Judge: Isohunt Must Remove Infringing Content

[heyheybooboo]

I love how all the people around here who are against "Big Oil", "Big Tobacco", "Big Pharma"...etc are in such adoration of "Big Entertainment"

Dear Mr. Fallacy:

Do you also steal gas, cigarettes and pharmaceuticals?

Local law enforcement would like to speak with you.

Signed,
Reality Check





--

 

[Patranus]

What infringing content resides on ISOHUNTs servers?

 

[werepossum]

Doesn't work that way. You are not the anointed arbiter of who pays for things and who does not, so your logical conclusions on who can afford what are moot. Moreover, the entertainment industry is filled with blue collar workers who don't get $20 million per film.

What you take without paying for you steal. I'm not going to say my hands are clean but when Netflix is $9 per month its hard to make excuses for it anymore.

I'm all for shutting down IP infringement sites like bit torrents but you're missing the beauty of Rudder's argument. His stated position is exactly the same as the progressive position on virtually everything else - that I have a "right" to the product of others' labor. (In fact, I'd venture a guess that Obama voters loot more stolen IP that McCain voters.) But as GoPackGo alluded, somehow Big Entertainment is officially beyond this entitlement. The same entertainers that promote progressive policies of wealth redistribution prosecute others for disrupting THEIR income streams.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm all for shutting down IP infringement sites like bit torrents but you're missing the beauty of Rudder's argument. His stated position is exactly the same as the progressive position on virtually everything else - that I have a "right" to the product of others' labor. (In fact, I'd venture a guess that Obama voters loot more stolen IP that McCain voters.) But as GoPackGo alluded, somehow Big Entertainment is officially beyond this entitlement. The same entertainers that promote progressive policies of wealth redistribution prosecute others for disrupting THEIR income streams.

Wealth redistribution done by law, in an organized and limited fashion, is different from a free-for-all where anyone can just steal from anyone else whenever they feel like it. I understand it's an ideological axiom among conservatives that government wealth distribution = theft, just like abortion = murder, or Obama = Hitler, but those are ideological talking points, not real analogies.

- wolf

 

[MJinZ]

Dear Mr. Fallacy:

Do you also steal gas, cigarettes and pharmaceuticals?

Local law enforcement would like to speak with you.

Signed,
Reality Check





--

People bitch about high gas prices, the idea is similar.

People bitch about high drug costs, and with health insurance, the idea is similar.

Now if songs cost 1 cent each, and movies cost $1 each, people wouldn't be bitching nearly as much.

Do you see the correlation?

 

[Patranus]

I'm all for shutting down IP infringement sites like bit torrents but you're missing the beauty of Rudder's argument. His stated position is exactly the same as the progressive position on virtually everything else - that I have a "right" to the product of others' labor. (In fact, I'd venture a guess that Obama voters loot more stolen IP that McCain voters.) But as GoPackGo alluded, somehow Big Entertainment is officially beyond this entitlement. The same entertainers that promote progressive policies of wealth redistribution prosecute others for disrupting THEIR income streams.

I am also for shutting down IP infringement sites. The problem is that NOTHING on the ISOHUNTs servers infringes anyone IP.

I .torrent file is nothing more than hash data. It does NOT contain any piece of the original files.

 

[werepossum]

Wealth redistribution done by law, in an organized and limited fashion, is different from a free-for-all where anyone can just steal from anyone else whenever they feel like it. I understand it's an ideological axiom among conservatives that government wealth distribution = theft, just like abortion = murder, or Obama = Hitler, but those are ideological talking points, not real analogies.

- wolf

I could argue that Bit Torrents are pretty organized and limited and that men with guns taking your stuff is still men with guns taking your stuff, but I understand that liberals sleep better with a veneer of law covering their covetousness. I disagree though that innocent people executed by law is somehow better than innocent people executed outside of law, or that taking someone's property for your own benefit (as opposed to the public good, such as hospitals or roads) is somehow not taking someone's property for your own benefit if you can pass a law to that effect.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm glad to see measures against the people who would damage our culture - somewhat analogous to poachers who profit by taking to exteinction. We need more.

But it hurts corporations, so you should be happy with this. Maybe you clean the floors at a record label?

 

[CPA]

So you don't download tv shows, music or movies? Ever?

I don't. This is one area where I actually agree with Craig on.

 

[Tristicus]

DGAF. What they are doing is wrong...the end. They know the consequences.

So do I. And I still do it.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm glad to see measures against the people who would damage our culture - somewhat analogous to poachers who profit by taking to exteinction. We need more.

Eternal copyright damages culture far more than a couple pirates.

 

[BoberFett]

I love how all the people around here who are against "Big Oil", "Big Tobacco", "Big Pharma"...etc are in such adoration of "Big Entertainment"

Big Entertainment lines the pockets of the left. They know where their bread is buttered.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So you don't download tv shows, music or movies? Ever?

not without paying! To do otherwise is stealing plain and simple!!

