Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/18/09
11/17/09
It's a little messier than using a torrent though, and admittedly more trouble than Usenet or a private tracker, so I only use it to download HD video or things that could hurt my seed ratio (a major deal with private trackers). Plus it's free. #thepiratebay
11/17/09
11/17/09
The condescension is noted though. How old do you think I am?
11/17/09
Does anyone have a demonoid invite that they don't need? please?! #thepiratebay
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
If you want to open a dialogue over how damaging you think piracy is to the industry (which is debatable, but we'll hear it nonetheless), go ahead. If you want to talk about alternative methods of distribution, and the increasing irrelevance of pirated content, please continue.
However, if you want to lump every single person who's ever used Limewire into the "dirty rotten thieves" category, you are welcome to shut it and shut it alone.
The copyright debate is confusing enough. And it's taken damn near forever to convince even a remotely significant portion of the non-pirate community that some of the fault may actually rest with distributors. That some blame may be on folks who lock down their content and treat all of their customers as potential criminals.
We'll give fair credit to those where it's due, like this Fricklas guy (see the current front page), or some of the folks behind Hulu, Netflix, and other legal alternatives. In return, stop, please with this incessant "content pirates = thieves". It's not so simple. And with that complicated debate that to this day folks don't quite understand, you're not helping. #thepiratebay
11/17/09
I do buy PC games and I've spent plenty on iPhone apps but I just don't make enough money to suppory my love of music at the moment. I'm only 16 and I'm not working at the moment. When I become older and hold a job, I'd love to buy music from my favorite artists. They deserve it. #thepiratebay
11/17/09
I don't think piracy is damaging to the music industry in any meaningful way. I think if it became more widespread and gamers found ways to take pirated versions online for multiplayer it would be for the gaming industry. But whether or not something is damaging isn't the point.
Taking stuff you don't have a right to take is wrong. Where in the Bill of Rights were we provided to the right to have information and media from private sources that we feel should be free? Nowhere.
If you are taking something that legally you do not have a right to take, you're wrong, end of discussion. If you want to be able to take it, lobby to make it legal to take. Don't take it and expect those of us who try avoiding it to listen to those who are taking it illegally.
I agree that there's nothing more grating to those of us willing to listen to both sides of this debate than the "Vive la Revolucion" and "Free the Music" preening that comes from one side, and the corporate doublespeak complaining about profits when their industry is collapsing irrespective of piracy that comes from the other. That's still no excuse to break the law. #thepiratebay
11/17/09
However, I think for starters, how "damaging" piracy is to an industry is essential to the "piracy is stealing" argument. See, if I make a copy of a movie, I take nothing from the person I copied it from. They still have that movie. The reason that copying movies and music gets equated to stealing is because of a roundabout effect that, I'll admit, exists to a small degree (which is then overinflated for theatricality). Namely, that if you download something, that's a lost sale. The entire argument against copyright infringement hinges on this. If there's no actual measurable loss to copyright owners, then any and all litigation against piracy is pointless, subject only to varying levels of what folks feel is or isn't right.
Truth be told, some folks do pirate because they don't want to spend money. And, if they had no avenue of piracy, they would pay for some movies. These folks are called jackasses. I know a couple. Piracy aside they're decent fellows. But for whatever reason, be it arrogance, ignorance, or just plain douchiness, they believe that if you can download it, you should.
I hate doing it, but I'm going to use myself as an example. I rarely ever pirate. I much prefer going to Hulu and Netflix for my video. I'd love to support free alternatives rather than resorting to piracy. Through Hulu, I found the show Community. Were it not for this free method, I wouldn't know about it. Nor would I have shared it with close to a dozen other friends. Recently, some of those folks wanted to get in on the action, but earlier episodes were unavailable. So I downloaded the first five episodes. One download.
And while you'll have to take my word for it, I know that I will be buying Community season one whenever it comes out on DVD. In the meantime, a room full of people got to see the content that they would otherwise not have seen. The debate about whether that effect is good or bad is a complicated one. And not one likely to be resolved anytime soon.
The point stands, though, that one download doesn't equal a lost sale. In fact, it further solidified at least one future sale that will be made. And maybe more.
The problem is, never before has there been an easy method of 1-to-1 copying. Before the internet, making copies of a work would be incredibly difficult and resource-consuming. Thus it would likely only be done by professional pirates, folks out to make money off of other people's work. Though no direct loss would be made to the artists, there's very real loss in sales. Copyright law was specifically designed to deal with this problem. With digital piracy, that's not always the case, and thus people who might have otherwise been safely outside the jurisdiction of older copyright law are now squarely inside the crosshairs.
The short version (too late, I know): I take issue with folks who claim that pirates are simply thieves, and more importantly that a download equals theft. It's a disingenuous claim.
I'll give you this, though. It is illegal. The law is part of the problem. The DMCA was signed in 1998. It's a much different internet today, and frankly I feel it's ill-suited for today's network. Yes, it's illegal. But I don't think that illegal always equals wrong.
Again, apologies for any overreaction. #thepiratebay
11/17/09
That said I do feel that if someone, even a big corporation, creates content they have a right to squeeze every last drop of value out of it, at least for the first stretch of time it's available. They spent their money, time, and energy creating that content, and should have first dibs for a bit to make as much profit as they can, and continue to be incentivized to create more content.
There are definately situations such as you described where allowing it to go free to some users will result in increased sales, but there really is no viable way for a digital provider to reasonably determine which free content users will result in actual sales and which will just result in lost dollars.
This problem is compounded by the fact that it is very difficult to to provide industry with a reasonably objective and concrete study proving one way or another. The data has a vast number of variables and many different influences, making id difficult to parse out very effectively.
I think that, in the long run enough companies will move to a more open ended software/content provision idea, that we'll be able to know once and for all if wielding the suit/copyright hammer is more profitable for content providers and creators. The few companies that have are all small start ups and are probably not very good barometers for how such a platform would affect entire industries. #thepiratebay
11/17/09
So we do. Man, usually these internet arguments take longer than this. I was quite sure I'd heart-clicked you before, but apparently not. Ah, well. You earned this one. Good sparring with you, sir. #thepiratebay
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Or perhaps he does have the bandwidth and for some reason hasn't implemented/upgraded it yet.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Gee, seems like this is out there....
Oh wait, its called a Tivo! (or DVR for all you brand name haters)
Sure, you actually have to get the channel you are talking about, but if you aren't paying HBO (by proxy) to make the next season of Entourage, why should you be able to watch it?
08/21/09
Also, with what I proposed up above, I figured it was clear that a portion of the subscription fees and ad revenues that I mentioned would go to the content providers, such as HBO. I guess I should have been more specific.
08/21/09
Full of Win
08/21/09
Yeah, best stay away from those confusing numbers and technical terms.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
We pillage plunder, we rifle and loot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
/I loves teh interwebs
08/17/09
that's a lotta URL's
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09