Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

falkvinge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#81

Post by notdrunkatall »

rdtsc wrote: post #62
powertower wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. There was a story that made the rounds a while ago… A felon flees police in a car, and later specifically swerves left to run-over the cop up ahead that is trying to deploy spikes on the road, and ends up running over his legs. Minutes later that felon crashes the car. At the same…

> But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their lives to do so. Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers. It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow cops who don't fuck u…

rdtsc isn't defending the actions of bad cops by pointing out that the vast majority of cops are good cops, he's saying that in a police state, the majority of cops will be corrupt arseholes, which isn't the case here in the USA. Thus, all of the claims that the USA is a police state is a police state are superficial, and I agree. We are certainly headed in that direction, but we are not there yet, not even close, really.

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#82

Post by __--__ »

thangalin wrote: post #70
nirvana wrote: post #21

As countries become more corrupted, their "legal" system becomes less about the law and justice, and more an arm of the state to impose its will. I've seen countless examples of this, where the law was ignored, precedent and procedure was ignored, and obviously corrupted officials acted for their best interest in persecuting the people the state had decided needed persecution. In fact, this tendency is so common, his…

http://imgur.com/a/PK69j A direct democracy where moderators are assigned randomly for random intervals of time. Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions. Where the best ideas, not the best orators, can prevail. Where budgets, and distribution of taxes, are wholly transparent. Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length. Wher…

"Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length."

This sounds like a great way to turn the law making process into Reddit. Reddit attracts a certain type of person and drives away others. A Digital Democracy would do the same.

"Where decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence at hand"

I don't see how this is possible. Whether in person or online, most decision making processes are based on emotion and not logic.

"Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions."

How? Is there somebody deciding how intelligent and how positive the contributions are? Or are we going to rely on upvotes? Those upvotes are going to be based on emotion, not logic. It's a great way to determine how popular an opinion is, but not how intelligent or constructive.

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#83

Post by nitrogen »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #81
rdtsc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their lives to do so. Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers. It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow cops who don't fuck u…

rdtsc isn't defending the actions of bad cops by pointing out that the vast majority of cops are good cops, he's saying that in a police state, the majority of cops will be corrupt arseholes, which isn't the case here in the USA. Thus, all of the claims that the USA is a police state is a police state are superficial, and I agree. We are certainly headed in that direction, but we are not there yet, not even close, re…

A country that portrays itself as a beacon of light in a dark world ought to judge itself by both its direction and the extreme cases, not by its relative position and the median cases.

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#84

Post by thangalin »

__--__ wrote: post #82
thangalin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://imgur.com/a/PK69j A direct democracy where moderators are assigned randomly for random intervals of time. Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions. Where the best ideas, not the best orators, can prevail. Where budgets, and distribution of taxes, are wholly transparent. Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length. Wher…

"Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length." This sounds like a great way to turn the law making process into Reddit. Reddit attracts a certain type of person and drives away others. A Digital Democracy would do the same. "Where decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence at hand" I don't see how this is possible. Whether in person or online, most decision making…

Introduction

A problem with condensing a complex arena into a few terse paragraphs is that many details must be abandoned favouring a broader scope. You have raised a number of issues, and I would encourage you to think about my response not in terms of absolute answers but in terms of possibilities that, while imperfect, would move us closer to an ideal policy-creation system than what currently exists throughout the world.

Debate Mentality

Where you see Reddit, I see StackOverflow, complete with a system of reputation and moderation. Unlike Reddit where anyone can post a comment, this policy-creation system is akin to StackOverflow where a person must achieve a certain amount of reputation before making a moderated post. With moderators selected at random, for a random interval, there is little chance for hive-mentality to fester.

Scientific Evidence

I understand that you don't see how it is possible to infuse scientific evidence with policy review. Especially given how politicians today seem to shun science. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized location for public discourse on a subject that brings together all vantage points. Fortunately, we can leverage DOI links on a policy while debating it, and include a wiki for each benefit and drawback. Consider:

http://imgur.com/a/PK69j#3

Facts must be backed up by research by linking to a scientific paper using a DOI. Evidence can also be submitted using a wiki-style format, such as:

http://imgur.com/a/PK69j#2

This could include video evidence, calculations, budgetary impacts, and other details necessary to make an informed decision on whether the benefit or drawback is sound. The culmination of benefits and drawbacks are succinctly summarized so that people can still make an informed choice without delving too deeply. (But people can go deeper if they want, assuming the topic interests them.)

Opinion vs. Fact

Part of the issue here is that I think you're looking at the system from "opinions" being presented. The system caters more to facts than opinions, in the same way that StackOverflow emphasizes correct answers over opinions. The example I gave illustrates how this would work: "Some consider marijuana use to be morally wrong." This is an opinion, which is easily countered with: "Enforcing the status quo morality may reflect and reinforce deep-rooted prejudices," with a citation.

http://imgur.com/a/PK69j#3

Reputation

There are a number of ways reputation can be earned in a given subject-matter: For a presenting a fact that gets a large number of up-votes; for graduating an accredited university; for proposing drawbacks and benefits that pass moderation; by attaining up-votes on drawbacks and benefits. Reputation can be lost by casting down-votes or by receiving down-votes.

Institution

I believe you assumed that this system would be initially available to the general public, but that need not be true. It could, to start, be opened to politicians, lawyers, and scientists, who have a vested interest in ensuring the system does not get abused. Effectively as a means to facilitate the communications process around proposing and accepting policies. This would eliminate your concerns regarding a Reddit-style law.

Self-Referential

The system could be made self-referential whereby changes to the system can be proposed using the system.

