

Raided 9-Year-Old Pirate Bay Girl Came To Save Us All - cyphersanctus
http://torrentfreak.com/raided-pirate-bay-kid-came-to-save-us-all-121125/

======
baddox
> _But in what kind of parallel universe does a professional, western police
> force think it’s appropriate, proportionate and a good use of tax-payers’
> money to send officers to a citizen’s home for a petty file-sharing issue,
> one involving the downloading of a single music album?_

That's just it. It's not a usage of _taxpayers'_ money, it's a usage of
government money that just so happens to have been taken forcefully from
taxpayers. And when you phrase it as "government money," it's not at all
surprising that its used this way. Just look at the relationships between a
anti-piracy groups and government.

~~~
Strshps1MoreTim
The so called anti-piracy groups are the real pirates - just a bunch of old,
evil, filthy rich owners and CEOs, that would destroy the lives of countless
young people without blinking.

Every single successful civilization/culture/religion in human history was
based on sharing. The pirates, bribing politicians and police officers, across
the western world are destroying the very fabric of our society. Plus the DRM,
constant monitoring and logging of internet activity, war on open platforms,
like Linux.

------
GoRevan
Hopefully this girl will create a paradigm shift. All of this anti-piracy
prosecution makes me feel like im in a dystopian future where hearing music
and watching movies is forbidden. :(

~~~
firefoxman1
I wonder if that's part of why the geek community is fighting harder than
most: we've all read a couple cyberpunk/farenheight-451-type books and realize
that future is not as impossible as once thougnt.

~~~
sneak
I heard a great song on Spotify today, a service I pay for. Interestingly
enough those payments are not for the music, just the ability to listen to the
music, as I abruptly realized when I started contemplating using that song in
a DJ mix.

~~~
Domenic_S
Buying the CD wouldn't give you public performance rights, either.

~~~
sneak
DJing in my bedroom is not a public performance.

Nightclubs are the ones who pay the danegeld to ASCAP et al.

------
pcote
The problem with this matter is it's been done before. In 2000, pictures of
Elian Gonzalez being face to face with swat forces caused only limited
outrage. The public was exposed to that case so much that they pretty much got
numb to the situation and were downright sick of hearing about it before the
raid happened. If anything in overall U.S. Cuba relations changed, it probably
had nothing to do with the kid.

It's not that different with regard to file sharing. We've been hearing horror
stories over extreme anti-piracy tactics for close to 15 years now. Your
average 20 year old doesn't know of a world where this sort of thing doesn't
happen. So in this kind of environment, I just don't see how one little girl
is going to change anything.

------
madao
Here is the thing, someone has gone ahead and spent time and effort to create
and sell something, someone then has gone on out of their way and attempted to
steal it.

That being said with any form of piracy it is in effect stealing. If one were
to go down to the local store and steal a product from the shelves and make a
run for the doors, you will also be caught, brought up to the police, charged
and taken before the courts.

Now is the methods being used by the record companies correct? probably not.
But do they have a right to try and protect their profits from looters and
moochers of the world? they sure do.

I think digital media is the way of the future, especially being able to
access it from anywhere in the world with little or no effort.

I just think that piracy in this sense has been taken for granted for much to
long and we should work towards naming it as it should be named and stop
getting up and arms about it as much as we do and just pay for what we use
instead of running off to the local torrent site and downloading the shit out
of it.

