Meanwhile in the UK...

«"Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said.»

This is a troubling ruling since the Pirate Bay offers thousands of works that are on the public domain and other licenses (like Creative Commons).

It opens a precedent and it's not even a solution, now is it?

Read + Share + Spread = Comment! Tell us what you think!
Kendric Jean's profile photoPierre Massé's profile photoAndrew Aldridge's profile photoWendy Cockcroft's profile photo
sooo, they block the Pirate Bay... what about every other torrent tracker? no? oh well a waste of time and money making legislation that has zero overall effect. Well spent public money?
i don't think they understand how torrenting works...
Doesn't look like BT is on that list, thankfully.

I do wonder if the court that ordered this realise that not all torrents are illegal files?
Absurd. The more they push against piracy, the more we'll see new and inventive ways to route around it. It's always been the case.
The logic is flawed. If "sites like The Pirate Bay" destroy jobs, they must order ISPs to block sites "like the Pirate Bay". Let ISPs decide what content their users have access to. Hint: any content from competing content providers, pirates or not, will be off limits to the users. What a gold mine!
Honestly, I think the pirate bay's only problem is it's called the pirate bay. At the end of the day, it provides as legitimate a service as YouTube. There are many great uses for it but it'll always be used for piracy, too. Hell, I could use dropbox to fire over a film to a friend if I really wanted.

Closing down a site and trying to play whack-a-mole with the hundreds of new sites combined with more secure ways of accessing information both fails to tackle the root cause of the problem ("Why are people pirating?") AND provides a shot in the arm to more accessible methods of encryption. How long before Tor (or a similar technology) comes baked into browsers by standard?
Idiots ! The real issue is obviously supply & demand. Nowhere on the internet can I get the same quality of 'product' that torrent sites ( & their like ) provide to me ! Say I want to dl the latest episode of GoT, not only can i have it in less than 10 mins but I can choose the format, the filesize and overall quality ( SD or HD ).
Give me the same options at a reasonable price and I will pay
+Lee Fry spot on with the sales figure thing !
Over the years the amount of files I have dl i honestly can't say ( I think about 3 ;) but for these guys to claim that each dl is a lost sale, I mean c'mon that's a fucking joke. Most of the music i have I would never have paid for, seriously, NEVER. Countless times an album was downloaded for 1 song, when I did find something I liked I went to see the band play live, my way of saying " Thanks for sharing lads!".
Oh and btw, just how much money is enough for these pricks. CD's used to cost around 50 cent to produce, how much were we paying for them in HMV and the like ? 15,20,30................
Bullshit artists of the highest caliber !
They're idiots attempting to shore up a crumbling monopoly. The Pirate Party is starting to gain some traction in the media. +Laurence Kaye is being quoted in the mainstream press and this means that his ideas are being noticed. We've had some consultation papers and other efforts to find out what the public wants. Meanwhile the mayoral elections are coming up this week and there aren't any Pirate candidates where I live so I'm voting Green because they side with the Pirates. I'm going to ask my neighbours and everyone I know to vote Green and hopefully we'll teach these people a lesson.

When the Pirates get seats in Parliament, the fun's going to start; they've already got some MEP's and some members in parliament in Sweden and Germany. Watch out, world, we're coming. Yarrr!
Guess whose fingerprints are all over this. And there's the Digital Economy Act to consider. Damn you, Labour party!
Who is losing their job over this. Musicians actors they are all still employed and have more money than all of us combined. To hell with their part of the 1%. I remember the old days of copying your friends cassete and both of us would go in half for the tape. Ill die a pirate. ARRRR!
It's time for the Phonographic Industry to notice nobody's buying phonographs anymore...
What, you mean the IP maximalists... lie to us? Surely not! The horror!
The tyrants think they can stop piracy..
But how can they? for piracy is bulletproof.. Lol
+Victor Garbe , who's losing their job over this? The middleman reselling the rights to the content. The middleman who currently has money and would rather throw this money at politicians to keep the status quo at everybody else's expense.
they did it for the authors? BS! the authors get 20 or 30 % at best....
Unless they're locked into a "work for hire" agreement in which case they get bugger all.
...but the loss of civil liberties caused by such an idiotic law is forever.
To quote Gabe Newell: "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

Smart Man. Guess that's why he owns a multi-million dollar company.

