
The Pirate Bay's statement on PIPA/SOPA - llambda
https://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt?
======
drewblaisdell
Just a note regarding most of the piracy discussion I have seen take place on
HN in the last day or so: everyone who refers to internet piracy as theft is
doing a disservice to the argument. They can call it immoral, dangerous, or
harmful, but it to equate it with theft is just not accurate.

The people who most frequently refer to internet piracy as theft/stealing are
the ones who want to censor the internet and pay off congress. I hope that,
regardless of where they stand on the piracy issue, HN users can be a little
more articulate about why piracy is or is not permissible and stop referring
to it inaccurately.

~~~
runn1ng
I don't get one thing with internet culture not refering to intelectual
property as a real property and its theft as not a real theft.

If copyright theft was not theft, the whole GNU and Free Software movement
wouldn't exist. As author of software licenced under GNU GPL, you say "this is
free, but because I am the author and I have copyright, if you want to use it
in your software, you must also release the code under GNU."

If you say copyright theft is not theft, any software company can go and use
GNU code, include it in their proprietary code and re-sell it. And because you
also imply that we should give up on copyright enforcement, they would get
away with it.

~~~
wnoise
I'm not saying copyright violation is not illegal. I'm just saying it's not
theft. It's a different crime, with different characteristics, defined in a
different section of the US code.

------
samstave
As a father of two girls, I love this comment:

"...what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and
making 11 year old girls become anorexic. Either from working in the factories
that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv
shows that make them think that they're fat."

\---

I try to minimize the exposure of my kids to the plastic reality of disney -
but it is nearly impossible. The system for indoctrinating girls into the
consumption servitude archetype is insidiously powerful.

It is threaded in our society and very very hard to avoid.

~~~
benologist
I like the bit where TPB didn't mention what _they_ really do .... line their
pockets with the revenue from billions of ad impressions a month.

------
earbitscom
The argument of efficiency is stupid. Of course I can do a better job
distributing hot dogs than the hot dog guy if I just put out a massive table
of hot dogs I got for free and let people run up and grab one without paying
for it. But that model doesn't work if I have to pay for my hot dogs.

If you invest millions of dollars in movies or a music album, you have to
charge money to make it back. As we can see from Spotify and others, ad
supported models do not pay enough to cover the high costs of creating
expensive products. But of course alternative revenue is enough to pay for the
costs of selling something that doesn't belong to you and costs nothing for
you to distribute. And once you have to charge, of course people will prefer
to get it where they don't have to pay. It has little to do with convenience.
The number one thing that will impact the conversion rate on a shopping cart
funnel (besides SSN) is asking for a credit card, regardless of how few
seconds it takes to fill it out. People are wary of putting their card in
online, they're lazy, and they're cheap. You're not more efficient, you're
just catering to the lowest common denominator of people.

There is virtually no reason why companies could not distribute products the
way TPB does, except that they'd still have to charge money for those
products. The minute you do that, someone who gives away hot dogs they didn't
pay for wins. To pretend like it's some noble effort is a joke. You earn your
livings off the backs of people who make things people want. Try charging your
users for the things you offer and see how long your "more efficient" platform
does well.

Sure, people will go on and on about how they get higher quality files, whole
discographies in one click, and blah blah blah. Most people do not do that and
they still pirate things. Taking things you didn't pay for and selling them
cheaper than someone who did is not more efficient. Just start calling a spade
a spade so we can move on and talk like adults.

~~~
samlev
Let's take this metaphor a little further, then.

Digital content isn't exactly like a hot dog, so let's assume that you could
design a magical hot dog which, once created, you can copy many times with no
other costs. You have an unlimited supply of hot dogs, and each one of these
hot dogs, being an exact copy of the original, can also be used to magically
make more hot dogs.

Now I'm not saying that this hot dog is free - it cost a LOT in R&D to produce
this hot dog, and you invested a lot in it. The other thing is that hot dogs
go with buns, and there's sadly no magical buns in this universe. Each and
every bun has to be created, and costs money.

