Pirate Bay evades Italian blockade

Italian ISPs are doing their best to block access to torrent site the Pirate Bay, but the Swedish site has already acted to help Italians evade the ban. Italy's deputy prosecutor ordered ISPs to block the site late last week. But the feisty pirates quickly fought back. The Pirate Bay recomended its Italian users switch to …

[Wokstation]

It's just like the ancient fight...

...between AV company and virus writer. It's a tale of sun and swords, eternally told!

Ok, so I stole that bit from SoulCailbur, but still... X does Y to block Z. Z figures way round it. And round and round she goes...

[Edwin]

Brazen...

I'm no Silvio fan, but "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay competes with"???

Shouldn't that be "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay users steal content from"

They're a brazen lot, these Swedes. One day, someone is going to hammer them with a big legal cluebat...

[Anonymous Coward]

fascist arses

Why just block the DNS - that is just complete ARSE (A Really Stupid Example).

The ISPs should block access to the IP address range 83.140.0.0/16 which includes PBs hosters (should get their attention).

Obviously the IT-aliens (say it as one word) should be using mininova.org which is better anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else

read that as labia.org?

[Mark]

RE: Brazen...

"Shouldn't that be "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay users steal content from""

No.

a) it's not stealing

b) it's mostly someone else's product available

(b) is quite important because things like "Tibet: The Fight For Independence" will not be shown in China. It will be available on TPB.

And if the information should help save one life...

[Moz]

Labaia.org?

Is this a none-too-subtle attempt to call the Italian authorities a bunch of c%&ts??

Paris because... oh, keep up, will you...

[Ben Gibson]

It's always interesting

Interesting to see how different countries deal with content on the internet been illegal in their country but illegal in another.

Not concentrating on the content here but isn't it interesting how this problem could be dealt with. Should a countries legal system be allowed (and able) to block content of certain sites? If not then should the internet be allowed to become a lawless place where it's far to easy to get away with things you shouldn't be allowed to?

It's also interesting to consider when transmitting information becomes illegal because of the copyright, with the varied ways it can be done it seems to me the only possible way of putting it that would legally cover anything is "intent" or "assembly". If it's intent its close to impossible to prove that in court when you need to deal with millions of people and therefor cases, and if it's assembly then the delivery system and the people support the delivery system structure cannot be prosecuted.

Tricky stuff. Possibly the only solution is to offer the same type as thing as the sites at a price that enough people find reasonable to make a profit despite the rest of the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hoist the Flag!

ARGGG!

"where did that come from!?"

[Nathan L. Reynolds]

@Edwin

Shouldn't that be "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay users steal content from"

It's a shame that this propaganda is still proliferated. Copyright Infringement is not Theft. Theft implies that the original owner is deprived of the item. The whole 'piracy = theft' line probably came about because conviction of theft 'had' a chance of a custodial sentence, unlike Copyright Infringement.

Mine's the one that is yours ;-)

[Graham Dawson]

For the record

The government under Prodi tried to ban TPB as well, so it's not simply that Berlusconi competes with them. It's because he's a politician, and politicians like to ban things they can't tax or regulate.

As the sun rises and as it sets... (at least until they've taxed sunlight)

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Anyone else?

would that be 'Liberate Apes Before Imprisoning Apes'?

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC

Why block address ranges? Surely the correct action would be to go after anyone commiting an offence in whatever jurisdiction they have authority in?

That's like telling us that occasionally someone exceeds the posted speed limit on a given road so no-one is allowed to use it.

If TPB are breaking Swedish law then I have no doubt the authorities will eventually bring them to book. Maybe, just maybe, the Swedish authorities have other priorities that are considered more important than a little copyright infringement.

[Mark]

Maybe the US can help TPB

Since the attack to connect to the bit torrent is done on TPB servers in another country, TPB's site is only illegal in that country.

After all, this is what the US says about McKinnon. Where the user is is irrelevant: where the computer they access is is the only relevant point.

[Anony mouse]

L.A.B.I.A.

affiliated with

Campaign for Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society??

[Kenny Swan]

Where will this end?