~~~
wazoox
This old dead horse doesn't need any more beating, but apparently the obvious
has to be stated once again:

 _when you copy a digital "good" you don't deprive its owner from it.
Therefore this is NOT stealing in any way. Not even remotely akin to
stealing._

Let's get it straight a last time (I hope): if you have an apple and I take
it, you haven't got it anymore. Digital goods are INFORMATION. When you give
me an information YOU STILL F*CKING HAVE IT. By your twisted way of thinking,
people reading headlines in papers at the store are burglars, and so are
people reading the time on your watch without asking you first. This cannot be
the case. This shouldn't be the case. This won't be the case.

~~~
JC001
The argument isn't over whether it's a physical token that won't be available
for sale. Even without a physical token it's still stealing.

If everyone were to just take digital content without paying for it, would
this still be ok?

If so, why would anyone produce the digital content knowing they won't receive
compensation?

And how does this apply to other non-digital marketplaces:

If you went to a dentist to have your teeth cleaned, would it be ok to never
pay the dentist? After all, the dentist is still able to clean other teeth?

If you had your car towed to a mechanic, does the tow truck driver have to be
paid?

~~~
danenania
"If so, why would anyone produce the digital content knowing they won't
receive compensation?"

Why should we restrict freedom of information and create a huge Orwellian
enforcement bureaucracy just to make it easier for a small segment of society
to make money off digital content? If your business model requires forcibly
prohibiting people to share strings of 1s and 0s to be successful, then find a
better business model. If you can't, that's your problem.

I agree that content creators deserve respect and attribution, but the freedom
to share information is much more important as a social principle.

~~~
JC001
Are we talking about "freedom of information" or are we talking about music,
movies, tv shows, software and other content that was created for the sole
purpose of economic income?

"Information" to me sounds like you're talking about something more
fundamental, I'm just not sure what. But sharing copyrighted material should
by no means be considered something that is a social principle.

~~~
danenania
"But sharing copyrighted material should by no means be considered something
that is a social principle."

It is, in fact. My friends don't have to pay royalties to content creators
when they look at paintings I have hanging up in my house, watch a movie I
rented, or borrow a book from me. This isn't because we don't respect
copyright as a society, but because we recognize that sharing is a natural
human activity, and the measures required to enforce the prevention of such
behavior would create a society without freedom or privacy that no one wants
to live in.

For similar reasons, what I choose to upload and download on a p2p network is
no one's business but mine and the peer I've connected to. They are in effect
private conversations, and any legal system that requires monitoring of these
private conversations will, carried to its logical conclusion, eliminate _all_
privacy and freedom in digital life, since any single packet on the network,
whether it's for email, web traffic, or any other use, could conceivably
contain copyrighted bit sequences and therefore be marked for inspection.
Similarly, every file on our computers would obviously need to be scanned at
borders and other checkpoints to be sure no one had infringing bit sequences
on their systems.

Look, there have been plenty of examples that show that a significant
percentage of people are willing to pay for digital content even when they
could otherwise obtain it freely through file sharing, whether out of respect
content creators, or for the sake of quality and convenience. So this isn't a
question of whether or not copyrighted digital content can survive--it's been
well proven that it can survive and thrive. No, the question is whether we
should allow a few entrenched stakeholders to trample our civil rights in
order to milk a bit of extra revenue out of the system without having to
innovate in response to new cultural norms.

~~~
res0nat0r
Your civil rights aren't being trampled because it is illegal to download or
upload and post online a 1080p rip of the latest Hollywood blockbuster for
thousands to download easily.

~~~
cturner
You claim that these laws don't hurt civil rights because they are legally
enforceable. This doesn't add up. Legality is irrelevant.

It's easy to fall into a pattern of accept government to be a definitive
source of truth about political concepts. This is flawed thinking. Were the
government to say that up was down, it would not make it any more true.

Likewise, when the government chooses to call something property doesn't mean
that it is property by a reasonable definition.

The enforcement of content protection laws impede privacy, free speech, free
expression and the principle of live and let live. It's a clear-cut imposition
on civil rights.

~~~
res0nat0r
It does? Why has this line of thinking just come about within the last 20
years or so when it became easy to pirate IP due to the emergence of mp3s and
high speed Internet connections? All of the chatter above is just hand
wringing trying to justify that your entertainment should be free because it
is easy to obtain without getting in hot water.

~~~
cturner
My motives have nothing to do with free entertainment. Generally I find movies
to be shit, but occasionally order one off amazon because I can afford it and
can't be bothered with the hassle of managing a download. I love music (to
perform) but don't listen to it because I find it distracting.

