

Music Biz Wants Google To Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay - TorrentFreak - ElbertF
http://feed.torrentfreak.com/~r/Torrentfreak/~3/PyTQ4FThYAM/

======
avar
This could turn out great. The music industry sues Google for linking to sites
like The Pirate Bay, and Google with its deep pockets successfully defends
linking in count. That might set precedence not only for general search
engines like Google, but also torrent search engines like The Pirate Bay.

~~~
CodeMage
Maybe I'm not as cynical and jaded as I should be, but I still believe that
lawsuits are not won by deep pockets, at least not exclusively.

~~~
rfrey
I think the point is that Google has deep enough pockets to defend against the
also-deep pockets of the music distributors. Lawsuits aren't won by deep
pockets, but it often takes deep pockets to defend, and lack of defense is the
same as losing.

------
nailer
Google already de-list & pageRank for sites that disobey their terms (except
if Jason Calacanis runs them).

If they include sites that exist expressly for illegal purposes as against
their terms, a site whose name and purpose is based on piracy would be
naturally de-indexed.

If you make software, or otherwise create stuff you'd like people to obey your
terms for, this is a good thing.

If you:

* wouldn't like someone disobeying the GPL

* wouldn't like someone stealing your desktop app

* wouldn't like someone copying your web apps source to their own servers

* wouldn't like someone ripping off your CSS

then congratulations, you support IP. Having TPB de-indexed will help your
fellow creatives.

When you're 15 and poor, stealing seems pretty reasonable. When you're 30 and
make stuff, it isn't.

~~~
dantheman
Again and Again it must be said that violating copyright is not stealing.
Second, a lot of what your complaining about isn't even copyright violation
it's plagiarism and fraud.

I think most people realize that copyright is prime example of regulatory
capture, how else can obscene concepts like retroactive extension be endorsed
and enacted with straight face. Second, look at how much leverage they have
over industries that are significantly bigger than the entertainment industry.

Copyright is a flawed concept, as is much of intellectual property.

~~~
nailer
> Again and Again it must be said that violating copyright is not stealing.

That's a side argument, which is irrelevant. The point is it's wrong.

> a lot of what your complaining about isn't even copyright violation

Plagiarism is copyright violation.

> copyright is prime example of regulatory capture, how else can obscene
> concepts like retroactive extension be endorsed and enacted with straight
> face.

I think most people don't really care one way or the other. But how is market
share of distribution networks relevant to ethics? Doing something wrong to
someone else who did something wrong is still wrong.

~~~
dantheman
First, copyright violation is not necessarily wrong, and saying that something
is stealing when it is clearly not is wrong -- it confuses the issue.

Plagiarism can be a copyright problem, but in this case I took the more
appropriate fraud angle since I'm arguing that copyright is invalid and hence
the problem is a fraud problem not a copyright problem.

Well the entire purpose of copyright is to "promote the progress of science
and the useful arts", when media industry is crippling science and technology
it becomes important. And your last point doesn't follow, I'm specifically
saying that violating copyright isn't wrong. Just as abolitionists who refused
to follow the fugitive slave act, weren't doing something wrong by refusing to
send slaves back to the south.

So violating copyright isn't wrong, and it sure isn't stealing. Now it may be
illegal, but during prohibition alcohol was illegal and drinking it also
wasn't wrong just because some people said it was, so it is with copyright.

We are going to see major changes as digital technology rips through the media
industry. Just as the shipping industry faced when container shipping started.
For instance longshoremen unpacking and repacking pallets (completely useless
and unnecessary make-work) was eliminated as locked containers moved from boat
to train/truck. So to will the media industry lose control over distribution.

~~~
nailer
> First, copyright violation is not necessarily wrong

You're right. It's illegal. But this isn't one of the cases where the law
differentiates from what's right for most human beings.

> Just as abolitionists who refused to follow the fugitive slave act, weren't
> doing something wrong by refusing to send slaves back to the south.

I'm sorry to use this language...wait, I won't. I'll be polite.

Do you make something? I've made something, so have my colleagues.

TPB distribute it when they're not allowed. Stuff I spent all those late
nights on, and my colleagues the same.

Do you make anything? Do you use it to make income? How would you feel if I
steal it?

Would that be wrong, or right?

Do.

You.

Think.

Stealing.

My.

Work.

Is.

Like.

Conscientious.

Objection.

To.

Punishing.

Escaped.

Slaves?

Don't just read that and then start typing. Think about it. Really think about
it.

Do you, Daniel Gagne, feel that way? In your heart, in your brain? Do you
genuinely agree with this analogy? Are you sure?

