Skip navigation

The Pirate Bay on the politics of copyright

Globe and Mail Update

The Globe's Matt Hartley talks with a co-founder of the file-sharing website ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Frank Kuschnereit from Ottawa, Canada writes: I find it somewhat ironic that on the same day that the Pirate Bay staff are found guilty of assisting users download movies and TV shows for free, that the Globe is also reporting that Google will be streaming Hollywood movies and TV shows for free. Not to mention that Google also has links to every movie torrent that TPB has. Try googling filetype=torrent Wolverine.
  2. Jon K from Canada writes: This is actually a really good interview. There was a lot of information and it was interesting to hear that TBP's side of the argument isn't just 'screw big companies' but that there is actual though and logic with what they're doing. I'm sure people will disagree (and others will agree) but they have a stance and have a reasonable defense of that stance.
  3. Sebastian Cobe from Calgary, Canada writes: By the logic in the court ruing against them I don't see why google can't also be take to court. They to are a search engine that facilitates the finding of pirated files. I'd like to see that one, google has alot of mony for lawers.
  4. Jon K from Canada writes: I would be that google could make enough of a distinction to avoid the precedent... tbp is set-up to ONLY search torrent files... google is set-up to search ANYTHING.

    I agree with your point though, google also facilitates copyright infringement.
  5. C C from Canada writes: Sans copyright infringement, media darling of the week Susan Boyle would not be on the verge of a recording contract just days after her performance on Britain's Got Talent. Seems the show's copyright holders have no issue with dozens of copyvio videos on Youtube, so long as it pads their own wallets.
  6. Jon K from Canada writes: To be fair, 3 out 5 videos I tried to watch of Susan Boyle were 'removed due to a copyright complaint' (or whatever youtube vids say). While I'm sure that shows are more than willing to have their clips available online, I would bet whichever network airs that show would rather you have to visit THEIR web-page with THEIR advertisers to see the clip.
  7. Justin Stamross from Canada writes: TPB is one of the greatest sites on the net. Even if one day they are forced to shut down, 3 new similar sites will pop up within days. Same idea as Napster, Kazaa, etc.

    I haven't paid for a CD in over 10 years. I've saved thousands of dollars using sites like this!! I'm also now starting to download TV shows I want to watch, and stream them to my TV from my computer so I'm not forced to sit through 22 minutes of programming and 8 minutes of ads every half hour. Think about it, while you hosiers are watching on average 8 hours of ads/month (16 mins a night (which is a very modest 1 hour of television a night) x 30 days), I watch zero! That is 96 hours a year of your lives you will never get back. Get with the times.

    This is the future people. Don't oppose it, embrace it!
  8. epoxy patch from Canada writes: if the intellectual property that big companies are trying to protect is only about money - then it stinks and I hope TPB lives on the net forever. But that's my opinion.
    Everyone has special abilities, it seems only the select get to live privileged lives because their particular ability can feed more consumers.
  9. Christopher Kiely from Canada writes: 'And the whole idea of 'culture can't be free' is not the issue. We're not saying that everything should be free, it should be free and so on, we don't say that it doesn't have to be for free, it just has to be free in terms of freedom.'

    Uhm???? Ya... and a proof is a proof I guess?
  10. The Remnant from Canada writes: :

    Ready for the conspiracy/coincidence argument?

    I don't think the powers that be are necessarily worried about copyright, as they are are about decentralized payment settlement systems evolving out of the P2P architecture, currently receiving the lion's share of attention via filesharing sites like Pirate's Bay.

    Take a look at It is the infant of what might evolve from P2P filesharing: P2P currency settlements. Why? Well, two or more parties can look for an item, find each other, and close the transaction outside of the taxation system, thus avoiding direct theft, and inflationary money (perhaps they would settle in gold or silver bars or coins when the exchange is finalized and not use Federal Reserve Points or Bank of Canada Points, thus escaping the State/banking cartel siphoning off the purchasing power of their dollars via inflation). Certainly parties are free to trade in whatever fiat or commodity currency they wish.