There was a video that I can't seem to re-find which did the maths on the music industries loss. Turns out that they actually made a massive gain since piracy started, and that all of the lost revenue was in, get this, ringtones. They also stated that they'd lost more jobs due to piracy than existed when piracy began.
Maybe the "$8 billion dollar ipod" video?
No matter how you slice it piracy is stealing.
...but copying is neither piracy nor stealing. No marine vessels are involved, and original owner does not have any less than before.
Stealing what? Slice away. I don't think it's right to erode and eventually do away with our rights to privacy to protect an outmoded business model.

And who are we supposedly stealing from? Here, read this and educate yourself, +Max Lanz:

Then think for yourself, please. Stop drinking the IP maximalists' Kool Aid and have a beer instead.
Patent infringement doesn't physically take anything for the owner other than money for their thought process. Equally piracy is taking money for creative work.
Whose thought process? If you really think it's about protecting the inventors, 'scuse me for not laughing, it's an old joke. Now go and look up "Righthaven" and "Intellectual Ventures" followed by "patent troll."

Piracy is not taking money for creative work. It's cutting in on the distribution thereof. Supplying the demand according to the market forces instead of trying to enforce a monopoly to protect the interests of the few is the better solution.
+Wendy Cockcroft Sounds fine to me. Don't copy other peoples work and you won't have a problem. It's sad to see what is in effect stealing be this popular and this dismissed. You're not copying a loaf of bread to feed your family. You're copying creative entertainment works because you're too lazy or cheap to buy them. How is that not wrong?
+Max Lanz don't read books to your children. Don't retell jokes. Don't discuss the news. Don't install software. Don't use Google+. This all involves copying, in one form or another, other people's work. You think you can live without it? The fact that some forms of copying are now called "stealing" and treated worse than rape and murder does not change anything. People share things with each other, not just consume them.
Actually, +Max Lanz, think about the other types of copying being done; buildings, for example. How many architects are being done out of their rightful dues? Every argument you could ever make in favour of the unfair monopoly system is debunked in that link I posted and you can't be bothered to read it, can you? You sound as if you're in a cult, dutifully chanting the doctrine of the faithful and decrying the rest of us as heretics.

Open your mind and come into the light. We have cookies.

Oh, and if you ever find anything original enough to BE an original, let me know. Everything's derivative of something.

On another note, who said I was copying entertainment works? I don't. That's a big assumption from someone who knows nothing about me other than that I support the Pirate Party's desire to reform copyright law so that artists and creatives are paid for their work and treated as equals with the rest of us instead of our being made subordinate to the middlemen who claim to be collecting for them. Don't accept that? Prove it or shut up.
Right on! So copying a file and sharing it non-commercially (which I don't) should not be classed as a crime.

Sharing torrents for money should be done in such a way that the artists are compensated. Which brings me back to work for hire, in which they receive a one-off payment and are instructed to jog on.

To repeat myself, the copyright monopoly we have now is about the distribution rights, not paying the artists.
It makes me laugh when someone uses "copying copyrighted material" as a synonym for a crime. All content created after January 1, 1978, is automatically copyrighted. Everything your browser shows you is copyrighted. The idea of restricting copying is terrible technical nonsense... Restricting commercial use of copyrighted material, I can understand. But the current popular idea of copying as theft, man, we have our work cut for us.
You are in fact misled. Please look up "But honestly, Monica," and you'll see what I mean.
+Diesal Ho The artist might not have been the one to put it on the internet to begin with.

Crude example time: I could buy a CD, download it to my computer and seed it to others on the internet for free. Now the artist who created whatever work I copied (Along with those evil middle management types) only gets the money from my purchase while everyone else gets to enjoy his creative work for free. It may hurt the record industry more than the artist in question but it still hurts the person who created the work to begin with. Additionally, sampling small bits (From Architecture or music theory or any art form) is not the same as making an exact copy and giving it out for free.
Actually, the example I gave in the link above was adjudged to have done so and the plaintiff won.