Or would you like to change your mind?

~~~
dantheman
I fundamentally object to the notion that the government gives you a right to
a monopoly on an idea, for what looks like perpetuity -- nothing has gone out
of copyright since 1923.

Second, you seem to confuse stealing with copying. Stealing means you've lost
something i.e. no longer have it. This is clearly not the case with copying.

Third, the comparison to slavery was only to disprove your assertion "Doing
something wrong to someone else who did something wrong is still wrong." It
was in no attempting to compare the two, the injustice found in slavery is far
more egregious than that of any IP case.

Do you think it's ok for a teacher to photocopy portions of a book or article
to pass out to their students? This is allowed under the current system.
Shouldn't each student be forced to buy the book or article? Are they stealing
from the author? What about showing a clip from a movie? How does fair use
apply to software? Why does fair use apply to other forms of creation but not
software? Why don't mathematicians or physicist get to copyright their
discoveries - i can't reuse the plot of a movie (hell, I can't even summarize
it:
[http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1366.92...](http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1366.92-7985.92-7933.919.1392.html)),
but I can reuse someone else's discoveries? This is not an easy issue. Do you
think wikileaks should be shutdown since it posts material it shouldn't have?
Why is it ok in some cases and not ok in others? How are the lines drawn?

Do I think that people should be compensated for their work? Of course I do;
however, I do not think that copyright is the correct mechanism. Injustice is
injustice and should not be left in place just because it's convenient. I
think a better way would be to have those purchasing your software sign an
agreement that if they distribute it without your permission they must pay X
amount of dollars, for they are the only ones you have any legal claim on. I'm
not trying to encourage piracy, but I am taking the position that copyright is
not legitimate.

I think your stuck in a mindset in which people can be compensated only by
through copyright, and I don't think that's the case. I can't predict what the
business model that would eventually arise is going to look like. But I am
certain one would emerge. Additionally, I think that majority of software
developers are actually employed on applications that are not sold to the
public commercially so perhaps large portions of the software industry would
not even be effected (banking, aerospace, hr, etc).

As for the personal references, yes i create things and understand the effort
and all that jazz. But once again, I think that the current system in
unethical and will eventually be replaced, perhaps by thinking through it now
we can hope to improve the situation and not re-architect the internet and
destroy many civil liberties to try and keep an outdated business model going.

~~~
nailer
> I fundamentally object to the notion that the government gives you a right
> to a monopoly on an idea, for what looks like perpetuity -- nothing has gone
> out of copyright since 1923.

Copyright reform has nothing to do with advocating piracy. By advocating
piracy, you are harming copyright reform.

TPB steal from:

* OReilly

* Red Hat

* Novell

* IBM

* The World of Goo people

* Trent Reznor

and other artists most people on HN agree are doing interesting things with
copyright. Red Hat maintain a fucking list of patents they use to defend OSS
against proprietary patent trolls! Yet TPB steals from them. You have no
reason to buy an OReilly book if you can get it on TPB.

> Stealing means you've lost something i.e. no longer have it.

The common definition of stealing means you're taking something that isn't
yours. I understand you disagree, but I don't care.

> Third, the comparison to slavery was only to disprove your assertion "Doing
> something wrong to someone else who did something wrong is still wrong."

Do you think you disproved that assertion?

> I'm not trying to encourage piracy

But you are encouraging piracy. You're defending The Pirate Bay. Which is a
pirate site. Hence the name 'The Pirate Bay, the pictures of pirates, the
jolly roger, and the stealing.

TPB, and TPP harm copyright reform. People who make stuff, and people who
don't like stealing

------
riprock
I doubt google will agree with their terms. Youtube is arguably as guilty as
thepiratebay, megaupload, and etc for harboring illegal content...google is
not going to set up a potential argument to delist youtube (themselves.)

Also if google does ban them, there will be other search engines that do index
such sites; it really doesn't solve anything really.

------
BonoboBoner
I doubt they will obey to the music business overlords after telling the
government of the biggest internet-market to go F themselves.

------
obsaysditto
_Rather than supplying very specific URLs where infringing material could be
located as is the norm with these type of requests, the BPI provided whole
site URLs such as<http://megaupload.com>, <http://sendspace.com> and
<http://hotfile.com>. _

This seems absurd, however I do wonder what the percentage of files hosted on
these sites are copyrighted.

~~~
pixelbath
I browsed the site instead of using the search just now. It's possible that
many of the torrents I've never heard of are independent artists in the public
domain (or released CC, whatever), but almost all files in all categories were
illegally distributed content. The exception was the "Applications > Unix"
category.

It's a site that calls itself "The Pirate Bay." They don't have much of a
defense in the way of legitimate (legal) use cases, but I strongly disagree
with legislating results out of a general-purpose search engine.

I honestly do not see this going anywhere. As much as I disagree with almost
everything the DMCA stands for, safe harbor provisions were included for
exactly this reason.

~~~
cabalamat
> _It's a site that calls itself "The Pirate Bay."_

So? I belong to a political party called "the Pirate Party", doesn't mean I'm
breaking the law.

~~~
nailer
If you exist solely for the purposes of facilitating piracy, you probably are,
depending on the country. Go ask a lawyer.

~~~
cabalamat
We exist solely for the purpose of changing UK government policy to something
sensible. This means inter alia that some actions now called "piracy" would
become legal.

~~~
nailer
* Equating copyright reform with supporting piracy will harm any attempt at copyright reform.

* I didn't give you permission to steal my work to advance any objective.

I think you've created a manifesto to justify stealing things, because you
like stealing things.

~~~
cabalamat
How many times do you have to be told that copyright infringement is not
theft, for it to sink in?

~~~
nailer
a) Have you proven stealing my work isn't theft yet?

b) Regardless whether you personally define stealing my work as being theft or
not, does that make it less wrong? Because I strongly suspect that's what
you're implying.

You still haven't responded to how equating copyright reform with piracy helps
copyright reform in any way.

------
_flag
Although I'm sure the copyright industries would love to do this, "including
but not limited to" doesn't exactly translate to "ban all of it".

------
gustaf
I thinks this is probably good. TPB always claimed that there is not principal
difference between thepiratebay.org and google.com in terms of linking to
filesharing content.

------
steveitis
And in further news cows want you to eat more chicken.

------
Estragon
"It's nice to want things."

