11–20 of 62 posts
I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source license like the GPL gets demonized like they are a criminal.
The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement.
I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source license like the GPL gets demonized like they are a criminal.
The Pirate Party is not dedicated to piracy. It's dedicated to privacy and personal integrity, fighting the patent system and maintaining an open, free internet.
I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source license like the GPL gets demonized like they are a criminal.
I think it's a lot like Robin Hood. Piracy is viewed in some ways as "rob from the rich and give to the poor" which people in general can get on board with. However, breaking the GPL would be more like the opposite. Instead, someone is seeking personal gain/fame (aka the "rich") vs the people who volunteered their time ("poor") and that's just not right.
Copyright and Robin Hood ethics both breach the principle of live-and-let-live.
Robin Hood's takes away from some people. He justifies this with claims about the welfare another group.
Copyright applies the same principle. Defenders of copyright will say that in order to protect artists, engineers, etc, all of the rest of us should have less rights. We are not allowed to do certain things with magnetic signals on pieces of metal the we own, even in the privacy of our own homes.
It's not clear that it gives actual benefit to the recipient group. In practice, these people aren't defended well if at all, and the cost to the system is huge.
There'd also be a cost to the local economy if you had a brigand raiding merchants. I wouldn't operate in a region with those issues. Maybe if the people didn't have trading difficulties they'd have been able to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than being pushed into the arms of a revolutionary-come-nobleman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Pirate Party is not dedicated to piracy. It's dedicated to privacy and personal integrity, fighting the patent system and maintaining an open, free internet.
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen. "But you've got a bloody black flag!" "Its the flag of fighting the patent system!" "And you want to host torrents out of Parliament!" "They're personal integrity torrents!" "And movies!" "Doubtlessly movies about personal integrity!"
I appreciate the positives and the logical motivation behind this move but does this not provide an opportunity for end-users to torrent more nefarious files? Surely Swedish pedophiles are having a field day? Am I missing something?
Is monitoring filesharing sites the most effective way of fighting pedophilia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen. "But you've got a bloody black flag!" "Its the flag of fighting the patent system!" "And you want to host torrents out of Parliament!" "They're personal integrity torrents!" "And movies!" "Doubtlessly movies about personal integrity!"
The whole pirate theme is intended as humour, and a lot of us love Monty Python. The point of defending the Pirate Bay is that it is in fact not the site itself but it's users that distribute files with copyright-protected content. The Pirate Bay is a neutral medium.
The Swedish Pirate Party is indeed trying to reform copyright. Of course, you might argue that they are doing other things as well, so they are not "dedicated" to anti-copyright. But you can't deny that this is one of the party's policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen. "But you've got a bloody black flag!" "Its the flag of fighting the patent system!" "And you want to host torrents out of Parliament!" "They're personal integrity torrents!" "And movies!" "Doubtlessly movies about personal integrity!"
The whole pirate theme is intended as humour, and a lot of us love Monty Python. The point of defending the Pirate Bay is that it is in fact not the site itself but it's users that distribute files with copyright-protected content. The Pirate Bay is a neutral medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole pirate theme is intended as humour, and a lot of us love Monty Python. The point of defending the Pirate Bay is that it is in fact not the site itself but it's users that distribute files with copyright-protected content. The Pirate Bay is a neutral medium.
Is the first sentence in the linked article also intended as humour? "The Swedish Pirate Party, who are at the forefront of anti-copyright lobbying in Sweden, are (...)" The Swedish Pirate Party is indeed trying to reform copyright. Of course, you might argue that they are doing other things as well, so they are not "dedicated" to anti-copyright. But you can't deny that this is one of the party's policies.
I appreciate the positives and the logical motivation behind this move but does this not provide an opportunity for end-users to torrent more nefarious files? Surely Swedish pedophiles are having a field day? Am I missing something?
Governments that are saying "we need to monitor your every move to save you from the .5%" are playing on your fears to take your freedoms away.
I wonder what the response would be like if there was a party dedicated to breaking the GPL. Piracy seems to be fine, but anybody that violates an open source license like the GPL gets demonized like they are a criminal.
How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. Remember Jobs and Woz used a 'blue box' to get free long distance calls on AT&T's network. Their next idea was the Apple I. Fast forward to the 2000's and the iPhone is making At&T billions. If this scene played out today, they would've probably been sued into oblivion or arrested by the FBI., and Apple would never have been.
Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things).
Pg talkes about this much better than I can in his essay about the nature of hackers:
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
"Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night, I'd want to go out and investigate. Hackers are not stupid, and unanimity is very rare in this world. So if they're all squawking, perhaps there is something amiss.
Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America, will actually harm it? Think about it."
I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web.