When will countries learn that it's up to the individual citizens what they choose to do? I mean, you could get up to all sorts of nasty stuff if you hung out with the right people in Afghanistan, but is it fair for your country to block your access to getting to that country? Some people might use piratebay for legal, legitimate reasons (I hear it happens) so why be punished for what your government assumes you'll be doing there?

[Geoff Mackenzie]

@Nathan L. Reynolds

You totally just stole my argument. I'm going to sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

not illegal in Sweden

As I unsderstand it (but I am no legal expert in Swedish law or elsewhere), what TPD are doing is not illegal in Sweden - they say they hold no copyright infringed content on their servers. So that's that - until or unless Swedish law states otherwise. However, those who download/upload stuff using the links TPB provide are potentialy breaking a law in their own country. So shouldn't the 'authorites' be going after those people?

If I tell you where you can find some stolen goods (which I did not steal) and you then take them, who broke the law?

[Edwin]

@Nathan

A rose by any other name...

Just because I got the terminology wrong, doesn't make it any less legally or morally reprehensible.

Mark: may I recommend you stop wearing seatbelts? I read where someone's life was once saved 'cause he wasn't wearing one.

geeez

[Dr. Mouse]

A tip...

for the italians. Only the trackers can realy be blocked in this manner, so for these use an anonymising proxy. For the rest, torrents use IP addresses, and they cannot block ALL the IP addresses of all the peers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting

Governments will ban access to TBP, but continue to do very little about sites hosting child porn or advocating terrorism. Presumable this tells us what governments think is really harming society these days.

[Sarah Bee]

today's the day

Call me crazy, but I have a good feeling that we could really settle the 'copyright infringement - theft or not?' issue today, once and for all. Come on team, I can smell victory!

[michael]

@edwin

"he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay users steal content from"

I suspect that the "owner" of the stuff TPB "steal" from is thouse nice pepol in L.A and the companys he ownes just rent it

[Anonymous Coward]

'copyright infringement - theft or not?'

Theft = stealing something from another.

Producing a copy of something is not theft.

Passing on a copy of something is only theft if money exchanges hands for the copy -- the copyright holder has been deprived of this money.

As far as I know it would be perfectly legal for me to make a copy of a Rolex watch if I had the skill. I could also give this to someone as a gift. If I tried to sell it, however, it would be an offence.

[Nathan L. Reynolds]

Ho-Hum

@Geoff Mackenzie: "You totally just stole my argument. I'm going to sue."

I think you'll find I preemptively infringed upon your argument.

[Edwin]

@Sarah

You know, I have the sneaky feeling you're just egging us on...

Whether or not it's theft...

The argument from the freetard side of the fence goes like this:

"I have not stolen any physical item, so it can't be theft"

By the same token, helldesk staff should only be paid if they actually do something. If nothing arrives at the helldesk during the day, then they shouldn't be paid: after all, they didn't do any work.

The argument from the pedant side of the fence isn't relevant since it's an unwinnable (and dull) argument anyway.

I guess the biggie is from the legal profession:

If I use a software product/piece of music/film (which I copied) without paying for it, is this something for the civil courts (copyright infringement) or criminal courts (theft).

My understanding is that the simple ethics issues are sorted on the criminal side of the fence, and since the ethics here are pretty simple (freetard opinions readily discounted), it's theft.

but that's just my opinion, and as you can tell I'm a paytard

[Waggers]

What a load of tripe

"As far as I know it would be perfectly legal for me to make a copy of a Rolex watch if I had the skill."

Nope, not if you use the Rolex brand name, logo and any other registered trade marks on it. And not if the design of the Rolex has been patented.

Similarly, it would be illegal if I made copies of my favourite CD and gave them away to my friends - or posted the same music on t'internet for anyone to download.

"Passing on a copy of something is only theft if money exchanges hands for the copy". Nope. By passing on an unauthorised copy of something the recipient should have paid the originator for, you are denying the originator funding that is rightfully theirs. In other words, you are taking something that belongs to them away from them without their permission. That's theft.

