Pirate bay blocked by UK ISP's

[Ending Credits]

Originally Posted by eddie_dane

The question is, if people knew up front that their ideas and creations would never be compensated, how generous would people be in sharing them? I contend that if you removed all IP rights, people who come up with the next great idea would keep it to themselves until they were sure they could capitalize on it they way they saw fit. There would literally be no incentive to do so.

Read my argument above, IP law is inherently social. People don't protect their ideas and creations to just sit on them. They use them IN ORDER to share them with as many people as they can, just on their terms. There is no use for IP law for a man alone on an island. Anti-altruistic? perhaps, anti-social, absolutely not.

Personally my advocacy is not for abolishing copywrite but to decrease the length of time you can copywrite something for. Is anyone really going to be that more motivated to write if they know their copywrite extends 80 years after their death? It might help them find a publisher more easily but I imagine it's not going to make much difference (profits in 100 years time aren't worth very much).

Reduction in copywrite time span is not necessarily a bad thing for artists either, they will be able to draw on a much wider array or works and hopefully reducing copywrite timespan will invigorate the respective industries as people have more access to the material.

I just don't think the current length of protection for a piece of work gives the right balance between encouraging new material and making said material available.

[Er-El]

Originally Posted by eddie_dane

My apologies because my time is short and I'm going away for the weekend but I need you to explicitly explain this "third party" that pays a cost, seemingly automatically, as a result of two parties agreeing to a contract. I'll try my best to view the youtubes and references (but you understand, I have my own list of stuff I'm trying to get through) you recommend but, for now, I need you to make the argument without me having to research your side.

There isn't necessarily a third party that pays a cost with a contract. Copyright isn't the same as a conventional contract if you can even call it that.

When you are expected to not invade someone's home there is no aggression being imposed on you. Regardless of the circumstances, to trespass that property would be immoral. Whereas with a poster that's out on display it automatically dictates to everyone that should they happen to emulate it by chance or deliberately using their own property (paper, ink, pen, etc.) they should be legally liable. The violation starts with the copyright against the person walking past the poster even though they never opted in for an agreement. Intellectual Property and real property cannot be compared because real property can be enclosed, whereas information only exists in your mind. My interpretation of a painting could be completely different to yours, but everyone will always agree that it's just an arrangement of paint; it's only given significance in our mind.

The fact that IP requires so many arbitrary laws to enforce it exposes it for how flawed and impractical a concept it is. If I copy that poster and keep it in my own home for myself it's deemed okay but somehow when we go into this separate business realm that we just made up for ourselves then the rules change... For example I understand that in the US a business is not allowed to show a sports game to the public or on a TV bigger than 55" without a license, but if you happen to invite friends and family round your house to watch it then it's OK? Where's the consistent logic in that. When a photograph is taken by someone they are the legal copyright holder of that photo even if they don't own the camera. I could go on listing these completely arbitrary rules that enforce IP law.
The same universal ethics that exists with property rights cannot be applied to information.

That's not to say contracts would be obsolete in business if IP laws were to be repealed. There are many situations where it could be useful. For example J.K. Rowling could have agreed to consult on the Harry Potter film by Warner Bros even though other low budget Harry Potter films would have already been made, but this one would get the author's official endorsement and that's the version fans would hold in high regard. Except both she and Warner Bros would probably be worth a lot less in such a market economy.
As I say, different business models would occur in a market free of IP laws. We have examples today that I went through in previous posts that would be just as profitable without IP laws. If someone can't figure out a profitable business model for their ideas in a world where we have information that moves around freely (or at least it ought to), that's not my problem. It doesn't give them the right to go to the state so that I have my property rights undermined as a result.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by Er-El

TWhereas with a poster that's out on display it automatically dictates to everyone that should they happen to emulate it by chance or deliberately using their own property (paper, ink, pen, etc.) they should be legally liable. The violation starts with the copyright against the person walking past the poster even though they never opted in for an agreement.

I think this is the bit where I disagree. The passer-by opts into an agreement as soon as they emulate the poster, which is a deliberate act that they can choose to commit or not to commit.

