Pirate Bay's Anonymity Service Attracts 113,000

[JMcEntegart]

At the end of last month, the people behind the Pirate Bay launched a new VPN designed to protect users from new piracy laws set forth in Sweden and it seems people are all for it.

Pirate Bay's Anonymity Service Attracts 113,000 : Read more

 

[theJ]

I too have grown morals. I won't be using the service, though it will be interesting to see if the law can attack this service too.

Question though: If you're willing to pony up $6.80 for this monthly service (supposedly to download music and movies illegally), then why not pony up a few extra $'s to do it legally? I know i would.

 

[Guest]

thej: i think in regards to ponying up money to download legally instead, theres just so much thats not available in good quality at decent download times legally. hulu still isnt available over here, streaming movies etc just aint up to par etc. music is making definite headway but the biggest problem is that the illegal way is still faster, and with better quality and a much bigger amount of stuff available than any legal alternatives.

Regards.

 

[jsloan]

wouldnt it be a non issue with torrents over tor

 

[Zoidman]

If you put it this way, its 6.80 for unlimited downloads, so more than six and an eighth song download you would normally get from that much lol

Furthermore, I too have developed morals, but I'm a strong advocate of try before you buy. To that respect if a piece of software offers no demo I am willing to download it and try it instead (even if that means the full thing). There are several games that I've done so, and liked them so much I bought the game when I was finished, Fallout 3 for example. Or on the reverse, I didn't need to download HAWX because they offered a demo, and I'm glad they did because I would have been very disappointed had I simply ran out and bought the game.

 

[theJ]

[citation][nom]mimer[/nom]thej: i think in regards to ponying up money to download legally instead, theres just so much thats not available in good quality at decent download times legally. hulu still isnt available over here, streaming movies etc just aint up to par etc. music is making definite headway but the biggest problem is that the illegal way is still faster, and with better quality and a much bigger amount of stuff available than any legal alternatives.Regards.[/citation]

That makes sense. I didn't think about that. But now that you mention it, the couple of sites i just checked out say "only available in the US".

So what's the holdup then? Is is legal problems preventing these sites from being available over seas? And if that's the problem, why not get these legalized? Seems like the best Anti-piracy option for some of these countries.

 

[vicsrealms]

I still use it as a form of try before you buy for most things. I don't like the idea of costing a company money by continuing to use it. Still, I also don't like wasting money on a game I don't like (done that far too often of late), and an application that doesn't it do its job like it has been advertised too.

 

[Grims]

Will this work for web browsing, or just torrenting? How are speeds effected?

 

[Guest]

Not to offend anyone but equating what's legal with 'growing morals' is fairly ignorant. I'm sure many feel one way or another about downloading but saying that you 'grew morals' and as a result no longer download is basically disregarding any other perspective but their own. This would be the equivalent of saying "I used to support our troops/US actions, but then I grew morals...". Clearly, you can see what someone's objection would be to a statement such as that but its clear that there would be people on both sides of the fence (for and against), trying to add a 'moral' layer only to one side would be fairly biased.

Bottom line, just because its illegal doesn't mean its immoral, and inversely, just because its legal doesn't mean its morally correct either.

 

[theJ]

[citation][nom]Unknown-[/nom]Not to offend anyone but equating what's legal with 'growing morals' is fairly ignorant. I'm sure many feel one way or another about downloading but saying that you 'grew morals' and as a result no longer download is basically disregarding any other perspective but their own. This would be the equivalent of saying "I used to support our troops/US actions, but then I grew morals...". Clearly, you can see what someone's objection would be to a statement such as that but its clear that there would be people on both sides of the fence (for and against), trying to add a 'moral' layer only to one side would be fairly biased.Bottom line, just because its illegal doesn't mean its immoral, and inversely, just because its legal doesn't mean its morally correct either.[/citation]

In this case, downloading movies and music illegally is basically stealing from the artist who took their time and effort (however little it was) to produce the product.

I don't see how you can claim that's morally right.

 

[Supertrek32]

Instead of focusing on combating pirates, companies should act like Blizzard. Make people WANT to buy the product legitimately - instead of the other way around. Offer online inscentives to purchasing content legally.