    How is this different from eBay or Craiglist? Well, for one thing, their servers are centralized, making them a target for violent crackdown by the State. Take a look at what the State did to The owners were arrested, the servers seized, records scrutinized, and participants terrorised as they were trading in sound money outside of the taxation/inflation system. Of course the State used the same old tired propaganda that they were going after the criminals/terrorists/kiddie pornsters argument.

    The next killer app is a P2P encrypted rating and payment settlement system.

    Or not.
  11. The Remnant from Canada writes: :

    BTW, for people who are not pro-State trolls, there is an excellent book released that puts up very cogent arguments as to why intellectual property creates a monopoly. Appropriately, it is called 'Against Intellectual Monopoly' and you can get it here (hardcover):

    and the free (PDF) version of the book is here:

  12. Talk Sudbury from Sudbury? Yeah think?, Canada writes: You can LEGALLY record songs on the radio for free.
    You can LEGALLY record and watch television shows
    You can LEGALLY watch virtually every popular television show in the CANADA and US for FREE.
    Movies are popular for about 60 days then they spend the next 10 months collecting dust on the selves at WalMart until they end up in the 2/$10 or less bin.

    The recording companies and networks' arguments for copyright do not ring true. Their fight is NOT about protecting the quality and integrity of the original works nor is it to ensure the ORIGINAL CREATOR is properly compensated because neither is the case.

    It IS about control of virtually every single bit of information and entertainment. Their current argument could easily be made for news and information shows, educational shows and documentaries.

    So some day down the road a big news company, oh I don't know say Fox or CTVglobemedia decide that their news and information is SOOOO valuable that they are going to pursue every single users who 'shares' snippets or links to their content. Using this ruling as a precedent they could win their argument. It would also put them out of business.

    This is probably the first time in human history that the large corporations and monopolies do not have ultimate control of what is is available and when or where and to whom it's available. Without the monopoly of distribution their business model falls to pieces .

    So instead of changing their business models and competing with the marketplace they continually seek legislative means to take back control of the marketplace with things like the DMCA and the ACTA.

    The bigger fight IS NOT about movies, music and television shows. It's SIMPLY about control of THE MARKETS. ANY MARKETS. HOWEVER THOSE MARKETS MAY EVOLVE without having to COMPETE.
  13. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Well said, Talk Sudbury. Well said.
  14. Jon K from Canada writes: I'm not opposed to downloading/stealing content and generally don't care.. but Justin Stamross, and people that think similarly just bother me.

    With boastful comments like 'I haven't paid for a cd in 10 years', 'Think about it, while you hosiers are watching on average 8 hours of ads/month' and 'Get with the times' I can't help but get angry.

    As convenient as it is that you're 'pulling a fast one' over the IP owners, if it weren't for 'hosiers' that pay for their music, purchase movies and suscribe to cable (save the argument about the ridiculous price) then there wouldn't be content for you to STEAL.

    It's one thing to steal your music, it's another to call other people dumb/inferior/behind in the times for paying for their content.
  15. R K from Canada writes: But you are
  16. Justin Stamross from Canada writes: I'm sorry.