I'm interested in digging in hard on issues where the people in our time all
seem to be blinkered to the truth. What are the issues where people in five
hundred years will look back at us and say "how could they have been so
[stupid/cruel/content]."

Copyright's one of them. It's not conducive to creativity, it doesn't reward
creators. There's never been a public policy case made that explains why we
have it, just vague hand-waving about how it's necessary for creation of
production.

In order to enforce it the government needs to encroach on more and more
freedoms.

For all its madness, copyright is generally accepted. Good people are made to
feel guity for doing it, partly because of unsupported economic claims, and
partly from bald-faced lies that smart people should see throuh, such as
branding copyright infringement as 'stealing'.

~~~
res0nat0r
Of course it rewards creators. Much of the content you read in your local
bookstore or watch on TV wouldn't be made if the authors didn't have any
system in place in which they could guarantee a return on their investment.
Yes some people will do it for free, but many wouldn't have the ability to do
so if they weren't able to sustain themselves.

~~~
cturner
The system we have makes some things possible but kills others, such as
remixing which is the dominant mechanism for creativity when people are left
to their own devices. It mandates a few business models and outlaws everything
else. You can't review public policy just from its good effects, what's
important is the opportunity cost.

------
robryan
I think for most of us we have gone past the issues with semantics, that file
sharing is no the same as stealing. What I am more intersted in is how can
content producers be fairly rewarded in this new world and what the future of
content production looks like if there is less money for producers. Technology
destroying some of the middle men should make producers more even with a
smaller pie, which will help a bit. File sharing has been around a long time
and yet it still seems more quality content than ever is being produced, maybe
the incentives are less of a problem than I think.

~~~
brc
I think the problem is one of momentum. In any given timeframe, only x% of
movies/tv productions/music albums/whatever is expected to make y% of the
money. I would assume that the people who do the sums on this thing have the
numbers nailed down pretty well, but every now and then a Star Wars or a
Michael Jackson comes along and you get an outlier which injects a lot of
capital into the industry.

So the numbers would be declining, but it's hard to know if this is
specifically from file sharing, or just from an audience not engaged with a
specific product. But the content investors don't know any other game, so they
keep investing. It might take ten years of no big hits, no outliers before
they decide the game has permanently changed.

And besides, maybe the ROI is so good that it can take a 50% cut and still be
better than anything else they can easily get involved in.

When big industries peter out, it's usually not evident until hindsight has
been introduced what was the point where it was no longer worth committing any
capital. There is a lot of momentum pushing them along, particularly in very
established demographics.

Eventually either a new way of earning cash from production will pop up, or,
more likely, the returns to investors in entertainment will head back to the
levels experienced by many other industries. The barriers to entry for new
talent will be lower (less gatekeepers) but the overall outsized returns to a
small number of individuals will probably permanently lower. Because it's hard
to dominate an industry and make massive returns without structural,
legislative or oligopolistic barriers to entry to competition.

~~~
robryan
I guess what remains to be seen, is that if outsized returns are off the
table, whether you will still see big budget stuff that pushes the industry
forward.

With something like Game Of Thrones you can see the results of a much bigger
budget compared to things like Rome and Merlin. The new push towards virtual
sets might be able to bridge the quality gap between the real big budget
productions and lower budget content at the moment.

~~~
belorn
I doubt it will ever come to the point where high risk high reward big
productions won't happen. It might happen a bit more rarely if the perceived
risk goes up, but by doing so, the value of big productions goes up because so
few are doing them, and you get a nice circular chain of events.

------
cyphersanctus
"Because the public are angry, politicians will be nervous too, and
uncooperative politicians are bad news for tougher copyright law. But in the
short term anyone sent a “pay-up-or-else” letter from CIAPC (if they even dare
to send any more) will be thinking long and hard about paying. The chances of
the police coming next time must be slimmer than last week.

And the fact that they will be able to thank a child for that is why this is
some of the best news all year."