[Adrian Challinor]

Copyright does not equal theft

Actually (caveat IANAL) if you read the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988", and look at what the offences are, you have to:

<QUOTE>

(a) makes for sale or hire, or

(b) imports into the united kingdom otherwise that for his private and domestic use, or

(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or

(d) in the course of a business -

(i) sells or lets for hire, or

(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

(ill) exhibits in public, or

(iv) distributes, or

(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to

affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

</QUOTE>

So if I were to (perish the thought) download something from a site, foreign or domestic, for my personal use, without any intention of using it in my business, or even having it on a business computer, have I committed any crime at all? I think that the words "otherwise that (sic) for his private and domestic use"

My source for this? Well actually FACT's website. It seems to be illegal to BUY a pirate copy, but to download it for free? I would guess not.

I have no idea about Swedish or Italial law (and I wouldn't trust my interpretation of the English law either!)

[Sarah Bee]

almost there

By my calculation this will be resolved forever in another five posts. Then we can turn our attention to the matter of the Middle East, yeah?

[Edwin]

@Sarah

The middle east is easy:

it was always a slightly unstable spot

you brits mucked it up when you left

then the yanks mucked it up worse

now nobody wants to take any responsibility for cleaning up a mess that has essentially existed since time immemorial.

Or, in El Regspeak:

As soon as the Paletards and the Isratards are left to solve the problem themselves, it will happen a lot faster than while the Yanktards and Eurotards (under the influence of the RIAA^D^D^D^D lobbytards) try to interfere.

A question for the freetards:

If I invade your country and live on your land, is that infringement or theft?

[W]

@ AC, 11th August 2008 12:40 GMT

"As far as I know it would be perfectly legal for me to make a copy of a Rolex watch if I had the skill. I could also give this to someone as a gift. If I tried to sell it, however, it would be an offence."

I like it. It's the "commercial use" thing isn't it?

And the logical extension is that the record companies revert to vinyl only releases. At CD prices. Then folk would have to pay for the music cos it'd be too much hassle for folk to digitise the record as opposed to ripping a CD. "Natural DRM".

Only one problem though. The record companies know full well that the stuff they're punting isn't worth a chuff. Folk with a modicum of talent are able to make a living wage from their music without an army of marketing, financial and strategy gurus, backed by a cohesive and relentless multinational, multi-format-media push.

Music has lost it's "magic" for too many folk, compared to yesteryear. You can't re-create that. Peeps have videogames, DVDs, teh interwebs, etc. technology. And the punters use 'em. Music just ain't the viable commodity it once was.

[Mark]

@Edwin

Helldesk isn't copyrighted.

[Mark]

Re: What a load of tripe

Nope, a copy of a Rolex watch. Doesn't have to have the logo on it to be a copy (else there would be no problems for Lewis Jeans or Block and Decker drills...).

And yes, they can make a copy of a rolex watch. Copying the logo is a trademark NOT COPYRIGHT dispute.

[Oliver]

This will rumble on and on

This argument has been raging since the printing press was invented (~ 1439) and the first copyright laws emerged. I don't think it will be resolved in the next few posts!

However my take on things is...

* Copyright infringement is not theft.

* Theft is a criminal offence, copyright infringement is a tort, or civil, offence.

* 'Downloading' copyrighted content is not illegal, 'uploading' is, e.g. no one was ever sued for downloading binaries right? :-)

[Alex]

Shocking...

...that my original, humourous post has been discarded....

Shocked and stunned..!

Oh, yeah, I too thought it said Labia, but that was said in my previous post..

Bloody admins...

[P. Lee]

Lets hear it for democracy!

Isn't the whole point of democracy and national self-determination that people feel that their voice is heard? No taxation without representation and all that?

Note Hollywood: Sweden doesn't belong to you. They have the perfect right balance commercial and individual legal interests as they see fit. Perhaps they have a secret social engineering plan to reduce the passive entertainment industry in an effort to increase the take-up of physical exercise and reduce the effect of the culture of violence so prevalent in Hollywood films.