    In my books, someone who pays $20 for a cd they can download for FREE is stupid. I hope you feel good paying the musician and music producer who will then proceed to use your hard-earned cash you give them to update to the 2009 Bentley, or buy a new house that is 15,000 square feet instead of their cramped 12,000 square feet. Get real buddy.
  17. Justin Stamross from Canada writes: You are a hosier if you feel the need to buy DVD's and give movie-stars and Hollywood directors more money. But you know what they say, a fool and his money.......
  18. Haywood Jabloughme from Lotusland, Canada writes: Jon K - What a brilliant comment. You took the words right off of my keyboard so to speak. Guys like Justin Stamross, and frankly the founders of Pirate Bay, Napster, et al burn me up. In fact, I am the polar opposite of Justin. I have NEVER downloaded a music file, etc. for 'free' because I am a captialist. If someone has created content and I want to 'consume' that content then I believe the owner or the creator (sometimes the same person, sometimes not) deserves to be PAID for their work. Jackholes like Justin are the reason the 'cheap' seats for most concerts go for $75.00 or more. Concerts are now one of the ways musicians can reap proper rewards for their work now that CD sales have been whittled away by thiefs on the 'net. And don't give me the crap that they are overpaid anyway...if I created something that resonates with millions of people then you are darned right that I should be richly compensated for that material. (I say this even though it pains me to admit that this applies as much to crap like Britney Spears and Kelly Clarkson as it does to the many bands with talent out there) I wonder how the founders of The Pirate Bay would feel if I found a way to make billions off of their website and didn't cut them in on the action...oh yeah. That's right. They would sue my butt off.
  19. omair amir from Toronto, writes: This will prolly end up in the Swedish Supreme court. You can expect this to last a while. I doubt the site is going anywhere, or these guys for that matter
  20. ishmael daro from Saskatoon, Canada writes: There's a lot of merit to the arguments of music and film companies. But after the last ten years of bungling their way through the technology, suing grandmothers out of retirement for a few songs, and generally leaving a bitter taste in people's mouths, it is hard to sympathize with them.

    There are also numerous artists and filmmakers embracing more open copyright and sharing on the internet. The companies are after their bottom lines (which they are entitled to) but let's not confuse them with the artists they have locked into contracts.
  21. Steve French from Windsor, Ont, Canada writes: There hasn't been any music worth downloading for free in decades.
    How many times do they expect me to pay for the white album anyways?...I bought the LP, the 8-track, cassette, cd, dvd, blu ray, 3D hologram virtual reality display...enough already!
    Why do I get stiffed with the bill every time they change formats?
    Bless the pirates of silicon valley for screwing these parasitic middle men.
  22. Brad Soltani from Big Pocketed ..., Canada writes: Bottom line is:
    People should be able to download AVI movies or 128 bit mp3 files for a very small amount (Like $2 Per movie or Album), and if they liked them, pay for the actual DVD or CD.

    Everyone is into downloading cheap or free stuff, but it's not because they don't respect copyright, but because those Bog-Pocketed companies are greedy, with no sense of creativity.
  23. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Haywood Jabloughme from Lotusland, Canada writes:

    Jackholes like Justin are the reason the 'cheap' seats for most concerts go for $75.00 or more.

    With all due respect, as a fellow capitalist you would know that concert seats are $75.00 or more because the market is willing to pay it.

    Concerts are now one of the ways musicians can reap proper rewards for their work now that CD sales have been whittled away by thiefs on the 'net. And don't give me the crap that they are overpaid anyway...if I created something that resonates with millions of people then you are darned right that I should be richly compensated for that material. (I say this even though it pains me to admit that this applies as much to crap like Britney Spears and Kelly Clarkson as it does to the many bands with talent out there)_

    Ask the artist what they receive from each CD sale. Then find out what the distributors, management fees, retail, wholesalers, et al. make off the CD. Sometimes I wonder if artists just put up a website and allowed people to download their music either 'pay per tune' or 'donation' based, if they wouldn't do better than what the parasitic music industry does with straitjacket contracts. Sometimes I wonder if the quality and variety of music wouldn't be better if it was freely available, but not necessarily free, than being disseminated through a monopolistic distribution industry that hires audiences to test score music prior so they can vet it out. Ask Kenna (google that).

    Don't get me wrong, I don't support Justin's argument that he steals from people because he thinks they are too rich. That is a foolish argument and the argument of a cannibal.
  24. Jon K from Canada writes: The Remnant, you're right about the concert aspect and how little money the artists actually get from CDs (which even further discredits Justin's point about not buying CDs because he doesn't want the musicians to get MORE rich). Unfortunately there are so many different hands in cookie jar, so to speak, in the creation of a record that the artist sees so little of the total sales.