Meanwhile, the artist isn't hurt by the loss of potential sales because you're assuming that people would have bought the CD or whatever if it hadn't been shared.

I think it's reasonable to assume that sharing gives people a chance to sample the work, i.e. listen to the song, then decide whether or not to buy the CD based on the song.

Furthermore, if the artist made a deal with the torrent providers or set up such a system himself, couldn't he then sell torrents of his work?

It's not the case that only pirates can provide them. Remember, they're supplying the demand. The answer is to do it yourself, bearing in mind that people actually do want to pay for things, it's just that sometimes they either can't get hold of it legally because of geographic restrictions or a lack of availability.

If you want to either dominate or control distribution, don't restrict it, simplify it.
+Max Lanz , the example is fair. Unfortunately, current reaction of the music industry, which is "therefore, sharing must be disabled, and things will go to what they were before" is stupid and extremely harmful. Disabling sharing has terrible consequences for everyone, and any law aimed at that creates bad things while not actually harming online sharing. Multiple sharing services prove that actual cost of distribution is easily offset by a couple ads they manage to show you while providing the download link. Distribution, that used to require production equipment and staff, retail stores and staff, can now be made for pennies. Instead of embracing the new technologies, the recording industry chooses to break the net and make online censorship legal. Meanwhile, people make money by posting their videos on YouTube, or by others posting their videos on YouTube.
well we know picasso would be on our side with his famous "good artists copy, great artists steal." muse's matt bellamy figured that out a while back (listen to the awesome riff from "plug-in baby"). and saying creative artistry is illegal brings us dangerously close to the mccarthy days...
+100. The point we're making is that subordinating our privacy rights to support a distribution monopoly is unreasonable and unfair.

If it's really all about money we can help them to monetize sharing, but the control freakery has got to go. We're not the ones who are being intransigent, the maximalists are. They need to choose between money and control. They can't have both, and I'm fine with them having money.
+Wendy Cockcroft That only works if no one who downloaded said item for free intended to buy it and that is simply naive. There are plenty of people who can and will download something for free because they know that in all likelihood they will get away with it. Some people might decide the CD isn't worth buying because the content isn't what they want and some people might go out and buy the product anyways because they want to support said artist. But not everyone will fit in those categories and every person who doesn't is in effect stealing.

Is it OK if i shoplift a CD from a retail outlet, burn a copy and put the original (or the copy) back on their shelves? Do you think if i got caught and used my intentions as a defense I would deserve any shred of leniency?
Also, I don't think anyone has any qualms with someone entering in a private contract with a torrent site to sell their creative works.
I am all for breaking the record industry's grip on creative works. Netflicks made huge strides in combating movie and television piracy by offering an easy to access database filled with popular options at a relatively cheap monthly price. I think something like that (Though tuned to the specific needs of the music industry) could do wonders for music. What I will not do nor condone is stealing, no matter how easy or convenient it is to dismiss it as something other than stealing.
+Max Lanz , you're sidestepping one important issue. Is it OK for the recording industry to break the internet, introduce censorship and online surveillance in order to keep their pre-internet profit margins? Why are concerns about their profit margins more important than, say, the Fourth Amendment? Who said the artists are guaranteed the same pay from the same labels when the technology changes? The big labels become less important, there are other ways to make money, life goes on. I don't see why civil liberties must be sacrificed.
The trouble is, video distributors hate Netflix and think it takes unfair share of their profits...
+Max Lanz your example above would be valid but for one important thing: having bought the CD you own a tangible object whose audio quality is infinitely better than the bits of data that makes up your so-called "exact" copy. assuming digital music files are equal to CDs and vinyls is naive in itself.

