Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/14/09
OPERATION: APPLE PIE
OPERATION: FOXFIRE
OPERATION: MOOGLE
something like that
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
i think Mr. Bojangles103 didn't get it.
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
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
Here's the real issue. Over free, public wifi networks, it's virtually impossible to find out who is committing the piracy. The MPAA is scared sh*tless that the trend towards public municipal networks like those proposed for big cities (New York, L.A., Las Vegas etc), some of which are currently under construction, will provide a safe haven for pirates, shielding them from any legal actions.
So we look at the MPAA's playbook. Find the most vunrable target and bring charges. Get a compromise ruling from a low level judge and build on the precident set by that case. This buys some time while they push for legislation requiring users of a public network to register to access the service, making them easier to ID.
Small town with only a few users... They have an ideal target there. The town officials decided to fall on this grenade for the rest of us. They'll comply with requests and back down from the fight, keeping it out of the courts for as long as they can. Rather than fight back through the courts, (where they may very well lose), they'll stall long enough to wage a PR war. Once the public is sufficiently outraged and the local jury pool influenced, their poised to win any legal battle. The MPAA will back down, declaring it a victory for themselves, but in reality, they won't get what they want. #wifi
11/15/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
The MPAA doesn't have any actual authority to shut it down themselves. This does, however, highlight the problem of targeting ISPs for individual abuse. It's what the MPAA relies on for identification of pirates, but it's ineffective at best. #wifi
11/13/09
yes, it currently is.
you are legally allowed to purchase broadband services.
it boggles my mind how people equate things as "rights". just because something exists and you want it, doesn't mean you are entitled to it.
you do not have a right to services provided by someone else, merely by existing. #wifi
11/13/09
For example, 3G is legal, if my area provides it I can use it. However, if it were a legal right, then my area would have to provide it. Remember, in parts of the U.S. there is no true broadband access (768kbps).
The Fins are being guaranteed 1mbps broadband and by 2015 they will be guaranteed 100mbps. That means every citizen in the entire country will, by right, have access to a 100mbps broadband connection. I think that's pretty sweet. #wifi
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
"Rights" and "Freedoms" are mutually exclusive ideals. If we all have the right to not be murdered, we all lose the freedom to murder someone else. That's a fair compromise in that case, but it illustrates my point.
If the government says "You have a right to free broadband access", you lose the freedom to:
1) ...opt out of paying for the government service, funded by taxes.
2) ...compete with the free service in the market. After all, who's going to pay for your service and cover your employee and infrastructure overhead when they HAVE to pay for the governments service anyway?
3) ...get similar quality service from another provider. The competition has likely either moved out of your area, shut down, or has to offer a higher tier of service at a higher price to distinguish themselves from the subsidized service.
Every right you are bestowed by government comes at a loss of freedom. Sometimes it's a fair trade, most of the time it's not. We have to choose our rights carefully, and ensure that the ones we choose are essential to the survival of our society. Declaring every convenience a Right, at the cost of our freedom, no matter how well intended the people are, will destroy everything that makes a society great. #wifi
11/13/09
The right to free speech means that the government cannot prohibit you from speaking. It doesn't mean they must provide you with a platform to disseminate your message.
It's sad to see people trading real rights for material privileges. When you force people to provide goods to others, and bestow that power of force on a group of people, true rights suffer. #wifi
11/13/09
Basically, Capitalism isn't always the best way to do things if you prefer complacency and mediocrity over the free market which rewards those who work harder than others.
Fixed that for you. Because if you let the government take 30% of your money just for INCOME TAX, you are *fucking insane*, 100mbps connection or not. #wifi
11/13/09
As for people who work harder getting ahead. I'd say that people who do manual labor work harder than I do, and pay a bigger price physically for that work, yet I make more money than I do.
Capitalism supposedly rewards people who work smarter by manipulating and using others to their advantage.
I'm not anti capitalism. Just believe that capitalism ignores that care and well being of its citizens much of the time. #wifi
11/13/09
11/13/09
Technically the only thing giving you a right to privacy (as it is not spelled out in the constitution) that I am aware of is Roe v Wade. Which, if overturned has far greater implications than just abortion being legal/illegal.
And, I'm not saying their government is "better" just that socialism and capitalism can co-exist in an ethical manner. Were capitalism "ethical" now we wouldn't be in the financial morass we find ourselves in now. #wifi
11/13/09
While industry cabals and multinational corporations hire think analysts and consultants to find new and exciting ways to figuratively, if not literally rape every man, woman and child. And, as corrupt and inefficient as it can be, "big government" is the only thing that comes close to stopping them. And in this case, it seems to have failed.
What I don't understand is why the city would listen to the MPAA at all. What terrible precedent does this set? Who gave the MPAA this sort of power over government?
Furthermore. How does the MPAA actually know about the download? There is zero information concerning how the MPAA became aware of the download. #wifi
11/13/09
11/13/09
"The MPAA focuses most of its efforts on catching the source of the [pirated] movies." -- Heh, sure.
""We target piracy at its source," she [the VP of corporate communications for the MPAA] said. "We really focus on keeping the product out of the market in the first place."" -- I'll say.
"LaVigne has done some homework and found a program that would prevent the illegal downloads from happening in the future; however, it would cost the cash-strapped county about $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program." -- I'm sure that's a sacrifice the MPAA is more than willing for you to make.
Good read if you wanna see what everyone else outside our little tech circle is hearing. #wifi
11/13/09
11/13/09
The idea that the MPAA would have the authority to do anything but whine and moan bothers me. That they could sue an ISP for allowing one of the dozens or hundreds of users to get away with piracy. This is why safe harbor provisions exist. So that the misguided requirements of copyright owners don't bankrupt ISPs or (in this case) small town governments.
If you follow to the article BoingBoing linked to, they say they could set up a system that would cost $2900 initially, and $900 annually to monitor the traffic that goes through the network. Arguments about "Big Brother" aside, it's ridiculous that they should have to do that for one person that won't get stopped anyways.
This escalation is needless and wastes resources. #wifi
11/13/09
@MPAA, how can it not be a necessity? Our entire civilization, world and everything else is based or on the internet. #wifi
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
Also, since when do you have a right to power, water and gas? #wifi
11/13/09
You can barely live a life without internet affecting or being part of your life.
Sooner or later you will be required to do many things online. And jobs are already using online applications ONLY.
Finland is just smart about it and moving ahead. Why not do what we did with landlines but with fiber-optics? #wifi
11/13/09
I'm not saying that the Internet isn't important, which seems to be the bulk of your argument. #wifi
11/13/09