So you set up your hot dog stand, selling magical hot dogs with non-magical
buns. You charge a premium rate because you're the only guy in town who
managed to make a magical hot dog of this quality, and with it's unique
flavour. Besides, the buns are still costing you money, and they have to come
from somewhere.

Now you notice some guy has found out that the magical hot dog you sold him
can make new hot dogs at no cost, but they don't have the buns attached. As a
response, you start baking the hot dogs into the bread - it makes it harder to
get the hot dog out, and you think that that's the end of it. But the guy
realises that with a bit of effort, he can get the hot dog out of the bread
too, because what's the point of a hot dog if you can't get at it? Baking the
hot dog into the bread is costing you even more, and making it harder for
people to get to the hot dog.

Soon you have some people coming up to you and asking if they can have seeded
bread, or maybe gluten free, or maybe they just hate bread and want it on it's
own. Some of them want to buy just your hot dog and put it on their _own_
bread. But if you start selling them hot dogs by themselves, won't they just
start handing out free hot dogs to all their friends? That would be a
disaster! So your answer is no! Hot dogs come baked into bread, and by now
you've convinced the mayor to make it illegal to take your hot dogs out of the
bread. People should just learn to love your bread!

So how's the guy who took your hot dog out of it's bread going? He's still
giving away hot dogs for free, and what's worse is that he's telling everyone
he gives one to to give them away, too. It's costing him nothing to do because
he doesn't have to pay for bread. Sure, some people are still coming to you
because they actually like the bread, but mostly the people coming to you are
asking about bread-free options, and are still willing to pay. Most of the
people going to the guy who's giving out hot dogs for free never bought
anything from you, and some of them don't even eat the hot dogs. Sure, you see
a few of your old customers going to him instead, but mostly the people going
to him either never came to you, or (after tasting the free hot dog) later
come to you to buy a genuine one in bread.

The point isn't that the guy giving away free hot dogs isn't a jerk. He is.
The point is that you're stubbornly refusing to let people pay for a hot dog
how they want it, in a way that costs you less (because you don't have to
adjust the price for the bread - you just have to cover your costs, rather
than incurring new ones).

You're doing this in an attempt to stop people doing what they're already
doing. People don't want to rip you off - they just want to be able to pick
their own bread.

To break from the analogy now, I was happily a pirate because it was difficult
for me to get what I wanted how I wanted _and there was no technical reason
why it wasn't available_. Sure, if I wanted all my movies as flip-books, then
there's a technical reason why that doesn't make sense, but there's no
technical reason stopping me from getting them as digital media files.

If I'm looking for music from a band, I will _always_ try to find a legal
channel to obtain it first. If I can't find one (and these days, it's getting
pretty rare), then I'll probably pirate it. Sure, some people will pirate it
anyway because they feel entitled to it, but the point is that many, many
people have no problems paying for content _so long as they can get it how and
when they want it_. This type of availability of content is pretty much what
TPB seems to be about for many people. It's not about screwing content
producers - it's about freedom of choice.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I _know_ that there are people who will always
choose to steal rather than pay, but most of society would happily pay _if
only we were allowed to_.

~~~
res0nat0r
If this is true, shouldn't TPB take down all items on their website which is
already available digitally? Everything available currently on Amazon, iTunes,
Hulu, Spotify, Rhapsody, Netflix, et al should be removed then correct? It is
availably digitally. I think your statement of 'how and when they want it'
actually means they want it immediately and want it for $0 or as close to $0
as possible.

~~~
neworbit
A lot of that isn't available internationally, due to market segmentation by
the movie/music cartels. I have no idea how much of the world TPB serves as
compared to US only markets, but I suspect it's pretty ubiquitous anywhere
there's broadband - whereas legit access to that media is not.

