[pp.int.general] Pirate Bay

[Erika Nilsson]

I hate to sound like an old nanny, but the tone in this thread is becoming
rather hostile.
Please try to remain civil, and I'd suggest leaving the 'who's the real
pirate' discussion entirely, as it is, if nothing else, very off topic.

Regards
Erika Nilsson


2009/4/20 Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>

> You did not read what I wrote. Newpapers say that TPB facilitates illegals
> downloads. Downloads are not illegal, even if the material is copyrighted,
> and the copyright owner does not provide an (explicit or implicit) license
> (almost all HTML is implicitly licensed!)
>
> Yes, I am aware that the technology (usually?) does not permit download
> without upload. But, again, that is not what the newspapers say.
>
> And, again, I don't think it is something for a pirate to advocate a strict
> interpretation of the law. law is never black and white. Ever heard of civil
> disobedience? Crazy laws and crazy enforcement call for action. Eventually
> in parliament.
>
> But I did not (even) say that civil disobedience implies that things are
> justified that otherwise would be illegal. I argued that the present
> situation calls for statutory reform.
>
> Please no more trolling!
>
> reinier
>
>
>  Reinier,
>> Your argument is inherently flawed. One cannot conduct an illegal act
>> without the act being illegal to do in the first place. Infringement is
>> infringement is infringement. As I understand it, yes, there is a
>> private copying clause in most countries including Canada. It is oft
>> compensated via taxes levied or blanket licenses (the Isle of Man is
>> doing this); I'm glad that media conglomerates/companies can still
>> benefit from private copying.
>> What The Pirate Bay did was assist in the facilitation of copyright
>> infringement. The court case showed this. The site obvious encourages
>> this, through the front page, and through the title of the page. As Tim
>> Berners-Lee put it, hyperlinking is centric to the principles of the
>> internet. Here's my question: who's rights, and how are they being put
>> at risk, when content owners take proactive stances on copyright
>> infringers? The users clearly don't own the rights, and are conducting
>> an illegal act, as demonstrated earlier; they're not at risk.
>> This conversation has gotten way out of hand as it is. The point of my
>> input was to ensure, and guide you to the best of my ability, that a
>> relevant topic and legal prevalence was maintained within your letter.
>>
>> It isn't your place to question my morality and apply stereotypes. I am
>> a pirate insofar as to ensure that the individual vices of "intellectual
>> property" are reduced and brought into heavier scrutiny. I don't believe
>> in the same things that you do, but that doesn't make me less of a
>> pirate than you, and vice versa.
>>
>> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>>
>>> Reinier,
>>>> What would be the purpose, and desirable result that you want to get
>>>> through this letter? Perhaps attacking such a minuscule issue with a
>>>> strongly-worded letter would be overtly excessive.
>>>> My thoughts on the issue, it seems, is the application of the phrase
>>>> "illegal downloading." It stems from copyright infringement on a smaller
>>>> scale, within the purview of civil litigation or courts. Copyright
>>>> infringement is illegal; this applies for most jurisdictions and
>>>> countries. When a user downloads a film, per se, they are engaging in
>>>> copyright infringement, an illegal act. They are illegally infringing on
>>>> copyright, or, in simpler terms, illegally downloading.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are mistaken. Yes, copyright infringement is illegal. But copying
>>> for your own personal use is no infringement, in most European
>>> countries. It may be fair use in the use. In continental Europe there is
>>> a "closed system" of exceptions, including the one I just mentioned. The
>>> reason why private copying was allowed is twofold 1) enforcement would
>>> require an unacceptable privacy infringement (note that this dates fro
>>> mthe pre-internet era) 2) people pay already via media levies.
>>> Finally, TPB does not facilitate file sharing itself, but only refers to
>>> sites that do that. Where is the end if hyperlinking is restricted? A
>>> hyperlink is no publication, it is a reference?
>>>
>>> So far, this was about current law. But there is a good reason to
>>> question current law: if draconic enforcement is needed, apparently the
>>> public support is low. And human rights may suffer.
>>>
>>> Thanks for playing devlis advocate, but who is the real pirate here?
>>>
>>> reinier
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
>> Pirate Party of the United States
>> "Burn, Hollywood, Burn"
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20090420/fb70b190/attachment.htm>