    Justin, I don't want to really respond to each of your points, but the one about you thinking paying 20$ for a cd when you can get it for free is stupid... by that logic, you can steal a car (technically)... so do you think it's dumb for people to spend 20,000$ on a car when they can get one for free? Of course it's INCREDIBLY easier to get cds and your chances of getting caught are slim to none, but I still don't follow your logic.
  25. Adam Mair from Canada writes: For every megastar musician that is getting hurt by file sharing, there are probably 10000 who have used it to their advantage.

    Musicians used to have to shell out massive amounts to record an album, find a label, distributor, agents, etc... Now they can record a solid album on their home PC, post it online and they've got a shot.

    What's really telling is that if we had had file sharing from the beginning, none of these middlemen would exist, and not a single person who would miss them.

    For me, as a consumer, I can listen to music that I like, even if it doesn't have enough commercial appeal to make the shelves of my local HMV. Most of my favourite bands I would never have heard of if it wasn't for youtube, torrents, whatever.

    The people who said it earlier had it right. This is about control, and entrenched companies pushing against a wave of technological progress and improving living standards. For music, file sharing is a godsend. (Films are a different story).
  26. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Jon K from Canada writes:
    Of course it's INCREDIBLY easier to get cds and your chances of getting caught are slim to none, but I still don't follow your logic.


    I can tell you this, Jon. I have downloaded CDs. I determine if the album is worth buying this way - or just one really good song following by eight or ten tracks of garbage - or I have actually gone to their concerts as a result of downloading the CD.

    If the artist had a website where I could donate directly to them as a result of enjoying their music, I would. Too bad the industry has them by the proverbial balls.
  27. Mr Ottawa from Canada writes: Its somewhat ironic this is happening at the same time the current U.S based free market system is falling apart. They guys have some very valid points about what the big corporations have become and what their doing in the name of maximizing profit at any cost. I think the problem is that governments and the various justice systems and indeed the entire free market system everyone has adopted in various forms from the U.S was never origionally designed to handle the massive multinational corporations that exist today. Many of these companies are so large that they have bureaucratic systems that rival small countries except unlike the governments of most countries they have few or no checks and balances to make sure what they are doing is ethical or moral. The management of many companies has become preditory to both their employees and their own consumer base when they feel the are not extracting sufficent profit from them. In the case of their customers this includes taking advantage of a justice system thats not designed to level the playing field between a giant multinational company and a single mother making 30k a year. By using their deep pockets and heavy handed legal tactics the big companies force the general public into compliance. The system needs to be changed so big companies are better regulated, monitored and controlled in terms of what type of activites and actions they can engage in both internally in the way the executive management deals with both the employees and company finances and also in the way it deals with the general public. I think if this financial crisis has demonstrated anything its that profit at any cost is not an acceptable way to operate anymore.
  28. The Remnant from Canada writes: :

    BTW, I am very serious about the quality of the book above I referenced. It is very, very good and shatters some long held bastions of the intellectual monopoly business. It was originally established by the State, for the express purpose of deciding which ideas got crushed and which ones were allowed.
  29. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Mr Ottawa from Canada writes: Its somewhat ironic this is happening at the same time the current U.S based free market system is falling apart.


    Make no mistake, the US is NOT a free market. Hasn't been for a very long time. Nor is ours.
  30. Winston Smith from Canada writes: Financial innovation on Wall Street is encouraged yet when it comes to technology innovation like file sharing (legitimate or otherwise) the courts throw the book at the defendants. Further proof the law serves those with money.
  31. Justin Stamross from Canada writes: You hosiers can buy all the CD's you want. It isn't the same as stealing a $20,000 car because with MP3's and torrents there is a large grey area, whereas stealing a car is black and white. Let's compare apples to apples shall we. I look out for #1, and if I can listen to music, watch tv shows, and download movies for FREE, while walking a fine line between legal and illegal (even if illegal, the odds of being caught are microscopic), then God as my witness I will do it! Again, a fool and his money...
    If you knobs want to keep throwing your money away, send me an e-mail.
  32. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Talk Sudbury from Sudbury?,

    I belive that the middle ages had no copy right. That was a great time for human progress wasn't it? Any infomation was physically locked away or held in strict secret to prevent theft. So much for sharing info wasn't it?