Conclusion

Pointing out the flaws in a system is a great way to open discussion, and I thank you. Pointing out how the system can be improved to eliminate or mitigate those flaws is even better.

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#85

Post by linuxhansl »

powertower wrote: post #37
nirvana wrote: post #21

As countries become more corrupted, their "legal" system becomes less about the law and justice, and more an arm of the state to impose its will. I've seen countless examples of this, where the law was ignored, precedent and procedure was ignored, and obviously corrupted officials acted for their best interest in persecuting the people the state had decided needed persecution. In fact, this tendency is so common, his…

Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. There was a story that made the rounds a while ago… A felon flees police in a car, and later specifically swerves left to run-over the cop up ahead that is trying to deploy spikes on the road, and ends up running over his legs. Minutes later that felon crashes the car. At the same…

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The police applying reciprocal violence is most definitely not appropriate in any situation.

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#86

Post by e12e »

sebcat wrote: post #32
nirvana wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if someone made a webstie that was pro-marijuana, would you assume that was a crime? They're encouraging/tolerating piracy. The pirate bay did not host nor distribute any pirated files. So where's the crime?

I think BrB 23:4 is relevant. Aiding a criminal act is in itself a crime. So the argument of "they're not distributing content themselves" is invalid. The argument should be about the legality of file sharing, property and ownership.

I think that is a very slippery argument when it comes to (magnet) links, and the Internet. I can tell you where you can buy drugs or prostitutes in the city where I live. If I do, am I "aiding" you in committing a crime? If a newspaper reports the same thing, are they "facilitating" a crime?

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#87

Post by beagle3 »

gwern wrote: post #18
darkchasma wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Swedes won't be forgiven because they let America bully them? Yup, that's logical.

Yeah, pretty much. Sweden is not poor; it is not uneducated; it is not corrupt; it is not dependent on the USA for economic or military aid; it's full of people who ostensibly understand that sometimes the USA should be opposed; and so on and so forth. They have means, motive, and opportunity to do the right thing at little cost to themselves, and they failed to do so.

> it is not corrupt

Well, time to cross that one out of the list. It might just be a small part so far, but since there's nothing to oppose it, it will spread like a disease.

Quickly or slowly, depending on lots of factors. But with nothing to oppose the spread, it is unlikely to stop.

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#88

Post by belorn »

sameerp1 wrote: post #20

This article operates on the premise that the defendants are not guilty. But can someone explain how/why creating a site like the Pirate Bay that encourages or at least tolerates piracy is not a crime. I ask in all seriousness.

I see the article mostly talking about the actions of those involved in the case and not the defendants. The actions performed, for example by Jim Keyzer, is criminal. The actions of the defendants, however one feel about it, doesn't excuse criminal conducts by people employed by the justice department.

However, I will try to answer the question on why creating an indexing site called the piate bay should not be illegal.

1) A crime need to first have happened, and then linked to an individual before prosecution. Its the basic idea of all justice system, and without it, justice don't work. You end up with "justice" that say "well, you are the son of So and So, and thus you are going to commit a crime sooner or later". In this case, its "well, someone somewhere is likely encourage by the site's name, so lets throw the creators in jail for that someone somewhere".

2) The pirate bay is a tool with a name. Its like having a crowbar named "heist". A name should not be enough to distinguish a criminal factory producing tools from an illegal factory. An search index, however named, should not be deemed legal liable for its users just because then name is more suggestive than "Google".

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#89

Post by belorn »

archgrove wrote: post #40
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Google committing a crime if it indexes a CP site? Are you committing a crime if somebody links to CP in your blog's comments? Of course not. Having a link to something is not a crime.

Because Google and you are not setting out explicitly to build a set of links to copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder. It's all about intent. If I go to a high-street store called "Kitchen Goods" and buy a knife, that store's fine. If I go to a store called "Jay's back-alley shivs" run out of the inside breast of his raincoat between 02:00 and 04:00, he's probably not fine. The law recognis…

Actually, in regard to the Appeals Court, its the majority usages of the site that count. If your blog's comments is mostly used for illegal activity, you are guilty of facilitating the crime by having said blog. Intent was not mentioned by the Appeals Court to have any baring on the matter.

This is how they said Google was not guilty, but the pirate bay was (they mentioned Google specifically in the question and answer).

Re: Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

#90

Post by philwelch »

powertower wrote: post #37
nirvana wrote: post #21

As countries become more corrupted, their "legal" system becomes less about the law and justice, and more an arm of the state to impose its will. I've seen countless examples of this, where the law was ignored, precedent and procedure was ignored, and obviously corrupted officials acted for their best interest in persecuting the people the state had decided needed persecution. In fact, this tendency is so common, his…

Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. There was a story that made the rounds a while ago… A felon flees police in a car, and later specifically swerves left to run-over the cop up ahead that is trying to deploy spikes on the road, and ends up running over his legs. Minutes later that felon crashes the car. At the same…

Here's a selective filter: when a cop is murdered by a civilian in the line of duty, the civilian goes to prison. When a civilian is murdered by the cop, the cop might lose his job, or he might just get suspended with pay.

Here's another selective filter: if a cop wants to shoot a taser at me and electrocute me, the worst he's going to get is a disciplinary hearing. If I as much as touch a police officer on the shoulder, I could be arrested for assaulting an officer (and will probably take the taser shot as well).

The fact is, some cops are more willing to risk a civilian's life to protect their own than to risk their lives to protect a civilian. That's what it means when they decide to shoot a woodcarver to death because he's holding his carving knife. And when there is zero tolerance for cop killers while killer cops walk free, we have a problem.

Post reply on HN