As far as I'm concerned, the real argument isn't about infringement vs theft, its about whether government acts mainly in the interests of individuals or in the interests of corporations and how it balances this issue. Its interesting to note that "limited liability" corporations used to be illegal in England because the divorce of financial incentive from liability for action was considered to be dangerous and immoral.

Personally I find trend towards ever larger legal and political systems disturbing because it seems we have to rely on the Irish and the Swedes to stop movements which seem designed to reduce the importance of my vote by drowning it in a sea of votes of people who have no common interests with myself. When the voting system stops working, money takes over government and with money comes corruption.

Arrr, I be hoping Jack Sparrow (or is that Eric the Red?) be leading the revolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

@W

"I like it. It's the "commercial use" thing isn't it?"

Yes, as opposed to nonprofit educational use... isn't watching any film, listenening to any music or reading any book 'educational'?

One of the main things judges take into consideration is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Just as there are age restrictions on certain material available on the internet (eg. the BBC iplayer asks for confirmation that you're over 16 for certain programs), torrent sites should ask the question "Would you purchase the film/movie/software/whatever in this torrent if you couldn't download it for free?" and only allow them access if they answer "No, absolutely not".

[Steen Hive]

@Waggers

"Nope, not if you use the Rolex brand name, logo and any other registered trade marks on it. And not if the design of the Rolex has been patented.

Similarly, it would be illegal if I made copies of my favourite CD and gave them away to my friends - or posted the same music on t'internet for anyone to download."

FAIL for not being able to tell the difference between copyright, trademark and patent legislations.

I tend to gravitate to the idea that copyright infringement _is_ theft - theft of _copyright_, but that copyright - not being a natural property right - is quite correctly not afforded the same protections as those property rights protected by larceny laws. Others disagree, but I don't give a monkey's.

[Andrew Tyler]

debate

Piracy is theft because I said so.

[Peter Lawrence]

@Edwin

Taking something you are not entitled to is morally wrong. Period. However, Copyright Infringement is not a criminal offence in most countries, but a civil one. You are in essence depriving the copyright holder of payments due for the use of a product or service. It's the same as if you get a tradesman in to work on your house and refuse to pay him. In most places, you won't end up in prison, but you can have civil penalties levied against you for failure to pay.

The only reason that copyright infringement is being considered a criminal matter is because the piracy==theft lobbies have been so effective. But in essence, you aren't permanently depriving the copyright holder of his income from said piece of work (as would be the case in theft - if I steal a car, you are no longer able to sell said car). If someone downloads a copy of an mp3, the copyright holder is able to sell further copies of that exact same song without suffering a real loss, rather he has lost a potential sale. Because you can't prove that someone who downloads music would purchase said music in the first place, there's no way to prove a loss in real terms.

Hence, copyright infringement should be a civil matter, not criminal.

[b166er]

BTW

TPB isn't Swedish anymore

Agreed Sarah, the Middle East problem is a far more pressing matter.

However, it seems the governments who have the power to stop this petty thing called war are more interested in wringing as much money out of their citizens using sectarianist propaganda to encourage fear (and partly by unduly protecting extortion rackets) in order to finance more of this warring tomfoolery to buoy up a sheikhy economy.

I guess it comes down to a choice. Do you want that new plasma or some new arabic friends? If you opt for the former, no action is necessary on your behalf, sit back and enjoy the next election as the status quo will surely be preserved. If you opt for the latter then you're screwed anyway, as the majority have already decided they want the new plasma.

Mines the one with 'the end is nigh' on the back

[Daniel]

@half the people on this thread

It really doesn't matter what ANYONE here says, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT. Theft is legally defined. Copyright infringement is legally defined. They are not one and the same. As a moral judgment, copyright infringement is usually bad, yes. However, if you think it is theft, you are either ignorant or obstinate.

Repeat after me: Legal terms are not defined by consensus, they are defined by law. No one here can redefine copyright infringement as theft. If you still think otherwise, you are a drooling moron.

-Daniel, who is sick to death of idiots.

P.S. - I also can't stand this "freetard" and "paytard" crap. Grow up.

[greg]

Morally wrong, morally right ?

I find the morality argument becoming harder and harder to defend as each day pass...