  33. Mark McKay from United States writes: There was no copyright during the Renaissance or the golden ages of Greece and Rome either. What's your point?
  34. Neo Cynic from Nassau, Bahamas writes:
  35. K L Math from Canada writes: I've pirated my share of music and videos. For me it's a convenience thing. It's far easier to sit down at my computer and have what I was looking for in a few minutes, than it is to go to the store, buy a cd or dvd, and rip it to my computer so that it's in a format I can actually use (I haven't used a cd player in years, and I don't plan to start again anytime soon).

    I don't mind paying for these things if it's convenient. Since I discovered iTunes I have stopped pirating music almost completely. There are still rare occasions, like downloading a complete discography, where it is more convenient to pirate it all in one download than to find each album individually, but for the most part I do it legally.

    Movies I rarely download because if they're worth owning, I want to have the dvd with all of the special features anyway. Besides, I think most movies make the bulk of their money in theatres, and no downloaded version can compare with the theatre experience.

    TV shows should just be legal to download. Most are free to view on the broadcaster's website anyway. If they want me to go to their website to watch it, they should increase the quality of their streaming. If it's not available streaming from their website, I still shouldn't have to pay to download it because I pay my cable bill regularly and shouldn't have to pay twice for something because of scheduling conflicts that week. If I can watch it through cable I will, because it's available sooner that way, but it goes back to the convenience thing. Sometimes it's just easier to download it and watch when I have time.

    I would like to see things go in the direction where you pay more for concerts and theatre tickets, but the album or movie is distributed digitally for free.
  36. Mac Lover from Canada writes: The company I work for,, is a small provider of educational content. I see my boss struggle every month to pay the staff and the trainers that make our exceptional content. Meanwhile, we see torrents that are distributing our stuff to quite literally 100s of times more people than actually buy it from our site.

    We are not a 'Big Corporation' ... we're a small company doing innovative things with education. How do you, Justin Stamross, justify people ripping our content for free? Nobody here is driving a Bentley.

    There's so much focus put on the idea that only big companies are ripped off, but so are small companies doing great things. And also individuals ...

    In my spare time I make music, and it really surprises me that I can find my tracks being downloaded 1000s of times from torrents when I've only ever sold a few dozen copies from my web site. I know from experience that people do not download from a torrent to 'check something out to buy later.'

    I'm just a small guy trying to make great music. It's flattering that people are listening to it, but unfortunately i can't download my keyboards and computer from a torrent. How should I support the cost of making my music if people like Justin Stamross think it's his right to take it all for free, and then thumb his nose at me for the privilege?

    When you steal, you don't just hurt corporations. You hurt the people that are creating the content you steal. That means you hurt our culture, and in the end hurt your chance to get that amazing content in any form, free or otherwise.

    If I could do it all again, I'd be a lawyer and not an artist, because people like Justin Stamross make it hard for the artist to exist ...

    Justin Stamross, you should be ashamed of yourself ... though I know you're not capable of even understanding why ...
  37. fard gard from Vancouver, writes: I really hope people appreciate the gravity of their cause. Large companies are essentially creating their own laws which is simply unacceptable.

    Agree or disagree with the service they offer it's important we all recognize why we shouldn't be controlled by corrupt politicians being influenced by financial gain.
  38. fard gard from Vancouver, writes: Mac Lover,

    The 1,000 people who downloaded your music had no intention of ever paying for it so it's a flawed argument. It's not as if they downloaded it illegally and therefore you lost out on revenue.

    How are you better off having 0 people buy your music but also 0 brand recognition as an artist? At least by people sharing your music you're increasing your brand recognition.

