What kind of site was pirate bay?

kat.ph is almost as good as The Pirate Bay was/(is). This isn't the first time it has been raided, and it's been able to survive even with it's founders in prison. I'm sure it will be back!

good riddance, #censorall

@ssorenn ... it's a torrent site. It's essentially stealing, but it's stealing which benefits the greater good.

i guess there is alway time for a first....thx Bo_sox

@Code Bomb ... I would use that but my VPN is down too for some reason o_O

I think I'm more concerned about eztv.it...

@bosox, sharing and copying isn't stealing; stealing a car involves taking someone's car and leaving them without; copying a car invovles you having the car too and them still having their car.

copyright infringement is not stealing. It is copyright infringement.

Looks like it is not coming back this time: http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/thepiratebay.se

Here is reason why tpb will be back and running.
http://www.quora.com/How-does-The-Pirate-Bay-operate

It is impossible to shut it down unless you raid the load balancer between the virtual machines.

@bo_sox48 "it's a torrent site. It's essentially stealing" - depends on the torrent I would've thought :p

^^very true. It's stealing anytime the owner loses money from your download. You might argue that you essentially borrow someone's title to watch it, but in most cases, had tpb not provided you access to that copy, you would have gone out and purchased it yourself.

My guess is a lot of the problem is bootlegged movies while in theater or downloadable videos games.
From what I've read, if you download it, watch it and delete it, it's not an issue, but if the torrent remains on your device, then it becomes theft.

The crime committed may not be called "theft", but piracy is a form of theft.

"in most cases, had tpb not provided you access to that copy, you would have gone out and purchased it yourself."

Well this just isn't true.

^^ Got to agree with you there mendax - I would argue that some users would refuse to pay anything for certain content but would get it free if possible.

One wonders if this means content is viewed as overpriced, or whether the view is more that content should not cost the consumer anything at all - in which case a few economic models may need looking at.

Using the Pirate Bay to illegally download music, films, etc is a form of stealing in my book.

By illegally downloading a band's album, you are robbing those musicians of the right to make a living from the music they have created.

Whether it's true if you would have gone out and purchased it yourself or not doesn't really matter. If you download something that you should have paid for, that is taking money from the owner. I'm not sure what greater good that is except to self-justify stealing. Just because it's easy and anonymous to do does not make it ok.

If you could easily and anonymously get a new car delivered to your driveway, people would take the same view as it being the greater good. That they wouldn't have gone out and purchased that new car if they couldn't do it easily and anonymously.

"Whether it's true if you would have gone out and purchased it yourself or not
doesn't really matter"

I kinda does matter when you're claiming legal damages. You can't have lost earnings if i never had the money to spend; thus realistically you don't have a logical claim - whether a judge would agree with this reasoning or not is the difference between a logical claim and a legal one.

"you download something that you should have paid for,
that is taking money from the owner." 100% wrong - they still have all their money - and some artists appreciate this as a free distribution model; to them it can actually result in an increase in profits, because they become better known and don't need to share their income with a publishing label; thus it is often publishers who are anti-sharing.

Look at Amanda Palmer, who recently wrote a book 'the art of asking' which deals with (among other things) asking her fans for money - and giving her music away for free.

Distributers screwed themselves when they failed to adapt to the new models possible with the internet - and are now playing catch up to provide a service on-par with the likes of Pirate bay; but artists are not suffering for having a wider audience for their music.

Games and movies are seperate ball games; but the bullshit claims like 'you download something that you should have paid for,
that is taking money from the owner.' are factually wrong.

What a load of garbage.

If I'm selling something, and you take it for free without my consent, then that's stealing.

Amanda Palmer, etc is great. Giving away music is great. Distributers screwing themselves is probably true.

BUT - that doesn't mean that it's ok to take something from an owner that is for sale just because you feel they shouldn't sell it (for any reason even if it's right).

Software, games, movies... how can you just take this because you feel the distribution model is wrong? It's not your decision. You didn't develop this. Spend the time. Get the idea. Pay the workers. The infrastructure. Take the risk. Get the investors.

But go ahead and just take it. You know best.

"It's not your decision. You didn't develop this. Spend the time. Get the idea. Pay the workers. The infrastructure. Take the risk. Get the investors."

1.) We developed piracy. It's an alternate form of distribution. You don't have to like it.
2.) It took years to develop.
3.) See point 1.
4.) The geniuses behind piracy and torrent sites are more than happy to live the way they do. They make exactly what they desire out of it. If they don't, they leave.
5.) Visit kat.ph if you don't think we have the infrastructure.
6.) Obviously, we're taking the risk.
7.) There's millions of us.

