New ruling in UK says ISPs must block PirateBay

[justin_credible]

Is it any more wrong for Ebay to make millions if not billions (i'm sure the latter if not close to it) off people selling mostly used products? And for the sellers to be on there making money off something they had nothing to do with creating? I mean not a penny of that is going to anyone who created the actual material.

So if I buy a used game, shouldn't it be wrong for me to turn around and sell that used game? I mean I don't own the license of the product to be selling it. And again not a penny goes to the maker of the product. There are businesses that exist off only used products, such as a record/game/dvd store in my city, or a pawn shop.

Is Gamestop anymore "right" than a pirate for selling a used game for $5 less than the retail price, robbing the developers of making a single penny off the game? While they make almost the full price? If there was a law against it no doubt everyone would say they were "wrong" and they would be shut down. But since there's no law, they know how to use the law to their advantage and make big money off of it. Doesn't make them "good" or "right". While there's what I would say a very small percentage that downloads games movies etc... and sells them for profit, most people download for personal use only, like me. So the way I see it, who's the lesser evil? I'm not making any profit off of what I do, while Gamestop and Ebay makes a shitton. Same result for the developer of the product, though. He sees no profit.

People get morals and what's "right and wrong" mixed up with what the laws say. Sadly if the world was truly just, there would laws restricting the reselling of used cars, video games, anything else. Because just like piracy, the creators of the product don't see a penny.

Yet some of you will no doubt have a rebuttal somehow justifying used products as being ok but not piracy, but no matter what your rebuttal is you can't refute that the intity that made the product sees the same profit either way.

So while I'm not going to say that I'm "right" for downloading pirated material, I won't say I'm wrong either. It's more like shades of gray instead of black and white. Nobody in this world is truly "right" only in their life, even though there are many that think they are.

[spider-prime]

Oh, I would actually like to say I do own pieces of copyrights myself. My brother and I made scripts/screenplays for some low budget stuff with some guys we knew and got them copyrighted cause it was our work in a way and they didn't want to pay us. So I screwed them over and copyright it and sued them.

But the point I want to make is, copyrights are a law that people can enforce, it's just to protect the right holders if they so choose to use it. For another example, the creators of many commodore 64 games still own their rights to the games and have said they are letting people pirate them and yes they are still making money with them, their games are on the virtual console on the wii.

It's also the whole point of music studios and the RIAA/MPAA suing people without the consent of the actual right holders.

Another example of why it's ok to pirate if they say, whatever go ahead! http://torrentfreak.com/rednex-diss-...te-bay-100107/

[zechin]

Rich get richer. The poor get jail time.

[spider-prime]

This guy figured out how to get Muppet Babies on dvd! Here is a scene that originally had the 3 stooges in it.

[Icarus4578]

Originally Posted by Drunken Savior

Pirating is still illegal. People are not entitled to art. Furthermore, people are not entitled to art they want. You can't justify pirating copyrighted material because you can't afford it, don't think it's worth the money, or because you'll buy it later...if you like it (The 'try before you buy' argument).

In order to enforce copyright over every single work of art would require constant surveillance over all internet activity and rigorous enforcement measures. The entertainment industries don't want people to have access to art and information without passing through their filter. Regardless of whether or not piracy is good, the internet is not their property to go around putting regulatory measures in place which everybody must adhere to. Are they allowed special privileges in lieu of them being a major content provider, to the point where they can hunt down users of every newfangled technology that comes along and force ISP providers to act as their enforcers?

Originally Posted by Drunken Savior

Sorry, I guess I worded poorly. I said loophole, but what I really meant was the lack of foresight when laws were made. Copyright laws were not written with the internet's ability to publish in mind.

That certainly true. As well, they weren't originally written to give copyright holders 120+ years' worth of protection, either. It's been expanded over the decades along with the scope and breadth of law to the point of becoming dangerous.

I believe that the industries enjoy piracy because it enables them to justify unwarranted power grabs (even while those industries are enjoying record-breaking profits). IOW, they want the problem to persist so that they can propose "solutions" to it.

[Beam]

Yeah people hate anything they can't control even if it does get blocked it won't last.

[Icarus4578]

While piracy may be a problem in and of itself, there really is no full-proof means of preventing it outside of overwhelming surveillance and censorship at every juncture. In other words, the solution would have far more serious consequences than the problem itself.

Sorry but if the means of protecting the intellectual property of a few mega-conglomerates encroach upon our civil liberties then the ends don't justify the means.