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I think this is the bit where I disagree. The passer-by opts into an agreement as soon as they emulate the poster, which is a deliberate act that they can choose to commit or not to commit.

That, and the fact that ideas are not enforced per se, the use of those ideas are.

[Otis1337]

Suddenly a wild link appeasers.
http://pirateproxy.net/

[Er-El]

I can't see how any of that addresses my point about universal ethics and what gives someone the moral right to claim legal ownership over a subjective piece of information/idea
If justifying something by first principle is so important to you (and rightly so) how does this apply to IP? Here's the distinction summarised:
Stealing = always immoral no matter what the circumstances, environment, or motivation - pretty straight forward principle
Whistling a theme tune from a movie = perfectly all right unless you happen to be charging people money to listen in exchange. No wait, that's fine. Or is it? Should making a photograph of a child's drawing be illegal if they don't consent or do the rules only count if it's a copy of something for monetary profit? - You see, it's impossible to summarise in any kind of unequivical and explicit way.

Every idea that comes to fruition is based on other innovations that preceded it. So on this basis it's impractical to reason who owns what idea in an objective way to the extent that I think it's actually quite arrogant to claim ownership over it. Sure you can get credit and promote yourself for it but this is by definition very different to ownership. Piracy is so rampant because it's natural and the free flow of ideas can never be artificially controlled nor should it. Progress and innovation has always come from people borrowing ideas off each other and improving on them.

If someone steals... I mean copies your idea and you consequently can't turn a profit, it doesn't mean you've been a victim of theft, you just have a flawed business plan that wouldn't be rewarded in a genuine free market.

[Porkins' Wingman]

Just can't stop agreeing with the line the boy Er-El is taking, particularly...

Originally Posted by Er-El

Every idea that comes to fruition is based on other innovations that preceded it. So on this basis it's impractical to reason who owns what idea in an objective way to the extent that I think it's actually quite arrogant to claim ownership over it. Sure you can get credit and promote yourself for it but this is by definition very different to ownership. Piracy is so rampant because it's natural and the free flow of ideas can never be artificially controlled nor should it. Progress and innovation has always come from people borrowing ideas off each other and improving on them.

If someone steals... I mean copies your idea and you consequently can't turn a profit, it doesn't mean you've been a victim of theft, you just have a flawed business plan that wouldn't be rewarded in a genuine free market.

The last paragraph leads me back to my point about how digitising work devalues it massively because it is capable of being duplicated to a rate and extent far exceeding other formats. If you've got a 'product' then digitising it and putting it in the public domain and then expecting the authorities to protect it is unrealistic. If the 'product' is so useful then keep it to yourself.

If you tell someone a secret and expect them to keep it secret, but they tell someone else, you've only got yourself to blame. If you give someone a DVD of you and your pet alpaca at it in the stables, but they start distributing copies of it, you've only got yourself to blame. Why should a DVD of Twilight be any different - I know which one I'd rather watch

It's a trust thing. If you can't trust a client then stop operating with them. If the client needs what you've got so badly then they will have to re-earn and keep your trust. If a client stops paying invoices then anyone who continues doing business with said client must either be stupid or have something to gain from it. If the entertainment industry is hurting so much from the current relationship with the current non-paying client (i.e. the public) then let the entertainment industry remove all forms of home media distribution and we can all re-evaluate how much we really need its products. Those that decide they really do need the products can then approach the producers and negotiate an agreement where stricter, more robust, controls can be placed on the distribution. Currently all that's happening is the entertainment industry is bleating about us not paying for its output but is continuing to churn out a pretty hefty amount (as much as ever, if not more? IDK). Whose fault is that? And at the same time lobbying governments to further restrict freedoms - I know which one I think is the healthier long-term business strategy.

The entertainment industry obviously wants its products in the public domain because it is the public who add the value, by talking about the product to those who know less about it - so surely every single member of the public who does so should have a right to commission for promoting the work and therefore adding value, as well as a share in the ownership and thus a share in the copyright... no?