    The problem that many people who are against piracy don't get is it's not a direct loss. I for example download movies I would NEVER pay to see in theatres or rent. So who is really being hurt? If it's a good movie I'm the first to tell people it's good and their choice may be to go to a theatre or rent the film. That's a win win if you ask me.
  39. Mac Lover from Canada writes: fard gard from Vancouver, writes: 'The 1,000 people who downloaded your music had no intention of ever paying for it so it's a flawed argument.'

    How do you know that? In fact, you're using the same 'flawed argument' that everybody who tries to justify stealing content uses.

    Be honest with yourself ... when you want to listen to a new song, do you go buy it? Or do you download it from a torrent? I bet you download it from a torrent and don't even think of buying it.

    And if you like it, do you then go buy it? Do you send your friends to a link on my website? Or to a link in the torrent?

    If it wasn't in the torrent, you would buy it. But because it's free in the torrent, you don't buy it. So who has the flawed argument? You are just trying to justify theft and coddle yourself into believing it's your right to steal ...
  40. Justin M from vancouver, Canada writes: while I do download music CDs that I like..when the bands that I really like come to vancouver, I try to go their concerts and maybe buy some merchandise. tickets arent cheap.
  41. Robert Lepage from Canada writes: If I find something I enjoy, and I know that the artists will receive all compensation for their work (and not people who profit from their work), then I have no problems buying their CD. However, when the music is produced through a massive company, like EMI or Sony, and the artists doesn't see a whit of my money, then I have no qualms about downloading content.

    Artists like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are starting to proliferate their music through their websites. They accept donations, and sometimes they are even given out for free (as was The Slip from NIN). Other artists, such as Lily Allen, made her entire career by distributing her music for free.

    The King Kong argument is good enough for me.
  42. Barclay Logan from Happyville, Hudson's Bay, Canada writes: Justin Stamross from Canada writes: 'I'm sorry. 'In my books, someone who pays $20 for a cd they can download for FREE is stupid. I hope you feel good paying the musician and music producer who will then proceed to use your hard-earned cash you give them to update to the 2009 Bentley, or buy a new house that is 15,000 square feet instead of their cramped 12,000 square feet. Get real buddy.' ############################################ It's disturbing that you really believe what you're writing is the absolute truth, and a perfect defense for stealing. Your back-up rationalization centres on 'your hard-earned cash' going to the artists, who are all filthy rich (what do you download? ABBA? Paris Hilton?) and have a higher standard of living than you (a little envy/resentment bubbles to the surface here). It's kind of unique (most rationalizers don't want Sony, Capitol, EMI, etc. to get anything at all for their involvement -- publicity, promotion (payola's still around; it's just more sophisticated/sneaky than in the late 50's), financial support for touring, superior packaging ... I agree that BigMusic is a Greed Monster, too, but I rarely listen to major-label mush, so it doesn't affect me. I've used torrent sites -- there are rarities/bootlegs available that just aren't available anywhere else -- and go to concerts in small venues, buying discs from the artists, along with a few t-shirts. I usually chat with the band members, who are out there hawking their stuff, which is always interesting ... But you and your ilk, whinging on about starkly transparent entightlement to steal really make me puke. Your so-called arguments (you're one of the few who admits to being a thief, but you don't have a Bentley, so any morality you might have is apparently based on some weird 'I deserve anything I want, for free.' As I noted above, I download from time to time, but I feel quite conflicted about it. You guys' risible bleating make me puke.
  43. Steve French from Windsor, Ont, Canada writes: If you really were an artist you would be happy for the exposure.
    But you're not, you're just another internet poseur.
    Idiot dismissed.
  44. Barclay Logan from Happyville, Hudson's Bay, Canada writes: I've stopped puking now, if anyone's interested.
  45. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia, Canada writes:
    The reality is that the music and film industries won't be able to stop this stuff. They just might be able to shut down The Pirate Bay but that will, at most, slow down file sharing via torrents.
  46. Brian Bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Nothing new here, when the FBI closed down & subsequently jailed Supernova's administrators, life went on.