then again i'm a musician/audiophile/pirate/CD collector.
+Alex Emelianov The record industry didn't break the internet. That's the Government's doing on behest of the Record Industry. Quit voting in retards who will side with them. Don't blame them for being angry that people are stealing from them. In ancient times people had their hands cut off for stealing. Is it the market owner's fault if someone got their hand cut off for stealing from them? No it was the people who invented such a barbaric rule (And the idiot who stole anyways knowing the consequences)
and your shoplifting argument is also invalid because when you torrent something THE ORIGINAL IS NEVER REMOVED, EVER. and again, they are digital files, worthless compared to tangible items.

also basic critical thinking will teach you arguments by analogy are the weakest. let's try to use some logic here.
+Max Lanz erm, you might find that musicians' contracts with their record companies preclude that. I don't condone stealing and believe that a monetized torrent service with the artist getting a cut of revenue generated from their works is a fair way to solve the problem.

The problem, we've established, is that the copyright maximalists want control more than money and are willing to turn the internet into a surveillance tool to achieve it.

I don't approve of simply ripping and sharing CDs for the same reasons you do but a case can be made for cutting the copyright laws down to force the distributors to address the demands of the market instead of trying to control it with draconian legislation.
+Max Lanz , it's not like stealing from a market, more like opening another (higher tech) market across the street, and the original market owners going "hey, we can't keep our profits up, let's go cut their hands off".
+Max Lanz for the umpteenth time, it's not stealing. Copying does not remove anything, and the problem is distribution failure.

The trouble with having a monopoly is that it doesn't oblige you to meet the demands of the market. That stops you innovating and causes trouble for you down the line.

The RIAA and MPAA can come to us and we'll help them to monetize distribution in exchange for them giving up on trying to demolish the internet to maintain their immoral monopoly.
what's wrong with ripping and sharing music (for non-commercial use, obviously)? that's what music was made for! and the fact that it's just intangible digital files makes it even more worthless monetarily speaking. i'm equally honoured when someone shares my music to their friends as when someone buys it (or buys my performance of it).
and while i'm at it, +Wendy Cockcroft, screw inviting the RIAA and MPAA to anything. they don't deserve it and have been (especially the RIAA) screwing artists over since the 50s. they can go extinct like the dinosaurs they are.
That's because you're not trying to use the distribution thereof as some kind of pension plan, +Pierre Massé. We need to accommodate those people who do, at least for the moment, then try to wean them off it. The link I posted earlier explains it all.

Edit: Since the RIAA and MPAA are the problem, we need to address it in a way that works or they'll be bugging us to Kingdom Come.
+Pierre Massé Sorry for breaking an argument faux pas and using an analogy. If you read anything else i wrote I believe that is the only place one is used outright. I disagree with your idea that something is never removed because the value of a musical CD is not the physical CD itself but the creative work contained on it.You are removing the creative work of someone else's brain without have a binding contractual authority to do so.

+Wendy Cockcroft So Record companies are evil because they have an exclusivity clause in their contracts with artist barring them from selling the same creative work to multiple people? That just seems smart on their part. I guess what i was saying earlier is that barring any other contractual obligations I have no qualms with someone selling their creative property to a torrent site for distribution. Additionally, as i stated above, record companies don't write laws. Politicians do, and you all collectively voted for ones who back record companies. Who is really at fault?
+Max Lanz I never said they were evil. Don't put words in my mouth. Politicians do indeed write laws, at the behest of the RIAA and MPAA.
+Wendy Cockcroft you're actually caring for all the old-school artists then? you're being waaay too nice ;) but yeah the concept of distribution as a pension will disappear, to the massive and awesome benefit of live music - you know, what music was meant to be.
+Pierre Massé I'm being pragmatic. It's who I am.