------
dazbradbury
Really interesting article, and I particularly like the opening paragraph.
Impressed how the pirate bay stand out as having such a well reasoned stance
with regard to SOPA. Much better than simply attacking the bill in my opinion.

"Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would "do
for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear". He called it the
Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also
the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture."

------
dangrover
> Because of Edisons patents for the motion pictures it was close to
> financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North american east
> coast. The movie studios therefor relocated to California, and founded what
> we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent.

I don't understand -- aren't patents federally enforced?

~~~
cbs
Yes they apply federally. However, back in the day the sheer distance from
Hollywood to Edison on the east cost made it infeasible for him to bring court
action needed to enforce the patents.

------
inexplicable
'Some facts (years, dates) are probably wrong in this press release. The
reason is that we can't access this information when Wikipedia is blacked out.
Because of pressure from our failing competitors. We're sorry for that.'

To me this was the best part of the entire message.

~~~
artursapek
I found it laughable, because of how Wikipedia's blackout is easily
circumventable, and because I didn't see a single year or date.

~~~
prawn
That's how wrong they were. ;)

~~~
Sapient
Wrong morally, or wrong factually?

If factually, then which parts are wrong?

~~~
prawn
Joking that the dates/years were so wrong that they weren't even there.

~~~
Sapient
Ah thanks, I missed that!

------
ComputerGuru
The text of the linked article, for those that do not have access to TPB (oh,
the irony....):

INTERNETS, 18th of January 2012. PRESS RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.

Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would "do
for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear". He called it the
Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also
the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edisons patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially
impossible to create motion pictures in the North american east coast. The
movie studios therefor relocated to California, and founded what we today call
Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent. There was also
no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make
movies out of them - like Fantasia, one of Disneys biggest hits ever.

So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing
control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights.
They copied (or put in their terminology: "stole") other peoples creative
works, without paying for it. They did it in order to make a huge profit.
Today, they're all successful and most of the studios are on the Fortune 500
list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations - it's all based
on being able to re-use other peoples creative works. And today they hold the
rights to what other people create. If you want to get something released, you
have to abide to their rules. The ones they created after circumventing other
peoples rules.

The reason they are always complainting about "pirates" today is simple. We've
done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our
own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We
allow people to have direct communication between eachother, circumventing the
profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes,
you pay to work for them). It's all based on the fact that we're competition.
We've proven that their existance in their current form is no longer needed.
We're just better than they are.

And the funny part is that our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of
the USA. We fight for freedom of speech. We see all people as equal. We
believe that the public, not the elite, should rule the nation. We believe
that laws should be created to serve the public, not the rich corporations.

The Pirate Bay is truly an international community. The team is spread all
over the globe - but we've stayed out of the USA. We have Swedish roots and a
swedish friend said this: The word SOPA means "trash" in Swedish. The word
PIPA means "a pipe" in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence. They want
to make the internet inte a one way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash
through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers. The public opinion
on this matter is clear. Ask anyone on the street and you'll learn that noone
wants to be fed with trash. Why the US government want the american people to
be fed with trash is beyond our imagination but we hope that you will stop
them, before we all drown.

SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top level domain
from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already
also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to
mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really. To
fix the "problem of piracy" one should go to the source of the problem. The
entertainment industry say they're creating "culture" but what they really do
is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls
become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls
for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv shows that make them
think that they're fat.

In the great Sid Meiers computer game Civilization you can build Wonders of
the world. One of the most powerful ones is Hollywood. With that you control
all culture and media in the world. Rupert Murdoch was happy with MySpace and
had no problems with their own piracy until it failed. Now he's complainting
that Google is the biggest source of piracy in the world - because he's
jealous. He wants to retain his mind control over people and clearly you'd get
a more honest view of things on Wikipedia and Google than on Fox News.

Some facts (years, dates) are probably wrong in this press release. The reason
is that we can't access this information when Wikipedia is blacked out.
Because of pressure from our failing competitors. We're sorry for that.