    I like every other member of the former Supernova went on downloading, a brief respite occurred then everything went back to normal, the same will happen here.

    I say normal because it is now an excepted norm, well established & unstoppable. The percentages have been set & will vary little now until eternity.

    Like all things perceived illegal or immoral, filesharing has it's place in society. No law has every eliminated an activity, laws only succeeded in setting & maintaining acceptable levels. Policing & it's costs are all based on these percentages, it's how our society operates.

    It's a hollow short lived victory for the media groups. They will see shortly as they have numerous times in the past, their efforts have been all for not.

    Today they sip champaign, tomorrow they will be back to grumbling, lobbying our elected officials once again to impose yet more useless legislations.

    A futile sad life they lead, these robbers who are themselves victims of robbery by those they endeavor to rob!
  47. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia, Canada writes:
    Enforcement isn't the answer and it simply won't work. The old business model is broken permanently. Until the industry finds a way to adapt to the new reality, they'll suffer.
  48. Tinfoil Hatt from Canada writes:
    Steve French from Windsor, Ont, Canada writes: If you really were an artist you would be happy for the exposure.
    But you're not, you're just another internet poseur.
    Idiot dismissed.

    Ri-i-i-ght. People who spend their days bolting wheels onto cars 'deserve' $75/hour with complete security till the grave, but 'real artists' should be happy to work for 'exposure'.

    'Exposure' is something you die of when you can't afford to put a roof over your head, a$$hole.

    I'm all for bypassing the bloated, evil mega-corps, but struggling artists like Mac Lover above deserve a little support of the 'money where your mouth is' variety from those who appreciate and enjoy their work.

    Steve French is probably the kind of guy who stands for five minutes listening to a street musician, then walks away just before the song is finished just so he won't have to put a dollar in the guy's hat.

    Because 'only an idiot would pay for what he can get for free,' right?

  49. i coffey from Canada writes: Haywood Jabloughme from Lotusland, Canada writes 'Jackholes like Justin are the reason the 'cheap' seats for most concerts go for $75.00 or more.'

    The Remnant already responded to this but there's an interesting little article about the various reasons that concert prices have increased at this link, and piracy is only one of them:

    K L Math from Canada writes: 'For me it's a convenience thing.' I dont understand why the various media companies don't realize that convenience is one of the major issues. Some people don't want to go to a theater to watch a movie after they've spent two grand (or w/e) on a home theatre system. I prefer my couch with my dog to a packed theatre with people talking etc not to mention popcorn prices that require a black card. If the distributors gave me a way to pay for a movie at home on the day it's released in the theatre I'd be all over that purchase.... but they don't so people will take the path of least resistance to the experience they prefer. Monetary savings is only part of the issue.
  50. i coffey from Canada writes: ooooooooook psycho
  51. Tinfoil Hatt from Canada writes:
    I was just watching a news segment on fair trade cocoa.

    Maybe in the age of the Internet, we will see the emergence of a 'fair trade' market for music and other art. Certainly in the old system, most artists have been treated like third-world subsistence farmers while the bloated, evil mega-corps reap obscene profits off the fruits of their labour.

  52. C C from Canada writes: Haywood, the TPB gentlemen were found guilty of copyright infringement, not theft. The two concepts are not the same offences in a court of law. Take a look at the Dowling v. United States (1985), where the United States Supreme Court found that 'copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property' under the circumstances of the defendant's case.
  53. C C from Canada writes: The second episode of Britain's Got Talent 3 aired today and picked up 8 million viewers from last week. 20 million viewers caught the program during its peak, that's 1 in 3 British citizens! All thanks to those copyright infringing videos of Ms. Boyle on Youtube. ITV could have had the videos removed last week, but with all the media hoopla (and advertising revenue) coming in, it's turned a blind eye to said copyright infringement. Go figure.
  54. C C from Canada writes: 'I know what they are doing and I know its not theft. They're just the guys who facilitate the theft.'