Games - Make awesome multiplayer. Not many people pirate Halo (compared to sales). Why? Because people want to play it online. Stop trying to throw out games as fast as possible and start focusing on quality games. It'll make everyone happier.
Music - Each CD should come with a CD-key type code that a user can log in then attach to their account online. These could do anything from offer free tracks to act as "tickets" to webcast concerts.

You get the idea - this could be applied to pretty much any form of digital content. I'm not saying that they're a good thing, but instead of thinking of pirates as criminals, think of them as competitors. Quality goes up, sales go up, and everyone's happy.

 

[zuesacuatl]

But is stealing not immoral? I am sorry, but in all honesty, downloading is stealing, and stealing is immoral. Yeah, some moron will tell you i dont want to spend that much money on a movie. Hell, I cant afford to take my family to some movies I would like to see, but I am not downloading them. I hope those people that download ILLEGALLY get pissed that they are being called immoral, cause they are and the truth hurts. The companies charging such high prices are immoral as well, but the old adage stands firm, to wrongs dont make a right, no matter how much you want to make yourself out to be the good guy.

 

[echo2976]

Downloading digital media content in and of itself is not exactly stealing. It all depends on the purpose and end result. For example: I bought an album 10 years ago and the tape/record/CD was damaged which caused me to lose some tracks. So I decided to replace it by copying it from someone else. Whether I do this by downloading from online or borrowing someone's physical media is irrelevant.

Granted this isn't the typical use of downloading digital media but it is an example. Another is the "try before buy" philosophy. In which no theft takes place either.

Maybe the solution is in the details. I agree with supertrek32, if piracy was treated as a factor of market influence and used as a driver for innovation everyone would win. Instead it is easier to label it illegal and begin a campaign against it.

Time has proven that prohibiting something immediately gives up all control over it. It didn't work with alcohol in America in the early 1900's and it isn't working with the war on drugs now. What makes anyone think it will work with digital media downloading.

 

[turboflame]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]wouldnt it be a non issue with torrents over tor[/citation]

Enjoy your 2kb/s

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]thej[/nom]In this case, downloading movies and music illegally is basically stealing from the artist who took their time and effort (however little it was) to produce the product.I don't see how you can claim that's morally right.[/citation]

Aside from the obvious that morals are subjective to the individual (ie. is having pre-marital sex immoral? is supporting Israel immoral? etc)

Let me ask you something, if I take an identical picture of the 'Mona Lisa' and I put it up in a frame in my house, have I "stolen" the Mona Lisa from the artist? I'm sure you'll find it hard to say I did since the original Mona Lisa is not in my possession nor have I used anyone's resources other than my own (ie my own camera, frame, nails, time, etc)... but I have done SOMETHING which is the important factor. Figuring out the footprint of that SOMETHING is what is being debated... its not clear whether I will influence others to see the original Mona Lisa by my actions or deter them by being able to provide a substitute. There are countless consequences of this action but whether the outcome is positive or negative is not clear. This, ofcourse, is not an exhaustive example but just illustrates the point that the action of 'downloading' isn't as black and white as its promoters/condemners would like you to believe. There are layers to it and I think its clear the current industry model is showing that there is a delivery channel that is not being met (and hence why people download to obtain something).

I hope you can see that I'm not trying to say that downloading is right nor wrong, but that its not as basic an issue as the industry would like to make it. Like asking "Is making money morally correct?" (the question would arise as to why and how you are making money and based on those answers you'd have more substance to make an argument).

 

[hellwig]

Does growing laurels count?

I don't understand how people justify illegal downloading? If the product isn't worth buying, why are you wasting your time (and with TimeWarner, limited bandwidth) downloading it in the first place? Yeah, you may not like a new movie that came out, but just wait and rent it ($1 at RedBox, how can you go wrong). Sure, a game might not be as fun as you think, but then just wait till the price goes down before buying it to try it out. Steam has sales all the time, I buy games on weekend deals I never would have bought at full retail.

Lame excuses aside, if you simply can't afford to rent or buy, I'm sorry, that sucks for you, but that's how the world works. Unless you live in a third-world country, no ones going to feel sorry that you couldn't afford $40 for the latest video game, nor will they accept that as an excuse to steal a movie or game. If the RIAA and MPAA got one thing right, its that everyone knows downloading a movie or game over P2P is illegal, so ignorance isn't an excuse anymore either.