THE PIRATE BAY, (K)2012

~~~
davyjones
Hmmm...seems like the internet is the new California then.

------
andrewcamel
I don't really understand how they can have such a radical view... If the
pirate bay were to be the only media distribution system left after all of the
traditional "Hollywood" corporations went out of business (b/c of the pirate
bay), there would be no more movies which the pirate bay could distribute. I
don't know about you guys, but I do like my movies. EDIT: Please note this was
just I thought an interesting topic to think about - I by no means think this
is going to happen. TPB's statement gave me the feeling that they didn't want
the traditional Hollywood to exist any longer, which is why I brought this up.

Call it what you want, but what a ton of people are doing in downloading
movies off the pirate bay is taking something that they haven't paid for.
Maybe one can say that isn't stealing, but I find it hard to call it anything
else.

Maybe I'm missing something in their stance?

EDIT: I know we're talking about the middleman and not the producing
companies, but the pirate bay is still facilitating the act of taking revenues
away from producers, right?

~~~
snprbob86
Most physical object businesses has a multi-tier process that, greatly
simplified, can be described as:

(1) design -> (2) produce -> (3) distribute

This simplified traditional model can be directly applied to movies, games,
books, etc.

For example:

(1) guy writes book -> (2) publisher runs the printing press -> (3) dude runs
book store

Each of these steps can be greatly sub-divided. For example, someone needs to
drive the truck full of books to the book store!

Furthermore, the line between each of these steps can be very blurry. An
author could, for example, print his own book at home, if he were so inclined.

The big monkey wrench comes into things when you consider the most important
missing element: MONEY! Where does it come from?

In the days of yore, if you wanted to produce a film, you'd have to go find
backers, like you would for a startup business. Those backers could be
friends, family, fools, professional investors, pre-order sales, etc.

More interestingly, one type of backer could be the production/distribution
suppliers. They often have greater diversification, so they are more stable in
the long term. As they grow more and more stable, they grow more and more
rich. With their riches, they can go re-invest more and more of the supply and
distribution chain. Once they own more and more of the supply and distribution
chain, they can invest more and more in the design end of the process.

Now here's where things get rotton:

It is extremely difficult to profit from a movie these days which are not
funded by the major studios. They simply won't run it in the theaters that
they have exclusivity deals with! ie. most of them!

You're fucked.

This is true of a scary number of media empires! In addition to movies, think
about TV, music, Broadway, books (especially text books). I'm sure I'm missing
many.

It even is true of software! It may no longer true for boxed software at your
local Compu R' Us store, but it still is for video games. You're simply not
gonna make as much money if your game doesn't show up on the shelves at
Walmart.

So while capitalism works pretty well in general, it's got a fatal flaw: it
tends to generate monopolies. And monopolies are dangerous. If not presently
malevolent, monopolies are like time bombs waiting to go off when new
leadership steps in. I doubt the movie studios set out with the goal of
controlling all media and public opinion. It just so happens that being good
at making money makes you good at accumulating power. And power corrupts.

So now back to the question you asked: What is The Pirate Bay's stance?

Well.... I'd imagine that they view themselves as liberators from the tyranny
of the production companies. If those companies went _poof_ and disappeared
tomorrow, films wouldn't disappear. I mean, just look at youtube.com/freddiew
-- there are talented people out there who are figuring out how to fund things
like they're doing with their VGHS film.

