...there aren't enough experienced online ninjas.
  • Article is flawed. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hobbs0 (1055434) on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:47PM (#19166593)
    It assumes that copyright law around the world will not eventually be in line with U.S. copyright law as per the wishes of the *AA
    • Put down the bottle, man. What the hell does Alcoh...al..alcho...boozers anoni...anon..an...dammit, what dows AA have to do with copyw...copir...copyrit...that stuff anyhow?

    • No they don't. (Score:5, Informative)

      by pavon (30274) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:23PM (#19167327)
      Did you RTFA or just the summary? From the article:

      But there are more practical reasons that sites like Alluc.org get away with what they're doing. One is that there are simply too many of them to keep track of. Media companies' lawyers rarely have time to police so many obscure sites, and even when they do, users can always upload the infringing files again. So the flow of copyrighted streaming video continues.
      These particular companies are centered in the US and Forbes stills argues that they will never be able to stomp them out entirely.
    • typo? (Score:5, Insightful)

      you typed this:

      It assumes that copyright law around the world will not eventually be in line with U.S. copyright law as per the wishes of the *AA

      you probably meant to type this:

      It assumes that copyright law around the world will not eventually be in line with U.S. copyright law thanks to all the money paid to american lawmakers by the *AA

      it's a pretty common mistake, those keys are so close together. i accidentally type that all the time.

        • Re:typo? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by iminplaya (723125) <(iminplaya) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday May 18 2007, @03:07AM (#19175597) Journal
          Oh. Do you think these laws were passed on their merits? Is there any evidence of that? What is the possible merit of extending copyright to 75 years after the creator is dead? Or DMCA? Do some research and prove him wrong if that's what you believe. There are some things that are fairly obvious in their own right. You're asking him to prove that the sky is blue or water is wet. And the mods get pretty defensive if anyone dares point out how ugly the truth really is when spelled out in an easy to understand fashion. So the bar is still fairly high.
    • by owlnation (858981) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:59PM (#19168149)

      It assumes that copyright law around the world will not eventually be in line with U.S. copyright law as per the wishes of the *AA
      No, the article is correct - it's your understanding of international law and macroeconomics that is flawed.

      Firstly, the US's version of copyright is more the exception than the rule.

      Secondly, The *IAA is an American organisation but not all its members are in fact American Corporations. Fair use in Germany (where Sony BMG is based) is much more genuinely fair than in the US, BMG has never managed to change that.

      Thirdly, if you want to examine legal parallels for international Internet law then you should look at the development of international Maritime Law. After millennia of shipping technology being available, and the finest legal minds in history having examined the problems, there is no international standard Maritime Legal system.

      Yes, there is broad agreements and treaties between many countries, but there are just as many disagreements and disputes. There are rogue nations, and there is still real piracy.

      The *IAA needs to understand that while the preposterous US copyright laws protect them in that country, they have already lost the War pretty much most other places. And those of you who are American here, need to wake up and realise that your laws are designed to protect you and your interests, not just your country's business interests. You need to take your country back from the Corporations. Your Founding Fathers were wise people with a pretty good understanding of human nature. 14 years is enough copyright for anyone.

      The DMCA, is a law that steals from most American citizens, and penalizes no-one outside your borders. The DMCA hinders your economy, because without it your *IAA industries would need to adapt to survive - and they do have the means and technology to successfully adapt and survive in a manner that allows you value and fair choice.

  • by porkmusket (954006) on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:48PM (#19166615) Homepage
    ...it's because they all listen to MC Hammer. Without DRM, of course.
  • Where? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jimbo3123 (320148) on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:48PM (#19166621) Homepage
    the land of vikings, reindeer, Aurora Borealis and cute blond girls.'
    North Korea?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:50PM (#19166663)
    at least remove the stock ticker info when copying?
  • huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:56PM (#19166787)

    The pirates were living in the land of vikings
    Shouldn't the vikings do something ?

    ....

    Should I point out thepiratebay doesn't really host any copyrighted material or did that argument get old already?

    • Re:huh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by WED Fan (911325) <akahigeNO@SPAMtrashmail.net> on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:00PM (#19166883) Homepage Journal

      Shouldn't the vikings do something ?

      Have you ever been to Minnesota? It's not like they have anything going on at the moment. I heard they were planning to invade Wisconsin, but then someone mentioned a problem they had with lactose, so it was called off in favor of a quilting bee and a curling contest.

      Minnesota, more Canadian than Canada.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2007, @02:57PM (#19166815)

    "Printer friendly" version [forbes.com].

    It's also much more eyeball-friendly.