Seriously, who shares music, movies, or games these days and doesn't know its illegal? If you know its illegal, why are you complaining that laws are making it harder to do that illegal activity. You should be more worried about things that affect you when you aren't breaking the law. Like the government tapping your phones without warrants or monitoring your bank activity on the off chance you might be a terrorist just because you know someone who lives outside the country.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]zuesacuatl[/nom]But is stealing not immoral? I am sorry, but in all honesty, downloading is stealing, and stealing is immoral. Yeah, some moron will tell you i dont want to spend that much money on a movie. Hell, I cant afford to take my family to some movies I would like to see, but I am not downloading them. I hope those people that download ILLEGALLY get pissed that they are being called immoral, cause they are and the truth hurts. The companies charging such high prices are immoral as well, but the old adage stands firm, to wrongs dont make a right, no matter how much you want to make yourself out to be the good guy.[/citation]

Come now, I'm sure you've heard the "if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family..." adage, stealing is subjective to its context but I hope you see the idea. And of course no one is going to starve over not downloading but I hope you see the subjectivity in the act of downloading.

Don't just assume that the only people that download are people who don't want to pay 'too much' for something, there are many other reasons. Think about why people listen to the radio. Is it because they don't want to pay for music? Sometimes but its not the only reason, follow that same branch of logic for downloading.

 

[zuesacuatl]

kami3k is proof of the truth hurting. Let us resort to name calling. We are back to kindergarten. My daddy is bigger then yours lol.

hellwig hit it on the nose, there is no excuse for it. I understand people have lost data on a bought CD, but per the eula on said CD, it can not be given to others to copy, so once you lose said data you are expected to purchase a new Cd. It is BS that it is expected, but that is the way the cookie crumbles. I would love to play every game out there before I buy it. If I am not sure, I wait for a buddy to buy a non-demoed game and see how it is, if its good, I buy it. I wont download it, I wont load it on my system, I will play it on his. If no one gets it, then I either buy it and pray, or dont buy it at all, its the creators fault if I dont buy it cause they did not demo it.

Dont make excuses if you are morally bankrupt, just accept the fact. Yeah imo stealing is illegal, and doing illegal acts is immoral, but most sensible people would agree with that line of thought.

 

[Guest]

"In this case, downloading movies and music illegally is basically stealing from the artist who took their time and effort (however little it was) to produce the product.

I don't see how you can claim that's morally right."

I'm sure slave owners in the 19 century couldn't see how equality was morally right either. They were conditioned by society to believe they could own another human being. Just as we are being conditioned by the recording industries to believe that someone can own "intellectual property" and that piracy is synonymous with stealing. Yet, that is not the case.

Stealing is wrong because it deprives the previous, legitimate owner of the property that is stolen. This concept is ingrained in our society because we have been dealing with property and trade for thousands of years. Yet, for all that time, there has never been a type of property that could be "cloned". Stealing meant taking away, plain and simple.

Now we have intellectually property that CAN be cloned. I can take a movie or song without depraving anyone of it. So the basis for stealing being wrong no longer applies here. Applying the concept of "stealing" to intellectual property doesn't make sense, it's like saying "this weather is too expensive". Because no deprivation occurs when something is pirated, there is no theft, and it is not immoral.

Now, someone will say it is theft because it deprives the creator of the profit. But in a free market economy no one is entitled to a profit. If you create something you can't sell, you don't make profit. (Ask the Big Three lol) If I come to your house and mow your lawn without you asking, am I entitled to be paid? Of course not, because you never agreed to pay me. Well I never agreed to pay an artist for their work. If they create anyway, they do so without the guarantee of profit. If they can't handle that they should do something else for a living, or move to a country with a centrally planned economy.

And artists could still make money even if no copyright laws existed. There would have to be a paradigm shift whereby the artist itself would be the product, instead of the song or movie. A good artist would still generate enough demand (concert appearances, commissioned works, merchandise branding etc) that they could still make a viable living without ever selling a "song" or "movie". The recording industries protest copyright freedom because they are afraid what such a paradigm shift would do to their profitability. In doing so they pervert our language, discourage unbiased discussion, and sue children for thousands of dollars. Just who is being immoral here??