~~~
tterrace
Is the article really long enough to warrant a TL:DR?

------
mtgx
This "piracy war" is starting to look more and more like the drug war. I could
see how in US especially, if marijuana is going to be legalized, all those
agencies which would now be left out of work, could refocus on raiding
"pirates", barging in and shooting people's dogs, and whatnot. Then this
parody might become a reality (the part with the girl at the end):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg>

~~~
jevinskie
Try your analogy again when this piracy war has killed 55,000 people. That is
the estimated death toll from just the Mexican drug war that "started" less
than 6 years ago (by official tally).

~~~
afterburner
The Mexican drug war and the US war on drugs are completely different
things... In the Mexican drug war, rival drug warlords massacre dozens of
civilians because they think they'll be used as mules by the other side; the
government then come in force to try to re-establish order in the region. It's
more of a civil war, or a war against bandit warlords, or a war against
corruption that buys off entire police departments. It's almost a civil war.

The US drug war is mostly an unnecessary but lucrative obsession with jailing
people for minor marijuana offenses, at least domestically speaking.

~~~
grannyg00se
They are not completely different things. The US war on drugs drives the
Mexican drug war. Without the US as consumers, the situation in Mexico would
be very different. While they are not exactly the same, it is not accurate to
think of them as completely different things.

~~~
afterburner
Yes of course things are linked. But javinskie's post makes it sound like the
55,000 deaths are the Mexican government's fault alone. While the Mexican
government is no doubt not the most effective, the druglord themselves are
massacring people. Whereas in the US, it is the government causing the most
damage on its own, by overly incentivizing the incarceration of minor drug
offenders. And it is this government over-enforcement that is the parallel to
the copyright issue at heart. Not the near civil war in another country that
is partly linked to it.

~~~
philwelch
If marijuana and other drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be drug lords with
private armies to begin with. They would disappear just like American mobsters
at the end of Prohibition.

~~~
rohern
afterburner clearly understands this. His point is that in the US drug war, it
is the government of the United States that is the main antagonist. This is
not the case in with the ongoing violence in Mexico.

~~~
philwelch
My point is that drug prohibition remains the root cause. Even in America,
most of the actual harm is done by gangsters rather than the government. And
yes, I'm aware that organized crime still exists in the United States, but not
to nearly the same extent as during alcohol prohibition.

~~~
afterburner
Yes, so... the metaphor is valid for copyright. Which was what I was
defending.

------
guard-of-terra
It's not good to have nine years old girl used in propaganda. We can't prevent
this from happening but we should not force it. It's halfway as bad as using
child porn fear to censor "pirates". Even half of that is still very bad.

------
yason
Eventually this will just make people transfer to, for example, I2P torrents
or something.

It takes one good effort that bundles the I2P codebase, the required plugins
and an I2P BitTorrent client such as Robert into a single application that
just launches with one click of the mouse and without any further
configuration needed and provides a browser view to the I2P torrent trackers
as well as the BitTorrent client itself (or the equivalent hops for some other
onion style network) and you're pretty much set for genuinely anonymous
BitTorrent masses.

These systems, such as I2P and Tor, are designed to be resilient against
oppressive governments so the MAFIAA just don't have a chance if the traffic
goes underground. What next? MAFIAA would try to make it illegal to use your
computer for anything else than connecting to pre-approved websites with
MAFIAA approved browsers? Gimme a break.

------
scotty79
<http://i45.tinypic.com/ljwnl.jpg>

I read this comic when I was a child. I was appalled by the cruelty of this
scene. It was about illegal artifacts from different time but I it really
comes to mind when I'm reading the story of that girl today.

~~~
lutusp
> I was appealed by the cruelty of this scene.

I'm pretty sure you were _appalled_ , not _appealed_.

~~~
scotty79
Fixed now. Thanks for correction.