+Max Lanz we have established that the issue is about distribution rights, not the creative work itself.
+Max Lanz but the value of music is inextricably linked the quality of it - therefore a CD is infinitely more valuable than digital files and most valuable of all is live music. on top of that, i'm not removing the creative work of someone else's brain, i'm merely sharing with people who will appreciate the creative work of that someone else's brain and then support them in their future creative endeavours. if that's your definition of stealing then i'm very confused.
In short, my case against the recording industry. With the internet, demand for printed LPs and CDs dropped, and demand for cheap downloads of the same music skyrocketed.
Did they adjust prices to reflect the dropped demand? No. They went after second-hand CD retailers and even eBay instead.
Did they create music download services to address the skyrocketed demand? No. Instead, they went after those who did address this demand, without regard to the damage they wreaked on everyone involved.
How do they address their failure to stay relevant? Did they make use of the cheap and global distribution that the internet affords? No. They are bound by per-country licensing schemes that don't work anymore. They fail to cross-license and offer all the titles in all their libraries for a flat fee. They still think a dollar per track is reasonable price and that people need to "purchase" and "own" music.
And they don't mind if they have to break things and dismantle civil liberties in having their way.
Then they scream "not fair", "bloody murder" and "we're being raped". No sympathy from me.
+100. End the monopoly and force them to work with, not against, the market. Why should they get special treatment?
+Diesal Ho if you take care of your CDs they will sound awesome forever. vinyl is even better though. FLACs are great but it's still digital and to me not as nice as CDs. 320 kbps mp3s are only good for torrented stuff. essentially:

vinyl > CD > FLAC > 320 kbps mp3 :)
What is not being told here is from the artist's perspective. An artist doesn't create for compensation and true artists will not stop creating due to the removal of compensation. The coy artists make more money from live creation. The media industry is trying to preserve profits not keep bread on the table(more like keep the Ferrari in the garage.)
Better yet here's one I have been chewing on a while. If you buy a song or movie. It is usually sold as a registered copy with a type of license. Its usually on a medium that is perishable but the media itself isn't. You know why? It centers around the fact that now with the Internet you can find the media you want and bring it to yourself quickly and cheaply. You don't need a middle man now. All you need is the artist who is, with the net, right next door and not only can the artist share what is created in a form that is not made of physical matter(which is free to both parties), but the artist can receive compensation from the true ppl who appreciate the utility and communicate directly with those who support. So the profit preservers planned to make you repay your contribution to the media you bought in order to make more. What did these ppl do in the past?Found/incentivised artists(musicians, actors, directors,producers,etc..) to create media(music, movies) , made copies on some medium(tapes,cds,etc which are perishable). Now you don't need it.Artists can create and share between fans(not consumers). It's not elegant but there it is. The paradigm shift from physical medium to digital. Less middle man needed. Now the middle man wants to keep the same income and doesn't feel he should have to do something else.
It depends on the artist. When I told a friend about +Pirate Party UK leader +Laurence Kaye's policy of ten years for copyright he compared the writing of a song to the building of a house. He got really precious about it, which I understand. So for some musicians, it is about property and owning the idea.

I've done some songwriting myself and have been in a band, so I understand about the idea of wanting to be paid for your work. However, as I've read up on the issues involved I find that I'm unwilling to subordinate other people's rights to defend my own right to be treated fairly. I'd rather never be paid for my creative work than enslave someone else to ensure payment.

But the real issue is the distribution; the middlemen just use the artist as a shield for their own greed.
I don't care if my music is shared to the ends of the earth for free (obviously for non-commercial personal use). That would be a victory for me. Compensation comes from live performances and commercial licensing these days - guys like +The Black Keys have understood that. I'm also ok with that.
I like what you said +Wendy Cockcroft. I have friends who quit their day jobs with intention of motivating them to work harder at making it in the music industry in Nashville. Over time they changed from being ambitious and making great music to being bitter that ppl didn't treat their music like property. I have another friend who treats music like the air he breathes each day and I support him in many ways including buying him equipment. Check him out:
You are exactly right +Pierre Massé. I get so confused when someone complains about their material being shared. I mean if my material were focused on changing the world for the better and it succeed with out correct recognition I would be still be vibrantly happy that I put a ding in this universe. I feel true artist create for what they believe to be true in themselves. I am a fan of DMB and I learned that they use to give all their CD's away cause they just wanted people to hear them. They knew they would come. I have been to multiple shows and am a loyal fan. I think they have their own label too so I don't think they are bound by the middle man.
The minute it's about the money, game over. Musicians should be paid; nobody's disputing that, but subordinating the rest of us to a distributor's agenda isn't right and it sure ain't fair.
Add a comment...