 

[zuesacuatl]

It is not the artist losing money, they make their big bucks in live concerts, it is the rest of the music industry that has not changed their business model to make a secure profit in this ever changing world. Let me get this out and straight. I hate paying for over priced music, they dont deserve a penny from me with the way they run their business. I am one of the first to say down with the music companies and up with the new age self promoting artist. The fact is though, per the law, property is property, just read that 5 min blue screen at the beginning of every movie lol, and taking property without payment or allowance of use is stealing. I understand that it can be freely cloned, and there is no substance or matter to said property, but it is property of others none the less.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]echo2976[/nom]...
I agree with supertrek32, if piracy was treated as a factor of market influence and used as a driver for innovation everyone would win. Instead it is easier to label it illegal and begin a campaign against it
...[/citation]
And I thought I was the only one that thought so. This definitely needs to be echoed.

I completely and whole-heartedly agree that people who profit financially from piracy (ie. selling bootlegs) should be penalized, and harshly. The 'free' community on the other hand is clearly showing a demand for a delivery channel that isn't there and isn't being provided by the industry. The industry needs to start assessing downloading as a competitive force and analyzing how to encourage purchases of their products vs downloading with other methods other than deeming it as 'immoral' and illegal. (off-tangent: think about what the most effective way to discourage drug use is, only labeling it 'immoral' or teaching of the different drugs, consequences, etc and allowing a choice to be made by the individual?)

 

[Guest]

Is it moral to kill someone. Most people would say no but what about if that person was trying to kill you or your family. Then by our legal system's definition it is self defense. Is it still immoral maybe but our law says its okay. What (whoever unknown is) is trying to get at is that morals are subjective and saying I grew morals is probably an incorrect term. He/she is also trying to get at the fact that law does not equal morality.
Whatever your opinion is on copyright infringement or stealing saying anything is moral as an absolute is kind of ignorant. for example (and I know that this isn't the case with this but I am trying to make a point not advocate piracy) but is someone stealing food for there starving family wrong. Maybe but I don't think many people would blame them either.(yes it is a cliche example )

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]-unknown-[/nom] I think its clear the current industry model is showing that there is a delivery channel that is not being met [/citation]

Agree. If getting things legally were as easy and rewarding as downloading them illegally, more people would be inclined to follow the legal route.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]blowblow[/nom]"In this case, downloading movies and music illegally is basically stealing from the artist who took their time and effort (however little it was) to produce the product.I don't see how you can claim that's morally right."I'm sure slave owners in the 19 century couldn't see how equality was morally right either. They were conditioned by society to believe they could own another human being. Just as we are being conditioned by the recording industries to believe that someone can own "intellectual property" and that piracy is synonymous with stealing. Yet, that is not the case. Stealing is wrong because it deprives the previous, legitimate owner of the property that is stolen. This concept is ingrained in our society because we have been dealing with property and trade for thousands of years. Yet, for all that time, there has never been a type of property that could be "cloned". Stealing meant taking away, plain and simple.Now we have intellectually property that CAN be cloned. I can take a movie or song without depraving anyone of it. So the basis for stealing being wrong no longer applies here. Applying the concept of "stealing" to intellectual property doesn't make sense, it's like saying "this weather is too expensive". Because no deprivation occurs when something is pirated, there is no theft, and it is not immoral.Now, someone will say it is theft because it deprives the creator of the profit. But in a free market economy no one is entitled to a profit. If you create something you can't sell, you don't make profit. (Ask the Big Three lol) If I come to your house and mow your lawn without you asking, am I entitled to be paid? Of course not, because you never agreed to pay me. Well I never agreed to pay an artist for their work. If they create anyway, they do so without the guarantee of profit. If they can't handle that they should do something else for a living, or move to a country with a centrally planned economy.And artists could still make money even if no copyright laws existed. There would have to be a paradigm shift whereby the artist itself would be the product, instead of the song or movie. A good artist would still generate enough demand (concert appearances, commissioned works, merchandise branding etc) that they could still make a viable living without ever selling a "song" or "movie". The recording industries protest copyright freedom because they are afraid what such a paradigm shift would do to their profitability. In doing so they pervert our language, discourage unbiased discussion, and sue children for thousands of dollars. Just who is being immoral here??[/citation]
+1

It looks like this is going into an in-depth debate...

Very well said.

 

[Mundus33]

Also what unknown is getting at isn't that you grew moral but that your morals changed maybe before you were immoral but that still means you made the decision based upon morality as such your morals were there but weren't looking in the same direction as now.