Surely, destroying the production companies would cause people to loose jobs
and lots of great films to die on the planning desk. But people will overcome.
The industry will find new ways of funding itself and the middleman will
become less powerful. Sure, YouTube is _huge_ , but that won't stop you from
clicking a Vimeo link. The internet simply makes it too hard to get
disgustingly rich from being a publishing or distribution platform. And if you
_do_ get disgustingly rich, you simply can't lock every movie theater into an
exclusivity deal: anyone could run his own movie theater! And many other movie
theaters are just a few keystrokes away! There are new ones every day.

~~~
andrewcamel
Thanks so much for the lengthy response - really cleared a lot of things up,
but I had a few things to ask about:

1) So the main issue that we all have with these big production companies is
that they make it difficult for small guys to get in on the movie game? But
isn't that what things like Youtube and Vimeo are for? Distribution systems
for the little guy?

I don't really think it's practical to want to put a significant amount
independent developers into theaters. The reason the production companies are
really oligopolists (few in number, but relatively great in power) in the
industry is that is the best way to actually make the industry work. For
example, it's not a very good idea to have 100 different power companies where
you live because it is much more efficient and therefore better for society to
have only one company. Similarly, it really isn't a great idea to have
hundreds if not thousands of movies playing across the country at the same
time - it brings up huge issues with coordination, advertising, movie quality,
etc. These big production firms don't have the problems that you would have
with having hundreds of smaller independent firms.

The smaller guys should be going for the distribution channels made for the
smaller guys because that's how those channels were designed. The whole
construction of the network of theaters around the world wasn't designed to
have thousands of movies playing at the same time - it was designed to have a
few big movies playing at the same time. And the only way you're going to get
a _few_ big movies is if you have only a few firms that are able to make these
big movies.

2) Just as a quick point on economics, capitalism doesn't create monopolies.
It's the part of our economy that isn't capitalistic that creates monopolies.
We obviously don't live in a purely capitalistic society as a whole - it's
more monopolistically competitive and in some parts, oligopolistic. It is
oligopolistic in those parts where it is most efficient to do so (like in the
big name movie production and distribution industry).

~~~
seanp2k2
If it's more efficient, how come they are complaining so much about how
they're struggling to make money? P2p is way more efficient than what they
want (build+power+staff theatres, rental stores, retail stores, manage supply
chains, etc.)

The Internet wins and will always win.

~~~
andrewcamel
It isn't about efficiency. It's about giving stuff away for free versus
charging for it.

As one guy above put it, if you lay out a bunch of hotdogs on a table and let
people take them for free, you'll give out a whole lot more than the guy next
to you who is charging for them and handing them out one by one.

------
wmblaettler
Honestly, this argument is REALLY weak. Hollywood spends millions of dollars
to create these movies. To pirate it and not compensate the companies involved
is irresponsible, selfish and ignorant -- it is stealing. There is is great
amount of financial investment that goes into creating these movies. Today
with the internet, the distribution avenue exists for people to produce and
self publish, independent of Hollywood, but there is so much more to creating
a successful movie: expensive sets, actors' salaries, special effects, post
processing, marketing, the list goes on... In order to be successful these
movies require great financial outlay and to expect the final product to be
free is ridiculous. If these people really believe in free movies and music,
they'd boycott Hollywood productions (they very stuff they call 'trash') and
instead trade independent creations where the artist or writer chooses to give
it away.

This argument is not about freedom of exchanging original ideas or even
sharing bits of "copyrighted" information, it's about the wholesale stealing
of movies which took a great deal of time money and effort to create, even if
they are considered 'trash'. In the end, TPB and it's users only pander to the
"culture" that they supposedly so despise by consuming such media, they just
don't like paying for it.

The "great game" referenced (Civilization, at least the most recent version:
5), is ironically available to download on The Pirate Bay. I suppose this is
not worth paying Sid Meier and the development studios he worked with to
create this game either.

Pretty much the only thing I don't disagree with are the buried statements
about Fox News and the media's control over the public opinion and the
inhumane conditions in foreign factories.

FWIW, I OPPOSE SOPA and PIPA, I called my congressmen and voiced my concern
today, the proposed law is useless to curb this behavior, but will instead
hurt those who DO want to freely exchange ideas and information.

~~~
zimbatm
No it's just copying. Copying is not "theft" or "piracy" unless you prove that
there is a loss. Arguing that investment return should be a guarantee is kind
of creepy. Honestly, story telling has never been so expensive.