 

[woolfe9999]

I could argue that Bit Torrents are pretty organized and limited and that men with guns taking your stuff is still men with guns taking your stuff, but I understand that liberals sleep better with a veneer of law covering their covetousness. I disagree though that innocent people executed by law is somehow better than innocent people executed outside of law, or that taking someone's property for your own benefit (as opposed to the public good, such as hospitals or roads) is somehow not taking someone's property for your own benefit if you can pass a law to that effect.

Opposing government weath redistribution is not a problem and you are entitled to that opinion and entitled to cast your vote in accordance with that opinion. However, if people can steal at whim to "redistribute wealth" to themselves, that is anarchy. No, the difference between a democratically elected government passing a law and private individuals conducting theft is non-trivial. To conflate the two is either a) disengenuous, or b) suggests that you don't favor living in a society governed by the rule of law but rather by the whims and desires of individuals. I'm sure you'd have no trouble seeing the fallacy in poorly drawn analogies going from left to right, so let's stop being "cute" and get real here.

- wolf

 

[robphelan]

Dear Mr. Fallacy:

Do you also steal gas, cigarettes and pharmaceuticals?

Local law enforcement would like to speak with you.

Signed,
Reality Check





--

when you download a TV show, you're not 'technically' stealing, it's a copy. the owner still retains posession of the original TV show.

this is not the case when stealing gas, cigs or drugs - those are tangeable goods, while a digital copy is part of an infinte good.

 

[MJinZ]

Eternal copyright damages culture far more than a couple pirates.

Actually, I would agree with this on some level.

It's the concept of the intellectual property itself that should warrant some reform. All human knowledge and the product of human knowledge builds upon each other. A new song doesn't happen out of a vacuum, a new type of Hydrogen bomb doesn't get designed without understanding the first Atomic bombs, etc. To say that one person or entity deserves all credit and proceeds from an intellectual property is sadly a distortion of reality at best. Nothing valuable comes out of a bubble.

Qualifying that, I would say it would be difficult to say exactly how much someone deserves for their work, but in the framework or context of capitalism - it is pretty clear that how much they deserve is how much people are willing to pay.

 

[werepossum]

Opposing government weath redistribution is not a problem and you are entitled to that opinion and entitled to cast your vote in accordance with that opinion. However, if people can steal at whim to "redistribute wealth" to themselves, that is anarchy. No, the difference between a democratically elected government passing a law and private individuals conducting theft is non-trivial. To conflate the two is either a) disengenuous, or b) suggests that you don't favor living in a society governed by the rule of law but rather by the whims and desires of individuals. I'm sure you'd have no trouble seeing the fallacy in poorly drawn analogies going from left to right, so let's stop being "cute" and get real here.

- wolf

a) Disingenuous, actually. But I am serious now - morality comes from G-d, not man. Enshrining an immoral thing in law does NOT make it a moral thing, it only shows that those who are in charge (including the majority if applicable) are willing to trade morality for goodies.

 

[MJinZ]

a) Disingenuous, actually. But I am serious now - morality comes from G-d, not man. Enshrining an immoral thing in law does NOT make it a moral thing, it only shows that those who are in charge (including the majority if applicable) are willing to trade morality for goodies.

Morality comes from God? LOL.

A couple billion atheists and agnostics would disagree with you.

 

[woolfe9999]

a) Disingenuous, actually. But I am serious now - morality comes from G-d, not man. Enshrining an immoral thing in law does NOT make it a moral thing, it only shows that those who are in charge (including the majority if applicable) are willing to trade morality for goodies.

The notion that morality comes from God is a disputed notion, and that is relevant because in this country we have separation of church and state. That means we don't (or aren't supposed to) configure our laws and system of government according to religious doctrine, because that is tantamount to imposing religion by state action.

More importantly in this context, the notion that government wealth redistribution violates religious law is also highly disputed. The Bible says "thou shalt not steal," but AFAIK the Bible does not define stealing. Presumably, whoever wrote those words (whether God or man), understood the term as self-defining to any reader. If it is really self-defining, then I would suggest that people naturally define theft with reference to law, i.e. that it is a taking of property that is against the law. Laws to prohibit theft are ancient and long predate the Bible. Anyway, the point here is that it is highly debatable whether or not legal wealth resdistribution is "stealing" in the biblical sense. But even if it is, the Bible is not the law of this land; our Constitution, statutes, decrees, ordinances, and court rulings are.

I have a friend who is an evangelical and believes that abortion is against God's law, but is pro-choice. His argument goes like this: it is a sin to have an abortion, but the government should not intrude on private decisions. It is ultimately for God to judge, not the government, he says. According to his line of logic, people who have abortions should end up in hell, but not in jail. The point is that if you feel something violates religious law, then presumably there is other worldly recourse for such misdeeds. However, insofar as a government and system of laws in immediate, material reality, with separation of church and state, this objection is neither here nor there.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

The notion that morality comes from God is a disputed notion, and that is relevant because in this country we have separation of church and state. That means we don't (or aren't supposed to) configure our laws and system of government according to religious doctrine, because that is tantamount to imposing religion by state action.