The whole 'fair use' issue also undermines the validity of copyright law for me. Fair use can ultimately only be decided by a judge who's undertaken some form of subjective balancing test and as such the test can be used to justify any conclusion which the judge might arbitrarily (don't forget the subtextual brown envelope ) decide upon.

[theshadow2001]

Part of the problem is that so many know what it is to consume but so few know what it is to create.

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

Part of the problem is that so many know what it is to consume but so few know what it is to create.

Why did I spend hundreds of words trying to say what you managed in one eloquent sentence? +1 (excuse me while I go take stock in my entire life...)

[silky]

It wont affect me because I don't use that website. Personally I find it a tricky situation because I completely agree with the authorities preventing widespread crime like this, and as I've always thought, shutting down websites like that will never work. But going directly to the ISP's and holding them responsible, is fool proof. I read that Pirate Bay are going to use proxy servers or something to become available again, but I think if enough pressure is put on the ISP's, they could eventually stop all copyright theft, and I would love that.

My only concern though is that controlling parts of the internet might go beyond just upholding the law. The UK in particular has a way of almost bullying the public, for example it's not good enough to just make it against the law to speed in your car, but you will now be photographed by cameras on most roads and a fine is automatically sent to you. There is no if's or but's, no judge and jury. Some say they are starting to erode peoples freedoms and I wouldn't want that to happen on the internet too. I think making it so people are not free to commit crimes is fine, but I hope it doesn't go beyond that.

[Er-El]

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

Part of the problem is that so many know what it is to consume but so few know what it is to create.

I've noticed those on the pro-copyright side of the argument defend it on the grounds of practicality. They're immediate concern is that there would be less incentive to create without these laws, and I can respect that as I'm motivated by the same sentiment, entrepreneurs being free to create what they want. I've argued the best case I can against Copyright and why there would be a lot more creativity in such an environment where so much of the business world isn't fixated around this distortive law, but without a contemporary example to refer to can't expect to persuade too many onto this side of the debate so we'll just have to agree to disagree

[theshadow2001]

Originally Posted by Er-El

I've noticed those on the pro-copyright side of the argument defend it on the grounds of practicality. They're immediate concern is that there would be less incentive to create without these laws, and I can respect that as I'm motivated by the same sentiment, entrepreneurs being free to create what they want...

My point really is not about the laws or incentive to create, it's more a point of empathy. If you have been a part of making a creative work(not to mention the personal expense) for someone to consume you are less likely to participate in not paying for other creative works than someone who has no knowledge of the process. Someone who simply consumes what is presented to them. As I said that is only part of the problem not the whole. I believe this to be true regardless of the existance of copyright laws because it is governed by the person internally as opposed outside factors like having the threat of punishment for braking the law. Of course its not an all encompasing truth but I believe there is something to it.

[Porkins' Wingman]

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

Part of the problem is that so many know what it is to consume but so few know what it is to create.

This touches on something that I've meant to bring up previously but I don't think I remembered to:

Post-war children have been raised on consumption on a different level to anything that went before, and as time has passed since then we've gradually tightened the coil and pushed the limits of marketing, advertising, promotions, merchandise etc etc so that consumption is so ingrained to the way people lead their lives that, while an obvious element of choice remains, rejecting the consumer lifestyle is a very difficult thing to realise.

The music, movie and, more recently the gaming, industries are based massively on the consumption model, and these industries really had the kids of recent years by the balls with no escape.

Then along came internet file sharing and suddenly there was an out. A chance to break the cycle. A chance to wave a little FU to the moguls, a chance to say "Thanks for shoving your product down my throat until I feel I must swallow, I'll swallow it alright... but I'm not going to give you dick for it".

I'm sure many people who have pirated to any significant degree can probably empathise with that feeling of suddenly having almost unlimited choice, taking everything you can fit in your pockets (or hard-drives) before getting that anticlimactic come-down upon realising that you don't actually want it, it's not making you happy (think of those long list of Steam games, and they weren't even pirated!). Then some may have begun to question whether the products are actually worth anything or whether it's the striving and choosing of the products that actually contented us, not the products themselves, and that perhaps the consumption of the products can be replaced by the pursuit of other past-times.