There's always a rogue fringe in the population. No matter how many laws you
introduce, these law are only going to inconvenience the majority of the
population. America has this great trend of over-criminalizing everything and
for what ? The content industry represents what, 1% of the GDP ?

I'm not saying that if everybody would use TPB is wouldn't be bad for the
content industry but last time I saw their numbers, they never have made as
much profit. If it weren't for TPB&friends, we would probably not have Spotify
or Netflix because the pressure wouldn't be there. The rogue people have
always been useful in history to challenge status quo and we should cut them
some slack. This is where the freedom kicks in.

Also, by repeating these terms of "piracy" and "theft", you are playing right
in the hands of the hollywood PR. It's not aligned with reality and
oversimplifies the complexity of what is going on. That's why I'm reacting.
I'm sick of seeing the same biased ideas repeated by intelligent people that
sound exactly as coming from hollywood.

Please, can't we just have more tolerance for each-other ?

~~~
res0nat0r
You are asking for more tolerance, but blindly ignoring the fact that artists
are asking you to pay them for their content. Don't believe that? Or think
downloading the music is acceptable as long as you go see them in concert?

Here is Anthony Hamilton who is a Grammy winner signed to RCA Records tweeting
an hour ago asking to please not bootleg his music:
[https://twitter.com/#!/HamiltonAnthony/status/15984085001528...](https://twitter.com/#!/HamiltonAnthony/status/159840850015289344)

Also asking for an investment on a return is creepy? Isn't that kind of what
you do for work? I'm investing in the fact I'm going to get paid at the end of
the month in return for time I put in at the office every week.

~~~
Daishiman
Don't generalize artists. Of all the artists I know in person (a couple dozen;
many of them published and touring) none of them support this legislation, and
some are radical opponents of intellectual property.

~~~
res0nat0r
I'm not saying at all they support SOPA, I am saying that I'm sure most of
them would like you to pay for their music instead of downloading it for free,
just like you or I would like to be paid at the end of the day for our work.

Also I'm not sure why I'm being down voted, but why is it that everyone
believes artists/musicians etc, just in the last 10 years or so don't deserve
to be paid now that their works are easily duplicatable via the internet? Just
because we don't like the big music companies and how they do business doesn't
seem to justify not paying for music. We all seem to hate Comcast and AT+Ts
service, yet we still pay them because there isn't an easy way to get free
cellphone service, or free internet to our houses. So using piracy as a way to
'stick it to the man' sounds like a cop out and a reason to get free music,
otherwise you would be boycotting Comcast and your cellphone company too.

~~~
tmh88j
No one here even discussed the thought that musicians don't deserve to be
paid. Wide-scale piracy is not a way to "stick it to the man." This is not a
teen angst movement. Pirating is so massively done because it's convenient.
There aren't millions of people out there who hate Sony or Virgin and download
music/videos just to cause them to lose potential profits.

Juxtaposing a communication service (ATT/Comcast) to a "product" (music) is
not even a valid comparison. You can't pirate ATT/Comcast; maybe you can
pirate software they have developed, but that's about the extent that you can
compare them.

I apologize if this is double post, my connetion cut out.

~~~
res0nat0r
This is true. Which is why I wish all of these long winded essays from The
Pirate Bay and others along the lines of 'information wants to be free',
really would just be replaced by 'I want what I want when I want it, and as
cheap as I want it'.

Piracy by people in the US is still huge even though a lot of major content is
easily available via Netflix, iTunes, Amazon et al. But that is always going
to lose out when it is being given away for free somewhere else.

------
jgn
I don't take TPB's "press releases" too seriously, and I don't think they do
either. It's interesting to hear how Hollywood came about but not significant
or relevant to what TBP does. As far as arguments for piracy go, there was a
much better submission here earlier today:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3478850>

I'm actually shocked TPB hasn't participated in the blackout themselves. They
made it clear they're international, but SOPA/PIPA are international too.

Edit: I wasn't very clear, what I really meant to say was that I'm shocked TPB
hasn't acknowledged blackout day somehow, especially considering how often
they change their image.