Most people aren't as dumb as they appear (well, ok, sorry, on many points they are even dumber thab they appear, but that's not what I need for my argument, so let's forget it a minute...) :

Every day you read another scandal in the papers about government officials, about politicians, about CEOs, about ecclesiasts, about anyone supposed to belong to what we're supposed to call the elites...

So, most people working more and more to earn less and less, will be hard to be convinced about any morality argument. If the leaders seem to always show the attitude of "Me, myself and I first, what's may be left for others", how do you convince people ?

So, yeah, I do download things I morally shouldn't be getting. Well, according to most bad leaders's standard of what should be morally right or wrong for me, but of course doesn't apply to themselves.

I think for myself, it's called critical thinking, and I find quite some arguments I find morally right, by my own standards :

When I ruin my health to build a house as a bricklayer, I get paid the hours I work on building it, and I get no royalties on the loan the homeowner earn each month for years after.

When I download things mostly from dead artists, I don't see why I should pay lots of money in rights for some cocain sniffing lawyers and other posers in hollywood.

When those right owners don't even want to publish the work I'm looking for, it's even getting harder to resist the-way-of-the-torrent...

When they publish it in DRMs that don't let me put my legally bought CD in my car's CD player, I wonder about the morality argument...

Well, this morality argument is a biased argument : stealing a bit from the thieves who still have more than I get while doing less to merit it is a good philosophical problem, ain't it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

@ greg

A few weeks ago I was walking behind a couple of blokes in a prosperous part of London at lunchtime. They looked like builders - yellow plastic waist coat things, big boots, dirty jeans. One said to the other "Look at all these cocaine sniffing cunts in suits". The other laughed, "watch this", he said and spat on the back of the guy in front of them (who didn't notice). I didn't know what I could do. I didn't do anything. It was disgusting.

Imagining others have it easier than you and imagining that gives you the right to shit on them isn't a good way to live.

[LeadMagnet]

Are you people blind!?

You all are missing the point completely. What Silvio Berlusconi has done is start censoring the web! Plain and simple. He knows China does it, with marginal success and wants to jump in. The purpose being to control what Italians read and hear from the oputside world. He already controls ALL newspapers and half the TV stations. If it looks like it, smells like it nad tastes like it! Ya call it what it is! FACISIM!! Oh...you you nice folks in the US and UK, don't feel left out. Your next.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Edwin

Pirate Bay don't steal content from Italian corporations.

Pirate Bay merely supply content that Italian Corporations also supply along with many other corporations around the world providing the same mass fed content - albiet without a licence to do so.

It is not theft, it is merely taking part in mass distribution of approved content without permission, and thereby denying these rich corporations some potential - potential, not actual profit.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Waggers

Nobody took the design or watch from Rolex in this scenario - the only thing Rolex have lost in any physical or figurative way is the potential to make money from their design in this particular instance.

They are being robbed only of potential profit -therefore they have not lost anything.

People being taken to court and being told they are thieves, that they have stolen potential profit, is absurd.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Edwin and his invasion

"If I invade your country and live on your land, is that infringement or theft?"

Illegal occupation I would say, infringement if you want to stretch that definition.

If you take any of our resources (by any definition) and therefore deprive us of them (i.e. you have taken them away and we do not have them), it is theft.

If you park your tent on our land, we cannot really say that you have stolen our potential to make profit from our annual turnip crop however.

[Dennis]

Can I have my money back

I download (Freetard) and I buy DVD's (Paytard)

Does this make me a schizophrenic? and who can I sue

If I buy a DVD and never watch it can I have my money back if I don't watch it?

If I damage the disc (which kids frequently do) can I bring it back to the shop for a free replacement as its the license which costs the money?

If I buy a DVD and contrary to what it says on the cover it is rubbish can I sue for mis-representation?

If I buy a DVD for my young daughter (U Cert) and the disc is full of PG Cert Adverts. Can I sue?

If I buy a DVD for my daughter. (I buy a lot seeing as she has taken over the television) does she have to watch an advert about theft and stealing cars and mobile phones?