More importantly in this context, the notion that government wealth redistribution violates religious law is also highly disputed. The Bible says "thou shalt not steal," but AFAIK the Bible does not define stealing. Presumably, whoever wrote those words (whether God or man), understood the term as self-defining to any reader. If it is really self-defining, then I would suggest that people naturally define theft with reference to law, i.e. that it is a taking of property that is against the law. Laws to prohibit theft are ancient and long predate the Bible. Anyway, the point here is that it is highly debatable whether or not legal wealth resdistribution is "stealing" in the biblical sense. But even if it is, the Bible is not the law of this land; our Constitution, statutes, decrees, ordinances, and court rulings are.

I have a friend who is an evangelical and believes that abortion is against God's law, but is pro-choice. His argument goes like this: it is a sin to have an abortion, but the government should not intrude on private decisions. It is ultimately for God to judge, not the government, he says. According to his line of logic, people who have abortions should end up in hell, but not in jail. The point is that if you feel something violates religious law, then presumably there is other worldly recourse for such misdeeds. However, insofar as a government and system of laws in immediate, material reality, with separation of church and state, this objection is neither here nor there.

- wolf

Clintonism?

I agree with your friend - but taking something from one person to give it to another is not a private decision, it is materially harming the first person.

 

[dainthomas]

From Wiki regarding Steamboat Willie:

In the 1990s, former Disney researcher Gregory S. Brown determined that the film was likely in the public domain in the United States already due to errors in the original copyright formulation.[4] In particular, the original film's copyright notice had two additional names between Disney and the copyright statement. Thus, under the rules of the Copyright Act of 1909, all copyright claims would be null.[4] Arizona State University professor Dennis Karjala suggested that one of his law school students look into Brown's claim, as a class project. Lauren Vanpelt took up the challenge and produced a paper agreeing with Brown's claim. She posted her project on the Web in 1999.[5] Disney later threatened to sue a Georgetown University law student who wrote a paper confirming Brown's claims.[4][6]

I think 95 years is long enough, but I'm positive Disney will vehemently disagree come 2023.

 

[Craig234]

So you don't download tv shows, music or movies? Ever?

Never illegally. I find it says something about the culture of theft that you find that surprising.

 

[werepossum]

Never illegally. I find it says something about the culture of theft that you find that surprising.

We seldom agree, but on this we agree completely.

 

[Craig234]

when you download a TV show, you're not 'technically' stealing, it's a copy. the owner still retains posession of the original TV show.

this is not the case when stealing gas, cigs or drugs - those are tangeable goods, while a digital copy is part of an infinte good.

What kind of gobbledygook is that?

If you grow an apple and harvest it, stealing it deprives you of deserved value.

If you sing a song and record it and your business is to sell the recording to people who want to hear it, someone illegally downloading it to avoid paying deprives you of value.

When someone writes a book, they typically do so expecting to make money from the sales. That money not being there makes the books not get written.

Same with films - someone puts up millions to pay for a film to get made, it's typically in expectation for people to pay to see it. Piracy = fewer films with lower budgets.

The theft of intellectual property is real, not some intangible. The loss can be viewed as neglibile because others pay and you can rationalize - like shoplifting a small item.

What would be wrong with sneaking into a movie? Didn't cost them any more money for you to do that - except that's how they are paid for rent, staff, the movie's costs etc.

 

[Craig234]

DGAF. What they are doing is wrong...the end. They know the consequences.

So do I. And I still do it.

The thing is, you probably have a psychopath's narcissistic view of the consequences - the punishment to you.

You probably don't mean the real consequences - the harm to our culture by the defunding of the creation of works (books, films, music, art are all theoretically at risk).

If you 'know it's wrong', you could not do it.

Now, do I have *some* sympathy for the 'poor person can't afford, and it doesn't cost them anything' argument?

Yes, in this way, this is different than physical goods. Not everyone can drive a mercedes - each mercedes costs money - but a film being downloaded *by someone who would not have paid to see it because they can't afford it* can be done. But there are a couple issues with that, too.

First, it's difficult at best to limit the unpaid downloads to those people - any method to do this includes many who should pay for it, as piracy does.

Second, even those people can afford *something*, but there's not any practical way to collect the 'smaller payments'.

Third, a poor person who might buy $10 a month of product might buy zero instead if he can download large amounts for free.

We're better off looking for ways to help the poor access the works and the creators to get paid something, than legalize piracy. Think the public library.

I've said for years that potentially, digital reproduction represents a threat to the creation of works never before seen in human history. We should all support protecting that culture.

It might be full of crap as well - books by Sarah Palin, Jerry Springer and bad movies - but that's another issue.

Edit: I should also mention I think the extensions of copyright protection are wrong, exploiting profit for no valid reason.