~~~
MiguelHudnandez
I suspect TPB did not black out because they will not shut themselves down in
response to pressure from the US Gov't.

Even though they might make a living, I don't think they see TPB as a
business. Instead, I think they see it as a mission, or a calling. I glean
from the tone of their writing that they are convinced they are doing good in
the world.

------
zupatol
The claim that Hollywood was created to evade Edison's patents is dubious.

According to "A history of narrative film" by David A. Cook "The reason why a
full-scale Eastern-based industry moved its entire operation to southern
California during these years has never been completely clear, but the general
contours of the phenomenon are obvious enough". He then lists these reasons:

\- the type of temperate climate required for year-round production (most
shooting was done outdoors at the time)

\- a wide range of topography within a 50 mile radius

\- the status of Los Angeles as a professional theatrical center

\- a low tax base

\- cheap and plentiful labor and land

------
citricsquid
Not sure I understand the point beyond the initial foundation of Hollywood. If
this was say Linux vs. Windows they would have a point, but to say "...we
crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow
people to have direct communication between eachother, circumventing the
profitable middle man..." when they're talking about content _created by_
these profitable companies it makes no sense and it seems like they're trying
to make it into some sort of moral crusade for freedom. Strange.

~~~
tlholaday
The profitable companies are not _really_ the creators of the content, are
they? Did DC create The Watchmen, or was it Alan Moore?

A consumer-pays-in-advance subscription model would provide better price
signals to the real creators, wouldn't it?

~~~
bunderbunder
Film studios specifically try to organize things so that the company that
creates the content _never_ turns a profit.

Supplying a Wikipedia link today seems silly, but you could Google "Hollywood
Accounting".

(oh what the hey: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting>)

------
lukejduncan
The Pirate Bay is held up as the ultimate example of what SOPA aims to kill.
However, isn't it hosted out of Swedish Parliament
([http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-to-run-tpb-from-
parliam...](http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-to-run-tpb-from-
parliament-010702/))? Aren't we in essence attacking a friendly government,
and consequently afraid of pissing them off politically?

~~~
barrybe
There's nothing about the US's past behavior which suggests that we're afraid
of pissing off friendly countries. :) We're a bunch of international bullies,
basically.

------
trouble
"The word SOPA means "trash" in Swedish. The word PIPA means "a pipe" in
Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence."

An interesting statement overall, but sentences like the one above have to
make you wonder how seriously TPB is thinking about the issue.

~~~
msandin
Not very it would seem given that "pipa" does not mean "pipe" in the sense TPB
are using it but rather only in the sense of a "pipe for smoking". A pipe in
the sense TPB use it would be "rör". But relating the combination "trash" and
"pipe for smoking" to their line of reasoning seems at least a little
harder/more far fetched.

~~~
nixy
Well, "pipa" also means muzzle, which is perhaps a bit closer to their
analogy.

------
bering
Could someone copy/paste the text of the blog entry here? I am in a country
(Denmark) that already has DNS-blocking and I can't access The Pirate Bay
(without changing my DNS settings... and I am too lazy to do that right now).

~~~
ComputerGuru
Here you go: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3483394>

~~~
bering
Thanks!

------
masonlee
Perhaps it is not banal to say "INTERNETS" if you are indeed writing about the
problem of network fragmentation?

------
tedsbardella
The kind of people who are so worried about "internet piracy" also want to
sterilize poor people

------
chernevik
"our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of the USA."

Well, John Calhoun's, anyway. If you don't like the rules everyone has agreed
to play by, go make your own.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Read this -- <http://goo.gl/643Wv> \-- for
a real understanding of "freedom" and "equality" and "law".

Or just look it up on Wikipedia when they come back up.