I'm aware that you are talking about the traditional distribution model when you make those points. However, piracy plays to that model too. It is legitimate.

"If I'm selling something, and you take it for free without my consent, then
that's stealing."

Still not stealing - now if i were to copy and then re-sell your work, i've effectively taken a sale from you for my own profit. That would be closer to stealing...

If i buy your book, read it, and then share it with my friend i haven't done anything illegal; and this is a closer analogy to torrenting.

There are some people who only buy music which they're already torrented. Because with soo much choice and limited budgets to spend on entertainment they make sure they like it first; again this actually helps creativity because a larger selection of musician get heard - and potential sales (based on their merit) just like me getting a friend to recommend me some music before i buy but "there are millions of us"

More effective than the old model, certainly. And the law is out-dated. Anyone who managed to figure out how to torrent can figure out how to install thetor browser bundle, ans safely use the US navy's solution to protecting your anonomity online...

That's a really confusing response.

Sure piracy developed themselves. The tech is really cool and impressive. I'm not denying this. #7) I'm well aware that the numbers are high. However, I didn't think you were a might vs right guy.

You're very confusing Bo. In all of the other posts I've seen you are defending the minority, but in #7, you're claiming to have millions as the reason why it's ok.

Maybe you're too young to realize how difficult and expensive it is to really produce a software or movie that is worthwhile to steal. Since obviously there are millions of people who are very willing to piss all over the companies and investors who invest their money to get the product.

orathiac> You're not reading a book, and giving it to a friend. I'm ok with this if the movie/software is not reproduced. You're not reproducing the book -> you're passing it along. If I buy Microsoft Office, and then am done with it, it is not stealing to pass this to a friend if the software is uninstalled from my computer.

You wrote:

"Get the investors."

I informed you that there are millions of them. We invest in the technology. We maintain it and support it and we do what we can to keep it underground. Why should investment be limited to money? Most investors don't even have the money that they invest - it's all in computers. It could go away at any second if something goes wrong. Hell, in that way, it's all the same. Just because the feds don't have a public budget on The Pirate Bay doesn't mean that millions aren't investing in it and sustaining it.

Thx for clearing up the minor point.

Lol, ag, maybe when millions of people who are "willing to piss all over" you, you ought to think about changing something up. That's all it is. Since they don't want to change a thing, we do.

@ bo_sox, @ orathaic @ other pro-copyright-infringers:

Imagine I'm a talented musican and songwriter.
Imagine I write an album's worth of songs. I think they're good enough to commercially release.
Imagine I manage to arrange to spend several weeks in a recording studio with a good producer, an engineer, and a few session musicians, recording my songs to put together an album.

That album represents hundreds of hours of effort by numerous people. So far, no-one other than me, the session musicians, the producer, and the engineer have heard it.

Imagine that, I decide to put that album on sale for $5 a copy. From that, I will take $1 to repay the producer and engineer, $1 to repay the session musicians, $1 for the studio time, $1 for other administrative costs, and $1 as my income.

Let me ask you some questions:

1. What gives you the right to take it for free? When answering, bear in mind that:

1a. The album of music only exists because I created it,
1b. I spent hundreds of hours creating it - hours that I therefore did not spend flipping burgers, teaching people how to ski, or whatever you do to pay the bills,
1c. I still have bills to pay, just like you do.
1 . I decided that if you want to hear MY music, that *I* created, it would be reasonable to ask you to pay $5.

Given 1a to 1 , on what basis do you have the right *not* to pay the $5 I am asking?

@ bo_sox specifically:

"We invest in the technology."

How much money have you personally invested in illegal filesharing websites?

@bo_sox48

I'd like to think you mean well, but that's a surprisingly racist way to view the entire field of file sharing, legitimate and otherwise.

I know that younger people tend to have more conservative views of technological issues than older people, but you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the facts surrounding the issue.

@ bo_sox specifically:

Let's say you're a ski-ing instructor. Let's say that your lessons are well-respected and you can charge $50 per hour to give ski-ing instruction. This is your income, your livelihood, and your means to pay your mortgatge and your bills.

Let's say that, without your knowledge or consent, someone sneakily follows you on the ski slopes, and using the latest technology, films your ski-ing lessons and takes audio recordings of you offering ski-ing advice to your pupils.

Let's say this clandestine cameraman then posts these high-quality videos on his own "ski-sharing" website, and allows people to watch them for free. Let's say he openly markets the fact that his videos demonstrate 95% of the techniques you teach, and that therefore no-one need pay you for a ski-ing lesson - they can just watch the video.

How do you feel about what he has done?