If I pay money for a DVD why does she have to watch adverts for their latest offering, which cannot be skipped? If I wanted to watch ads we could watch Bob The Builder on television with more sensibly placed ads.

No well I guess I will preview all my discs before I go and spend my hard earned cash on them.

And somebody further up the board ripped off a line from Red Dwarf. I have those disc's as well. except for Season 8 which was rubbish!! I had to pay for thse twice. Once on Video and once on DVD. Can I get a credit for the videos?

Oh and Paris because she reminds me of my next door neighbour

[Alex]

Why is "facist" in quotes?

I wasn't aware that anyone disputed that Berlusconi is a facist.

@Sarah Bee, if anyone is still moronic and/or subservient enough to believe there remains a debate on whether copyright is theft, maybe this bedtime story will help start them thinking for themselves: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html .

[Luke Wells]

@Dennis

That is a long list of sensible questions there, Unfortunately, as you know, you are never going to get any answers on the above from the movie industry.

I see you are hammering on the point that the movie/music industry keep making that you are not physically buying music/films, you are paying for a license to watch them, so why is it that if you loose/damage a dvd you loose your license too and have to pay full retail price again to replace it, not just the actual cost of the DVD seen as you have already purchased the user license with the original purchase of the DVD

... oh and those bloomin' un-skippable adverts on DVD's.... All my original DVDs are on a shelf collecting dust. I copy them with DVD Fab Platinum as soon as I get them and check the option that says "Remove Annoying PGC's" and no longer do I have to watch the trailers and short films that tell me that now that I have just made a copy of this DVD I must be a crack dealing terrorist.

[Thurstan R McDougle]

@daniel

About "Legal terms are not defined by consensus, they are defined by law". Normally I would be with you on this, but I just had an idle thought:- is that necessarily true in common law jurisdictions?

[Mark]

@Thurstan R McDougle

The legal terms are. Even in a common law jurisdiction.

How the law is applied is different in a common law jurisdiction. Not the terms you use.

[Mark]

@Anonymous Coward

Touching story.

But why not point that allegory towards the execs in charge of media production?

"Video Recording is the Boston Strangler of movie production" ring a bell?

How about the (BMG?) CEO whose daughter was sharing several songs on kazza. Was she dealt with *especially* harshly to show there's no favouritism? Or was she given a stern lecture and had to say sorry whilst a 16 year old gets away with a $7400 fine as a *reduction* of possible damages? Oh, that would be the one where the CEO pisses on the poor people because if they weren't poor, they't be worth listening to.

[greg]

@AC who replied to morality argument

I agree with you, totally !

But read me again and think again for yourself...

Those bad right owners are shitting on me first : they don't publish some work (on account too few people are interested), they get money from dead artists, they put DRM to stop my legitim fair use rights... For them it's a business only, they don't give a crap about the artists or music.

I respect the work of the musicians and artist I download more than them, spreading around me some musical culture, from dead artists. I don't do it for free because it's easy to save money, I do it because it's almost the only way to get that music now. Torrent, or true piracy in the street from malaysia/china or who knows where from those CDs are done...

[Puffer Fish]

Just a couple of details

First, the block was implemented on request by a prosecutor, same one who had colombo-bt tracker seized a few days ago.

Second, he also indicted four TPB individuals: will they end up like Mr. McKinnon ?

[Thomas Baker]

What I don't understand is...

...remember when Metallica sued Napster for 'theft'. They couldn't accept that their new album sucked the sweat off a dead man's balls and no-one wanted to pay good money for it, but because of previous heritage people were interested enough to have a listen. My point is, you can't equate number of downloaded copies to number of copies that would've been sold, had downloading not been an option. I've lost count of the number of films I've watched that I would never ever have rented, I was just bored and wanted something to do, half the time I only get through ten minutes and think, "this is crap" and turn it off.

If the music and film industry stopped churning out such garbage ad nauseum and looked for talented music/film makers, then maybe people'd want to pay for their products.