    Again, theft and copyright infringement are two completely different issues. (See Dowling v. United States for the most prominent court case distinguishing between the two) No theft has been occurring on the Pirate Bay, just copyright infringement and even that is being contested through a series of appeals.

    Also, take a look at theJuly 2007 Economist article describing the shift in musician revenue sources. In 2000, 2/3 of that was derived from music sales, whereas today 2/3 is from concert revenue. In that piece, a Warner Music executive tells his shareholders, 'The music industry is growing.... the record industry is not growing.' The middlemen can struggle for all I care.
  55. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    'I know what they are doing and I know its not theft. They're just the guys who facilitate the theft.'


    If the US Postal Service ships a brick of cocaine from one address in California to another in New York, are they facilitating drug smuggling?

    Do pawn shops facilitate theft? Can a pawn shop owner reasonably detect what is 'hot' and what isn't? I am sure there are a variety of

    Does eBay, which indexes sellers and buyers, facilitate gun trafficking if buyers and sellers exchange parts of weapons to be assembled by their respective owners at a later date?

    Does a gold and silver coin dealer facilitate crime when they sell their wares to end clients seeking to protect their money from State sponsored inflation without collecting personal information that may be used later by thieves who broke into the store to steal said receipts? What if those thieves were wearing blue uniforms, had badges, carried guns, and called themselves the 'police'?

    I am not sure of the exact definition as to what constitutes a particular 'crime' (at least how the State's arbitrary rules define victimless crimes), but you get the gist. Pick your poison.
  56. Andrei I. from Canada writes: Haywood Jabloughme, how are you a capitalist if you pay for something that is free?

    Have you ever noticed how small time artists or independant movie producers dont complain about file-sharing?

    Exposure is what REAL artists want, not money. Art and creativity is not about cash, its about culture.

    But yea, if capitalism is paying for trash like Death Magnetic by Metallica... then Comrad Lenin had way better ideas ;)
  57. Read Acted from Canada writes: Making a copy of a song does not destroy the original song which belongs to the author hence copying is not theft. It does not deprive the author of his property.

    What is in question is the License which goes with that copy. Does it include the right to make new copies? Does it include the right to perform the music for compensation ? Does it include the right to distribute copies? Dooes it include the right to tell others that YOU wrote that song?
  58. GuineaPig Zed from Moorepark, United States writes: Since Canadians pay a tax on recordable media to offset their stealing ways.
    Not my feelings, your governments actions. ( tax )
    You have paid. There is no law broken if you paid tax on your media.
  59. Read Acted from Canada writes: GuineaPig

    The levies that are taken from the sales of blank CD's are outdated. How many people actually burn their downloads onto a CD? Most people just blast it into their mp3 player or Ipod flash memory. There is no levy on DVD media or Flash memory Or hard disk media in your media player, Tivo, etc. Hence no money flows to the copyright holder when you use these media. Bill C60 and Bill C61 have not been passed by parliament yet unless I am mistaken. Can someone enlighten me?
  60. Read Acted from Canada writes: The real victim in the infringement of copyright is the society who's culture is damaged by the inability of its artists to survive and prosper.
  61. Vancouver Canadian from Vancouver, Canada writes: Justin Stamross, Why dont you walk into a store and take what you want. I mean, why walk to the checkout counter and pay for it? Cause its illegal, immoral, and has consequences.

    You are a thief. Thats all there is to it. You lack morals to pay for goods that others have produced and you benefit from.

    Write a book or make a cd and then when everyone copies your work for free and you dont get paid then we'll see if your tune changes.

    BTW, do you expect to get paid for the hours you put in at work? They could have gotten someone else to do exactly what you were doing, so by your moral standards there is no need to pay you!
  62. John Lansing from Canada writes: Hello, Vancouver Canadian... I read the Dowling v. United States case above and it lists the flaws in your argument. Copyright infringement and theft (as in depriving someone of their physical property) are not the same crime.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff


Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top