Hacker News Reader

There's that legalistic nitpicking again. Google is a general purpose service. People actually use it for lawful purposes, maybe even most of the time. On the other hand, the whole point of the Pirate Bay is to violate copyright. I've never seen it used for a lawful purpose, though I am sure it is occasionally. That's a substantive difference. It would ring a lot more honest to me if the defenders of Pirate Bay said "I like to download things and I think current IP laws are wrong".

That's a valid position that can be argued. This position just seems childish to me, and not a brilliant defense as some say.

If I sold guns in packages with maps and schedules of the daily habits of people's enemies, who later ended up dead, I am pretty sure they would still lock me up for being an accessory to murder. As they ought. On another thread, Pirate Bay's defenders said that such a business should be legal, too, as the businessman isn't actually doing anything wrong.

That, to me, is a sign that they have sacrificed prudence in support of their agenda.

I like The Pirate Bay. I want to see them survive. That doesn't mean I have to accept bad arguments just because I am on their side.

There's that legalistic nitpicking again. Google is a general purpose service. People actually use it for lawful purposes, maybe even most of the time. On the other hand, the whole point of the Pirate Bay is to violate copyright. I've never seen it used for a lawful purpose, though I am sure it is occasionally. That's a substantive difference. It would ring a lot more honest to me if the defenders of Pirate Bay said "I like to download things and I think current IP laws are wrong".

Defenders do say that. I say that. The point I was making is that TPB isn't breaking the law. Even if they're helping other people break it, they themselves are innocent.

To use your gun analogy, if, rather than selling guns, you're the guy that gives directions to people looking for guns, then you're innocent. You're not touching the guns. You're just handing out directions.

That's a valid position that can be argued. This position just seems childish to me, and not a brilliant defense as some say.

A bunch of amateurs are beating powerful corporations in court. That's maybe not brilliant, but it's certainly impressive.

Does Google break the law because it makes it easy for me to search for mp3s to download?

Google isn't hosting the files that point to trackers and ultimately other peers to download from.

There are cases similar to this: Galoob v Nintendo. In this case Galoob was cleared of charges as it was found that users of Game Genie, while altering games, were not creating derivative works that violated Copyright.

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation Professional photographer vs image search service. It was decided since Arriba was just showing thumbnails and did not have the actual files on their servers they were in the clear.

I personally think the charges are a little out of hand. That said if you don't have rights to the files you are doing something wrong. The repercussions of the pirate bay winning or losing this case are definitely going to be interesting.

But torrent files don't aren't in themselves illegal, even if they point to illegal content. TPB doesn't host illegal material. It only hosts the files that point to them. So technically, they're not being illegal.

But they also are providing trackers. They are assisting in copyright violations and they often mock requests to remove such files that help others violate copyright.

That said, my thoughts are based on US copyright.

Please mod me down, but this case is a bit more complicated than "I like to torrent Music" and other self-serving interests.

Nah! HN doesn't downmod kneejerk.*

The problem with this case is that TPB isn't US. Sweden laws say they're fine.

*sometimes

>"we want to see a new method come in that doesn't allow a bunch of legal-minded people with no appreciation for music and music distribution to cheat bands out of money, to deny a lot of musicians the right to profit, and to pursue draconic punishments for the people who speak out against them."

The RIAA is shady and music labels give bands a hard deal, no doubt about that. But what makes you think that bands will be able to turn a profit when everything is free? Where there is no scarcity, there is no price.

Music is broken.

Maybe it is a positive social good that the RIAA blokes have to go find new jobs, but the bands get screwed either way.

The RIAA is shady and music labels give bands a hard deal, no doubt about that. But what makes you think that bands will be able to turn a profit when everything is free? Where there is no scarcity, there is no price.

There you go again. (I'm very sorry that you're getting picked on in this thread, but you're throwing up a straw man that's very conveniently simple to argue against.) Your assumption is that the current model of music - the broken one - is the only possible model of music. It's not. There are certainly solutions to be had. The problem is that the RIAA is not taking said solutions.

The company to root for is the company that figures out a model that works for bands despite pirating and an oversaturated market. Thinking there's no hope won't help anything.

I would love to see a world where bands get paid in rough proportion to the amount of enjoyment that people have gained from their music.

I don't see how Pirate Bay's model helps this, though perhaps it is no worse than the current industry model.

The Pirate Bay isn't a model. It's a vast swath of illegal activity. But that's not going away, and frankly I think that the model in which most music is torrented is better for everybody. I never buy an album that I don't like anymore.

The solution is to figure out how to many money despite the unending piracy. The RIAA thinks the solution is to sue the pirates, which is stupid, because the pirates are only doing what feels natural. Models exist that can work alongside piracy. Take, for instance, the pay-what-you-want, model, the pay-to-ensure-release model, and the 70%-free model. Three systems that all have been earning bands money.

I think the demand for services like iTunes is driven partially by the perceived legal risk involved in using free alternatives. Suing the pirates might actually be a profitable idea for the RIAA.

iTunes is not popular because of fear. It's popular because it's easy. I buy albums on iTunes when I want to get music quickly. The ease of access is worth the price.

iTunes is not the ultimate solution; it may be the ultimate sales interface. There are still better methods of distribution.