  • by SpiritusGladius1517 (929800) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:00PM (#19166881) Homepage Journal
    FTA:
    From June to October 2006 alone, the Recording Industry Association of America says that 11 million songs were downloaded from the site. AllofMP3 claims those sales adhered strictly to Russian law, but that doesn't satisfy the RIAA; the record labels have launched a lawsuit, asking for $150,000 for each stolen file, totaling $1.65 trillion.

    I'm sorry, did they say $1.65 trillion? The RIAA is off their rocker for sure. That much money is going to have to involve a war.
    • by rmckeethen (130580) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:28PM (#19167451) Homepage

      Interestingly, the estimated GDP of the entire Russian Federation in 2006 was $1.727 trillion using the purchasing parity power scale; nominal GDP is even less at $979 billion in 2006 [1] [wikipedia.org]. Somehow, even if they win, I don't think the RIAA is going to be collecting on that bill anytime soon.

  • I'm moving (Score:5, Funny)

    by aegisalpha (58712) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:05PM (#19166991)
    "the pirates gleefully reminded the movie company that they didn't live in America, but rather in the land of vikings, reindeer, Aurora Borealis and cute blond girls."

    I'm moving. Vikings, blonde girls, AND pirates? Irresistible!
  • For example:

    The music-selling site AllofMP3.com uses a simpler business model: Base your company in Russia, steal music from American labels and sell it cheaply. AllofMP3 allows users to download full albums for as little as $1
    The whole point of, and the reason the RIAA has not been able to shut it down, is that it is not stealing -- in any sense of the word. Firstly, the owner is not deprived of the work and secondly, AllofMP3 apparently operates within the legal framework of Russia -- in other words, it has a license to run its business model that way. The use of the word stealing is inflammatory.
      • However it's not actually stealing. It's copyright infringement.

        No. It's not. In Russia, the law allows allofmp3.com to operate by making use of a compulsory licensing scheme, not unlike what the copyright board wants to foist upon internet radio (though, in that case, the costs are absolutely outrageous, and intended to shut operators down). So, allofmp3.com pays some fee to the Russian copyright whozits, and thus they are allowed to operate legally. Calling this "stealing" or "copyright infringement" is plain and simply wrong, and author of the article is clearly showing their bias by reporting it as such.
  • Thank you! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:17PM (#19167237)
    Thank you Forbes! I didn't know about "sites like Alluc.org, VideoHybrid.com, Peekvid.com, TVlinks.co.uk and YouTVPC.com"!
  • by HollowSky (680312) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:19PM (#19167257)
    Okay, TPB doesn't host any pirated content, it merely points to pirated content. The *AA contends that's still bad. Whatever.... But what about Forbes? They just told me about all these other sites I didn't know about. Forbes just provided me a directory to illegal content. Doesn't that open them up to lawsuits? Journalistic freedoms don't apply when aiding a "crime?"
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday May 17 2007, @03:02PM (#19166927) Journal
      But could you please justify and explain the statement you made: "You did deprive them - of money."

      Please cite your references and explain any statistics quoted in your explanation. Please also quantify how much money the **AA have been deprived of by TPB. Please do this so that we can forevermore trust that the **AA member companies declining revenues and train-wreck-about-to-happen business model is doomed because of TPB and others like them.

      If you can prove that this is driving the **AA member companies out of business beyond any doubt, I will start downloading music and movies illegally to help ensure a quick end to the **AAs of the world.

      Thank you
            • Re:Please everyone: (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Knara (9377) on Thursday May 17 2007, @04:51PM (#19169131)

              Gotta love frothing rants in response to well-reasoned arguments, but I'll respond in spite of it.

              oh please... you are missing out the description of your brave new world business model. Where nobody gets paid for creating ANYTHING that can be easily copied.

              I suspect that you've deliberately misunderstood and are intentionally misrepresenting my statements, since I didn't write that. However, if you make paper airplanes and try to sell them, should no one else be able to make copies of your paper airplane?

              Do you have ANY idea how much work is involved in making something like Photoshop, or The lord Of The rings? or Halo? Why the fuck is anyone going to spend any money on making entertainmnt if it can be freely copied without compensation?

              Because by and large consumers like to pay for the Real Thing. This is the idea behind the Windows Genuine Advantage bit, though obviously it was clumsily implemented. If you have a shitty product, no one is going to buy it. Should we be also legally guarantee that if someone makes something, they will get revenue from it, even if it sucks?

              Lord of the Rings cost a ton to make, but also made a hojillion dollars in merchandising, home video releases, etc. Why? Quality product and merchandising that consumers wanted, and it was all sold at a price they wanted to pay. Photoshop may indeed cost a lot to make, but it's obviously not sold at a price consumers want to pay. Adobe's answer to this, it seems, was to make Photoshop Elements. PSE is up to version 4.0 I think, so it at least hit some sort of pricing sweet point.

              let me guess, you dont care, because like most copyright infringers, you dont make creative content for a living, and are just loving the excuse to take other peoples work for free arent you?