I don't write this to condone it or otherwise, but I think piracy has helped me re-evaluate things, and appreciate that endless consumption is unsatisfying, which has coincided with me getting a bit more creative.

[loftie]

Was blocked for me from a week after the ban, it's now no longer blocked by my ISP. They obviously decided to give up blocking it

[DXR_13KE]

Originally Posted by loftie

Was blocked for me from a week after the ban, it's now no longer blocked by my ISP. They obviously decided to give up blocking it

TPB is playing magic chairs by exchanging their IP adress.

[specofdust]

I've been checking out of curiosity (don't use The Pirate Bay myself) and it's not been off at all on Be when I've been checking, which admittedly I've only been doing maybe twice a week. I was curious to see if Be would ever bother to block it, and it appears they must have made some really half hearted effort and nothing more.

[feathers]

Originally Posted by specofdust

I've been checking out of curiosity (don't use The Pirate Bay myself) and it's not been off at all on Be when I've been checking, which admittedly I've only been doing maybe twice a week. I was curious to see if Be would ever bother to block it, and it appears they must have made some really half hearted effort and nothing more.

I use it a lot and today I was confronted with words to the effect: "this website has been blocked under orders of the court"

I'm on o2 broadband. All I had to do was connect on my iPredator VPN to regain access to piratebay.

[Guinevere]

"Blocking" TPB in the way they have will be as effective at stopping piracy as stopping you and I flying with full bottles of shampoo is helping to prevent another 9/11. Someone is making some money from this 'effort' but it's doing zilch.

It's so funny...

Joke 1 : There's so many ways to access the site and they've only blocked the front door.

Joke 2 : They're only blocking TPB, but not sites like demonoid.

Joke 3 : They can't do anything for those determined enough to use private VPNs

Joke 4 : Magnetic links!

Joke 5 : Even though they know all these jokes they still follow through with telling the IPSs to block the site.

[rak500]

Personally, I think blocking TPB is a pointless sanction meant to appease copyright moguls.

This being said, I would love to be able to buy more stuff, but unfortunately not much of the latest music, or the latest shows are readily available to buy. Or when they are they're fairly hard to find. And I'm not taking about the latest "cutting edge hipster soundz of 2013". I don't mind protecting property, I hate my stuff to be stolen, but then againa system that sides with only one party is not a good system.

All I see is measures covering one's property but not offering any viable/profitable alternative. It's like going to buy a VW and being told that the only model available is a 1963 beetle. Why can't I have the latest sirocco GTI? Why would you want that? this one works just fine!

And worst of all, this sounds to me as an open door to shut down whatever sites/portal that does not suit somebody with money in their pocket or a cartel to protect.

It makes for a bleak interwebz future...

[Andy Mc]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

"Blocking" TPB in the way they have will be as effective at stopping piracy as stopping you and I flying with full bottles of shampoo is helping to prevent another 9/11. Someone is making some money from this 'effort' but it's doing zilch.

It's so funny...

Joke 1 : There's so many ways to access the site and they've only blocked the front door.

Joke 2 : They're only blocking TPB, but not sites like demonoid.

Joke 3 : They can't do anything for those determined enough to use private VPNs

Joke 4 : Magnetic links!

Joke 5 : Even though they know all these jokes they still follow through with telling the IPSs to block the site.

<disclaimer> I work for one of the ISPs that has to block TPB. These views are mine not theirs</disclaimer>

I wont discuss the whole legal/ethical arguement of piracy as that has been covered repeatedly in the previous 9 pages.

For an ISP to really block the site would be too difficult, expensive and impractical. As such the ISPs need to be seen to be abiding by the courts ruling as doing anything else would open them up to a world of legal pain - none of which they want.

As such the simplest way to abide by the ruling is to block TPB at the DNS level as it would stop all but the most determined users from accessing the site. The plus side to this is it means that as far as the courts are concerned the ISPs are playing ball.

For me the real issue is more to do with the constant changing of copyright laws that have all but destroyed public domain creative works. And for what? A little extra cash for a few powerful corporations.