Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?' • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#181

Post by boracay » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

karmacondon wrote: post #43

Many don't agree with the principles of TPB, but Sunde was willing to take risks for what he believed in. He deserves a lot of respect for that no matter what people think about the morality of what he helped to create. Most people go their whole lives without caring strongly about any issue at all, and almost all of those that do care are willing to sacrifice exactly nothing. I'd like to think that I would be willin…

You act like one of those guys he talks about in the article. Judging people from the sidelines and telling them what they should have done without remotely knowing the story.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#182

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

danielalmeida wrote: post #178

NotOscarWilde wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Netflix exists because of illegal sharing. And even though Netflix is pretty awesome, look at what all the established companies are doing to try to screw with Netflix. And let us not forget that Netflix is still unavailable in many countries (pick any Eastern European Country, EU countries included). And where it is available, many titles from the US Netflix are not available. Torrents (and illegal downloads in gen…

> Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly. I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Btw, there is no monopoly in the music or gaming industry (not that I know of, at least). There are laws for monopoly…

It's "breaking the law" in the same way that violating the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is "breaking the law". The laws we're comparing have some interesting parallels too:

    * Usually they're way too strict given the conditions
    * They're not re-evaluated often enough
    * Their usefulness in modern society is debatable
    * Both are often not used for their original purpose
    * The consequences for breaking them are usually minimal, unless you're being flagrant, or:
    * The enforcers sometimes choose to crack down and make an example out of you, despite the fact that:
    * The supposed harm caused by disregarding them is dubious, and in fact:
    * Arguments can be made that disregarding them is a net positive
    * People who outsource their moral compasses to the legal system usually choose one of these to demonize people for (ignoring that obedience to law isn't an inherently noble thing)
    * Said people also usually compare the law to something it's not. (YOU'RE LITERALLY ENDANGERING CHILDREN/YOU'RE LITERALLY STEALING)

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#183

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

danielalmeida wrote: post #178

NotOscarWilde wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Netflix exists because of illegal sharing. And even though Netflix is pretty awesome, look at what all the established companies are doing to try to screw with Netflix. And let us not forget that Netflix is still unavailable in many countries (pick any Eastern European Country, EU countries included). And where it is available, many titles from the US Netflix are not available. Torrents (and illegal downloads in gen…

> Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly. I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Btw, there is no monopoly in the music or gaming industry (not that I know of, at least). There are laws for monopoly…

> I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game".

Its a rather common approach when the monopoly you are concerned about effectively controls the relevant area of law.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#184

Post by sp332 » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:01 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #93

AndrewDucker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the person who first arrange a series of words in a particular order have the power to prevent other people from arranging words into the same order, in perpetuity? Copyright prevents the free speech of others. There's some justification for it doing so. But it's not a natural, or absolute, right.

There are exceptions to copyright to minimise the impact on free speech (satire, news for example). I guess people's opinions on this will ultimately come down to their views on free speech and that varies throughout the world.

The US Constitution does not recognize ideas as property. Copyrights and patents are limited-time incentives which may be granted by the government to encourage creativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Also, satire isn't protected, but parody is.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#185

Post by mathetic » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:02 PM UTC

gedrap wrote: post #99

tomp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Manning went to jail for revealing government secrets about government crimes. And Snowden cannot return home because he revealed that people are being spied on. It's very easy to say, "he went to jail because what he did was illegal". It's harder to say "he went to jail despite what he did was right". I support TPB's cause. I believe that non-profit sharing of information should be free.

>>> sharing of information But what TPB mainly distributed, was not information, it was products. And they are not essential products, you can live just fine without TV series or movies. People don't die because they can't play their favourite video game. It's like saying designer clothes should be free. Information should be shared without profit, yeah, that's what wikipedia is doing fine. But video games are not in…

One important difference between giving designer clothes free and your favorite video game free is that that former is a constant sum game while the latter is not. Sharing software products does not prevent anyone else to access it. It does not even cost money for the producer as the distribution is handled by seeders.

All in all it's a terrible analogy.

EDIT: By all means go ahead and downvote, but don't forget to explain why the analogy doesn't fail.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#186

Post by company » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

FlyingSnake wrote: post #38

k-mcgrady wrote: post #2

He went to jail for creating a website that enabled people to download music and movies without paying for them. Jail is a harsh punishment IMO for that. ACTA/SOPA etc. are all terrible things that we can't allow and we can't allow the internet to become more centralised/controlled by government. But that's not why he went to jail. Enabling illegal downloads of content has little to do with those causes.

Gandhi went to jail for picking up salt from a beach, which was also illegal. Legality of some act is not a fundamental law of science and shouldn't be treated as such.

So, now we are comparing online piraters to Gandhi?

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#187

Post by TheCoelacanth » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

pionar wrote: post #128

ars wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that stealing? If they won't sell you the wiget then why should they get to claim copyright? Copyright only exists to promote selling content, take that away and copyright vanishes right along with it.

No, copyright exists to say, I made this, I get to control how it's distributed.

No, copyright exists to incentivize the creation of new works for the benefit of society.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#188

Post by icebraining » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:05 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #125

icebraining wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still confusing "freedom to share" with "obligation to share". Being for the free sharing of information and choosing to not publish some stuff is completely coherent. Nobody says copyright holders should be forced to publish their works.

So you support spreading the hacked nude photos of celebs? Once someone obtains a copy they should be free to share? And "Nobody says copyright holders should be forced to publish their works." should be a warning flag to you. Once you get to a position that twisty, you should think to yourself there's probably something wrong with it.

What twist? If you don't want your works to be distributed, don't distribute them. I don't see what's weird about that.

As for the nude celeb pictures, I think the original hack should be illegal. I don't think mere distribution should be. It wouldn't serve any purpose to do so, as we've seen - it is illegal right now, did that help anyone?

That doesn't mean I support it. Life is not a binary choice between "this is a good activity" and "this should be illegal".

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#189

Post by ultramancool » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:06 PM UTC

aragot wrote: post #173

ultramancool wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. Why do people confuse the concept of free speech with some specific political or legal idea? There are many other ways in which a reduction of free speech is extremely harmful. Look at the great firewall of China blocking democratic content, look at reviews being c…

Consequently, it should be understood that bytes can't be stopped from being copied. I wish it wasn't just a point of view. What we're seeing with copyright is governments trying to prevent bits from being copied, which is a pharaonic task and a waste of resources.

Well said, it's definitely something that needs to be discussed. That however is separate from distributing simple numbers, which do not ever construct a work, in my opinion.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#190

Post by giarc » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 3:06 PM UTC

pothibo wrote: post #148

k-mcgrady wrote: post #2

He went to jail for creating a website that enabled people to download music and movies without paying for them. Jail is a harsh punishment IMO for that. ACTA/SOPA etc. are all terrible things that we can't allow and we can't allow the internet to become more centralised/controlled by government. But that's not why he went to jail. Enabling illegal downloads of content has little to do with those causes.

What a narrow view you have. Torrent makes it accessible to see things you have paid for but didn't have time/forgot to watch (TV series). They also make it accessible to get stuff you couldn't (Not because it's available in USA that it is in every country). That's crazy that someone went to jail for running TPB when the MPAA and RIAA are big monopolies that control how much we should spend on stuff. It's not a free…

Are you saying that people that download the latest version of X TV show all have a cable subscription that includes that show? That, I would say, is completely incorrect.