              Ahh, strawmen. I make plenty of creative content. Don't make much money from it, but I do make it. But let's apply this to a well-known set of intarwebs content creators: Gabe and Tycho of Penny-Arcade. They're on record (as a matter of fact in writing at the back of their first hardcopy collection, of which there are 3 so far, and I've bought all 3 because of the added value in buying them at a decent price) as saying that hiding your content from your users because you're afraid they'll take it is kinda silly (which I tend to agree with, and why I think the subscription based Modern Tales group goes about the whole thing the wrong way - and why I think PVP's add-on animated subscription featurettes are a great idea; you get the meat for free, and if you want the dessert you shell out a little cash for it). PA was once in dire straits due to the ad network collapses and the loss of revenue thereof. They didn't have the financial resources to go down the failing route of the RIAA and MPAA, instead they adapted and are thriving to this day. None of their strips require you to pay for them, and there's no silly DRM preventing you from doing Save-As on a strip. Even so, people pay cold hard cash to get their books and their merchandise. Why? Cuz they know how to make what their target audience wants and what price their audience will shell out for extra stuffs.

                • Re:Please everyone: (Score:5, Informative)

                  by Knara (9377) on Thursday May 17 2007, @06:55PM (#19171571)

                  Of course I am! Spending money doesn't guarantee success (see Mission Earth for a good example) But name a blockbuster movie that DIDN'T involve a billion-dollar budget.

                  Give me a definition of a blockbuster. Is Clerks a Blockbuster? It's made well over 1000% of its production cost (~20K to make, financed on credit cards, grossed boxoffice of around $2 million and that doesn't even come close to its total profit to date from home video and merchandising). I can't even name a movie that had a billion dollar budget in adjusted dollars.

                  Sure can. China has over a BILLION people. China also has crap for Intellectual Property law. Are you going to tell me that despite having 5 TIMES the population of the United States, that a decent movie idea hasn't come out of there? And, perhaps you could tell me where the epicenter of the large, booming Chinese movie industry is?

                  Wow, talk about missing the mark with your example. First off, the Chinese movie industry is pretty extensive considering that a huge percentage of their population is essentially living in third world conditions. Secondly, the means of distribution are severely limited in terms of venues due to little things like censorship review boards. Third off, China has been through several social upheavals in the last 100 years that have turned their society upside down, not to mention having had many art forms (at the least) suppressed. Piracy is waaayyyy down on the lists of factors that keep China from making "Armageddon".

                  Where's the Chinese version of the Matrix? Their movie industry is weak and pathetic.

                  Aside from the fact that a ton of the conventions used in the Matrix came from chinese and japanese cinema, it seems that you equate "expensive and pretty" with "good". China has lots of good movies, they're just not massively expensive to make. Furthermore, the Matrix really didn't break new ground in terms of movie making aside from Bullet Time. In terms of plot and cinematic ideas, the basis goes back to 19th century philosophy, if not further (i.e. Plato's Cave). Not to mention that the Wachowski brothers deliberately based the visual look on Ghost in the Shell (making the conceptual designer watch the GitS movie and say 'we want it to look like that' - literally).

                  No, but later in this post you imply that very strongly when you write: Anyone can make anything, but they are not and should not be entitled to make money from it. What part of my "straw man" argument is not well supported by a statement like this?

                  I said they are not entitled to make it. Entitlement means that simply by making something, they *entitled* to make money off it. If I make a little doodle and put it on a website, no one is obligated to pay me anything for it. I can *try* to make money off it, but I probably won't. That is the difference. I didn't say everything should be free, I said no one should be entitled to profit.

                  Pay close attention: Copying copyrighted materials in an infringing way reduces the likelyhood of a purchase of that material. In an indirect way, such activities take away the profit potential of said created material. I know it's a very difficult concept for you to understand, and that's why words like "idiot" come to mind. Sorry you're taking it personally. Feel free to call me a "shill" or something if it makes you feel better.

                  You seem to be a person who has a hard time controlling their temper. Unfortunate.

                  Your reasoning is questionable. By that same thought process, I can argue that competition is theft, since they take away the potential profits of a creator. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would like this to be true in, say, the realm of IIS vs Apache.

                  Because they created it. It's theirs. We want to encourage more to be created so we all have something to enjoy. I like good quality software, (like Linux, OpenOffice, KDE) good quality books (Arthur C. Clarke, Larry Niven, et

        • by meringuoid (568297) on Thursday May 17 2007, @05:52PM (#19170411)
          Unless of course, you don't mind if I stop at your house while your out and grab all the stuff you weren't using anyway?

          I'd rather you didn't take it. That would be stealing.

          However, if you come by and wave a magic wand and create yourself exact duplicates, it wouldn't bother me.