For example, if you showed someone a picture of an empty street and said, "Feel like stealing that bike?" - they'd reply - "What bike?" - as there was no bike in the picture. How much of downloading goes on just cause it's there? Just cause it's free? How much of it is discarded as the rubbish it is after barely a listen/view? If they shut the internet tomorrow I wouldn't buy any more CD's or DVD's. I'd go without, as so much of it is shit. Also though, I'd never hear or see anyone's work at all as I don't have a TV and hate the radio and MSM newspapers - thus I'd never be tempted to buy ANYTHING AT ALL. How would they like that?

Having been a musician for many years I reckon you should make your money on gigs and merchandise at shows, online, etc and distribute your music for free electronically; when you're starting out as a struggling muso you'd happily get a play on the radio or give someone a CD for free if only to have them listen and hopefully garner new fans. When/if you become more well known you can make good money from touring - you don't need to be a millionaire, and make some record exec a multi-millionaire. And you'd still sell an amount of paid for downloads or CD's or whatever.

Same question, Mr Cotton's parrot.

[M Neligan]

Earliest copywrite infringement?

http://netmedia.co.uk/history/week-11/

[b166er]

@AC replying to Greg

Reminds me of science lessons at school. We all used to flick our fountain pens at the back of teachers in their white labcoats as they passed. It was hilarious then and I reckon there's still mileage in it now.

Labourers will always think suits are c**ts and suits will always think builders are intimidating. I've been both.

[Anonymous Coward]

Metallica

Favourite bash.org quote:

Poster 1- Metallica sold out in like 5 minutes.

Poster 2- Yeh, I know.

Poster 2- Oh you mean a concert?

[Thurstan R McDougle]

@mark

"How the law is applied is different in a common law jurisdiction. Not the terms you use."

Whilst it is generally true (if it is a term already in use or from a written law then it would), but what about new terms?

As a possible example of one that could currently be evolving: The use of "Piracy" in the copyright infringement situation is not a formal legal term as far as I can tell. Yet I think I have seen court cases where it has been used as if it were one. (I also have a vague recollection that it may also have crept into an (American?) law, and not as an acronym title.)

[Mark]

@Thurstan R McDougle

Good question. For the authoritative answer, try a solicitor.

You will notice that although the content industry call it "theft", they don't use the word theft (at least not since the one time they tried it and the judge dinged them for lying to the court). Also, they don't PERSUE it as thefr (in a criminal court) but as infringement in a civil one.

[Naiirita]

@workstation

its " ...a tale of souls and swords, eternally told"

[rick buck]

Misrepresentation?

If the artist makes a high quality product, that is then

compressed, and encoded in a lossy encoding format,

"Who Ripped Who Off?"

Perhaps they (the recording companies) should consider MP3s as a demo of the real product, and hope we (the buying/paying public) will spring for "the real thing."

[Algis Petraitis]

Freedom of information is a priority, businesses with special interests must adapt to that

I think this Swedish parlament member is right:

http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/

Media interests are special interests and they must adopt to free exchange on the Internet, and not vice versa. Newspapers can request to close the internet because people are now reading the news without buying newspapers! One old Swedish man said: "in my times, choosing a carrier of musician meant choosing very hard life with lot of hard work. And anyone was allowed to sing the songs without paying to artist. Nowadays singers-millionaires need more money because they need another new Lamborgini car and also to shift their villas 20 meters closer to the ocean shore." Still, even they got the minority of money collected as "copyright payments".

Prices must be reasonable. If I go to Amazon.com and want to buy a song, I am refused, because I am not from USA. Then I download for free and listen because this is the only choice. Who is guilty? Or, shall I not listen to the song, because I happen to be born in a secondary country that have no right to art and culture? I will NEVER accept the rule that USA is in region No1 and my country is is Region No.5, and this is decided in the USA. If this is tolerated then it means some people are better than others, only because they were born in the "correct" country. Trying to divide the world into "zones" can only escalate anger.

Sorry, but media companies created their problem, and they, and not legal systems, must solve their narrow business problem by adapting to freedom of information exchange, not trying to change the Internet. Legal systems worldwide must stop responding to these special business interests and take care about killings, robberies and real criminals.

Please read the parlament member article by opening the address above (copy paste into browser). One of the best respected political articles I ever read on the Internet.